Friendly Chess Players

At the same time I worked on Magnus Carlsen Interviews, I was reading Yuri Averbakh's 'Centre-Stage and Behind the Scenes: A Personal Memoir'. Near the end of the book (p.238), GM Averbakh divides great players into six groups. Here are quotes from Averbakh describing each group.

• Group one - the killers. They are the ones who, in the language of boxing, try to knock out their opponents. • Alekhine, Botvinnik, Fischer, Korchnoi.
  
  
• Group two - the fighters. The circumstances of battle inspire them and enable them to mobilize their full fighting spirit. • Lasker, Bronstein, Reshevsky, Tal; Kasparov.
  
  
• Group three - the sportsmen. For them, chess is a form of sport, like tennis, for example. Once the game is over, they become absolutely normal people. • Capablanca, Euwe, Keres, Smyslov, Spassky.
  
  
• Group four - the players. They are attracted by every form of game -- cards, backgammon, etc. • Karpov; Janowski, Najdorf, Geller, Petrosian.
  
  
• Group five - the artists. For them it is important not just to win, but to win elegantly, and to create works of art. • Simagin, Rossolimo.
  
  
• Group six - the explorers. This group strive first of all to understand chess, and to divince its secrets. for them chess is a subject for scientific study. • Rubinstein, Nimzowich, Fine.

Where does GM Carlsen fit in this classification? Here are the keywords I developed from 'Carlsen Interviews': intuitive, professional, likes to win, enjoys playing, likes unconventional tasks, professional for more than chess alone, likes group sessions, self-confident, friendly. Based on this, I would place Carlsen in Group three - the sportsmen, with key elements of Group two - the fighters.

Magnus Carlsen Interviews

'What makes him so good?' is The Carlsen Question, a question the Norwegian GM's many fans (and a few detractors) ask constantly. Asking the question is easy enough, but how to find an answer? I started by making a survey of his interviews. Perhaps an intrepid interviewer has already popped the question, or perhaps the GM himself has volunteered the answer.

As with many ideas, someone else has already thought of it. See, for example, Chess Grandmaster Magnus Carlsen Fansite - Interviews, a collection of links to interviews where the latest is from March 2010. The two most recent interviews on the list are from respected weekly news magazines and both touched on his work with a former World Champion.

Meet Magnus Carlsen, The New King of Chess • (Q:) Your coach, former world champion Garry Kasparov, says your strength is not calculation, but rather your ability to intuit the right moves, even if their ultimate purpose is not clear. Is that right? (A:) I'm good at sensing the nature of the position and where I should put my pieces. You have to choose the move that feels right sometimes; that's what intuition is. It's very hard to explain. [Time.com]

Magnus Carlsen on his chess career • (Q:) For a year now you have been working with Garry Kasparov, who is probably the best chess player of all time. What form does your cooperation take? Kasparov is the teacher, you the pupil? (A:) No. In terms of our playing skills we are not that far apart. There are many things I am better at than he is. And vice versa. Kasparov can calculate more alternatives, whereas my intuition is better. I immediately know how to rate a situation and what plan is necessary. I am clearly superior to him in that respect. [Chessbase.com, quoting from Der Spiegel]

Let's start a list: intuitive. • A more recent interview was conducted just after the 6th Tal Memorial, in December 2011.

Magnus Carlsen – 'I don't quite fit into the usual schemes' • I’m a professional chess player, and if that’s the case then I should do all that I’m capable of to fulfil my potential. I like to win and I strive for the best possible results… At the same time, I still manage to get a lot of enjoyment from playing! During a game I cease to think about the result as I become so enthralled by what’s happening on the board. [...] Above all I like to resolve unconventional tasks at the board. Perhaps that’s why I don’t really like studying the opening – everything starts from the one position. [Chessbase.com, quoting from ChessPro]

Got it: professional, likes to win, enjoys playing, likes unconventional tasks. • The next interview, appropriately titled A Magnus Carlsen Interview, points to the real interview, which is no longer available on the original domain. It was conducted after the 7sth Tal Memorial, June 2012.

Magnus Carlsen: Am I tired? What a stupid question! • (Q:) In the last few years haven’t you already got tired of all these interviews and photo sessions… How many of them have you done this year? (A:) I don’t even know. A lot. Am I tired? Giving an interview is simpler, after all, than playing a game or preparing. I see it as just as much a part of my work as playing chess. It isn’t a strain… Moreover, nowadays I’m clearly told: you have to speak with such and such a person, travel to do this program or be filmed. [Whychess.com via Archive.org]

File that under: professional, but for more than chess alone. • The next interview is from a non-chess resource, conducted less than a year ago, September 2012

The Top Chess Player In The World Impressed The Heck Out Of Everyone At This NYC Exhibition • (Q:) What made him so good? (A:) Well I think an important part of broadening my understanding of the game, senses of positioning, tactics and so one was just playing and also I had sessions with my trainers in Norway. Either it would be me or a few others just sitting at the board, analyzing. I think those analyzing sessions gave me a lot, actually. Just moving the pieces around helped everyone improve their understanding of chess so much.' [Businessinsider.com]

Likes group sessions? I recall seeing somewhere that this was a hallmark of Soviet chess training. • The next interview is from another, much respected non-chess source, dated December 2012.

Lunch with the FT: Magnus Carlsen • Self-confidence is very important. If you don’t think you can win, you will take cowardly decisions in the crucial moments, out of sheer respect for your opponent. You see the opportunity but also greater limitations than you should. I have always believed in what I do on the chessboard, even when I had no objective reason to. It is better to overestimate your prospects than underestimate them. [ft.com]

Undoubtedly a characteristic of all great players: self-confident. One of the comments sums him up another way, 'Carlsen continually answers in the same way, that the freedom he was granted to do as he pleased, the supportive environment, the absence of dogma and even overweening ambition have let him follow where his attention pleasurably leads him. To the place where he "still has fun."'

The last interview is undated, but informs, 'Today, Magnus Carlsen made history [...] when he became the highest ranked player in the history of the sport.' That would be Chess prodigy, 22, beats Gary Kasparov’s 12-year record to become game’s highest-rated player of all time, December 2012.

Magnus Carlsen Interview • (Q:) Do you see yourself as being unique among your peers? (A:) No, I am mostly friends with other chess players. It's easy for me to get along with chess players. Even though we are all very different, we have chess in common. People are usually quite nice, so it's easy to get along.

There's a trait I haven't observed in many top players: friendly. • It should be obvious that I've only extracted one passage from each interview. There's much more to be gleaned, but there are other resources to be addressed. Next stop: video interviews.

Opening Logic from Fischer

In Fischer's Chess Life columns from the mid-1960s, which I introduced in a recent post Fischer Talked Chess, the future World Champion made a number of extravagant claims. One such claim, shown in the image below, is easy to verify.

If you're not comfortable with descriptive notation, the moves leading to the position in the diagram are 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 g6 3.Bg2 Bg7 4.O-O O-O 5.d3 d6. Is Black really better here? I asked Chesslab.com for some statistics.

For the given position, Chesslab gives W-L-D stats as 33%-33%-34%. That means 33% wins for White, 33% losses for White (wins for Black), and 34% draws. That's as even a split as you can find anywhere.

The two most popular continuations for White (by far) are 6.e4 and 6.c4. Note that both resulting positions can also arise via transposition, which gives a larger statistical sample than the preceding position.

The W-L-D stats for 6.e4 and its two most popular responsess are:-
6.e4: 31%-34%-35%
6...e5: 37%-29%-34%
6...c5: 32%-36%-32%

The same stats for 6.c4 are:-
6.c4: 33%-31%-36%
6...c5: 29%-15%-56%
6...e5: 36%-30%-34%

For both of White's sixth moves, the non-symmetrical response scores significantly better than the symmetrical response, although 6.c4 appears to give an edge to White.

I know that opening stats can be misleading, but it's still shortsighted to ignore them completely. For this particular opening, Fischer understood the dynamics very well.

Tudors Play Chess

Tudors at Kentwell Hall © Flickr user Roger Andrews under Creative Commons.

From Wikipedia, Kentwell Hall:

Kentwell Hall is a stately home in Long Melford, Suffolk, England. It includes the hall, outbuildings, and a rare breeds farm and gardens. Most of the current building facade dates from the mid 16th century, but the origins of Kentwell are much earlier, with references in the Domesday Book of 1086. [...]

Since 1979, Kentwell Hall has presented Tudor period re-enactment events, portraying scenes of domestic Tudor life. The re-enactments involve up to 350 fully costumed volunteers on any given day and span a three-week period in June and July each year, with smaller events during the rest of the year.

The Tudor period covered the 16th century, while the Staunton pieces shown in the photo date from the 19th century. What sort of set would the real Tudors have used?

Fischer Talked Chess

Another discovery, or re-discovery, from last week's post Fifty Years Ago in Chess Life, was a Bobby Fischer column titled 'Fischer Talks Chess', starting June 1963. Fischer was never known for prolific analytical output and his annotations are always worthy of study.

He introduced the first column with an attack on published analysis by Russian / Soviet players (the political difference between the two categories was not important to Fischer),

Many of my Russian critics have accused me of "lacking objectivity" and the ability to criticize my own play. [...] There are good reasons for accusing some of the top Soviet masters of the very thing they accuse *me* of: a lack of self criticism.

This was followed by examples of their faulty analysis. The second column, in July-August, featured more of the same, including Fischer's famous statement

I have never made a mistake in analysis.

For the September column, he moved to a more instructive topic : analysis of his own games, this time from the 1963 Western Open (where he scored +7-0=1). Never one for modesty, the U.S. champion wrote,

The players at the Open were surprisingly strong. I was expecting twenty move crushers but it didn't happen. In fact, the opposition was keen enough that I consider five or six out of eight of my games played there to be superior to any games played in the Piatigorsky Tournament.

The first game Fischer annotated was against Hans Berliner, at that time a U.S. Senior Master (>2400), rated at 2426 just outside the U.S. top-10. The Piatigorsky Tournament (1963 Los Angeles) was won by Keres and Petrosian ahead of six other world class players.

The next three columns featured games from the 1963 New York State Open (+7-0=0). One of these games, Fischer - Bisguier, was eventually included in My 60 Memorable Games. Besides the two opens, the only other tournament Fischer played in 1963 was the U.S. Championship, where he scored +11-0=0.

The last five columns covered all games from the 1862 Steinitz - Dubois match. Why this match? Chess Life (editor J.F. Reinhardt) explained,

This match, played toward the beginning of Steinitz's long career, well illustrates the open, combinational style of play which earned the young Steinitz the nickname of 'The Austrian Morphy'. In addition to its historical significance, this series will provide the CHESS LIFE reader with background material for such sensational recent games as Fischer - Bisguier [see above] and Fischer - Evans [a critical game from the 1963-64 U.S. Championship +11-0=0 sweep].

Fischer didn't explain why he considered the match worth careful study. He introduced the first game with

The players of 1862 knew something very valuable that the players of today would do well to make note of: 1.d4 leads to nothing!

The games of the match are also on Chessgames.com: 1862 Steinitz - Dubois Match. For more about the Fischer column, see 4423. Fischer the columnist, on Chesshistory.com.

Papy Teaches Chess

This afternoon, on the way home from her morning Italian lesson (her dad's side of the family is Italian), my four-and-a-half year old granddaughter asked me to play 'checks'. (The conversation was in French, so I'm taking liberties at translation.) Her grandmom quickly figured out that she meant 'chess', and just as quickly I changed the subject -- it's easy to do with young children and I have no experience teaching chess to that age group.

After we got home, where we're looking after her until her parents finish work, she again asked to play 'chess', mentioning the set she had seen in my study. She wanted the 'yellow' pieces (yes, they're old) and I could have the black. The set that she meant is half covered with paperwork, and I knew she wouldn't give up asking, so I started looking for another set. Through the years I've given away most of my sets, but found one of unknown origin with a 6 cm King, a good size for small hands. I also found a beat-up board that I would have been embarrassed to take out for anyone else. Little kids don't care about those things.

After carefully taking the pieces out of the box one-by-one, she took all of the White pieces and set up the Pawns on the third rank -- she once learned something about chess from her dad, who played in a couple of junior tournaments -- then randomly scattered the other pieces behind the Pawns. I asked her if she knew the names of the pieces, which she didn't. I don't know how children do it, but they learn words after hearing them once or twice. In a few minutes she knew the names.

How to continue? I started by explaining the Pawn moves. First I showed how the Pawn moves forward one step at a time and we played a Pawns-only game -- starting from the second ranks -- until all of the Pawns were blocked. Then I explained the two-step rule on the first move and we played another Pawns-only game with the same result. Then I explained the capture. When I captured her Pawn she wanted it back immediately and when she captured mine, she promptly handed it over.

At this point I remembered about a children's game called the 'Pawn Game', where the object is to race your Pawns forward to reach your bank rank first, playing only with Pawns on the board. I explained the rule and she promptly won, after trying to make some captures of Pawns separated by several ranks or files. Then I showed her how to set up all of the pieces for the traditional game (no chess960 on the first lesson!) and started to explain the moves.

While I was explaining the first piece, the Knight, she suddenly said, 'Papy (that's me), you've been choosing the games, now I get to choose.' She swept the pieces off the board, put the 'horses' back in the box 'where they can sleep', and grabbed the Bishops, one in each little hand. While she was banging them up and down on the board, she told me to do the same, and then started rushing her Bishops at my Bishops, making swooshing noises while the Bishops were attacking each other.

After 60 seconds of battling Bishops, she put them to the side and grabbed the King and Queen, calling the Queen 'the princess'. She's been obsessed with princesses for well over a year now and must have hundreds of Auroras, Ariels, and Rapunzels, plus dozens of other names that I can't keep straight. (My Papy role was much simpler in the 'Hello Kitty' phase when there was only one character.)

The father of the princess, the King, and the princess danced together all over the board while my granddaughter hummed some sort of waltz. I just sat and watched. After 60 seconds of that, I asked her if she wanted to know how the other pieces move. She said, 'Yes!' and I explained the Rook. She said, 'That's easy!', and started pushing a Rook all over the board, respecting the ranks and files of the Rook's move. Just as I started to explain the Bishop, grandmom ('Mamy') called for lunch and the session was over. I knew from past experience that there would be no further interest in chess today, so I put the board and pieces back where I had found them.

How do professional chess teachers work with young children? A friend has asked me to teach her two young grandsons and I really don't have a clue. Further investigation is required.

The Carlsen Question

The folks at Facebook's Chess Club Live frequently come up with new angles to explore the royal game. A few months ago we saw Play Against Bobby Fischer?, and recently they tackled Magnus Carlsen on a new Facebook page titled New Chess Agnosticism. Under a photo of GM Carlsen contemplating a Knight, the introduction says,

New Chess Agnosticism is a method of ascertaining our chess reality based on proven and evidence led thinking. There is an awareness that assumptions are used to make a framework for reality and it's an attempt to minimise this.

Having wrapped up my Carlsen game collection last week with Early Carlsen Games, and looking for somewhere to go with it, I liked the implicit question, 'What makes him so good?' Even if I end up not agreeing with the agnosticism aspect, I'll continue the Carlsen work and spend the next few posts in the series looking at answers to that question.