14 May 2006

Shifting gears

Following up my post from two days ago...

Blogging balance
http://chessforallages.blogspot.com/2006/05/blogging-balance.html

...I'm going to switch to a rhythm of one post every two days. The post a day that I've been doing for the first two weeks of this blog demands too much time.

My next post will be in two days. Since today is an even numbered day (Happy Mothers Day to all Moms!), I'll post on even numbered days. I'll try that rhythm for a couple of weeks to see how it affects my overall schedule.

Why not just post when I feel like it? I don't think it's disciplined enough. The best way to tackle a repetitive responsibility is to do it on a regular cycle: daily, weekly, monthly, or whatever. Posting every two days should be feasible. If not, I'll switch to every three days.

13 May 2006

Different referring pages change display


Today I'm hijacking the blog for the sake of demonstrating something unusual to someone else. The following image shows two cropped views of the same page on About Chess.





The top image is a normal view of the page; the bottom image is a view of the page after I clicked through my RSS feed on MyYahoo (my.yahoo.com). The bottom view says, 'Welcome to About.com What is About.com? I'm Mark Weeks, your Guide to Chess. If this Yahoo! search is not what you were looking for, you may want to see our other popular topics, such as...'


The URL of the two views is the same. The server has detected that the visitor is coming from Yahoo.com and has changed the welcome message to mention Yahoo and to point to popular pages on the About Chess site. I like it!

12 May 2006

Blogging balance

One reason I started this blog was to get a better feel for blogging. I've recently run several articles about chess blogs on About Chess. While the main page of About Chess is created using blog technology -- the tool is called WordPress -- there are so many additional functions available to create the site that I don't think of it as a blog. I wouldn't be surprised if not many other people thought of it as a blog either. I haven't seen it listed on anyone's blogroll.

There are at least two skills required to create a blog. The first is a deep interest in the subject of the blog. The second is writing ability.

Since I'm talking about chess blogs, chess is obviously the subject. A blogger doesn't have to be a good chess player to have a good chess blog. There are some very good chess blogs written by novice players who are just starting to learn the game. More important than chess knowledge is a passion for the game. Beginners can have just as much passion as an experienced player and may have even more. All experienced players undoubtedly had the passion in the past, but it tends to fade with age and when the peak in ability is reached.

The ability to write well is in many ways incompatible with the ability to play chess. Chess is a game of logic based on well defined rules. The object is to win. Writing is an art with some rules, but these are secondary to the imagination required to construct sentences and paragraphs that no one else has ever constructed. The object is to make them interesting.

Yes, I know that chess can also be an art. Composers of studies and problems require great imagination and players like Alekhine, Tal, and Shirov are often branded as artists of the chessboard. Only great players become chess artists, while all writers are artists, although usually not great artists.

There is one point that chess and writing have in common. Both can be done without any formal training. While a lack of training limits the height that a chess player or a writer can attain, it doesn't limit the enjoyment. Not having any formal training in either discipline myself, I suspect that there is at least one area where training might confer a big advantage in writing: speed.

Anyone who has to write professionally knows that writing is not easy work. The rules of grammar, punctuation, and spelling must be respected. Ideas must be clearly stated and unambiguous. The construction must be orderly and fit into some framework that makes sense and propels the reader forward. The obstacles are many. Do I use this word or that word? What's the word that means this? Have I used this word too frequently? This sentence construction? Does this paragraph make a logical unit? How do I start? Finish? Does the whole thing make sense?

I'm not a fast writer and it can take 30 to 60 minutes to finish a single blog post. Concentration is required, which means that nothing else gets done at the same time. This is the first thing I've learned in the short time I've been blogging. The frequency of the posts is critical. Blog too long or too often and important tasks elsewhere are left undone. Blog too short or too infrequently and you might as well not do it.

What's the right balance? I don't know because I haven't discovered it yet. A post like this every day isn't feasible. There isn't enough time.

11 May 2006

Welcome Dan Lucas

Referencing a post I wrote a few days ago...

My two mags
http://chessforallages.blogspot.com/2006/05/my-two-mags.html

...I received the March 2006 CL in the mail today. It's the first issue listing Dan Lucas as editor. Of course I don't know how much of the content is due to Lucas and how much to the previous editor(s), but there are a few bright spots. The first thing I noticed was a seven page story on the Khanty-Mansiysk World Cup, including seven annotated games and a couple of partial games. After that is a fully annotated game by Kamsky that he played in the same event.

The CL content is still 1/3 columns and 1/3 tournament announcements (TLAs). I believe the columns will start changing -- either disappear or be replaced -- in the May issue. The TLAs may never disappear. I wonder why USCF management doesn't steer readers to the online version. It would either save a lot of trees or free some space for more interesting content. There are surely other advantages as well. I can't think of any disadvantages, other than 'That's the way we've always done it!'

GM Andrew Soltis has aged 20 years since the previous issue. Yesterday I received a review copy of his book on Lasker. I can't wait to read it. Lasker has been one of my favorites since I read his manual cover to cover as a C-player.

10 May 2006

Shrinking range of openings

This recent comment by GM David Marciano caught my eye: 'Modern chess is very different from the chess of the 1990s, and even more so than the chess of preceding decades. The exponential growth in the strength of computers has effectively transformed the work of opening preparation into computer aided scientific research, and the range of playable variations doesn't stop shrinking as the years pass ("ne cesse de se rétrécir au fil des années").' [Europe Echecs, April 2006, p.15] I'm fairly certain that my translation is correct, except perhaps for the last clause, which is exactly the part that caught my eye.

I know that opening theory is advancing steadily and that many opening variations (Marshall Gambit, Najdorf Poison Pawn) are analyzed well into the middlegame and even the endgame. I also know that a few popular openings of yesteryear have almost been refuted (Benoni). This is certainly a negative trend for chess.

I was also under the impression that computer aided opening research (CAOR?) is helping to open up promising areas of play in variations that have never been seriously investigated. This includes just about any reasonable move that has never been played at the GM level. This should offset the number of lines which have received the most CAOR.

The largest chess databases only contain about 10.000.000 (10^7) games covering maximum 10^9 positions, the majority of them played by amateurs. With chess having over 10^100 postions, and even taking into account that many of these are clear wins for one side or the other, that still leaves many positions which have not been, and may never be, investigated.

Is GM Marciano being overly pessimistic, or am I being overly optimistic? If I'm being too optimistic, perhaps it's time to take Chess960 more seriously.

09 May 2006

My two mags

I read two chess magazines every month. One is 'Chess Life' (CL), which is published by the USCF; the other is 'Europe Echecs' (EE), published in France. I receive CL because I'm a life member of the USCF and I buy EE at the local newsstand because I like it. I have been reading both for over 20 years and there have always been big differences between the two publications.

The first difference is the publishing schedule. My most recent copy of EE, dated April 2006, which I bought the second week in April, has stories on Linares 2006 (18 Feb - 11 Mar), the Moscow Aeroflot Open (8-16 Feb), and the Cuernavaca Young Masters (1-11 Feb). My most recent copy of CL, dated February 2006, has a story on the final match of the 2005 U.S. Chess League (played 23 Nov). That is the only news story in CL, besides four short articles and an obituary on the 'Chess News' page.

Because I live overseas, it takes a few months for CL to arrive. This is certainly not the USCF's fault. Earlier today I saw a post on rec.games.chess.politics asking about the May CL. That tells me that EE and CL both are distributed around the beginning of each month. The difference is that EE has stories 1-2 months old, while CL has stories 2-3 months old.

This has been the situation with both magazines for as long as I can remember. Another example is the 36th Olympiad, which finished 31 Oct 2004. This was reported in the Dec 2004 issue of EE and the Jan 2005 issue of CL. That same issue of CL carried the news that Kramnik had retained his title against Leko, which was reported in the Nov 2004 issue of EE.

Like many people, I get most of my chess news on the Web, almost always within a day or two of its becoming news. Also like many people, I like to read about an event later, away from my PC. It will be a long time before my digital news completely replaces my hardcopy news.

I have archives of both magazines going back 15-20 years. I consult them frequently, usually when I'm doing some kind of research. I always check EE first, because it generally has a story on the piece I'm researching.

Getting back to the most recent issues I have at hand, CL has 66 pages, not counting the front and back covers, EE has 72 pages, not counting covers. CL has 20 pages of tournament announcements; EE has 4 1/2 pages. CL uses color only on its glossy cover pages, three of which are full page ads; EE uses color throughout.

When I look at content, CL is filled with columns, many of them written by inactive GMs. Larry Evans' column leads with a question on Fischer - Spassky 1972. Following that is a question about a Bobby Fischer game from 1957. Benko's column presents two endgames by Isaac Kashdan (1905-1985). Both columns could have been written 20 or 30 years ago.

EE has six fully annotated games from Linares 2006, including two played by Topalov and two by Aronian, the winner of the event. Later on there is a game played and annotated by Karjakin, and another by Moiseenko.

The only advantage CL has over EE is cost. An adult membership for the USCF, which includes 12 issues of CL, costs $49 per year. EE costs 5.95 Euro per issue in France (11 issues per year).

In spite of the many CJA awards which have gone to CL, American chess has not been well served. I know that there is a new editor of CL and I know that he has announced sweeping changes in the magazine. I hope that the changes close the gap between the two mags, my two mags.

08 May 2006

C.J.S. Purdy's correspondence skullduggery

The position in the following diagram is from the book 'How Purdy Won : The Correspondence Chess Career of a World Champion' by Hutchings, Purdy, and Harrison (Thinkers' Press, 1998, p.109). C.J.S. Purdy (Australia, 1906-1979, IM 1951) was the first World Correspondence Champion, a four-time winner of the Australian Championship, and a prolific chess writer. The diagrammed position arose in a game from the event where he qualified for the World Championship final.

In his notes to the game for the position after move 56, Purdy wrote , 'The game is now a "dead draw." Black has the "second rank absolute", which would virtually ensure a draw, even without the Bishops on opposite colors. White, however, must have reasoned that it was impossible to lose, and agreeing to a draw was equivalent to defeat since it gave his opponent first place, he might as well continue. A miracle might happen. It did!'


Preliminary, 1st World Correspondence Championship, 1947
C.J.S.Purdy

L.Bigot
(After 58.Rc5-c4)
[FEN "8/4k1p1/8/8/2Rb4/1P6/3r3P/5B1K b - - 0 58"]

Purdy's notes continued, 'Black, at this stage, was giving "conditionals" against all the obvious moves to show a forced draw by exchange of Rooks. This inveigled White into an error. He wished to anticipate ...Be5.'

Conditionals, also known as 'if' moves, were used more frequently in the days of postal chess. They saved the players time when it could take days or even weeks for a move to be sent internationally. In the current era of email chess, where moves can be received a few seconds after being sent, conditionals are used less frequently. Many of the email servers do not even provide this feature.

Purdy again: 'I did not need a win but conceived the idea out of sheer devilment. I saw that there was one plausible move that might lose for White, and by carefully giving conditionals against the other plausible moves, I might head him into it. Using conditionals psychologically is perfectly legitimate, i.e. you can tell your opponent what you will do against good moves, in the hope of his avoiding them and playing a bad one. Many a win is shortened thereby; and here winning chances are manufactured out of thin air.'

Black played 58...Kd6 and the game continued 59.h3 Ke5 60.Ra4. In his notes Purdy gave both White's moves a '?', and added, 'Incredible as it may seem, White now has only one line to avoid defeat! It is the self-pin 60.Bg2 and 61.Kh2, which prevents a successful invasion by Black's King. So ugly was this that Dr.Bigot [of France], perhaps influenced by the characteristic national preference for elegance in all things, searched for a more pleasing method and believed that he had found it in 60.Ra4?'

After 60...Kf4 61.b4 Be3 62.Ra3 Kf3 63.Bg2+ Kf2 64.Ra1 Kg3 65.Re1 Bd4 66.Rb1 Re2, White resigned. Purdy's long distance psychology had worked. This anecdote impressed me for several reasons:-

  • That there was a win in the position (for Black!) and that Purdy found it.
  • That Purdy used conditionals to steer his opponent away from drawing lines and into the only variation that lost.

Although 'How Purdy Won' was not written by Purdy alone, many of the notes were taken directly or adapted from the large body of work he left behind. Purdy understood chess on a level that few people reach, but was able to explain his ideas to players of intermediate ability.


Spell check

skullduggery
http://www.answers.com/skulduggery&r=67

'skull·dug·ger·y or skul·dug·ger·y (skŭl-dŭg'ə-rē) • n., pl. -ger·ies. • Crafty deception or trickery or an instance of it. • [Probably alteration of Scots sculduddery, obscenity, fornication.]'