08 March 2011

Spring Cleaning on Blogs

I know it's not yet spring, but being a perfect spring day makes it a good time to look at 'Blogs I Follow', listed under my profile to the right. I last looked at the entire list a year ago in Good Blogs Gone. Starting with '65 Blogs', I deleted the following for the reasons given...

...then added about the same number, ending up with '63 Blogs'. While I'm on the subject of blogs, I can't figure out how to link individual posts from SPRAGGETT ON CHESS. As you might expect from a former World Championship candidate, it's one of the best blogs around, but the individual posts are unlinkable. Do you know a workaround?

07 March 2011

18 Memorable Games, Full Circle

The series that I started more than three years ago, 18 Memorable Games, a comparison of Fischer's and Kasparov's annotations, is finally over. What did I learn from this exercise, based on the published analysis of the two greatest players of all time? Probably more than I realize and certainly more than I can document in a single blog post.

Most importantly, I learned to what extent Kasparov's My Great Predecessors relies on computer analysis. Every improvement offered by Kasparov on Fischer's play and analysis is confirmed by the engines, which indicates that the engines were the start point for analysis. Kasparov's analytical predecessor, GM Huebner, also seems to have gone this route. Both players are known for their concrete approach to chess, where the calculation of variations takes precedence over all else, so their use of engines conforms to that approach.

If the Predecessor books offered nothing more than reams of computer analysis, a digital data dump, then they wouldn't be worth buying or studying. Fortunately, there is much more to them than that: the selection of games is first rate; the identification and evaluation of many monumentally unclear lines in those games will keep armchair analysts and their own chess engines busy for years to come; the narratives tying the games together offer a historical perspective that only a world class player can provide; and Kasparov's personal observations, whether you agree with what he says or not, add a human touch that is often missing in the dry compilations of professional chess historians.

As for Fischer, writing thirty years before chess computers attained super grandmaster strength, his positional intuition cut to the core of complicated positions. In contrast to Kasparov, who has a tendency to overanalyze, to analyze the unfathomable, Fischer often summarized an evaluation in a few words and he was usually right. Like Capablanca and Karpov, he just knew where to place his pieces to get the most out of them and it is a great tragedy of 20th century chess that Fischer and Karpov never met over the board.

***

For future ease of finding related ideas, I like to pull my posts together with links. The first half of the series ended with 18 Memorable Months, where nine games are linked, and the second half started with About Face to Fischer (and Larsen). The games covered in the second half were:-

Along the way I discovered a few more games that I had overlooked the first time, where Fischer drew or lost, documented in 18 -> 21 Memorable Games, and I covered one of those in Fischer - Geller, Skopje 1967, as a follow-on to Fischer - Geller, Bled 1961. Geller was, after all, one of Fischer's toughest opponents. All of their games are worthy of study, but I'll leave that as a future project.

04 March 2011

Just For Laughs

Who said you couldn't have fun with chess?


Rocket DVD Ruins Chess Game (1:22) • 'A DVD flies out of a computer and disturbs a game between two chess Grandmasters.'

Wikipedia: Just For Laughs Gags.

03 March 2011

Learn from Your Engines?

Continuing with Arena, Rybka, Houdini, & Scid, I installed all of the above named software to my main machine and tailored everything to suit my taste. Since I had never used Houdini before, I decided to run it against one of the games from Learn from Your Losses?, where I listed all of my losses during my first eight years of correspondence play. I chose the last game on the list (Soreghy - Weeks, a Modern Benoni), then spent an hour stepping back & forth through the game with Houdini, trying to find some point where I had gone wrong.

The first diagram shows the game just after I departed from theory. After 13.Bc1-f4, I had found a couple of games with 13...Qc7 and another couple with 13...c4, so I played 13...Qb6 instead, not finding anything disadvantageous about the move. Houdini agrees that the position is equal.


After another 20 moves, the game reached the position shown in the second diagram. White played 34.Rc4, with a definite advantage that was eventually converted into a win. Between 13...Qb6 and 34.Rc4, Houdini offered many alternate moves, but there was no position where I had played a move that was obviously inferior.

It seems that my 'mistake' was to play reasonable moves that didn't fit into any overall plan to improve my position. To compare it to a game of tennis, it was as if I had just been content to return the ball without ever putting any real pressure on my opponent. It was my opponent who eventually put the pressure on me and I cracked.

How can I use an engine to improve on this aspect of my play? It's not at all clear to me.

01 March 2011

Arena, Rybka, Houdini, & Scid

A year is a long time in the world of computing. Since it's been more than two years I last upgraded my chess GUI and engines -- see Arena / Rybka Analytical Upgrade & Adventures with Arena & Rybka -- I downloaded the latest version of Arena (from Arena Chess GUI 3.0 - Download), a newer version of Rybka, and for good measure, a copy of Houdini (from Houdini Chess Engine). To make sure I wouldn't interrupt my main analysis lab, I downloaded and installed all software on a test machine. Everything worked fine and I'll install the same ASAP on my main machine.

While I was at it, I checked for a new release of Scid -- see Scid @ Mark's -- and discovered that version 4.3 was just released in February 2011. I downloaded that as well (from Scid - Downloads), but haven't tried it yet.

That's a lot of new toys for a few hours work. I'll report on any results if I think it's worth mentioning.

28 February 2011

A Spanish Lesson

As I suspected in my first post on Fischer - Stein, Sousse 1967, the 11th and 13th World Champions were in such close agreement regarding the turning points of the game that there is little to weigh. The biggest point of disagreement was in the opening, where Kasparov had >35 more years of theory to draw on than Fischer had.

Both players were recognized experts in the Ruy Lopez during their respective peak playing years, and I learned a lot in studying Kasparov's notes. Retaining Kasparov 's explanations, but leaving out his detailed variations, gives a good overview of some key ideas in the Closed Lopez, and the following indented comments are all his. The game started 1.e4 e5, where Kasparov wrote,

Stein's avoidance of his usual Sicilian Defense, of his favorite Accelerated Dragon, is a first moral concession to the opponent.

That thought takes on special significance later in the game; see my last quote from Kasparov. There followed 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O 9.h3, reaching the position shown in the first diagram, one of the best known positions in chess. Stein continued 9...Bb7, and Kasparov wrote,

Rare for that time. Earlier Stein had employed 9...Nd7, but 9...Na5, 9...h6, or 9...Nb8 was the main continuation.

Curious about current theory, I made a quick survey of the moves played by top players nowadays. I discovered that 9...Nb8 appeared in about 50% of recent games and 9...Na5 in 25%; the moves 9...Bb7 & 9...Re8 make up the rest with other moves played only rarely. After Stein's 9...Bb7, there followed 10.d4 Na5.

The time of the Zaitsev Variation, 10...Re8, had not yet arrived.

These days, 10...Re8 is just about the only move the top players consider. After 10...Na5, the game continued 11.Bc2 Nc4.

A very intricate plan: Black wants to take his opponent away from the well-trodden paths. The Knight is headed for d7.

12.b3 Nb6 13.Nbd2 Nbd7.

An inferior version of the Breyer Variation [9...Nb8] has arisen: White has already advanced his b-Pawn, but Black has not yet played ...Re8. [...] 13...Re8 was more logical. [...] Stein's play between the 9th and 13th moves is typical of the level of opening theory at that time, when there existed a rather light-hearted approach to the choice of variation for a forthcoming game: the main thing was to avoid routine, and then let's see what happens!

The line in the Breyer that Kasparov refers to is 9...Nb8 10.d4 Nbd7 11.Nbd2 Bb7 12.Bc2 Re8. Black is two tempi ahead of the current game, where there followed 14.b4; Fischer gave this move a '!', Kasparov a '!?'.

White's move is also typical of the level of opening theory at that time. Subsequent experience with the Breyer and Zaitsev Variations showed that the inclusion of b2-b3 is useful with 14.d5 c6 15.c4, or first 14.Nf1 Re8 15.Ng3. The fashion for handling 'Spanish' positions was set by Karpov, and after him, now without any doubts, there followed Anand, Leko, and others.

Now we find both players making concessions to pursue their respective goals; 14...exd4.

In search of counterplay Stein is obliged to concede the center.

15.cxd4 a5 16.bxa5.

Conceding the Queenside, in order to attack on the Kingside.

Black played 16...c5, arriving at the second diagram.


On 17.e5, Fischer once again gave his move a '!' against Kasparov's '!?'.

The thirst for an open fight! But perhaps the cool-headed 17.Bb2, followed by a2-a4 would have been more unpleasant for Black, gaining the c4-square for the Knight.

17...dxe5.

(Quoting Kmoch:) The text is more active than 17...Ne8, but also more dangerous for Black's King.

18.dxe5 Nd5 19.Ne4.

Again aggression. If 19.a4 or 19.Bb2, then 19...Rxa5 is quite acceptable.

19...Nb4 20.Bb1 Rxa5 21.Qe2.

The critical moment of the entire game has been reached.

21...Nb6.

(Quoting Fischer:) Quite possibly "the losing move". It is better to reserve this Knight for the defense of the Kingside. More prudent is 21...Re8 with ...Nf8 in the offing.

(Kasparov:) And indeed, after this Black would have retained a solid position. [...] It seems to me that Stein's fatal decision was a consequence of his 'Sicilian' habit, where Black often saves himself from attack on his King by the rapid creation of counterplay on the Queenside, and his insufficient experience in the 'Spanish', where on the contrary, Black must in the first instance take care of his King. as a result, Stein's sense of danger did not operate.

This game made a big impression on me when I first saw it many years ago. The Knight on b6 soon goes to c4, joining his fellow Knight on b4. The two Black Knights then sit on the wrong side of the board while their King undergoes a ferocious attack. If I had had access to Kasparov's notes the first time I saw the game, I certainly would have understood it more profoundly.

25 February 2011

Harley Quinn and Killer Croc

AngryZenMaster: 'I've always thought that behind his primitively gruff exterior, Killer Croc hid an inquisitive intellect. [...] Harley, too, has an intellectual streak. So pairing the two of them together for a friendly chess game just seemed natural to me.'


Harley and Croc Play Chess © Flickr user angryzenmaster under Creative Commons.

For more images, not playing chess, see Harley Quinn and Killer Croc.