Another 21 Move Brilliancy

The game R.Byrne - Fischer, U.S. Championship 1963 (see that post for background and a link to the first 21 Move Brilliancy in this series) is one of Fischer's most famous wins, partly because of the strength of Fischer's opponent, himself one of the leading American players; partly because of the sudden end (Byrne: 'at the very moment at which I resigned, both grandmasters who were commenting on the play for the spectators in a separate room believed that I had a won game!'); and partly because people often confuse it with the 'Game of the Century', Fischer's even more famous 1956 win over Robert's brother Donald.

As I pointed out in The Longest Analyses, Fischer devoted a full page to White's 14.Rfd1, calling it 'another of those melancholy case histories entitled "the wrong Rook"' and suggesting 14.Rad1, an assessment with which all subsequent analysts agree, Kasparov included. [Re "the wrong Rook", what other games are well known?] After 14...Nd3, the game reached the position shown in the diagram.

U.S. Championship 1963
Fischer, Robert

Byrne, Robert
After 14...Ne5-d3

Byrne played 15.Qc2, where Fischer commented,'There is hardly any other defense to the threat of 15...Ne4', and among other tries gave '15.Nd4 Ne4 16.Nxe4 dxe4 17.Bb2 Rc8 with a powerful bind'. Kasparov gave 15.Qc2 a '?' and commented, 'This loses the game, but it is not easy to find a more tenacious defense. The following variations are possible:', where he built on Fischer's analysis. After repeating the entire variation from 15.Nd4!? through 'powerful bind', he added, 'but Huebner rightly considers this to be White's best chance and he suggests 18.a4. However, here too after 18...Qg5 Black has an obvious advantage thanks to his powerful Knight at d3.'

In An Olympiad Bind, I already discussed the difficulties of using an engine to analyze a bind and won't repeat those points here. Kasparov might agree, because, unlike the Olympiad example, he gives no further analysis. There are alternatives to both 18.a4 and 18...Qg5, and the best continuation is not obvious. The computer wants to swap a pair of minor pieces on b2 and another pair on d4, then go after White's isolated Pawn on d4. A GM might prefer to torture White by leaving the minor pieces in play and building pressure with the Rooks on the c-file.

Whichever move loses the game, 14.Rfd1 or 15.Qc2, both moves were necessary to arrive at a hopeless position on move 21. It also took Fischer's genius to find the startling continuation that crushed his opponent. With this kind of form, it's little wonder that he finished the event with a perfect +11-0=0, a preview of his match whitewashes in 1971.

The Fractals of Chess

This image reminds me of the first post I did in this series, Flickr Friday, although it was by another artist.

Infinite Double Chess © Flickr user The Celebrated Mr. K under Creative Commons.

More images courtesy Google: chess fractals.

Austin and Eames

What's with all of these auctions for Austin Enterprises chess sets? My very first post in this fortnightly series on Top eBay Chess Items by Price featured one such auction and mentioned, 'I noticed six for aluminum chess sets by Austin Enterprises. Five of the sets sold in the range of $555 to $760.' Today I find that eight sets were offered over the last two weeks (one of them twice), with five selling in the range US $257.50 to $629.99. The one that sold for the least received the highest number of bids (19 bids).

The description on the set pictured second from the left in the top row (14 bids, winning bid $609.99) said,

Up for bidding is an Austin Cox Enterprises Aluminum Chess Set and Board dated 1962. In 1962, as part of a "space age" marketing program, ALCOA Aluminum commissioned designer Austin Cox to design several chess sets to be made completely out of aluminum.

This auction includes an original set, the original 30 inch walnut display case and an original aluminum and felt chess board. Each Pawn measures 33 /4 inches tall. The King measures 4 7/8 inches. The board measures 13 3/4 inches square.

An excellent example of 1960s "Modernist" design, each piece is cut from a formed bar of aluminum. From the face, the black and white pieces look the same. But the uncut sides of the black pieces are anodized black.

The set that sold for $257.50 came with a warning: 'This set DOES NOT come with a display case or chess board.' Are the case and board worth $350, or is the lower winning bid because 'This auction is available to U.S. bidders only'?

For more images, see a Google image search on 'chess set austin enterprises'. That same search without restrictions turns up pages like 1962 Austin Enterprises Chess Set ('This amazing modernist / Eames era chess set by Austin Enterprises from 1962 is swell!') with 45 comments.

The name Eames is frequently associated with these sets. As far as I can tell, it refers to Charles and Ray Eames [Wikipedia], 'American designers, who worked in and made major contributions to modern architecture and furniture. They also worked in the fields of industrial and graphic design, fine art and film.' As impressive as the connection might be, I don't believe they had anything to do with the Austin Enterprises set.

Tablebase 1 - Levenfish & Smyslov ½

After writing Levenfish's Rook Endings, I set off to investigate some of the points raised at the end of that post about Levenfish and Smyslov's classic. My first action, as with all endgame books written before the computer age, was to check the analysis on positions with six pieces or less by comparing it with a tablebase. The first three chapters of Rook Endings,

1. Introduction
   
2. Rook and Pawn vs. Rook
   
3. Rook and Two vs. Rook

i.e. two Kings plus two Rooks plus max two Pawns, lend themselves to this sort of analysis. As you would expect, the analysis was impeccable, until I checked the position shown in the following diagram. The authors wrote,

The diagram is very interesting. White's King is cut off from the Pawns, and maneuvers with the King and Rook fail to improve White's position, e.g.

• 1.Rg8 Kh5, or
  
• 1.Re5 Rg1 2.Re3 Kh5 3.Ke5, or
  
• 1.Kd4 Re2 2.Kd3 Re1 3.Kd2 Re8 4.Rc5 Rg8 5.Rc3 Kh5 6.Ke2 Kg4 7.Kf2 Kh3 with a draw

Therefore, there is only one other possible winning try: 1.g4 [...]

The tablebase disagrees, saying that all 14 of White's legal moves, with the exception of the four moves that hang the Rook, are winning. The fastest win, in 40 moves, is indeed 1.g4, but the three others (1.Rg8, 1.Re5, and 1.Kd4) win in 42, 42, and 41 moves respectively. Furthermore, the authors' analysis of 1.g4 is faulty.

Levenfish & Smyslov no.101
White to Move

How to explain this total breakdown in evaluation by two of the world's leading grandmasters and endgame specialists of their day? Of course, it's impossible to say for sure, but I suspect they overlooked an important mechanism available to White. Here is the tablebase analysis of the variation starting 1.Rg8.

1.Rg8 Kh5 2.Rg5+ Kh6 3.g4 Ra1 4.Re5 Rg1 5.Rh5+ Kg6 6.Rg5+ Kf6 7.Ke4 Re1+ 8.Kf3 Rf1+ 9.Kg2 Ra1 10.Rf5+ Kg6 11.h5+ Kh6 12.Rf6+ Kg7 13.Rd6 Ra3 14.h6+ Kh7 15.Kf2 Ra5 16.Kg3 Rb5 17.Kh4 Rb1 18.Kh5 Rh1+ 19.Kg5 Ra1 20.Rd7+ Kg8 21.Kh5 Ra2 22.g5 Ra5 23.Kg6 Ra6+ 24.Kf5 Ra5+ 25.Kf6 Ra6+ 26.Ke5 Ra5+ 27.Rd5 Ra6 28.Rd6 Ra1 29.g6 Re1+ 30.Kf4 Rf1+ 31.Kg3 Kf8 32.h7 Ke7 33.Kg2 Ra1 34.Rd2 Ra6 35.h8=Q

To explain the winning procedure in words, the White King first chases the Black Rook from behind the Pawns (9.Kg2). Then White simultaneously advances all four pieces to push the Black King to its first rank (20...Kg8). Finally, White uses a bridge-building mechanism similar to the one used in the Lucena position (27.Rd5) to stop the Black Rook from checking on the side.

As for the analysis after 1.g4, Levenfish & Smyslov give 1.g4 Rh1 2.Rh5+ Kg6 3.Kd6 Rh2 4.Ke7(?) Kg7(?), with the comment 'the threat was Ke7-f8-g8 followed by Rh7'. The tablebase isn't intimidated by this 'threat', giving 4...Re2+! (only move), and if 5.Kf8, then 5...Rf2+ 6.Kg8 Rf4! (only move). Instead of 4.Ke7?, White wins with 4.Ke6, among other moves.

The rest of the section on K+R+gh vs. K+R is correct. When the authors wrote of no.101, 'The diagram is very interesting', little did they suspect how interesting it really was.

***

Later: There's a glitch in the analysis after the diagram. I gave 1.Rg8 Kh5 2.Rg5+ Kh6, which just repeats the diagrammed position, when the move 3.g4 is identical to 1.g4. Then I looked at the two other lines, starting 1.Re5 and 1.Kd4, and discovered that White also plays g3-g4 as soon as possible. These eventually transpose into the same optimal solution given after 1.g4.

The Longest Analyses

While studying the current game, R.Byrne - Fischer, U.S. Championship 1963, in this series on 18 Memorable Games, I noticed that Fischer's notes to 14.Rfd1 were almost a full page. Is this the move that received the most attention in My 60 Memorable Games? Not by a long shot it turns out.

The move that received the most attention in Fischer's memorable book is shown in the following diagram. He devoted two full pages (including two diagrams) to it, trying to prove that, contrary to Botvinnik's analysis, he had indeed missed a win against the reigning World Champion.

1962 Varna Olympiad
Fischer, Robert

Botvinnik, Mikhail
After 51.Kg3-f3

The five longest analyses are shown in the following table, with links to the corresponding game at Chessgames.com.

• Mikhail Botvinnik vs Robert James Fischer; Varna Olympiad Final 1962, My 60 Memorable Games no.39, 51.Kf3.
  
  
• Robert James Fischer vs Svetozar Gligoric; Habana ol 1966, no.56, 5...f6, analysis of the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.O-O, the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation.
  
  
• Robert Eugene Byrne vs Robert James Fischer; US Ch. 1963, no.48, 14.Rfd1.
  
  
• Robert James Fischer vs Efim Geller; Skopje 1967, no.58, 7.Be3, analysis of 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bc4 e6 7.Bb3.
  
  
• Robert James Fischer vs Ruben Shocron; Mar del Plata 1959, no.6, 15.dxe5

The last game in the list, Fischer - Shocron, is a game where Fischer spent a half page discussing a position in the Ruy Lopez Closed Variation. There are many analyses of similar length and this discussion happens to be slightly longer than the others.

'The Queen of Katwe'

This clip, about Phiona Mutesi of Uganda, starts,

My father died of AIDS when I was three years old. My mother could no longer afford to pay my school fees. It was very hard to not be in school. I was in the slums alone. I did not have hope. Then I discovered chess.

For a written account of the same story, see Game of her life (espn.go.com).

Slum Queen (6:14) • 'Silent Images, while traveling with ESPN and serving Sports Outreach, has produced this trailer which tells the inspiring story of Phiona, the chess champion from the slums of Uganda.'

For a less charitable account of the same story, see ESPN Discovers a Chess Prodigy. Or Not. (gambit.blogs.nytimes.com).

Levenfish's Rook Endings

The January 2011 issue of Chess Life featured a number of great articles, including an 18 page report on the U.S. performance at the recent 2010 Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia. Following this was a six page instructional article titled 'Vasily Smyslov's Opening Contributions' (USchess.org) by Russell Potter. Interspersed with specific examples of Smyslov's opening inventions were a number of sections documenting Smyslov's other contributions to chess. I especially liked the following.

Contributions To Endgame Strategy: Smyslov recalls that early in his life, he was taught a love of simple positions, endings and endgame studies from his father, who was a player of near master strength. Garry Kasparov and many other grandmaster authorities hold that during the 1950s, Smyslov had no equal in this phase of chess. A common piece of grandmaster advice is to study the endgames that Smyslov played in actual competitions.

One of the most important types of endings are rook endings, particularly those in which each side has a rook and one or more pawns. It is often noted that rook endings are so important because they occur more frequently than any other type of ending.

In 1971, Vasily Smyslov and Grigory Levenfish wrote a book on this very subject that was titled simply, Rook Endings. This book was published in a unique format. Instead of following the format of previous endgame books on rook endings, the authors put little emphasis on whether the pawns were on the third or fourth or fifth ranks, or whether they were on the knight file or the bishop file or the center files.

What was really revolutionary about this book was the emphasis that was placed on the properties of the rooks and kings themselves! The book’s classification schemes were both original and practical. How active were the two kings? How active were their rooks? Where were they in relation to their own passed pawns? To those of their opponent?

Positional draws, counterattacks, perpetuals and even mating attacks abounded throughout the book. Whereas the works of Berger, Fine, Euwe, Cheron and Averbakh had focused heavily on the precise squares, ranks and files that the pawns were on, Rook Endings forced the reader to pay a much greater attention to the dynamic interactions of the pieces. While completely sound instructionally, the difference in emphasis was as unmistakable as it was refreshing. It was at once a more fun read and a more instructive read as well.

To top it off, Rook Endings featured a unique set of 22 rules at the very end of the book. The authors referred to them as "General Conclusions." These well-selected examples could stand alone as an excellent summary guide of the proper way to play rook endings. These "General Conclusions" are so informative that I always urge all of my students to go to the back of their copy of Rook Endings and study these through several times before actually beginning to study the book at its front.

From a chess instructor’s perspective, Rook Endings stands as one of the great historical publications on the practical endgame. Countless American classrooms, Summer teaching camps, chess club study groups and individual American chessplayers have benefitted enormously from this book.

One reason I liked this excerpt was that I had just finished reading Russian Silhouettes by Genna Sosonko (New in Chess, 2009), a book in which each chapter presents an insightful sketch of a different Soviet player (plus a chapter on Capablanca and his Russian wife Olga). The last chapter, titled 'The Summing Up', is about Grigory Levenfish (1889-1961), co-author of Rook Endings. Although listed first on the title page of the book itself, his name is usually listed by others only second after Smyslov's, as in the excerpt above, or omitted entirely, i.e. Smyslov's Rook Endings. The introduction to Sosonko's chapter on Levenfish says,

In the chess history of the last century, with its wealth of events and personalities, his name can be found only in footnotes. Appreciated by rare connoisseurs, he stayed in the memory of only a few people, but not in the collective memory, and today his name is almost forgotten. [...] Lasker and Capablanca considered him to be the strongest player in the Soviet Union after Botvinnik. When remembering him, Smyslov, Bronstein and Taimanov, Korchnoi and Spassky use the epithets outstanding, remarkable, and eminent. Even today, looking back at events of more than half a century ago, they, the champions and vice-champions of the world, the strongest players of their time, speak of him as someone from their ranks. (p.190)

Later in the same chapter, Sosonko quotes Smyslov.

Smyslov remembers: 'Grigory Yakovlevich was a highly intelligent person, but he lived a poor life. A difficult life. In his last few years he came to me with a stack of paper, the manuscript of his book on Rook endings, and asked me to check it. We spent many days under a lamp made of Sèvres porcelain, analysing and talking. [...] I checked his analyses and made corrections in places, but it was he who did all the hard work.' (p.216)

At the risk of exceeding fair use by a country mile, here are the general conclusions in the last chapter of Rook Endings.

1. The basis of all Rook endings is the endgame with R + P vs R. The inferior side must try to get Philidor's position, the superior side must prevent it.
   
   
2. Having the Rook on the short side and the King, cut off from the Pawn, on the long side in most cases makes it more difficult to save the game.
   
   
3. With the Rook on the short side, attacking the Pawn from behind saves the inferior side if the Pawn is on the 5th or beyond.
   
   
4. The Rook is a long-range piece and can force the enemy King with checks right to the other end of the board. Use this method of defense in appropriate cases.
   
   
5. The difficult ending with the BP and RP pair requires a knowledge of intermediate positions.
   
   
6. A RP on the 7th, defended by a Rook on the 8th and attacked by a Rook from behind, does not win, even if there is a NP on the other wing.
   
   
7. The possibility of sheltering the King from checks in the immediate neighborhood of the passed Pawn (the principle of the flight square) often determines the outcome of the game.
   
   
8. It is better to have active pieces and be a Pawn down than to have passively placed pieces with material equality.
   
   
9. When a Rook pins a King to the edge of the board by cutting it off along the 7th rank, this creates the conditions for tactical operations. Particularly dangerous is the combined action of the King, Rook, and passed Pawn when the King has shelter from checks. This shelter can even be provided by enemy Pawns.
   
   
10. A Rook and two connected passed Pawns generally win against a Rook and passed Pawn. If the passed Pawns have reached the 6th rank there is the possibility of sacrificing the Rook for the Pawn, transposing into a won ending of two connected passed Pawns vs. Rook. However, if the inferior side has a far advanced passed Pawn vs. a RP + NP pair the drawing chances are greater.
    
    
11. With two disconnected Pawns against one passed Pawn important roles are played by the bridge and diversion.
    
    
12. Isolate the enemy's King from your passed Pawn so that he cannot obstruct its advance.
    
    
13. If the King can blockade an isolated Pawn that is guarded by its Rook, this is a considerable achievement positionally. Centralization of the King is the usual strategy in the endgame.
    
    
14. If one Rook attacks a Pawn while the other is doomed to passive defense, this creates a prerequisite for the actively placed side to win. It is not yet the end, but it may be the beginning of the end.
    
    
15. A passed Pawn supported by its Rook from behind means poor prospects for the inferior side if he cannot blockade the Pawn with his King.
    
    
16. A Rook must be behind its own Pawn to push it through to the Queening square and behind an enemy Pawn to hinder its advance.
    
    
17. In the event of an opponent's far advanced passed Pawn being blocked by the Rook, playing for Zugzwang often becomes a factor.
    
    
18. Isolate your opponent's King from his passed Pawn so that he cannot help its advance.
    
    
19. Setting up a passed Pawn often constitutes the only correct method of defense.
    
    
20. Having got the enemy Rook into a passive position, widen the bridgehead for the operations of your active Rook.
    
    
21. If both sides have passed Pawns it is important to force the enemy King by means of checks to take up a position in front of its Pawn, thereby obstructing its advance.
    
    
22. Simplifying a Rook ending with numerous Pawns into a simpler ending which lends itself to an accurate appraisal is an important strategem that must be skilfully exploited in Rook endings.

Each one of those bullets requires further explanation and, along with brief examples in the concluding chapter, there are numerous detailed examples in the body of the book. No.5, on the 'BP and RP pair', takes five full pages of explanation. No.8, on the value of active pieces, might very well be a valid guideline not just for the endgame, but for the entire game. In no.11, I'm not sure what is meant by 'bridge and diversion', so I'll come back to this and other points in a future post.

***

Later: One of the posts included in Chess Blog Carnival: Coney Island Edition.