A Total of 64 Colors

I had a hard time choosing between a shot featuring the White pieces or one featuring the Black pieces.

RGB LED Art © Flickr user DarkFokus under Creative Commons.

The description said,

These shots were illuminated by seven 5W programmable RGB LED floodlamps arranged in a semisphere above a velvet-lined table and backdrop. Each lamp can be set to 16 different colors at four intensity levels for a total of 64 colors. This second generation light puts out a much smoother, more diffuse light pattern.

What is 'second generation light'?

Chess Ads III

Returning to Chess Ads I, this image shows thumbnails of ads I collected in 2002.

Here's another page on the same idea: Advertising With A Chess Theme.

Fischer Overestimates His Position

The diagram shows the last position from Fischer - Reshevsky, Match 1961 (Game 5) that I want to examine. White played 33.Rc2, and Fischer noted,

The only way to preserve winning chances. After 33.Rxb6 Rd2+ 34.Kg1 g5 35.hxg5+ {X03} (on 35.Rcc6 gxh4 36.Rxe6+ Kg5 37.Rg6+ Kh5 {X04} 38.Rxh6+ Kg4, Black has enough play on the Kingside to hold the draw; but not 35.a5? gxh4 36.a6 h3 37.a7 h2+ 38.Kh1 Ng3#) 35...hxg5 36.Rcc6 (not 36.a5? g4 37.a6 Ng5 38.a7 Nf3+ 39.Kf1 g3 40.a8=Q g2#) 36...g4 37.Rxe6+ Kg5 {X01} 38.Rh6 f4 keeps the balance {X02}.

The moves marked X0n are points where Kasparov, building on the the analysis of Dvoretsky and Huebner, disagreed with Fischer.

1961 Match (game 5)
Fischer, Robert

Reshevsky, Samuel
(After 32...Re8-d8)
[FEN "3r4/8/Rp2pkpp/5p2/P3n2P/4P3/1P4K1/2R5 w - - 0 33"]

Without repeating all of the analysis, I count four points of disagreement.

• X01: 37...Kg5 38.Rb5 wins
  
• X02: 38...f4 39.Rhg6+ wins
  
• X03: 35.hxg5+ Nxg5 is 'more tenacious'
  
• X04: 37...Kh5 38.a5 wins

Kasparov wrote,

'I know of no other example in which Fischer commits such a serious error of judgement in a rather clarified position', concludes Dr. Huebner. In my view both this mistake, and the oversight on the 36th move, are very typical of Fischer: he was very content with the course of the game, with the flights of imagination by the two players, and when he annotated the game he did not believe that he had reached a lost position, and did not seek confirmation of this. According to his inner conviction, the logical outcome should have been a draw! Although it must be agreed, in an endgame with an exchange advantage and a passed Pawn it is possible to find a win even without the help of a computer.

It's clear from studying the analysis that Fischer overestimated his counterplay in this endgame.

Every Move Explained - A Kasparov Game

Returning to Every Move Explained, I recreated the next game in the series: 1981 Tilburg - Kasparov vs. Andersson. The index of all games in the 'Every Move Explained' series is on Improve Your Chess Game.

Does 'Soviet School' Mean Botvinnik?

In Characteristics of the Soviet School, I gave Euwe's summary of the subject from his Development of Chess Style. Summarizing his points -- struggle for the initiative, fighting spirit, active defense, study of the openings, no superficial judgements -- it sounds to me like a description of Botvinnik's style. As has been pointed out many times by different people, it isn't realistic to categorize the great diversity of styles exhibited by the top Soviet players of the 1950s and 1960s (e.g. Bronstein, Smyslov, Tal, Petrosian, Spassky) under the single phrase 'Soviet School'. Is it really a synonym for Botvinnik's approach to chess?

Here are some excerpts from Kotov and Yudovich:

Ever since his youth Botvinnik has had a scientific approach to chess as a game demanding the most painstaking study and flights of creative imagination. He happily combines his natural talent with a tremendous capacity for work, an iron will to win, and patience. His style is now exceptionally versatile: he is equally strong in positional play and complicated positions abounding in combinational possibilities. He has studied and systematized typical positions from actual play and worked out a number of new technical methods. He is constantly enlarging his stock of effective opening lines. [...]

In each of his tournaments Botvinnik comes up with resourceful, smashing attacks: combinative attacks with sacrifices, often unexpected, and positional attacks, with gradual building up of pressure, the breaking of defense lines and, finally, the rout of his adversary. His brilliant sacrifices in encounters with Chekhover (1935), Tartakower (1936), Euwe (1948), and Taimanov (1952) have gone down in chess history. The examples of scintillating attacks carried out by Botvinnik are too many to enumerate. In the Amsterdam tournament of 1938 [AVRO] even Capablanca's brilliant skill could not help him to foresee the unexpected smashing attack launched by Botvinnik. [...]

Another characteristic feature of Botvinnik's style was revealed clearly at the 7th USSR Championship in 1931. We refer to his tenacity in defense, his ability to find latent defensive resources when he lands in a tight spot. True, this rarely happens, for he foresees danger in good time and takes steps to meet it properly. Still, when he does get into a tough situation he finds a way out of it more often than other players. When in trouble, Botvinnik usually defends himself by creating the utmost positional difficulties for his adversary. [...]

All the contestants in he 1948 match-tournament for the World Championship suffered defeat at the hands of Botvinnik. It is indicative of his prowess that these were not accidents resulting from unexpected complications but, primarily, strategical routs in games which were logical from beginning to end.

One of the secrets of Botvinnik's success is his opening erudition. His knowledge of openings is as diversified as it is deep. He is remarkably fertile in inventing and playing new variations. [...]

In his early period Botvinnik preferred a calm positional style of play. He negotiated combinational storms when they could not be avoided, but he was clearly less at home in them than in calm positions with a well-defined center and a maneuvering battle. It was here that Botvinnik's main feature as a sportsman revealed itself: he takes a clear, objective view of his shortcomings, even the slightest ones, and works persistently to root them out. Realizing that his weak point at that time was involved combinational positions containing numerous possibilities not subject to precise calculation, he deliberately sought such positions on every convenient occasion in order to acquire maximum experience in them.

From Soviet School of Chess, p.127. Wondering if I had seen all of the games on the list of Botvinnik's 'brilliant sacrifices', I searched for them on Chessgames.com. Here's what I found:-

• Mikhail Botvinnik vs Vitaly Chekhover, Russia 1935
  
• Mikhail Botvinnik vs Savielly Tartakower, Nottingham 1936
  
• Mikhail Botvinnik vs Max Euwe, FIDE World Championship Tournament 1948
  
• Mikhail Botvinnik vs Mark Taimanov, Moscow ch-SU m 1952
  
• Mikhail Botvinnik vs Jose Raul Capablanca, Netherlands 1938

Several of these games have long comment threads from the regulars at Chessgames.com.

Chess Killer Tips

This video by Alexandra Kosteniuk spotlights a familiar study, but if you've never seen it before, the key move and final position will almost certainly surprise you. After that, at around two minutes into the clip, there's a sequence of chess magazines where GM Kosteniuk was featured on the cover.

Chess Killer Tip 023 (3:37) • 'Access Control. White plays and draws, 1947 Study by Chekhover.'

See also Chess Killer Tip 026; despite the introduction ('Welcome to Chess Killer Tips, brought to you by ChessQueen.com. Here's your host, Alexandra Kosteniuk'), it's narrated by Almira Skripchenko. At 2:20 into the clip, bloggers should note,

Please help spread the word about Chess Killer Tips to the world. Write about it on your blog or submit it to your favorite chess site. Then send me an email and to thank you I will send you a free gift!

For more info on the series, see New ChessKillerTips Channel on YouTube, posted at Chessblog.com.

***

Later: When I wrote the post, I overlooked the related site Chess Killer Tips. It's definitely worth mentioning!

A 'Forced Move' That Wasn't Best

The next critical position in Fischer - Reshevsky, Match 1961 (Game 5), is worthy of a Larry Evans style What's the Best Move? multiple choice. White played 21.Nb5. Now what's the best move?

• 21...Qxe3
  
• 21...Qd5
  
• 21...Qxb2

It's not easy to choose because the variations are all tactically complicated.

1961 Match (game 5)
Fischer, Robert

Reshevsky, Samuel
(After 20...Qd8-d4(xP))
[FEN "2r1r1k1/pb5p/1pn1p1p1/5pN1/3q1n1P/P1N1Q3/1PB2PP1/2R1R1K1 w - - 0 21"]

After 21.Nb5, Fischer wrote,

Marvelously alert! After the practically forced trade of Queens, White wins the exchange because of the imminent fork on e6.

The phrase 'forced trade of Queens' tells us that Fischer's choice of best move was the move he played: 21...Qxe3. The game continued 22.fxe3 Nxg2 23.Kxg2 Nd4+ 24.Be4 Bxe4+ 25.Nxe4 Nxb5 26.Nf6+ Kf7 27.Nxe8 Rxe8 28.a4 Nd6 29.Rc7+ Kf6 30.Rec1 h6 31.Rxa7 Ne4 32.Ra6 Rd8, where Fischer concluded that Black is now fighting for a draw. Kasparov pointed out that 23...Nb4+ would give Black 'more chances of saving himself than in the game'.

Fischer also mentioned 21...Qd5.

After the game we analyzed 21...Qd5 22.Qxf4 Qxb5 23.Nxe6 Qxb2 (23...Qd5 24.Nc7 Rxe1+ 25.Rxe1 Qf7 26.Ne6) 24.Qh6 with an irresistible attack: 24...Na5 (24...Rxe6 25.Rxe6 Nd4 26.Re7) 25.Bxf5 gxf5 26.Rb1, giving as a variation 25...Rxc1 26.Rxc1 gxf5 27.Rc7.

Kasparov, in turn, showed that 26...Qf6 is better than 26...gxf5 in that last variation, and concluded that the win is 'problematic'. This makes 21...Qd5 better than 21...Qxe3. For his part, Kasparov considered that Dvoretsky's 21...Qxb2 was best.

21...Qxb2 22.Nd6 Nxg2 23.Kxg2 Nd4+ 24.Be4 fxe4, leads to a double-edged game.

The sequence 25.Rxc8 Rxc8 26.Nxb7 fails to 26...Nc2. He also analyzed 25.Nxb7 Nf5 to an endgame where Black is not worst, and 25.Rb1 Qa2 leads to a middlegame where Black's attack is just as ferocious as White's, allowing Black to draw.

I spent a lot of time looking at 21...Qxb2, and convinced myself that Kasparov's analysis was airtight. Black gets good counterplay, making it the best of the three choices. Fischer didn't even mention it. What did he overlook?