BlueEyedRook

Chess Books on Kindle

2010-12-02T22:58:00.005-05:00

I am learning about the awesome resource of chess books on Kindle.

I think we all -- whether we like it or not -- have to accept the fact that paper books are quickly "going the way of the dodo." Amazon.com announced that for the first time in their history, electronic books have outsold hardback, paper versions.

It is a sign of the times. . . . and it only going to get worse (or better -- depending how much of a fan you are of e-books).

And who can you really blame in the ascension of e-books?

1) They are cheaper then their paper back cousins (often by a lot) as publishers do not need to spend any money (or any serious money anyways) in transportation/production costs.

2) A person can carry 10,000 books in a handheld Kindle reading device (How awesome would it be to be able to take -- quite literally -- all the books you own wherever you go.

3) You buy a book, and it arrives instantaneously. Mail orders and trips to the bookstore are all avoided.

Despite all the positives regarding e-books, the drawbacks are that there are real duds.

Go to Amazon.com and you will find many chess books where only the text -- and no digrams -- are transfered into e-format. Thus, you will buy a chess book without any chess diagrams!

Some, however, are very good -- with diagrams galore.

This is the one I am reading now: It is very good.

CLICK HERE FOR BOOK

Thus, be careful what you purchase -- there are some real winners and some real duds.

Luckily, Amazon.com allows the Kindle user to download a sample of each potential book he or she wants to buy. These samples (often 10% of the entire book) can provide valuable insight on the kind of book you are buying.

The Greatest Chess Move of All Time?

2010-06-16T22:45:00.007-04:00

This has been called the "Greatest Move In All of Chess."

Given the trillions of moves that players have played over the millenniums, this is -- of course -- a bold statement. This is, however, a pretty sweet move.

Do you see it?

Legend has it that spectators were so enamored with Marshall's bold, winning move, they threw pieces of gold onto the chess board to pay homage to the brilliancy they just witnessed.

The Knight/Bishop Mate -- An Almost Complete Waste of Time

2010-02-16T23:47:00.006-05:00

White to Win

It's a problem you will find in almost all chess books -- certainly in all chess books dealing with the endgame.

The infamous knight-bishop mate.

It is probably one of the trickiest forced mates in all of chess. Go the web and you will find countless websites explaining to you how to do it.

This isn't one of those sites.

This one is going to do something much more radical but at the same time much more practical -- and tell you that "you shouldn't care." In other words (barring sheer boredom), don't bother learning it.

People will huff and pout -- "Of course, you have to learn this forced checkmate! It's essential to any serious chess student's studies!"

But I am right . . . . and all those hours you spend on learning this mate is virtually a complete waste of time (and for novice chess players -- the 95% of us! -- "hours" is not much of an exaggeration).

Why do I say this? Why am I flaunting the conventional chess wisdom that you find in countless chess books (where authors devote page after page to this very problem).

Quite simply . . . . Because the situation never comes up.

(I imagine people are huffing and pouting more furiously now.).

Okay, okay . . . . . of course, it occasionally comes up. All things occasionally "come up" -- chess positions with 5 queens on the board occasionally "come up" -- but it does not come up frequently enough to ever justify spending the time to learn the process of forcing mate.

Don't believe me?

In the last couple years I have played over 3,758 games of chess. This mate came up Zero times. That's "Zero" with a great big, capital "Z".

Want more proof?

I downloaded 9,408 random games from this site (http://www.pgnmentor.com/files.html#openings).

How many games came up incorporating the knight/bishop mate? Two.

That is .002% by my math. (In other words, there is a .002% chance you will be in a situation where you will need to know this ending. Or once in every 3,704 game.).

I know what the counter arguments will be:

1) If you find yourself in this situation -- and you DO NOT know the mate -- you will throw away a "won-game."

Fair enough. (Indeed, many Grandmasters have found themselves in this very scenario and were forced to take the embarrassing draw.). But again -- do the math. Wouldn't you win more games, by spending the time you would invest in learning this mate and devoting it to tactics training or opening study?

More importantly -- say you do spend the time needed to learn this ending. And lo and behold, some 3,704 games down the road , you come across this ending. Do you think you will remember it? Make no mistake about it -- it will be years (yes, years!) before you will ever come across a game requiring knowing this mate. Think your memory is that good?

2) It's not about knowing the mate, but chess skills in general (how the knight and bishop work together).

This is a better argument, but, again, not a very good one. Yes, you are learning how the knight and bishop work as a team -- but in a very limited scenario (when the two are pinned against the lone opposing king.). Throw in a couple pawns or an opposing piece -- and much of the knight/bishop coordination you learn in memorizing this mate becomes next to useless.

So, in summary . . . .

Unless you are bored, just plain curious, or really eager to harness your knight/bishop coordination skills -- skip learning the process of forcing the knight/bishop mate. You'll be cursing my name when that 3,704th game comes along and you need it, but if you devote your chess energies else where, I can almost guarantee you will benefit more because of it.

You have a limited amount of hours for "chess studies" -- you might as well invest them properly.

2009-11-07T23:00:00.015-05:00

Frustration

I hate throwing away "won games." It's worse than getting completely slaughtered -- and is much more psychologically devastating.

Here's a good example.

I am playing black and the winning move (against a much higher ranked opponent) is right in front of me.

See it?

1. . . Re2+ is decisive. Black's key worry (indeed, only worry) in the f6 pawn.

1. . . Re2+ nips it in the butt. The white king cannot retreat to the d-file (shaded area).

2. Kd7 (for example) is met with 2 . . . Rf2!. And white's last pawn is gone. (White cannot play 3. Rxf2 because of 3 . . . h1 = Q.)

But Black can't retreat to the f-file either.

If so, white's king is trapped there and black has free reign to advance his queen-side pawns to promotion. (ex. 2. Kf7 is met with 2. . . c4).

How is the white king "stuck" on the f-file?

If White moves to the g-file (ex. 3. Kg6 it is met with 3 . . . Kg2+!).

No matter where White moves (ex. 4. Kf7) Black's next move is 4 . . . Rg8!.

And either way the h-pawn queens (5. Rxg1 hxg1=Q).

Puzzle

2009-08-12T23:56:00.006-04:00

I came across this puzzle the other day.

White to play and win.

1. Rh5! is decisive. (1. Qxc3 does nothing and leaves white a pawn down).

After the forced 1... gxh5, black's king is horribly exposed.

2. Rg5+! is the winning move.

As 2... Kh8 (forced) is met with 3. Qh6#.

Stubborn People and Chess

2009-04-19T01:21:00.004-04:00

BlueEyedRook v. NN
April 2009
www.Redhotpawn.com

Black to play and win (?)

I have commented on this issue a couple times, but it never ceases to frustrate me.
http://blueeyedrook.blogspot.com/2006/07/throwing-in-towel.html

Why do people not resign clearly lost games?

Take the position above. How can anyone with a chess rating over 800 lose this playing white -- yet black still plays on.

I would have more sympathy for black if there was blitz match where black can still win by white's time running out, but this is a correspondence match -- and a generous one too with a week or so to make moves.

I understand egos bruise easily (and indeed the player playing black -- no need to give names) is ranked higher than me, but at the same time what is the point is dragging this on?

Chess Flash = Awesome

2009-04-06T23:50:00.006-04:00

Found this awesome new feature that allows you to display full games. The site's name is http://chessflash.com/ and the creator is Glenn Wilson (who has his own impressive chess blog as well http://glennwilson.com/chess/). If you haven't checked it out -- do so! I think (like me) you'll be very impressed.

I am still learning the ropes of this feature so I started off with the game below -- a game simply 8 moves long!

... And this was at a correspondence chess website. (I knew after 1...a6 that I was in for something interesting!).

Tactical Problem

2009-04-06T21:25:00.023-04:00

Found this nice tactical puzzle the other day. It highlights the devestating effects of having two rooks (doubled up) on the seventh rank.

White to Move

1. Bh6! is decisive (see below). Black has no real options from here.

1... Rg8 guards the g7-pawn for one more turn, but doesn't do anything when 2. Re7 is played (see below).

1... gxh6 also leads to disaster after 2. Re7 (see below).

And black is replyless. If he doesn't move his f8-rook, 3. Rxh7+ and 4. Rg7# ensues. Moving the rook is equally unpleasant for black. 2... Rfd8 (for example) leads to 3. Rxh8+ Kg8. 4. Nxf6+ (see below).

More Allegations of Cheating in the Chess World

2009-03-02T18:43:00.008-05:00

The chess world was marred by yet another cheating allegation. At the Aeroflot Open in Moscow, Shakriyar Mamedyarov (

Azerbaijan

) -- the favorite to win the tournament -- was defeated (in 21 moves) by Igor Kurnosov (

Russia

). Allegations of cheating arose when it was noted that Kurnosov went to the bathroom allegedly after every move and wore heavy clothing (suggesting he was concealing an electronic device). The most damning evidence was the alleged fact that all of Kurnosov’s moves matched a computer chess program’s analysis of the game (i.e., his moves perfectly matched those of a computer-generated analysis).

After these allegations were made, referees investigated Kurnosov’s person and found no electronic equipment or other signs of cheating. And Kurnosov was able to proceed in the tournament.

The incident highlights major problems in the chess world as computers and electronic communication devices become easier to acquire and even easier to conceal. How competitive chess will proceed into the 21^st century under these circumstances remains to be seen.

The winning move (whether discovered by computer or man!) in the Kurnosov/Mamedyarov match was a bold queen sacrifice.

(Black to Move)

1... Qd2! (Threatening 2. . . Qxb2#).

2. Rxd2 Nxd2+. 3. Kc2 Bxh5.

3. Rxh5 Nc4.

And Black has obtained a game winning advantage.

Not Seeing an Easy Mate-In-Three (D'oh!)

2008-10-14T00:07:00.006-04:00

Black to Move

Searching for Bobby Fischer (The Book vs. The Movie)

2008-08-26T22:51:00.008-04:00

As with most chess enthusiasts, Searching for Bobby Fischer is one of my favorite movies of all time. I always knew it was based on a book, but never actually read it – or for that matter seen a copy (it was first released way back in 1984). I finally got a chance to read it the other day. All in all, it is a good read, but as with most books that were turned-into-a-movie, the book differs from the movie – often in some significant ways.

Fred Waitzkin

Josh’s father, Fred, comes across quite differently in the book – of which he is the narrator/author. In the movie, for example, we see Fred dealing with the pressures that come along with raising a chess prodigy. Interestingly, in the movie, Fred is never identified with chess. In the film, Josh one day come home magically from the park (where the chess hustlers play) and challenges his dad to a game. Josh purposely loses a game to his father because, as Josh’s film-mother suggests, “he doesn’t want to beat his daddy.” After this, his film dad demands a “fair game” and the film Josh then plays a real game against his dad – and much to his dad’s amazement – his young son solidly crushes him (in the movie, Josh is practically playing blindfold as he is calling moves from his bathtub).

The book version is significantly different. In real life, Fred and Josh played often – well before Josh showed significant signs of talent. Fred sounds like hardly a patzer. He admits in the book that he was intrigued (like most of America) with chess after the Fischer/Spassky match in Iceland – he took up the game soon after and played semi-regularly. As he would describe chess was in his blood and over the years “Bobby Fischer has occupied much of time in my fantasy life.” Fred’s enthusiasm, however, evaporated when he realized that he wasn’t particularly good. He described one particular incident where he was beaten by another player who read the newspaper as Fred made his moves and hardly paid attention to the game. This devastated Fred – who before such defeats – thought he was pretty good and as such he eventually gave up the game.

This is interesting because the movie suggests Fred’s interest in his son’s chess has more to deal with the typical parent’s desire to see their child achieve the best they possibly can (one could have easily substituted chess for anything and much of the movie would have been the same: fencing, spelling, etc.). The book, however, shows what is perhaps a bruised “chess ego” that Fred, the father, never recovered from. This psychological wound comes up in interesting ways throughout the book. For starters, Fred admits openly to purposely beating Josh anytime he and his son first started playing. Unabashedly he admits to never letting his young win – even to the point where the father feared he might be crushing the spirits of his young son. As such, Fred, at even Josh’s first beginnings, was seeking to push his son down the chess mastery path. It appears that he is forcing Josh to become the chessmaster that he knew he could never be – but so wanted to.

And Fred desperately appears to want to tag along on Josh’s journey to fame – a feature again missing from the movie. In the book, for example, Fred takes on the role of reporting and writing about chess. It comes across as a way of making his son’s chess success his own success. This desire to be included often reeks of desperation. For example, Fred flies to Russia with Josh and Bruce Pandolfini. According to the book, Fred and Bruce are going there to learn how the Soviets rear their young prodigies. Perhaps not too coincidentally they go during the Kasparov/Karpov match. During his coverage, Fred “uncovers” a host of unfavorable aspects of Soviet chess politics (from rigged games to anti-Semitism). (“Uncovers” is definitely questionable – because before his visit several Russian chess defectors report to him the chess situation in the Soviet Union). This news is, of course, interesting, but Fred – in what comes across as an attempt to make him feel important in the chess world in which he clearly is not – treats the news as important information that must be revealed to the West. So convinced Fred is in the importance of the story, that he travels to the U.S. Embassy in Russia to deliver his notes and files on the subject to a U.S. ambassador who will see to it that the “important” documents are shipped – unsearched and uncensored – to the anxious hands of the Free World. It’s in effect making a mountain of a mole hill – but as Josh continued to climb the chess mastery summit, it hard to blame Fred – a wounded chess enthusiast – for not wanting to reach a similar summit.

Bruce Pandolfini

In the movie, Josh’s mentor, Bruce Pandolfini is portrayed as a man desperate to have Josh succeed. There are a couple points in the movie where Bruce’s desire becomes truly disturbing -- for example when he tells young Josh that he should hold other players in “contempt” if he wants to beat them. It’s hard to really determine what the movie Pandolfini’s motivation is. At one point he is not so much concerned with Josh’s individual success, but excellence in chess itself. As the movie Pandolfini tells Josh’s father, people have been looking for Bobby Fisher along time, but he, Bruce, has found him in young Josh -- implying Josh can and should be the chess titan that previously was Fischer. In a way, the movie Pandolfini seems to be seeking some kind of replacement for the void Fischer left when he abandoned chess and faded into obscurity.

In the book, Pandolfini comes across much less complex from a psychological perspective. Pandolfini (as portrayed by Josh’s father, the author of the book), simply enjoys the game -- and his tutoring of Josh comes across as merely an extension of this. There is none of the desperate desire to win that is seen in the movie. Instead, Pandolfini is described as despising the competitive nature of the game. As he tells, Josh’s father his favorite chess games always end in a draw because there is no winner or loser. He sees promise in Josh -- no doubt, but he lacks the real fanaticism that the movie version portrays. As the book explains, Bruce was often hours late to his practices with Josh and often times completely missed them -- implying that in Pandolfini’s world there were more important things going on. Josh certainly does not come across as Pandolfini’s raison d’etre that you see in the movie.

Josh Waitzkin

Ironically, the movie’s star, Josh Waitzkin, is the character most accurately portrayed from the book. The innocence and good-natured boy shown in the movie is very much present in the book. The famous closing quote: “You are a much player than I was at your age” is, indeed, real (at least according to Josh’s father.) -- as are Josh’s fundamental insecurities (often shown in the movie) at how good he is supposed to be.

The only real discrepancy is the final game in the movie. In the movie, Josh faces what is perceived to be a losing position. He then realizes that it is -- in fact -- a winning position for him. He, in an effort to not humiliate his opponent (who Josh empathizes with), reaches out his hand to ask for a draw. The opponent, portrayed as the antithesis of Josh (arrogant, mean-spirited, etc.), refuses and then Josh proceeds -- almost reluctantly -- to beat him to win the championship.

In real life, there was such a game, and against a much less-likeable opponent (as the movie accurately revealed, in real life the parents of the opponent had pulled the boy out of school so he could learn chess full-time; as in the movie, he was extremely arrogant). However, Josh, in the real life championship game, simply draws against this opponent to win the tournament. (The two were undefeated going into the final tournament game and because Josh was higher rated, he would retain the championship upon the drawn match). Relying on a tie-breaking mechanism to prevail is certainly unclimatic -- Hollywood can, perhaps, be forgiven in dramatizing the ending.

Chess Books O'Plenty

2008-07-28T21:49:00.006-04:00

By an odd and strange series of events, I have become the recent owner of a trove of chess books -- 96 to be exact.

Titles, authors, year of publication, etc. are all listed below. There are some real interesting ones in there including one all the way back from 1915 (very cool!).

Title	Author	Year	Theme	Hard/Soft	Notation	Copies
100 Master Games of Modern Chess	Tartakiwer, S. and Du Mont, J.	1975	Game Collection	soft	British	1
1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate	Reinfeld, Fred	1955	Tactics	soft	British	1
1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations	Reinfeld, Fred	1955	Tactics	soft	British	1
200 Demanding Chess Puzzles	Greif, Martin	1996	Puzzle	soft	British	1
500 Master Games of Chess	Tartakiwer, S. and Du Mont, J.	1975	Game Collection	soft	British	1
A Guide To Chess Endings	Euwe, Max and Hooper, David	1976	Endgame	soft	Algebraic	2
An Introduction to Chess Moves and Tactics Simply Explained	Barden, Leonard	1959	Misc.	soft	British	1
An Invitation to Chess	Chernev, Irving and Harkness, Kenneth	1945	Misc.	soft	British	2
Art of Attack in Chess	Vukovic, Vladimir	2002	Misc.	soft	Algebraic	1
Attack and Counterattack in Chess	Reinfeld, Fred	1959	Tactics	soft	British	1
Begin Chess	Pritchard, David	1992	Misc.	soft	Algebraic	1
Best Lessons of a Chess Coach	Weeramantry, Sunil and Eusebi, Ed	1993	Misc.	soft	Algebraic	1
Better Chess	Gillan, A.J.	1993	Misc.	soft	Algebraic	1
Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess	Fischer, Bobby	1972	Misc.	soft	None	2
Chess Catechism	Evans, Larry	1970	Narrative	soft	British	1
Chess for Beginners	Horwitz, I.A.	1960	Misc.	soft	British	1
Chess in 30 Minutes	Lowe, E.S.	1955	Misc.	soft	British	1
Chess In a Nutshell	Reinfeld, Fred	1960	Misc.	soft	British	1
Chess Secrets I Learned from the Masters	Lasker, Edward	1969	Narrative	soft	British	1
Chess Self-Teacher	Horowitz, Al	1961	Misc.	soft	British	1
Chess Tactics for Beginners	Reinfeld, Fred	1961	Tactics	soft	British	1
Chess Theory and Practice	Morry, W. Ritson and Mitchell, W. Melville	1967	Misc.	soft	British	1
Chess Traps, Pitfalls and Swindles	Horwitz, I.A. and Reinfeld, Fred	1954	Tactics	soft	British	1
Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations and Games	Polgar, Laszlo	1994	Tactics	soft	Algebraic	1
Chess: The Search for Mona Lisa	Gufeld, Eduard	2001	Misc.	soft	Algebraic	1
Classic Chess Problems	Howard, Kenneth	1970	Tactics	soft	Algebraic	1
Encyclopedia of Chess Wisdom	Schiller, Eric	2000	Misc.	soft	Algebraic	1
Essential Chess Endings Explained Move by Move (Vol. II)	Smith, Ken	1992	Endgame	soft	Algebraic	1
Evans Gambit and a System Versus Two Knights' Defense	Harding, Tim	1996	Specific - Opening	soft	Algebraic	1
First Book of Chess	Horwitz, I.A. and Reinfeld, Fred	1952	Misc.	soft	British	1
Fischer Spassky	Roberts, Richard	1972	Narrative	soft	British	1
Fundamental Chess Endings	Muller, Karsten and Lamprecht, Frank	2001	Endgame	soft	Algebraic	1
How Good is Your Chess?	Barden, Leonard	1976	Misc.	soft	British	1
How to Force Checkmate	Reinfeld, Fred	1958	Puzzle	soft	British	1
How to Improve Your Chess	Horowitz, I.A. and Reinfeld, Fred	1973	Misc.	soft	British	1
How To Play the Chess Openings	Znosko-Borovsky, Eugene	1971	Openings	soft	British	1
How to Play the Endgame in Chess	Barden, Leonard	1975	Endgame	soft	British	1
How to Play Winning Chess	Reinfeld, Fred	1972	Misc.	soft	British	1
How to Reassess Your Chess	Silman, Jeremy	1993	Misc.	soft	Algebraic	1
How to Solve Chess Problems	Howard, Kenneth	1961	Puzzle	soft	British	1
How to Think Ahead in Chess	Horowitz, I.A. and Reinfeld, Fred	1951	Misc.	soft	British	1
Hypermodern Opening Repetoire for White	Schiller, Eric	1999	Openings	soft	Algebraic	1
Ideas Behind The Ches Openings	Fine, Ruben	1949	Openings	soft	British	1
Mastering the Opening	Jacobs, Bryan	2003	Openings	soft	Algebraic	1
Mitchell's Guide to the Game of Chess	Mitchell, David	1915	Misc.	Hard	British	1
Modern Chess Openings (11th ed.)	Korn, Walter	1972	Openings	hard	British	1
Modern Chess Openings (14th ed.)	de Firmian, Nick	1999	Openings	soft	Algebraic	1
Modern Chess Strategy	Lasker, Edward	1968	Misc.	soft	British	1
Modern Chess Tactics	Pachman, Ludek	1970	Tactics	soft	British	1
More Chessercizes: Checkmate!	Pandolfini, Bruce	1991	Puzzle	soft	Algebraic	2
New Ideas in Chess	Evans, Larry	1972	Misc.	soft	British	1
Pandolfini's Chess Complete	Pandolfini, Bruce	1992	Narrative	soft	none	1
Pawn Power in Chess	Kmoch, Hans	1990	Misc.	soft	British	1
Play Winning Chess	Seirawan, Yasser	1990	Misc.	soft	Algebraic	1
Play Winning Chess	Seirawan, Yasser	1995	Misc.	soft	Algebraic	1
Rapid Chess Improvements	de la Maza, Michael	2002	Narrative	soft	Algebraic	1
Searching for Bobby Fischer	Waitzkin, Fred	1988	Narrative	Hard	none	1
Simple Chess	Emms, John	2001	Misc.	soft	Algebraic	1
Standard Chess Openings	Schiller, Eric	2000	Openings	soft	Algebraic	1
The ABCs of Chess	Pandolfini, Bruce	1986	Misc.	soft	Algebraic	1
The Amatuer's Mind	Silman, Jeremy	1999	Misc.	soft	Algebraic	1
The Art of Sacrifice in Chess	Spielmann, Rudolf	1995	Tactics	soft	British	1
The Basics of Winning Chess	Cantrell, Jacob	2002	Misc.	soft	Algebraic	1
The Chess Café Puzzle Book	Muller, Karsten	2004	Puzzle	soft	Algebraic	1
The Chess Companion	Chernev, Irving	1968	Narrative	soft	British	1
The Chess Mysteries of the Arabian Knights	Smullyan, Raymond	1981	Logic	soft	None	1
The Complete Book of Chess Strategy	Silman, Jeremy	1998	Misc.	soft	Algebraic	1
The Complete Chessplayer	Reinfeld, Fred	1953	Misc.	soft	British	1
The Complete Chessplayer	Reinfeld, Fred	1992	Misc.	soft	British	1
The Fireside Book of Chess	Chernev, Irving & Reinfeld, Fred	1949	Misc.	soft	Algebraic	1
The Game of Chess	Golombek, Harry	1980	Misc.	Soft	British	1
The Golden Treasury of Chess	Wellmuth, Francis	1943	Misc.	Hard	British	1
The Grunfeld Defense	Hartson, William	1971	Specific - Opening	hard	British	1
The Logical Approach to Chess	Euwe, Max, Blaine, M., Rumble, J.F.S	1958	Misc.	soft	British	2
The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played	Chernev, Irving	1992	Misc.	soft	British	1
The Official Laws of Chess	MacMillian Chess Library	1989	Narrative	Hard	none	1
The Pan Book of Chess	Abraham, Gerald	1983	Misc.	soft	British	1
The Petroff Defense	Forintos, Gyozo and Haag, Ervin	1991	Specific - Opening	soft	Algebraic	1
Weapons of Chess	Pandolfini, Bruce	1989	Misc.	soft	none	2
Winning Chess	Chernev, Irving and Reinfeld, Fred	1948	Tactics	soft	British	2
Winning Chess Brilliancies	Seirawan, Yasser	1995	Tactics	soft	Algebraic	2
Winning Chess Openings	Reinfeld, Fred	1973	Openings	soft	British	1
Winning Chess Tactics	Robertie, Bill	1996	Tactics	soft	Notational	1
Winning Chess: Strategies	Seirawan, Yasser	1994	Misc.	soft	Algebraic	1
Winning Chess: Strategies	Seirawan, Yasser	2004	Misc.	soft	Algebraic	1
Winning Chess: Tactics	Seirawan, Yasser	2004	Tactics	soft	Algebraic	1
Winning With the Philidor	Kosten, Tony	2001	Specific - Opening	soft	Algebraic	1
Your Chess Questions Answered	Lalic, Susan	1999	Narrative	soft	Algebraic	1

					TOTAL	96

Howdy

2008-07-13T23:10:00.001-04:00

NN vs. BlueEyedRook

07/13/08

Free Internet Chess Server

(Blitz 2'12)

Black-to-Move

I am alive.

And I am still playing chess. Why almost 9 months of silence? Long story . . . .

Anyways, came to this position the other day. Black is clearly winning, white has just played 1. Rh3 preventing checkmate. What's is black's best reply?

1... g3## is checkmate. Hardly rocket-science, but a nice little move that could be easily overlooked in the throngs of quick-moving, little-time-to-think blitz chess.

Good vs. Evil (Part Two)

2007-10-29T22:47:00.000-04:00

It’s been crazy times for ol’ BlueEyedRook. The non-chess world has been consuming way too much of his time. It’s been two long weeks without a posting – that’s way too long.

My apologies.

Well, what is there to talk about? D’uh! There is only one thing to talk about -- this Wednesday night’s WWIII-style matchup between the Boston Blitz and the Philadelphia Inventors. What’s at stake? EVERYTHING! The entire Eastern conference of the USCL for starters. Then there is the psychological prize that the winner will take into the playoffs – where Boston and Philadelphia will very likely meet one last time.

Team manager Michael Shahade would kill me if I (even jokingly) made any predictions about the game. I have learned to keep my fat mouth shut. (see here)). However, let’s discuss a couple factors that will be pivotall to Wednesday’s game.

1) Momentum. Boston itself admits that it is currently in some kind of slump. They . . . . gasp . . . tied both New Jersey and Queens in the previous weeks. (Got to love a team who considers two consecutive draws a slump – if you are trying to intimidate us, Boston, it is working.). Philadelphia, however, is on a winning streak. Indeed, in the previous weeks they beat the very same New Jersey and Queens teams that Boston could only muster draws against. This momentum is clearly noticeable at the individual level tool. For example, Philly NM Bryan Adams hasn’t lost a single game in his last three appearances; Boston’s Chris Williams, on the other hand, has lost his last two games. “Momentum” is a very tricky variable to factor, but all have to agree Philly has the edge here.

2) History. This is not the first game between these two teams. They played very early in the year. The result? A 3.5 to .5 spanking by Boston. This has been (by far) the biggest loss for the Philly squad this year. From a psychological standpoint, this devastating defeat will weigh heavily on the Philly team.

3) Curse(?). The Red Sox won the World Series – sweeping the Rockies four games to nothing. The New England Patriots are looking virtually unstoppable in the NFL (they beat the Redskins 52 to 7 on Sunday!). In short, Boston, as a whole, is having a pretty good frickin’ year. Philadelphia, on the other hand, is Philadelphia. The city really is amazing. It hasn’t won a sports championship since 1983 – the biggest slump for any city fielding four professional sports team (hockey, baseball, basketball, and football). Even better -- the Philadelphia Phillies became the first team this year to lose its 10,000 professional game. The city will always have “Rocky,” but fictional characters aside, the city hasn’t produced a winner of any kind in decades. Will the city’s curse continue into the chess world?

4) Underdog Syndrome. How remarkable is Philadelphia’s performance this year? Well, though they are tied for second place in the East and have assured a playoff spot, they were predicted to win the USCL championship by only 4% of voters in a USCL poll (Boston received 28%; New York 14%). Indeed, many people predicted that Philly would be in the conference's basement (prompting tearful apology letters). Conversations with Team Manager Shahade have suggested that this, indeed, might be Philly’s greatest weapon – they are often sorely underestimated. Will Boston make the same mistake so many others have made this year?

Alleluhiah!

2007-10-12T22:55:00.000-04:00

"There is a God somewhere . . . ."

Boston Blitz, the seemingly unstoppable chess juggernaut of the USCL was handed its first loss of the season by the New York Knights Wednesday night.

More than resurrecting New York's imperiled playoff ambitions, Wednesday's win showed the USCL league that Boston is not a an invincible chess machine. . . . it can bleed. And as the the Schwarzeneggar line goes -- "If it bleeds, we can kill it." (click here for quote -- Predator, love that movie! ). The Knights' win gives hope to the all the teams in the East that some how, some way, they too can overcome the Boston chess monster.

Reality, however, prevents too much optimism. The Blitz were without two of their strongest players Wednesday night. And as we all know from their websites and blog postings, Boston is by far the most enthusiastic and spirited team in the league. (For God's sake, they even have a song -- "Chris is Awesome" which I love by the way.). Simply put -- there is no way you can crush this team's morale (indeed, Wednesday's loss may have only empowered it).

Still, we learned that the Blitz is beatable. . . . it can, indeed, lose. Hopefully the other chess teams will learn from New York's efforts. (Personal prediction: every team from here on out will announce before playing the Blitz that they "guarantee" victory!).

The UnHoly Beast . . . .

2007-10-07T17:19:00.001-04:00

"And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns . . . . and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?"
-- Revelations 13:1 to 13:4

Like a Ted Kennedy Senatorial campaign or a Ben Affleck romantic-comedy (ex. Jersey Girl -- blah!), an evil, seemingly insurmountable force has emerged from the depths of Boston. Its name is the "Boston Blitz" and much like the dreaded Seven-Headed Beast that will terrorize mankind during the "End of Days," this chess-juggernaut/anti-christ is wreaking havoc among the USCL chess world.

Its ominous number is not 666, but .905 the insane (but probably, “oh, so horribly accurate”) calculation the Boylston Chess Club has assigned to the Blitz as a power rating (see here). And its many heads are not of leopards or other Biblical entities, but Boston’s chess elite – seemingly able to dominate any players unfortunate enough to be scheduled against them.

As the season looms on, and more teams fall by the Beast’s cursed wayside (our beloved Philly team was beat 3.5/.5!) . . . the question on most people’s minds is “can It be killed?”

It might take a Second Coming of Christ. . . . or GM Pascal Charbonneau and a couple of his clones (see here). Until then, all we mortals can do is just tremble in fear, tear at our hair in agony, and pray to God -- in his ultimate mercy -- to grant us deliverance.

Believe it or not that's my way of saying "good luck" to the New York Knights -- playing the Blitz this Wednesday night. (I got to visit your chess club this weekend -- very nice! I appreciate the hospitality!).

Hail to the Chief!

2007-09-27T23:04:00.000-04:00

IM Richard Costigan (2287)

The Philadelphia Inventors won a key game Wednesday night against the Queens Pioneers. Winning the only decive game at the Franlin Mercantile Chess Club in Philadelphia was the club's President, Richard Costigan. It was enought to give Philly the win!

I know what you are all asking: "BlueEyedRook, please provide us the Class-E analysis that only your "special" chess-playing background can provide." Your wish is my command . . . . let's look at one of the key moves of the game.

Costigan's opponent has just played 30. Nd4 in what has – up to now – been a pretty even game. Unfortunately, this proves to be a costly mistake. Richardson, again, demonstrates his ruthlessness at exploiting the slightest of errors.

30 . . . Nxf3+ (see below) is decisive.

White must clearly retake the knight, but neither of his three options are favorable.

Option 1 -- 31. Qxf3 is the biggest of the losing moves as black can simply pile his pieces on the lower right hand side of the board (see diagram below showing how easy black's pieces, highlighted in red, can wreak havoc on white's kingside). This proves for some downright devastating continuations all starting with 31… Bxd4+.

Option 2 -- 31. gxf3 is better, but still a clear loser. 31… Bxd4+ not only regains the sacrificed knight at the expense of a white pawn, but it leaves white with not two, not three, but four isolated pawns. Add to this the gaping hole in front of white’s king, and this spells a clear advantage for black (see diagram below).

Option 3 -- 31. Nxf3, the move actually chosen, eliminates the 31. . . Bxd4+ option that plagued the other two contenders, but white’s position is no less better as black now has three of his pieces (highlighted in red in diagram below) looming down on the knight – which is only guarded by two pieces. 31. . . Rxd4 is inevitable and again white finds itself a pawn short and with a whole heck of a bunch of trouble staring down the kingside.

Costigan went on to decively win the game.

From a club-level perspective, I like to see moves like this. Each of the continuations after 30. Nd4 is simple to see and realize on its own, but it is Costigan's ability to recognize all three variations (and quickly -- that chess clock never stops ticking) that separates him from the rest of us -- mere mortals! Nice game!

Congratz to the Philly team on their fine win!

The USCL -- Assessing the Openings

2007-09-17T21:12:00.000-04:00

It's Week Four of the USCL and already 72 chess games have come and past. With a universe of 72 games, it’s extremely difficult to analyze the openings statistically. However, even with 72 games, some interesting patterns are already emerging.

First of all, the black pieces are taking a pounding! Even the most average chess player knows that Black is traditionally disadvantaged – this perhaps is best demonstrated by the USCL’s MVP point system where players receive a full extra point if they win with the black pieces. Still, by the end of Week Three, Black has an exceptionally pathetic record. (See Chart Below).

Theories? Well, again the season is young and this could just be a deviation (again, 72 games is hardly a large sampling pool). But could it be something more subtle and distinct regarding USCL play? I wonder if, during a match, the players playing with black lay off a tad and play for the draw hoping that their teammates with white will gain the crucial wins to win the match. This may not be a good thing. As Bobby Fischer once said: "The turning point in my career came with the realization that Black should play to win instead of just steering for equality." Could the USCL format be promoting the exact opposite reaction for the black pieces – and to Black’s ultimate disadvantage?

****************************

The other interesting pattern is the dominance of the Sicilian Defense. (See Chart Below). Take 1. e4 (which was played the majority of the time). The Sicilian is the dominating response with 57% (again, using my Chessmaster 9000 database as a very imperfect measuring stick -- the average is 46.2%). The move that seems to be being "neglected" is 1... e5 (with the Chessmaster Average being 20.9%).

I thought, originally, that perhaps the Chessmaster database was skewing the results. Most notably is the fact that the database lists in its 500,000+ games several hundreds from the 18th and 19th centuries -- far before 1... c5 was even remotely fashionable. But, I took a look at http://www.redhotpawn.com/gamesexplorer 's "Over 1900" database (filled with games from their best ranked players in the site's relatively short history), and again it seems that in USCL play 1... c5 is enjoying a hefty dose of popularity at the expense of 1...e5 (Here, the Sicilian was played 44.0% of the time, while 1... e5 was played29.35% of the time).

As the season continues along, and as more games are finished, more accurate statistical assesments can be made. In the meantime though -- as a piece of worthless advice from a Class-E, patzer like myself -- I would advise the league players to pay extra-special attention to the Sicilian Defense. The way league-play is going -- chances are you will see it much more than usual.

(For those of you curious . . . . after 2. Nf3 variety quickly kicks in: 2… d6 was played 44.4% of the time; 2… e6 27.7%; and 2… Nc6 22.2% of the time.)

The Day After . . . . .

2007-09-13T21:52:00.000-04:00

Where to begin. . . .

Well, it’s official . . . I am full of absolute crap.

Pretty much everything I predicted for Wednesday night’s matchup between the Boston Blitz and Philadelphia Inventors proved to be wrong.

My biased/joking-prediction that Philadelphia would sweep Boston 4-0 proved to be slightly inaccurate. (Unless you realize that my prediction was made on “Opposite Day” and that I was actually secretly referring to Boston sweeping Philadelphia). (The Eagles are still going to the Super Bowl, right?).

My impartial/serious-prediction that there would be “roughly three to four draws” also proved to be dead-on wrong. Boston came out swinging. Even with black, they seemed to always be playing for the win.

The only thing I got right was that Wednesday night’s games wouldn’t be a “yawn-fest.” Unfortunately, it was Boston providing all the fireworks.

Is all lost?

Not even close. As Michael Shahade explained to me prior to Wednesday night’s matchup, Philadelphia will always do better when it’s the underdog. Philly and Boston will almost certainly meet again. Wednesday’s loss certainly puts Philly in the “underdog role” for winning the Eastern Conference. Hopefully, as Michael suggested, this is when Philly will be most dangerous. This is a tough loss for Philly, but I know they'll bounce back.

Boston vs. Philadelphia

2007-09-12T21:43:00.000-04:00

Note: Internet postings are reporting that Boston has beaten Philly 3.5 to .5 That was some "wicked-cool" chess. (May this cartoon guy (left) continue to haunt your dreams, Boston!)

************************************

Tomorrow is Mrs. BlueEyedRook’s 30th Birthday. Rather than taking her out to that $200-plus Italian dinner tomorrow night, I asked if she’d rather accompany me to the Franklin Mercantile Chess Club to watch the Philadelphia Inventors battle the Boston Blitz. I got a very firm “no.”

Women? (I just don't get them.)

Thus, unfortunately, I won’t be able to do much posting tomorrow night after the games are all said and done. Instead, I can only offer my in-depth, action-packed, chess pictures. (When I left around 8:30PM things still looked pretty even. We'll see . . . .).

Enjoy.

Philadelphia was using its lineup from last week (the same lineup it used to defeat the New York Knights).

NM "Faceless" Elvin Wilson (2240)

I finally got a clean facial shot of NM sensation Elvin Wilson. (Upon taking the shot, my camera was instantly seized by a series of black-suited men who scurried my camera away to an “undisclosed” secret government location. When I got the camera back, all that was left was this.).

GM Sergey Kudrin (2605) (right) & FM Michael Shahade (left)

Sitting at Table One again was GM Sergey Kudrin. In addition to dealing with annoying chess bloggers (i.e., me), Sergey had to deal with occasional taunts from several of the Philadelphia Inventors "alternates" on hand to harass. . . . errhhh…. root for their team.

IM Bryan Smith (2442)
IM Bryan Smith was back at his usual spot. No coffee this week . . . I suspect he hasn't slept since last week's cup. (Incidentally, Wawa is suing me for last week’s posting).

"Grandpa" Daniel Yeager (2313)

("This Blue-Eyed Rook guy is here every week... make him go away!!!!")

Yeager’s game started 15 minutes late. Not sure what the hold up was. Either a serious computer problem or his opponent was baffled with Daniel’s initial, unorthodox move: 1. d4!?.

IM Richard Costigan (2287), WGM Jennifer Shahade (2318)
& FM Michael Shahade

As mentioned there were several of the Philadelphia Inventors "alternates" on hand to watch the exciting match. Michael mentioned that "Jen" was coming and like an idiot, I automatically spurted out "The Chess Bitch?!" There was an awkward 5 second silence as I waited for Michael to bash my head in . . . he didn't. Guess he's use to it.

Jerome Works

The Inventors "Fifth Man" doing what he does every week . . . keeping everyone's games running smoothly.

???

Not sure who this guy is . . . apparently he plays chess and has a slight resemblance to Elvin Wilson.

Game Day, baby.... Game Day.

2007-09-10T21:48:00.001-04:00

Give 'em Hell, Philly!

Much more talented and knowledgable people have weighed in on Wednesday night's slug-fest between Boston and Philadelphia. I think most people are giving Boston the edge . . . but I note these all seem to be Bostonians!!!

As the one Philly USCL blogger, I am personally predicting Philadelphia will win 4-0 in an amazing shutout, but as the picture, above, shows -- I am slightly biased. (Incidentally, the Eagles are also going to win the Superbowl, and the Phillies the Pennant).

I guess as a more impartial view, I supect Wednesday's game will focus on "conserative chess." No crazy antics, gambits or other ploys . . . I expect both teams will start up with conservative openings that proceed into equally conserative middle games. Both teams sit at the top of the Eastern Conference and are undefeated -- both know full well that they will probably face each other somewhere in the playoffs (at least if current predictions are accurate). Thus, I suspect Wednesday will largely be a "testing ground" as both teams size each other up and try to assess one another. I wouldn't be shocked if 3 or all 4 of the games draw.

Yawn fest Wednesday night? Hardly! As USCL games have shown, even the slightest error or miscalculations are costing players games and teams wins! As always, human/computer error (what better way to define "mouse slips"?!) will be a potential issue as lots of sweaty and shaky hands operate the computers during this tense and highly-anticipated Wednesday matchup.

As always, pictures are promised!

Looking forward to some awesome chess!

An Undefeated Philadelphia Team?!

2007-09-06T19:13:00.000-04:00

I am pretty new to Philadelphia… I keep hearing all this talk about some sport team called the “Philadelphia Eagles.” Apparently, they are pretty popular in this town.

Well. . . . I say forget those clowns – we got the “Philadelphia Inventors” – one of two US Chess League teams to remain undefeated! On Wednesday night they clobbered the New York Knights (so much so, that apparently half of the league insiders are already readjusting (i.e., flat-out revising!) their playoff predictions)! (Note: According to the USCL website poll, 24% of voters chose New York to win the trophy this year, while only 4% chose Philadelphia).

Theories are abound regarding the Inventors success and undefeated record. Obviously, having GM powerhouse Sergey Kudrin (2605) at “table one” is a key factor. Also, the Inventors seem to have something to prove after the debacle last year that kept them from the playoffs. (On a personal note, I have noticed that for the past two weekends the local networks have been playing all four of the Rocky movies. I am convinced no Philadelphia-based sports team can ever lose if that Rocky music is playing in the background somewhere – “It’s the eye of the tiger . . . .”).

GM Sergey Kudrin (2605)

Sitting at “table one” in the coveted “cushy seat” at the Franklin Mercantile chess club (this isn’t a clever euphuism – I think it’s the only chair in the chess club with some semblance of a cushion) was, once again, Sergey Kudrin. We needed him, too! Bearing down across from him (100 miles away in New York) was GM Pascal Charbonneau (2536). The game resulted in a draw.

IM Bryan Smith (2442)

Back in his usual spot was IM Bryan Smith. Again, Bryan’s chess playing is a wonderment to behold. Highlighted in the picture is a large cup of “Wawa Cofee.” For those of you unfamiliar with Wawa cofee (especially all my foreign readers) it is worthy of explanation. Technically the beverage does contain elements of coffee (or something that once was coffee), but it pretty much consists of 90% sugar and 10% some other “mystery fluid” (my personal guess is anti-freeze). Either way this stuff is potent (as in “you-will-not-be-getting-sleep-until-next-Thursday” potent)– and Bryan is sitting here drinking a large! (I doubt I would be able to see much less play chess after drinking a large cup of Wawa coffee). It didn’t seem to phase Bryan though – he scored a nice draw for the Inventors against the higher-ranked Irina Krush.

NM Elvin Wilson (2240)

I am told Elvin does have an actual face and one day (hopefully, sooner than later) I’ll get a picture of it. In the meantime – damn my poor photography skills – I can only offer this slightly improved (from last week) aerial shot. Elvin once again opted to forgo using the accompanying chess board and just used the computer screen – again, the only one doing so. Whatever his system – it works – he scored a big win for the Inventors.

Daniel Yeager (2313)

Daniel “ol’man” Yeager sat for his first game of the season on Wednesday night. I hadn’t met him yet so I walked in and made my introductions. Turns out, unbeknownst to me, his game had already started and when I walked in it was his turn to move. As if the moved pieces on his chessboard in front of me wasn’t enough of a clue, I stood there just yapping away for like three or four minutes. Well, he sat there patiently and politely – listening to my crap – as his time slowly slipped away. I finally realized what was going on and left. I thought that if he lost, I might be permanently banned from Chess League (at least the Philadelphia team). He didn’t though. He scored a huge upset win against a higher ranked player. Awesome -- I can still show my face at the games!

I plan to look at all the games during the next couple days and hopefully offer patzer-level analysis -- stay tuned!

Philadelphia Beats Miami in Week One

2007-09-01T10:59:00.000-04:00

Well, the Philadelphia Inventors won their first game of the season this week with a win over the Miami Sharks. Three of the four games were draws, so all the attention turned to the Costigan/Roman match.

Costigan,R (2287) - MorenoRoman,A (2387) [B20]USCL Philadelphia vs Miami (1)

8-29-2007

Black to Move

Well . . . as any chess player knows, chess is an evil, evil game. One simple move, can result in utter disaster. Unfortunately for black, he is about to be the latest victim. Costigan has just given check with his rook on d7 and (of course) now black must move his black king. The key question is where?

Black opts for 1… Ke8? and virtually throws away the game. Now, as a patzer myself… throwing away a game usually consists of hanging your queen or missing the obvious mate in two. Unfortunately, at this level of chess, “throwing away games” consists nothing more than one lost pawn. This is exactly what happens here.

Black’s line of thinking is far from egregious. After 1… Ke8. 2. Rxg7, he can still play 2… Rxf3+ (see diagram to left). This represents a “pawn for a pawn” exchange and initially doesn’t look all that bad. However, the damage is done. Costigan’s rook and king are in excellent position to snatch up the remaining black pawn. The only trick is that Costigan must be sure to guard his own g3 pawn – luckily the rook on the g-file is in excellent position to do just this.

3. Ke4 Ra3. 4. Kf4 Kf8. 5. Rg5 seals the poor black pawn’s fate. (See diagram below)

Black can delay the inevitable with a couple checks, but in the end the black pawn is lost and white has a winning two pawn advantage.

Returning to the original position, black’s better move was 1… Kf8 and forgoing the doomed pawn exchange.

After Note: Incidentally, I have been told that black's move 1... e8 was actually a mouse-slip. . . . ah, another joy of online chess!!!.

US Chess League -- Opening Day!!!

2007-08-29T22:32:00.000-04:00

The results are only now starting to trickle their way across the internet, but I thought I would share my "behind the scenes" pictures of the Philadelphia Inventors (yay!) taking on the Miami Sharks (boo!) during their first scheduled match of the 2007 US Chess League Season. I actually had to leave early (damn, you work!). So, I'll probably have to post the results tomorrow complete with the patzer, monday-morning quarterbacking analysis that only a crappy player like I can provide.

GM Sergey Kudrin (2605)

I have reviewed multiple of Sergey's games prior to his recruitment to the Philadelphia team. It was awesome to shake hands with an actual GM!

IM Bryan Smith (2442)

Bryan gets extra points in my book. First, he told me before the game that he was trying to give up smoking. That's courage. You start up chess league the same time you are going through nicotine withdrawl.... wow! Second, the 6'2 plus player opted to play in a room where the doorways were about 5'8 inches. (I personally bumped my head no less than three times -- and I am only 6'0).

IM Richard Costigan (2287)

Richard is the president of the Franklin Mercantile Chess Club -- the playing ground for the Philadelphia Inventors. Unfortunately, the FMCC is not big on basking their officers with tons of perks -- Richard got the seat all the way in the back room by himself. He, also, had a good five-10 minute delay or so getting started compared to the rest of the squad. Ah, the joys of executive privilege . . . .

NM Elvin Wilson (2240)

(Sorry for the bad shot, Elvin). Elvin was the only player who opted not to use his accompanying chess board (note the unmoved pieces to his right). This, actually, fascinated me. Playing 95% of my chess on the computer, I find playing OTB ("over the board") games awkward. Wonder if he is the same way? Incidentally, as of 10:00 PM EST, Elvin's was the only game to have finished and with the result posted on the internet. He drew with the black pieces.

Chess -- The Dark, Underside

2007-08-20T22:37:00.000-04:00

I met my first real "chess addict" the other day. . . .

He wasn't a person who simply played chess a lot or someone who loved the game -- he was a true "addict." He had virtually no job, no life, no friends, and nothing outside of the 64 squares you see on the board. He was the type of person who knew lines of the Sicilian Defense about 20 moves down -- but about whom you seriously wondered about last time he ate or even showered.

He told me he "used to be different," but that Chess had an opium-like effect over him. When it hit, he began spending all his free time playing the game. Soon he was using his work and social-time -- time he couldn't spend.

I have heard of these types, but never really met one until now.

Do you think Chess is addictive? Know any addicts? I am taking a survey to probe this generally ugly part of the game (click below).

Cast Your Vote

Free Vote Casters by Bravenet.com

Oh, Crapola......

2007-08-20T21:37:00.000-04:00

NN vs. BlueEyedRook

http://www.redhotpawn.com/

(Black to Move)

For those of you still not playing on Redhotpawn, you are missing out. Hands down it is the best place to play correspondence chess.

There's two -- and only two! -- downsides. 1) It is a pay to use site. You can play for free, but you can only play like 6 games at a time (I am currently playing 50+ . . . and was looking to add some more!). 2) It's correspondence chess. Why is correspondence chess a bad thing, you ask? Because of the position above.

I won't reveal NN's rank, but it's a good 200 points above me on Redhotpawn. So, I was pretty happy to be in a endgame where the material was pretty much even. White has just checked me with his queen. There is two (and only two!) moves. Which one is correct?

Well, like a complete bozo I played the wrong move 1... Qe7?. Why is this so bad? It's called Chess Tactics 101!

White's reply is 2. Qb8+!! which wins the game. The move forks black's king and the unguarded black bishop (see left in red). Black can only play 2... Qe8 with the inevitable 3. Qxb2.

The move I should have made (the only other move I could have made!) was 1... Kg8. The c5 pawn would be lost, but the game would still be about even.

Correspondence chess is evil... evil I tell you. You can play days (more accurately weeks) to only throw a game away with one single act of utter stupidty.

The Top Youtube Chess Videos

2007-08-06T21:02:00.003-04:00

It might be "Enemy Number One" for American Democracy (see CNN/Democratic Debates), but, otherwise, Youtube is pretty damn cool!

Like most things internet-related, it is a victim of its own success. Yes, there are hundreds of good videos out there -- free to watch! But, there is also thousand videos of absolute, unadulterated crap.

To help you filter through the junk, I chose a couple of the videos I found to be the most interesting and entertaining. So without further ado, I present Youtube's Top Chess Videos.

A Pawn is Born
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghF7njMgZgs
This shows a pawn piece being made from a cylinder of metal…. oh, in about one minute! It’s fascinating and hypnotic to watch at the same time.

How you, (yes, you!) can simultaneously take on 10 chess grandmasters and achieve at least an even score!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaODx-alm4k
This magician shows you how anyone (even you!) can walk into a simul chess tournament and totally kick butt (well, at least beat half of them). It’s a little long, but the video is good . . . . and the ending is, well, just remarkable (how’d he do that?!).

Seinfeld Chess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc4IPH7XQBA
It’s Seinfeld… It’s George…. It’s chess. No more needs to be said!

Cute Chess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QmnpUS6mro
Pixar has their “Old Man Chess” cartoon that came out not too long ago, but I found this one to be a lot better and a hell of lot more interesting to watch. One comment: So all the white pieces don’t mind the one white pawn dating the black queen?

Speed Chess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StnAGJDBjfo&mode=related&search=
You can find speed chess all over YouTube, but these two guys impressed me the most.

Fight Club Chess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3rryxkgx9g&mode=related&search=
Laying out the blueprint for how we can make chess clubs exciting again. (I wonder if I played the Philidor if I would just automatically have my face bashed in?).

---UPDATED---

The Beautiful Ladies of Chess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_gZMFp4R14
Alright, alright, alright. Let's face it. The game is dominated by men. Thus, we are dumbstruck when woman players enter the scene. Now take a woman player (who is not only awesome) but drop-dead gorgeous and WOW! This whole video is dedicated to these chess-playing beauties.

"One Night in Bangok"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnqj31VPNoE
From "Chess" the Musical. Admit it. You like it.

The Philidor Opening

2007-07-29T21:39:00.000-04:00

As I alluded to in my earlier post, (see below) the Philidor's one redeeming quality (perhaps its only!) is that white is limited to only a handful of lines. When examining opening moves (especially at a macro level), I have always found it useful to examine not only what the "Pros" (i.e., grandmasters) play, but also what every-day, normal folks play. They usually match up, but often some key disparities emerge. For example, the chart (see left) shows the common responses to the Philidor (1. e4 e5. 2. Nf3 d6.). 3. d5 is the dominant choice at the "pro level" and it's also the dominant move at "the non-pro level." However, you can see at the non-professional level, this dominance is no where near as strong.

The rumors of my death . . . .

2007-04-21T00:04:00.000-04:00

Have been greatly exaggerated!

BlueEyedRook lives and more importantly -- still plays chess. I appreciate everyone's concern for me after I disappeared for a couple months, but chess is like a bad drug, you can try to leave it. . . try to ignore it . . . but in the end you just end up coming right back to it. On that note . . .

Still not going to Chess Tactics Server (http://chess.emrald.net/) to practice your chess tactics? Are you on crack? Or just plain stupid? I can't say it enough -- for any chess amateur serious about improving his or her game, this site is Gold (note the great big capital "G"). Know this site inside and out. What you'll gain from just a few minutes here a day will benefit you more in the long run than probably what you'd learn from 10 full games.

Here's a recent problem I ran across. Hardly Bobby Fischer level stuff here, but it illustrates a good point -- the king makes a very poor defender. Since, it has to often take flight when attacked, it is especially bad at guarding its fellow pieces.

Black is about to play 1... Rxd4?? and make a horrible, horrible error. Do you understand why? In fairness to black, that a4-pawn is sitting unprotected. Sure, the two white rooks are barreling down the d-file on the d8-bishop, but things are cool, correct? The h8-rook is guarding it, as is the black king itself. Everything will be fine if black just goes ahead and snatches that a4-pawn, right? The black king and h8-rook have things under control, right?

Wrong!!!

As mentioned before (say it with me!) the king makes for a poor defender. White can easily take advantage of this fact. After 1... Rxa4??, white plays 2. Rd7+. Black then plays his only move, 2... Ke8. And then we see black's problem. Because the king has been jostled from its original position, it is now blocking the protection provided to the black bishop by the h8-rook. White not only gets to capture the overwhelmed bishop, but in the end white will gain the h8-rook as well. 3. Rd8+ (See Diagram Left). This leaves 3. . .Ke7 (black's only move) and 4. Rxh8 inevitably to follow.

Mate in Three

2006-10-17T23:04:00.000-04:00

BlueEyedRook vs. NN

Sept. 2006

www.redhotpawn.com

(White to move -- Mate in Three)

I find "Mate In Threes" to be the "magic problems" for me. "Mate In Twos" are generally too easy. A player will long resign before any of them turn up for me to "solve" them. "Mate In Fours," however, are a tad too difficult to catch -- They easily fall under the radar screen and I almost never catch them. "Mate In Threes" offer that perfect compromise -- hard enough that opponents will miss, but not so difficult to go unnoticed. This game is a perfect example.

If you chose 1. Qg6+, I guess I can give you half credit. Ol' Chessmaster gives this as Mate in Seven (way far above my chess understanding!). The correct moves are: 1. Bg6+ Ke7. 2. Qxg7+ Rf7. 3. Qxf7# 1-0 (See Left).

Chess' Loveable Loser -- The Philidor Defense

2006-09-04T22:34:00.001-04:00

There’s a scene in The Untouchables where Sean Connery, playing a street-wise Chicago cop, and Kevin Costner, playing prohibition crusader, Elliot Ness, are standing outside of one of Al Capone’s many Chicago bootleg liquor factories. All that separates the two federal agents from the prohibited liquor is a small door and, of course, the fury and retribution that Al Capone and his army of thugs will reign down upon them for challenging the mob’s iron grip of Chicago.Sean Connery, reluctant, but ultimately willing to help bring down Capone, wants to make sure Elliot Ness knows what he is about to get into: “lf you walk through this door, you're walking into a world of trouble. There's no turning back. Do you understand?”

That’s how I sum up the Philidor Defense: once you take it up, your stuck with it forever. And that probably is not a good thing.

Be forewarned . . . .

Be advised . . . .

Be so told . . . .

The opening is not for everyone – indeed the the opening just barely straddles the line of respectability. You can play it at a chess tournament and not be laughed at, but I guarantee you your opponent will almost always be thinking to himself “Thank God, it looks like I am playing an idiot.” It’s amazing to me how many respectable chess authors and books do not even discuss the opening any more (choosing more popular(?) or successful(?) openings like the From). Worse yet, the commentators who do discuss it describe it as best an inferior alternative to 2… Nc6.

“By consensus, it seems that Philidor . . . [is] useful but that [2… Nc6] is preferable.” Charles Abrahams, The Pan Book of Chess (1983).

“The early twentieth-century greats Nimzovich, Tartakower, Alekhine and Marco used it occasionally, but the opening has been out of style since then.” Nick de Firmian, Modern Chess Openings (14th ed.) (1999).

“The Philidor Defense has a terrible reputation . . . . The only viable line is the one Larsen promoted [3. d4 exd4. 4. Nxd4 g6]. . . .” Eric Schiller, Standard Chess Openings (2000).

“[Regarding the Philidor Defense and the usual 3. d4] [b]lack has a sorry choice between giving up pawn control of the center [3… exd4], and maintaining Pawn control of the center [3… Nd7] – being burdened in either event with a congested, unpromising position.” Fred Reinfeld, The Complete Chess Player (1987).

If scholastic criticism wasn't bad enough, the poor Philidor has to deal with its horrendous track record. The chart below summarizes the Philidor under four different chess game databases. (White represents a white win; black a black win; and grey a draw). Not only does white win a lot, but black seldom wins.

But that is the good news . . . the charts above represent top-level games (involving top players). When one looks at the performance at the club/amateur level (the level 95% of us -- myself included -- play at), the defense looks downright pathetic.

With such a “rosy” endorsement from chess literature and a dubious looking track record, the obvious question begs itself: why on earth play it? My answer to this is the same as Tony Kosten’s, the opening’s major, present-day advocate: being able to immediately steer the course of the game. As Kosten states: “White almost invariably answers 3. d4 (whereas if you play the normal 2… Nc6 you have to reckon with the ‘Spanish Torture’ – 3. Bb5 – but also with the sharp Max Lange Attack, or the Scotch Gambit, or the positional Bishop’s Opening, in fact a whole host of different possibilities each requiring the memorization of a precise defense) and it is Black who chooses the battleground.” Tony Kosten, Winning With the Philidor (2001).

He’s right – sort of. Players (amateurs anyway) do indeed play moves other than 3. d4, but his point is sound: there are only a handful of variations of moves white has after 2… d6. I used to play the Petroff Defense (2… Nf6) (a much more respected defense for black) only to be frustrated by how many lines ensued after 3. Nxe4 or 3. d4 or 3. Nc3 (Three knights game). Whole books have been written on each. Here is the Philidor’s true beauty. After 2… d6, you will see two (and I mean almost always just these two) moves. 3. d4 or 3. Bc4. In 280 games, one of these moves has been played 77.4% of the time.

Ironically, in high-level chess even 3. Bc4 becomes a rarity (as Kosten suggests above) – despite its very common play in the amateur world. Very few of the books I have read on the opening ever seriously look at 3. Bc4 and instead 3. d4 is seen as the universally accepted “only legitimate reply” – the only one worthy of any real significant analysis. I personally find this aspect of chess publishing frustrating. You can find books (or sections of chess books) detailing the Sicilian Opening to the 12th or 14th move. In fairness, the Sicilian is one of the most popular and highly-rated openings in the world. But I can find only a handful (and I mean one or two) books that cover the Philidor after 3. Bc4. Why is that? Simple. Because grandmasters write chessbooks and they are smart enough to know never to play 3. Bc4 in the Philidor line. Fair enough, but what I never understood is that while chessmasters (albeit the authors) make up .001% of the chess playing population, amateurs (like you and me!) buy probably 95% of the chess books out there (in fairness, I am willing to bet the average chessmaster has two or three times as many chessbooks as the average amateur). It’s a real case, in my humble opinion, of authors not realizing who their audience is.

But, I digress . . .

If you have made it this far, you must really be interested in learning about the Philidor defense (sucker!). As a note, obviously space and time are limited. As mentioned, Kosten has written an excellent book on the Philidor defense – it is over a hundred pages long. I obviously don’t have the time, patience (nor frankly) skill to walk down the number of lines he walks down. If you really want to learn about the Philidor, I highly recommend you buy this book. In the meantime, the best I can do is take you down what I think are the most important lines for black to know.

Over the next couple weeks (read as: "months"), we’ll explore all the important lines.

Awake From My Slumber

2006-09-04T21:45:00.000-04:00

Much like Rip Van Winkle (see picture to the left), I feel like I have been asleep forever. I haven't been able to post in a month and a half. That represents a sad, pathetic record, but it also emphasizes the extent of how friggin' busy I have been lately. Between the new wife, new house, and new job -- life has been a little crazy the last couple months.

Bare with me. Chess postings will hopefully return to a normal level very soon.

I've missed this blog.

Throwing In the Towel

2006-07-13T23:18:00.000-04:00

No, dear readers, I am not quitting this web log -- long absences aside! As a (semi!) silent observer of the amateur chess world, I am amazed by how infrequently people resign their games. I mean, sometimes, people just seem to keep playing out foolishness or a sense of stubborness. Agree? Many don't! I know many people who won't quit a chess match until they've run out of time or they are checkmated. Others will resign when they find themselves just a few pawns behind. Everyone else is in the middle. BUT WHERE?

I have put together a little survey below. I am curious to see what the results are. In each position, assume you are black and it is your move. Also assume, you are playing an unrated player (ex. a player new to a chess server who has no fixed rating yet). Would you resign in the following positions or keep playing? (NOTE: Unfortunately, before you vote you'll need to write down whether you'd resign for each position -- then fill out the survey. )

Instinct?

2006-06-29T22:28:00.000-04:00

BlueEyedRook vs. NN

www.redhotpawn.com

June 27, 2006

Black to Move (and lose!)

Black is about to play 1... Ke8?? and instantly lose. Do you see why? No embarassments if you can't. It took Chessmaster 9000 a solid 8 minutes to conclude the position is a win for white.

Now I got this. What I am trying to figure out is why?! I can't articulate why this was a losing move, but instinctively I just knew it was.

Again, I note that it is not child's play. Chessmaster 9000 is a pretty solid engine, and up until the 7th minute of analysis it was calling this game a draw. I'd like to hear people's explanations if they have any. As a general rule, I was taught in these situations to bring the rook down the lower ranks (1st or 2nd) and just use the rook to constantly check the white king. But other than that little voice in my head that told me 1... Ke8 was an instant loser, I can't explain why it is.

Desperate Times

2006-06-15T22:38:00.000-04:00

BlueEyedRook vs. NN

www.redhotpawn.com

White to Move

I can't seem to break this slump I am in. Ughhh....

I pulled a draw out here . . . only by the grace of God and a subtle trap.

1. Ng6?! Setting the trap. 1... fxg6?? the bait is taken (after all why not just snatch up that knight). Do you see why this was such a lousy move on black's part? 2. Qxg6+! (not 2. Qxh6?). And the black king has just one move 2... Kh8. Now follows 3. Qxh6+. And once again black has only one move 3... Kg8.

All I do now is simply move my queen back and forth from g6 and h6. This is "perpetual check" and as ugly as it is. . . it still a draw. I dodged a "big time" bullet here, folks.

... And there are days I hate this game.

2006-06-09T14:45:00.000-04:00

Ughhh . . . I have dropped 8 games in a row the last couple days. I can't seem to buy a win.

I am alive everyone, I actually get married tomorrow. So wish us well.

(Maybe that is what is distracting me from playing well).

Sweet!

2006-05-21T23:31:00.000-04:00

BlueEyedRook vs. NN

May 2006

www.redhotpawn.com

White to Move

There are days I love this game!

You don't get much better than this. Do you see it? 1. Qxh7+!. After I played it, my opponent responded with an e-mail that said simply "?". He was fairly high ranked, so I was a little surprised he kept playing. 1... Kxh7. Which is followed by 2. Rh3#.

Queen sac and mate-in-two . . . and I actually found it! Awesome!

Goofy Chess Terms

2006-05-21T20:12:00.000-04:00

A nice feature of my web log is I can see what terms or words people used on google to reach my site. Surprisingly, the following four words were often the most frequent. I feel guilty because I only used the words in passing and never really thought that somebody on the internet would be looking for an actual definition of the words. Since I am all about pleasing my readers (even those who accidentally find my blog via googling), this posting is for you.

“Zugzwang” – While sometimes spelled “Zugswang,” the version with the two Z’s tends to be the preferred one. Technically, it means a “situation in a chess game in which a player is forced to make an undesirable or disadvantageous move.” Literally, it is a situation where a chess player would ultimately like to “pass on his/her turn” (i.e., let his/her opponent move twice). Of course, forfeiting one’s turn is not possible. Thus, in certain situations a chess player will be forced to move a piece to his or her detriment. The word is generally associated with king pawn endgames or other situations where there is a minimal amount of material on the board. As the universe of possible moves shrinks and grows smaller (i.e., as pieces are eliminated), the chances for Zugswang increase. In rare situations, there will be “double zugzwang.” This occurs when on a static board the player who moves first loses. (As example, see left).

“Fianchetto” – The hardest part about this word is pronouncing it: “"fee-an-ket-toe" (I always want to say “fee-an-chet-o”, but the “ch” here is a hard “c” sound (like “Christmas” or “character”) not the typical “ch” sound found in “chair.” The concept itself, however, is simple. It is basically the position you see to the left -- a protuding pawn (here at g3), a bishop right beneath it (here g2) and finally a castled king (Technically, the castling part is not required, but it is very common). It is, of course, possible to have a similiar position on the queenside. As a general rule (one that has so many exceptions it is dubious whether it can even be called a rule), fiahchettoed bishops are more valuable then the other bishop or knights. In other words, it should not be traded unless very good reason to do so. This conclusion is based on the weakened pawn structure of the king after the key is played. The fianchettoed bishop acts well in overcoming this formation’s weaknesses. If it is removed though, the pawn structure is considered pretty weak.

“Patzer” – Either an unskilled chess player or one demonstrating very poor sportsmanship/etiquette . . . or both! A patzer is usually associated with cheap gimmicks (i.e., trap openings (the "Patzer Opening" [1.e4 e5. 2. Qh5] being the most obvious!), anal retentiveness regarding rules (i.e., trying to have his lost game annulled because his opponent used the wrong hand to play the clock), and providing unsolicited advice (often still during the match!). It is an ugly word, associated with ugly people in chess. As with any negative term, some people will latch onto it affectionately, but as with most terms with negative connotations the general rule is that you can always refer to yourself (or possibly your friends) as a patzer, but never complete strangers.

“Sandbagger” – A term used to define a chess player who has purposely (either through downright lying or game fixing) underinflated his or her chess abilities (usually his or her chess ratings). Since chess tournaments are organized by rankings, there are large incentives for players to try to play at lower levels. For those new to the game, this seems odd: usually you want to lie about how good you are, not how bad you are! Chess is strange due to the tournament structure. For example, one tournament might include rounds where players are ranked under 2100, under 1900, under 1500, and under 1200. A person ranked 1905 would be very unlikely to win the under 2100 tournament because he or she would be facing people with higher scores (all the way up to 2099!). However, simple lying or one or two purposely lost games can put that same chess player easily in the under 1900 range. This would be good for the chessplayer because for the under 1900 group, he would be a strong favorite for winning. “Sandbagging” is a sad result of people’s priorities. Especially when cash or prizes are given to tournament winners, players would much rather win a low ranking tournament round (ex. Under 1500) than have a better-than-average performance in a higher ranking round (ex. under 2100). Of course, the reality is the overwhelming majority of players in the under 2100 tournament round who didn’t win are “better” than the hypothetical under 1500 sandbagging champion. But at the end of the day, the sandbagger gets a trophy and his name printed up some where. That is all that is important to them. Because it skews and distorts the chess rating system, sandbagging is severely looked down upon. It tends, however, to be difficult to catch. The most common method of sandbagging, purposely losing games, can be hard to identify since people legitimately have cold snaps, losing streaks, and make huge blunders. People legitimately lose games all the time that they “should” have won. Thus, finding someone who loses games on purpose is difficult.

Missed Chances

2006-05-11T21:42:00.000-04:00

BlueEyedRook vs. Lockheed

www.redhotpawn.com

White to Move

I missed a key move here. Do you see it?

1. Nf7!! is decisive. It prevents two major problems for black. The obvious point is that the d8 rook is attacked. It has got to move. But 2. Nd6+ leads to a knight fork against the king and e8 rook. How can black avoid this? Simple. It can't!

Start with black's first dilemna: moving the d8 rook. This it can accomplish (anywhere up and down the e8 file). However, note how it cannot prevent the inevitable 2. Nd6+. If 2... Rxd6. 3. Bxd6 leaves white with a solid lead. Of course, if black chooses to not move it's rook, 2. Nxd8 leaves white with a solid advantage.

Charity -- the BEST Kind

2006-05-09T22:37:00.000-04:00

NN vs. BlueEyedRook

www.redhotpawn.com

05/08/06

White to Move

I thought this was a clearly drawn situation. Yes, white is a whole piece ahead of me, but the cruelest reality of chess is that two knights can never score a mate. Thus, as long as I can keep the white pawn from queening, I should be just fine. Since my g4-bishop is nestled snuggly (i.e., the king can't take it). I thought this game was done. If the pawn ever queened, I would simply take it with the bishop and the game would be a draw with insufficient mating material.

Luckily, my opponent thought the exact same thing and offered me a draw which I accepted.

We were both completey wrong!

1. Nd6+!! wins the game. The key I (and obviously my opponent) missed is that the white king has only one square to retreat to: d7. This is a huge problem because this blocks the black bishop from guarding the queening pawn. 1... Kd7 is followed by the inevitable 2. c8=Q+. The black king can't capture the pawn since it is now being guarded by the pesky d6 knight. 2... Kxd6 gives black some comfort (that awful knight is gone), but it has done its damage: a knight vs. queen endgame where black is inevitably doomed.

Beating a Dead Horse

2006-04-29T21:33:00.000-04:00

Again, I can't stress enough how important this chess lesson is:

http://blueeyedrook.blogspot.com/2006/03/important-chess-endgame-tactics.html

Learn it, live it, love it.

It's not that I am some brilliant chess scholar (far from it!), you can find this endgame analysis in any good chess book, but I am just absolutely amazed how many players don't know it.

Here is not one but two cases where opponents should have beaten me only to draw using the Dominant/Recessive Position moves. If they understood the basic principles, they would have won.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/core/playchess.php?gameid=1810921

http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=1744110

Charity -- The Good Kind

2006-04-23T18:36:00.000-04:00

BlueEyedRook vs. NN

www.redhotpawn.com

Black to move

Part of me is always kind of rooting for under ranked players to beat me. I mean don't get me wrong -- I much rather prefer winning, but it is kind of enjoyable to see a lower ranked player pull off a spectacular game. Even if I am the "big guy" getting beaten, it's hard not to cheer for the "little guy."

This game was such a situation. I boggled an entire piece and now black finds himself in a relatively easy draw situation. Black needs to simply keep his rook on the lower ranks to harass the king. White can't queen the pawn with the constant checks. It should have been an easy draw.

Then black does something absolutely inexplicable -- 1... Rg8??. This ultimately loses and produces a mate-in-two. 2. Ke6 with the inevitable 3. Ra8# to follow.

It feels a little guilty.

Charity -- The bad kind

2006-04-16T23:07:00.000-04:00

Bartboxer vs. BlueEyedRook

April 3, 2007

www.redhotpawn.com

White to Move

I won't reveal Bartboxer's rating, but it is a solid 200+ higher than mine. So here I am slugging along only to find myself with a solid lead over my opponent.

Then, in true BlueEyedRook fashion, I inexplicably throw the game away. A present of sorts to Bartboxer. I had just played 1... Rc7?? instantly losing the game. The trick is all the white energy on the a1/h8 diagonal.

2. c4! instantly wins. The black queen risks capture and needs to flee, but it cannot. Any such movement results in 3. Qg7#. Thus, I soon find myself a whole queen down -- and losing what should be a won game!

Ughh.... there is nothing worse than throwing chess games away.

Easter

2006-04-16T21:47:00.000-04:00

I have been busy. Real busy!

News Item 1#: I am engaged! Long story, but there will be a new Mrs. BlueEyedRook in the very near future!

News Item 2#: I am still playing chess! I have had some long dry spells (i.e., no postings!), but I am still playing (horribly!) and still maintaining this blog.

Here's an interesting game I played the other day.

BlueEyedRook vs. NN

April 2006

www.redhotpawn.com

White to Move

I think all commentators would agree -- I am solidly winning this game. 1. Bxf8? seems logical enough. A rook for a bishop is always a good trade. But in the process, I am missing a quick mate-in-two. Do you see it?

The key is the poor f7-pawn -- it is useless. The white d4 bishop keeps it locked there (i.e., the pawn is pinned by the bishop). Based on that one key, the winning move is easy. 1. Qxg6!+. Technically this brazen move isn't even a queen-sacrifice, because as mentioned the black f7 pawn can't recapture it. After 1... Kh8. 2. Qg7# to follow.

I pulled out the win here -- as I mentioned, I had a pretty solid lead. But I hate missing such beautiful mates like this.

Alive

2006-04-02T23:01:00.000-04:00

I am indeed alive. I apologize for all the readers (58 last week!) who had to sit and load up an un-updated page of this blog. I am traveling a lot and not getting much time to log in and update the ol' blog. My chess is suffering too. I had a couple nightmare games today, that I will hopefully post soon (maybe somebody can learn from my poor playing!).

I am also looking for a new poll. Something fun and conversation-oriented. Thanks for everyone's patience!

2006-03-15T23:40:00.000-05:00

It took me a long time to post the previous post. It involved uploading 34(!) chess diagrams (not a simple task).

I did it because I think this is the most important chess endgame lesson you'll ever receive . . . . no joke. I guarantee you, if you read through this, and understand it, you will win (or avoid losing) at least 3 or 4 of your next hundred games. 3%-4% improvement to low for you? When will you ever gain a 3%-4% advantage in just 20 minutes of reading?!

Note how many games entail the lessons discussed below:

http://jdkevblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/slow-and-steady-wins-race.html (a good friend missing a key draw and placing his king in Recessive Position)

http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=1742429 (Me drawing a much better player based on the Recessive Position)

http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=1661191 (Here I am reaching a Recessive Position draw)

Important Chess Endgame Tactics

2006-03-11T18:12:00.001-05:00

I. Introduction to the Concept of “Opposition” in Chess

Opposition is one of those sophisticated words chess enthusiasts use to describe a relatively simple phenomenon (not too different from “fiachetto” or “zugszwang”). Basically, it describes the general fact that two opposing kings when separated by a certain amount of squares can both isolate the opposing king entirely from a set of squares found between the two kings.

Thus, in the example to the left, (with correct play of course!) neither king can ever reach d6. Assuming white to move, 1. c7 is met by 1… c5; 1. e7 e5. Thus, if in some imaginable chess scenario, victory or defeat hinged on one of the kings reaching d6, then this game (again, assuming correct play!) would always be a draw – neither king can reach it!

Opposition is important in chess because often endgame victory depends not on the king reaching a single key square but a series of them. Take the example above, but with three key squares: c6, d6, and e6.

Assume, white can win if he can get any piece to any of those three squares (see below).

Starting with white to move, this example is not much different from the one above. With correct play, white can never get to any of the key squares. 1. c7 is met with 1… c5; 1. e7 is met with 1… e5. Even clever attempts don’t work. 1. c8 is countered with 1… c4.

But now, and here is the key to understanding chess endgames, imagine it is black to move. There is no move black can make where the white king on the very next move won’t be able to access one of those three key squares. 1… c5 leads to 2. e6; 1… e5 leads to 2. c6.

Thus, as the defender, black wants it to be white’s turn; and as the attacker white wants it to be black’s turn (Chess is unusual that you often want it to be your opponent’s move). “Opposition” is merely a word defining this state. If white “has the opposition” then it is black’s turn (and white has the advantage). That is why you hear chess enthusiasts generally say, “it is good to have the opposition.”

A key chess endgame involves the two kings (of course!) and one pawn. 95% of them are pure wins. Hopefully, every player would realize that the following position (see left) is an easy win for white (regardless of who moves first).

The only situations that really deserve analysis must satisfy two criteria:

1. The opposing king is “in front of” the attacking king.

2. The defending king (after his most recent move) is no further than the pawn’s queening square (an imaginary square – height is the number of squares until the pawn promotes; the width being the exact same).

Thus, the diagram above is a clear win for white because neither criteria 1 or 2 are satisfied. For those unfamiliar with the concept of “queening squares.” Take this example (see left),

Black can only draw if it can get inside the imaginary square above. If it is black’s turn, this can be done (1… c8). If it is white’s turn, than it cannot. (1. f6 …. 4. f8=Q cannot be stopped).

I propose that there are four (and only four!) positions one needs to know regarding the positions that satisfy the two criteria above: one involves where the attacking king is in front the lone pawn and another where the attacking king is on the same rank as the lone pawn. Graphically, this appears as:

Though the diagrams above look very similar, they are fundamentally different. In the first diagram, if it is white to move, the game is a draw. If black moves first, it is also a draw. Because it is always a draw, we call this the “Recessive Position.” In the second diagram, white to move also leads to a draw. But black to move leads to a white victory. Let’s explore the second diagram first. Because white has an option to win, we call this the “Dominant Position.”

II. Dominant Position Black to Move

As I mentioned, black to move leads to a white win. There are three key squares. If the white king can get to any of them, he wins (see left).

Black to move has three real options c7 (or e7) c8 (or e8) or d8. They are all losers. In any of the five moves, white will simply maintain opposition (often using advancement of the pawn to “lose a turn”) and eventually force black off to one side thus allowing white to take the other side and escort the white pawn in.

For example, 1… Kc8 2. Kd6 Kd8. 3. d5! (losing a turn) and now black has an equally bad choice. 3… Kc8 leads to 4. Ke7 and the white pawn can simply walk the rest of the way in (see left). 3… Ke8 leads to a similiar result.

1… Kc7 is no better. 2. Ke6 Kd8. 3. Kd6 Kc8. 4. Ke7 Kc7. 5. d5 (see left) and once again hopefully everyone can see how the pawn can promote unmolested (guarded by the king).

III. Dominant Position White to Move

If it is white to move (see below), the position is a draw. Why? Let’s look at white’s options.

First, 1. Kc5 and Ke5 are out. As we mentioned, because black has the important opposition he can prevent white’s king from reaching any of the key squares (ex. 1. Kc5 Kc7).

Second, 1. Kc4 (or 1. Ke4) allows black to move 1. Kc6 (or 1. Ke6) thus leading to the “recessive position” where -- as I previously noted -- it is a draw whether black or white is to move.

But let’s not just take this is as a matter of fact. Let’s explore why the recessive position always leads to a draw.

IV. Recessive Position Black To Move

Let’s look at black-to-move first (see left). What can black do?

1… Kd6 effectively shuts white down. What can white do? White’s king cannot move forward – obviously – since black’s king is blocking all those squares.

How about backwards?

This accomplishes nothing. The position will always return to the initial recessive position. For example, 1. Kd3 is followed by 1… Kd5. 2. Kc3 Kd6 (see below).

And now if white moves to 3. Kc4 then black plays 3… Kc7 (right back to the recessive position). 3. Kd3 leads to 3. Kd5 (the exact position we were at earlier).

As the process above demonstrated, 1. Kc3 is similarly deflected by 1… Kd6.

So if white can’t move the king forward or backwards to any result, what is left – advance the pawn.

Let us return to the initial recessive position (see left).

1. d5+ and black must now retreat. But where? 1… Kd6 is the logical choice. 2. Kd4 is followed by 2… Kd7.

And now what? 3. Kc5 leads to 3… Kc7 (recessive position). 3. Ke5 leads to 3… Ke7 (recessive position).

3. Kc4 leads to 3… Kd6 (see left).

4. Kd4 is met with 4… Kd7 (see left) (This position we’ve concluded is a draw – also leading to the recessive position).

As we have concluded, in the recessive position, with white to move, all white can do is push its pawn forward and still end up in a recessive position (just one rank advanced). Eventually white will just have to push his pawn forward until we get to this position (see left).

As we have explained above, white can make no progress going backwards. It must again advance the pawn forward. 1. d7+ is defended by 1… Kc8 (see left) with stalemate to follow.

Now look at the recessive position with white to move.

V. Recessive Position White to Move

Much of why this position (see left) is a draw can be deducted from the analysis above when it was Black to Move. Again, we are going to see the same themes: 1) white can make no progress simply moving his king backwards or forwards – the pawn must be moved. 2) Eventually (after constantly advancing the pawn) a position will be reached as noted in the diagram above -- leading to stalemate.

As one important point to note about the Recessive Position in general, black’s king must move to the following squares when white’s king is on the corresponding square (see below)

As long as black can get his king to c6 when the white king is on c4, he will draw (etc.).

Now in fairness, this is not an absolute rule. For example, when the white king is on c4 and the black king is on d6 (see below) this is still a draw.

But it requires black navigating back to the Recessive Position. 1. d5 Kd7. 2. Kc5 Kc7 (recessive position).

As we will later see the fact black is able to “recover” the Recessive Position here is based on the fact that it has enough space behind it. As we will later see, there will be situations where black does not have this luxury and the Recessive Position can lead to a win for white.

But we are ahead of ourselves.

Now that we’ve discussed the basic Dominant Position and Recessive Positions, let’s sum it up:

1. Dominant Position. (White to Move = Draw; Black to Move = Win).
2. Recessive Position (Always a Draw).

These two rules will govern the vast majority of the pawn endgames you will encounter, but there are two exceptions.

VI. Wing Pawns

Wing pawns (on the a-file or h-file) create new complications for our little endgame universe.

This position (see left) (a Recessive Position) is no different from normal Recessive Positions. Regardless of who moves first, it is a draw. Black merely needs to remember the corresponding squares addressed above to ensure a draw.

What makes wing pawns tricky is demonstrated in this position (see below).

A Dominant Position, with this position white to move leads to a draw. But (and this is what separates this position from normal Dominant Positions) black to move leads to the same result! Why? Well, what gives white victory in the normal Dominant Position is that black (having to move) must decide eventually between two awful choices – going to a right file or going to a left file. Having done this, white than immediately moves its king in the opposite direction blocking the black king off.

Because we are dealing with wing pawns, white cannot do this. Thus, for example, 1… Kb7 is met by 2. Kb5 (ideally white would play 2. Kz6 – the imaginary file to the left of the a-file). 2… Ka7. And now what can white do (see below)?

3. Ka5 returns us to the exact beginning of the problem (with no progress made). 3. a5 is followed by 3… Kb7 a Recessive Position (and a sure draw).

Thus, contrary to normal Dominant Positions, when wing pawns are involved it is always a draw.

VII. The Eighth Rank Exceptions

The normal rules also don’t apply when the black king is on the Eighth Rank. In the Dominant Position (see below), the same rules apply: White to Move equals a draw, Black to Move equals a win.

However, with the Recessive Position (see below) White To Move (still) draws, but now Black to Move wins! Why?

As we mentioned before, black’s ability to draw in general Recessive Positions depends on its ability to fall backwards. Now that Black is on the last rank, it cannot do this. For example: 1…Kd8. 2. d7. Here black would like to play the imaginary 2… Kd9 and regain the opposition (as it normally would be able to do in Recessive Positions), but (of course!) no such move is possible.

As promised, the chess player needs to remember just four positions:

Normal Dominant Position (White to Move = Draw; Black to Move = White Win).

Normal Recessive Position (Always Draw)

Wing Pawn Dominant Position (Always Draw)

8th Rank Recessive Position (White to Move = Draw; Black to Move = White Win)

VIII. The Lesson at Work.

I am amazed by how many games I have played where the rules we have discussed above have been the difference between victory and defeat (or draw). It is possible to envision countless examples where the principles discussed above are used.

For example, take this position.

Normally in chess, it is good endgame advice to a) gain a pawn advantage; and b) trade all other pieces. On that note, white is eyeing 1. Nxe6. Is this a good move? Certainly not. While this position will probably result in a draw anyway, 1. Nxe6 ensures it because of 1…Kxe6 leading to a Dominant Position White to Move (which we should all now know is a draw).

As another example,

White dares not play 1. Kxd5. Do you understand why? Because after 1… Kd7 we are in a Normal Recessive Position where the result is always a draw. The better move is 1. Kf7 and now the white pawn can promote with check and take out the lone black pawn.

The Most Important Move of My Life

2006-03-09T22:42:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the month-long silence (never have I gone this long without a post). I have a good excuse though.

I made a huge move this last month . . . and it has absolutely nothing to do with chess! I have moved from the Washington, DC metropolitan area (where I was born, raised, educated and had lived consistently for the last 29 years!) to Philadelphia.

I am on Day 2 of my move, needless to say that I am a little overwhelmed. Philadelphia is nothing like Washington, and I am just shocked by how big of a city Philly is. I definitely feel like a small fish in a very big ocean. The fact that (outside of my new work colleagues) I don't know a single person in the area is also nerve-wracking . . . I already miss my family and friends back home and I have only been here two days!

Well, the lonely days ahead means lots more chess (yes, my life is sad!). Who needs friends or family when you have exciting correspondence games on www.redhotpawn.com?! Friends, schmends. Chess will fill the voids . . . please God, let chess fill the voids . . . .

Battle of the Sexes: Chess

2006-02-10T12:57:00.000-05:00

Don't kill the messenger!

I generally steer away from anything remotely controversial, but I found this interesting article regarding chess and gender.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1376865.htm

For those unaware of the general issue -- Men dominate chess. Susan Polgar and others have made significant strides for women's chess in the last couple decades, but the fact of the matter is that there are much more male GMs and men tend to compete better at all levels of the game (from beginner to pro).

The million dollar (and very politically sensitive!) question is: why?

This is actually a popular topic in chess chat rooms (personally, I think because the 95% male population is frustrated there are so few women in the chess chat rooms!). The general debate focuses on the basic "nature vs. nurture" arguments that dominate any socio/gender relations question. Are men born with an inherent ability to better understand the game (i.e., "nature")? Or is just more socially acceptable for men to play and master the game (i.e., "nurture")?

As with most complicated issues the answer is probably both. However, the article above makes a strong claim that the truth is indeed "nature" (i.e., men are just genetically better able to the play the game). As even the author notes, this will "ruffle many female feathers," but the article seems well thought out and generally legitimate. Controversial? YES! Well reasoned? Also Yes. I don't think the author's article can be smirked away a "sexist."

I'll let the educated reader determine what he or she believes.

On that note, and because I already feel "male guilt," I am including a link to Susan Polgar's chess page for girls. If the difference between male and female chess abilities is an artificial socio-glass ceiling, people like Susan Polgar are fighting it.

http://susanpolgar.com/polgarchess/index_polgarfound.jsp

** As a personal aside, I never dreamed the words sex and chess would appear in the same posting. This should lead to some interesting google searches!

Reflections

2006-02-09T20:11:00.000-05:00

On a relatively slow chess day, I reviewed some of my old posts. I find it hard to believe that I have managed this chess blog for over 9 months now. It all started with a super boring day at work. My little blog has grown ever since. Some interesting facts:

-- 1,125 people have visited my site in the last 9 months. (This averages to about 15 people a day).

-- 73 posts have been made by me on this blog.

-- Numerous people have "linked me" to their chess related sites.

Still with all this success, I am left asking myself: What next?

I must say I am a little overwhelmed by my "peers."

I can never be as witty and fun as http://boylston-chess-club.blogspot.com/ ; and

I can never offer the high-ranked analysis found in http://patzersmind.blogspot.com/ ; and

I can never match the level of dedication found in http://kingsgambit.blogspot.com/ .

What is my niche? What can I offer?

As I mention in my bio, I am not particularly good at chess. Not bad mind you, but definitely not good. Currently www.redhotpawn.com has me ranked 1449 out of 10,035 users. So roughly I am in the top 14%. Though this is a good achievement, this is hardly extraordinary. Many GMs have their own blogs. Why should anyone read mine?

I like to think the perspective I add to the chess blog scene is commentary from an average player. That's why I purposely choose relatively simple chess problems to examine.... stuff that most GMs would laugh away as "basic" but stuff that normal/average players often miss. My last post (regarding a simple, one-move combination) is a good example. Reviewing the post, I realize it is "easy," but I also feel that it is a level of problems that you wouldn't find on one of the larger, grander chess blogs.

I am debating whether to take on more grandiose analysis exercises, but I do not believe that's why people come to my site. I think people come to see "average" chess analysis and commentary . . . . not "expert."

Here is to mediocrity!

Games of Note

2006-02-09T18:43:00.000-05:00

Nothing too exciting going on. I actually have no excuse for not posting in a week.... I am currently unemployed (the good "unemployed" too.... the interim period between leaving one job and starting another). I have been squeezing lots of chess games in this "off period." Here's a couple of interesting games.

NN vs. BlueEyedRook
www.redhotpawn.com
Feb. 2006

Black to move and win

I have always thought the secret to being a great chess player only requires one to see two or three moves in the future.... all the time! The key is being able to consistently see those two or three moves. It's nice if you can usually or sometimes see two or three moves in advance, but what separates the good players from the bad players is the ability to consistently do so.

Here is a game I played the other day. It kind of shows this principle in action. White (me) has a pretty basic winning move in front of him. Do you see it? 1... Bh2!+ wins the queen with 2. Kxh2 Qxc5. I am definitely not picking on NN (I never name players who I beat in games -- call it class), but this was a pretty drastic error. And again without revealing NN's identity, what adds to the story is that NN is a fairly high ranked player on www.redhotpawn.com (not GM level, but rated in the top half of all players). I bet if NN looked at this position in a puzzle book he or she would be able to nail it in seconds -- again, though the key is to be able to consistently see such moves. While NN could probably see this problem 95% of the time, this was part of the 5% that he missed, and it cost him or her the game. (I definitely could see myself missing something like this).

BlueEyedRook vs. NN2
www.redhotpawn.com
Feb. 2006

Black to move

Another amazing ability that separates good chess players from bad ones is the ability to "think outside of the box." Here's another good example.

Unknowingly, black has fallen into a common trap of the Italian Game opening. His e5 knight is being pinned by the e1 rook (i.e., he can't move his knight). With white's turn the inevitable 2. f4 will come with (the again inevitable) 2. fxe5 to follow (again, black's knight can't move to save itself from being captured by the pawn). And black will be down a piece.

Most players who see this position shrug their shoulders, grit their teeth and prepare for the loss playing something like 1... Bd6 or 1... d6 to protect the doomed knight (the thinking being at least "I'll take one or two of white's pawns in exchange for the lost knight").

Geniuses can see beyond the boundaries of most people. 1... Qe7 saves the game for black. But won't the knight still be lost? No! Actually, after 2. f4 the correct move is 2... Nxc4. Okay, but now the queen is lost, right? Right. 3. Rxe7 indeed loses black's queen. But this is followed by 3... Be7 leaving this position (see right).

While black's queen is gone, it came at the price of a bishop and rook for white. While white clearly has an advantage (1.09 according to Chessmaster 9000), it is much more subtle than the early loss of the black knight.

In the actual game, black didn't see this excellent move. Again, I am not picking on anyone. I clearly would have missed it too.

One, Simple Mistake

2006-01-31T23:53:00.000-05:00

BlueEyedRook vs. richjohnson

01/17/2006

www.redhotpawn.com

White to move

Ughhh.... I made a typical "goof" last week. After battling for days (ahhh, the joys of correspondence chess!) for a mere one-pawn advantage, I then throw the entire game away in the following position (see left).

I was (of course!) focused on the g4 bishop looming over my e2 rook. I have to move it.

I played the pathetic 30. Rd2 ?? instantly losing. The ol' Chessmaster 9000 reports this as a mate in 6 (30...Bf3 31. Re1 Rxe1. 32. Rd1 Rxd1. 33. g4 Rxg4. 34. Nd6+ cxd6. 35. c4 Rh1#). This is a little above my head, so I actually made things easier. After 30... Bf3, I played, 31. Re3 ??, instantly losing to 31... Rh1# (see left).

Well, what could I have done? I had to play 30. Rd2? or else I would lose the rook, right (30... Bxe2)?

WRONG!

I missed the obvious 30. Rxe8 which leads to white still having a pawn lead (30. Re8+ Rxe8. 31. Rxe8+) (see left). This brillant move takes both of white's rook out of the menacing reach of the g4 bishop.

Days of painfully accurate chess-playing.... all flushed down the toilet in a matter of seconds. Ughhhh.....

Thank You!

2006-01-25T23:46:00.000-05:00

I have been meaning to do this for a while. My web log allows me to see what web pages viewers started at to eventually end up at my site (in other words what web site they visited before they were brought to mine). I would like to thank the following sites for being kind enough to give my web long a link on their sites.

http://boylston-chess-club.blogspot.com/

I have never been to the Boylston chess club, so I dont' know terribly much about it, but boy... can they do a website. I can't say enough good things about this site. It's ultimately one that with a) much more time; b) much more computer skills; and c) much more creativity, I would like this blog to emulate. I think it rivals (and thoroughly beats!) many of its more corporate/commercial competitors.

http://patzersmind.blogspot.com/

This web log get bonus points for me because it was one of the first chess blogs I discovered on the internet. That novelty aside, this is a fantastic site hosted by a person who is good at captivating his/her readers and providing excellent problems/diagrams.

http://jdkevblog.blogspot.com/

This is a late-comer to the international chess blog world, but I expect great things from this site. I am definitely biased (the author and I play on the same clan at www.redhotpawn.com) and the site is still in its infancy, but judging by the author's enthusiasm and love for the game, I expect a lot out of this site in the months to come.

Poll: 1. e4, 1... ?

2006-01-22T22:29:00.000-05:00

I am not one for complications. After 1. e4, I always respond with 1. e5. This seems like the easiest, best choice. Do you agree?

POLL CLOSED FEBRUARY 2, 2006

The agony of..... a draw?!

2006-01-21T22:31:00.000-05:00

BlueEyedRook vs. FredCassidy
January 2006 http://www.redhotpawn.com/
White to move and win

Drawing a game you should have won isn't as bad as losing that very same game, but it still royally stinks. I missed a game winning move tonight. There is only 17 possible moves for white.... but only one wins -- do you see it?

1. Kd5! is pivotal. The knight's sole duty at this late stage of the game is to take out that black pawn. The white f4 pawn can do the rest (i.e., promote and win). 1. Kd5 instantly protects the white knight from being captured by the black king. Black can't do nothing. Any movement by the king leads to simply white advancing his pawn forward. If black advances his pawn then the white knight will take it (to only be captured by the black king, but the lone white pawn can now easily promote).

What did I play? Embarassingly 1. Na5+?? This in effect accomplishes nothing, which I actually knew. I had incorrectly had assumed that the position was drawn and was hoping for black to make a mistake (ex. allow his pawn and king to be forked). No such luck.

Ughh.... well, it was only a draw, right?!

Tactics, Tactics, Tactics

2006-01-17T23:13:00.000-05:00

I was playing a game the other night on www.redhotpawn.com (which incidentally, for me personally, is proving to be a much better site than FICS or www.chessgames.com), when I came to this position (see left).

I am white, and it is White to Move.

The perhaps not so obvious move is 1. Qxe5! winning the black bishop. Black can of course play 1... dxe5, but this leads to 2. Rxd7+ (see left) with 3. Rxg7 soon to follow.

Jerks

2006-01-16T23:44:00.000-05:00

I don't get too many talkers during my games. This is both a good and bad thing. Sometimes people are fun and interesting to talk to. Other times they just ramble on and on. One of my favorite forms of chess chatters are trash-talkers.

What a miserable, sad lot these poor souls are. The game below represents the latest of morons I have come across on www.redhotpawn.com

???* vs. BlueEyedRook
http://www.redhotpawn.com/ January 2006

Black to Move

Some how I managed to get a piece down toward the middle of the game. At the position above, I get this e-mail from ???.

gg, resign and save us some time so i can beat you again in the rematch.

I was, of course, instantly peeved at his audacity. The sad thing for ol' ??? is that I probably would have resigned, but he had really ticked me off. So the game went on. Somewhere around the 49th move we got to this position.

??? vs. BlueEyedRook
http://www.redhotpawn.com/ January 2006

Black to Move

And now ??? doesn't find himself able to trash talk as much as he would like. I, of course, made him choke on his earlier comment about resigning. What follows is just bizarre:

Bet you feel dumb for sending me this message on the 21. move, huh? "gg, resign and save us some time so i can beat you again in the rematch."

no, not really, i let you win, i was cheating and had the game won but decided to give you the game

Nice gesture on his part.... wouldn't you say.

To ??? and all the other trash talkers out there. Number 1, don't trash talk. Who needs unpleasantness in this already less than pleasant world. Number 2, if you are going to trash talk -- Back it up. Or you might find your name and your embarassment printed out on a web log for all to see.

* Why the ???, you ask? I actually printed the guy's name when I originally published this entry, but in hindsight, I thought it was a little too mean. Afterall, everyone has bad days.... maybe I caught ??? having one. Thus, we'll just leave my little trash-talking loser friend annonymous.

..... But no cigar!

2006-01-12T22:18:00.000-05:00

BlueEyedRook vs. llbank
www.redhotpawn.com
White to move

Ughhhh….. I hate losing close chess games. Unfortunately, this was such an example. I was close to pulling off a draw here. But as Gene Oakland says: “‘Close’ only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.” It doesn’t matter in chess.

The key here is white’s next move. I realize I have two fundamental problems: 1) the d2 pawn; and the f4 pawn. But I also realize that the d1 bishop can effectively guard both the problemsome pawns and the king can lend a hand too. The white e4 pawn is also an important asset. If the black king and bishop get too wild in trying to promote their own pawns, this white pawn can make a dash for the 8th rank.

All action is on the center of the board, but the left wing is a powder keg waiting to erupt. The black bishop is of course unable to attack the white pawns (who are on white squares), but the black king can. Thus the white bishop (in addition to guarding the two cetral black pawns) must also be sure to also guard the a4 white pawn.

So with all that being said . . . What’s the best move?

I am currently letting the ol' Chessmaster 9000 "sleep on it" (i.e., letting it spend 8 or 9 hours while I sleep analyzing the position). It claims 1. e5 is the best move.... which I can believe. However, I am curious if anything else will lead to draw positions. We'll see. I would love to get people's takes on this position.

When Knights Attack!

2006-01-08T23:02:00.000-05:00

Here is a great problem I came across the other day. It is black to move.

The key is the e3 square. It would be a nasty hot spot for any one of the black knights -- forking the c2 Queen and the d1 rook. The only piece up to guarding this key square is the f2 bishop. Thus, the key is driving that lone guard away.

1... Ng4! accomplishes just this. White must now move the f2 bishop or risk the very fork mentioned above (2. exf5 looks good but is not. 2... Nxf2 now forks both of white's rook and will lose the exchange -- white will lose a rook and a bishop for two of black's knights.). 2. Bg1 is the only move where the bishop can still guard e3.

But then black has the powerful 2... Nfe3 forking the white queen and rook. The futile 3. Bxe3 is met by 3... Nxe3 leaving white with the same devestating fork.

The Dangers of an Unprotected King.

2006-01-08T22:47:00.000-05:00

When your king is unguarded, you can easily lose your game even if you are way ahead in material. Extra rooks, bishops, and pawns do not mean squat, if your opponent has an open-door attack on your king. The following game is no exception:

(Black to Move)

I was actually playing white during this game, and after a series of poor moves I found myself a whole knight and rook down. The only thing going my way is the total lack of protection for the black king and the menacing pawn at f6. Can I use these to pull off a win?

The answer should be no. Black's most logical move is 1... Kh7. This leaves the game still largely in his favor. The queen can menace the king on the kingside, but black can escape mate. Of course, 2. Qh6+? is out of the question (2... Kxh6). Any other checks (ex. 2. Qh4+) allows black to get behind the f6 pawn (2. Qh4+ Kg6! saving the game). Even the dubious looking 1... Qxf6?! is better than most of the alternatives. A queen for a pawn is a dreadful exchange (2. Qxf6 will of course follow), but it will elimate the f6 pawn and white queen threat and will leave black with still an arsenal of pieces. The move actually played 1... Re8?? (a blind attempt to guard the knight) instantly leads to a mate in two which indeed ensued. 2. Qg5+ Kh7 3. Qg7# (2... Kh8 3. Qg7#).

Bishops versus Knights (a general assessment)

2005-12-30T20:52:00.000-05:00

While assessed as equals throughout the chess match, there are many situations where a bishop can dominate a knight. The key is placement of either piece. The knight’s principal disadvantage is that at the absolute most it has only 8 squares it can move to (even in the middle of the board). In the worst case scenario (a corner like h8) it has only two! A bishop on the other hand, in the center of the board has 13 squares it can move to; and even in the worst of situations (again h8 for example) it has 7 possible moves. Based on this mobility gap, a bishop can easily render a poorly placed knight worthless. For example, take Diagram 1 (left).

The d8 knight is totally controlled by the bishop. If the knight dares to move to any of the “x-squares” it will be immediately captured.

Thus, as a simple mater, the basic chess rule once again applies – centralize your pieces and try to force your opponent’s pieces away from the center. As shown above, this can prove key in knight versus bishop scenarios.

As another introductory matter, an unusual characteristic of the knight must be noted – it cannot move and guard any of the squares it previously did. For example, imagine a knight on c6 (Diagram 2; left). It guards 8 squares (marked as “x-squares” below). Now imagine that knight moving to d4. Note how none of the new squares guarded by the knight (marked as “dot-squares” below) match the previous squares guarded.

The knight is the only piece that possesses this unique characteristic. The puzzled reader is probably thinking to themselves, why does this matter? Basically, what this phenomenon amounts to is that the knight cannot “lose a turn” or “lose a tempo.” Thus, zugswang positions haunt knights. In knight versus bishop endgames, this theme becomes especially important – since a bishop can very easily lose a tempo.

As a final obvious, but important note. One must note the speed gap between knights and bishops. Imagine a knight on the a-file. For the knight it does not matter where, but let’s assume a8. (Diagram 3; left).

No matter what route it takes, it will take exactly 4 moves to get to the h-file. (I chose two routes in the diagram above, one noted by “x-squares” the other by “dot squares.”). Now compare this with a bishop on a8. It takes just one move to get to the h-file – 1. Bh1!. Even on a less than ideal square, say a4, a bishop can get to the h-file in just two moves. 1. Bd1. 2. Bh6. The basic point is clear – a bishop is much better than a knight when there is action on both sides of the board. This will become key in knight versus bishop situations. If there is strong play on both sides the king and queen sides, a bishop is much better than a knight.

So far we have taken a pretty critical view of the knight – surely it has some advantages over the bishop! Indeed it does. Again, it is important to note the obvious. First, a knight can travel to every single square on the board. It might take it several moves to do so, but a knight can get to any white or black square. This is, of course, not so true of a bishop who is confined to just one set color of squares.

Second, again painfully obvious, the knight has the ability to jump over other pieces. Especially when pawn formations become stagnant bishops can become “bad” and virtually an oversized pawn. This will not be true with knights who can often leap over even the most fortified of pawn entanglements. As an exaggerated example, note Diagram 4 (below/left):

The poor bishop can make absolutely no headway in this position. It is locked out from virtually half the board. A knight in the same position could get through (albeit with time). The knight could get to a4 and attack the base of the white pawn chain or it could get to f8 and simply go around it.

Cheating.... what is it?

2005-12-26T22:50:00.000-05:00

We are told to never cheat. Chess is no exception. However, internet chess players often complain loudly about how bad cheating is. The problem seems to be rampant!

However, I have always noted that there does not seem to be any major consensus about what exactly is cheating. Sure, some online chess sites will tell you that given behavior is acceptable or not, but without the internet site overseers making such rules, there does not appear to be any real real uniformity about what exactly is cheating.

And even then, the internet chess sites often seem to have conflicting rules. For example, note the rules for www. gameknot.com (a very reputable site) see http://gameknot.com/faq.pl

Q21: What is considered cheating? How to report cheaters?

A: It's quite simple -- you can not use anything besides your own brain, and you can not consult anyone besides yourself. That includes chess programs, chess engines or chess computers, your friends, colleagues etc. etc. Chess books and game/move databases are allowed (as they are permitted in correspondence chess too).

I just don't see much distinction about using a computer and a chess book. (Both seem to be incorporating ideas, themes, and stategies that are not yours). Do you agree?

I have published a brief survey below of disputable behavior I have noticed in my brief chess career. THE SURVEY IS NOW CLOSED. Here are the official results:

The question is whether the following behavior is unfair or cheating:

Tis the Season . . . .

2005-12-21T23:13:00.000-05:00

Ho, Ho, Ho!!!! Merry Christmas!

The holidays are only a few days away. I was especially moved by this game I found today on www.redhotpawn.com. Not only was a person asking for help, but the requester's name was no other than "Santa Drummer." See http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=35194. This was too good to pass up. Since it is the season for giving, I thought I would lend my analysis.

The key move comes at black's 45th move. (See Below)

griffy vs. Santa Drummer
(Redhotpawn.com 12/17/2005)
(Black to move and win)

Santa Drummer plays the dubious 45... e3+? leading to a fairly easy draw. White can merely play 46. e2 and effectively prevent the e-pawn from promoting. If the Black king decides to aid its blocked h-pawn, the White king has plenty of time to snatch up the menacing e-pawn and still mosey onto h1 where White can effectively force a draw.

The far superior and game-winning move was 45... Kg4! going after the white pawn at h5 -- of course which the white king can protect. White's only logical move than is to try to take the Black e4 pawn (failure to keep an "eye on it" will result in it promoting). But this is to no avail. After the e4 pawn falls, Black will have a cleared h-pawn and a king in excellent position to keep the White king away. For example: 46.Ke3 Kxh5. 47.Kxe4 Kg4. (See below).

Endgame Observations

2005-12-20T23:22:00.000-05:00

(Red Hot Pawn, Correspondence Game, 12/19/2005) (Black to Move)

Here is a fascinating position I came across in a correspondence game just yesterday. With black to move, all eyes are on the c3 pawn. It is two ranks away from promoting, but, alas, the white king is fast on its tracks. Still, this diversion should be enough. As the white king chases the black pawn down the c-file, the black king can ease on over to the king side and munch up white's pawns.

So here's the key issue? Should black continue to lead the white king astray (1... c2) (red below) or should black put his king in motion towards the king-side pawns (1... Ke6) (blue below)?

Believe it or not, this is a crucial decision for black. One wins the game, the other loses it!

The right move is 1... Ke6!. This is best examined by the situation of the pieces after the white king captures the c-pawn (this is a guaranteed move--without such a move black's pawn would queen and white would easily be lost).

The two diagrams above tell the whole story. In both, white's king has just captured black's c-pawn (albeit at two totally different locations). The key is to notice how quickly the black king in each can get to g4 the key square to attack the g3 pawn (the key of white's king-side pawn chain).

In the first diagram, the black king is three spaces away from reaching g4. In the second, black's king is just two spaces away. And this is why only 1... Ke6 wins. In both diagrams immediately above, white is three moves away from f3 or f2 (the squares the black king must get to to guard the key g3 pawn). Thus, with 1... c2 the black king will reach its key square in the same amount of moves it takes the white king to get to its key square. The g3 pawn cannot be taken. With 1... Ke6 black reaches its key square one important tempo early. Thus, the g3 pawn can be taken by black. (See below).

AFTER THOUGHTS: dg, publisher of one of my absolute favorite chess blogs (http://boylston-chess-club.blogspot.com/), has noted that 1... Kd5 also leads to a pretty smooth victory for black. The concept is generally the same accept instead of racing the white king to the g3 pawn, black will now simply shoulder the white king away and seize up all of white's pawns. Excellent observation! I am embarassed I missed it!

New Lap Top!

2005-12-17T23:44:00.000-05:00

Not much chess news, but on a personal note that will have serious ramifications for this blog, my parents presented me my Christmas present early this year: a brand new laptop! I am so excited it's unbelievable. I am looking forward to hitting some of the cafes in the city and taking advantage of the city's incredible web access.

Missed Opening Opportunity

2005-12-12T21:32:00.000-05:00

One of my colleagues (what is the "correct" word that I am searching for?) on www.chessgames.com presented a game of his for discussion. I found the opening moves especially interesting. The opening moves are 1.d4 f6 2. e4 Nh6 leaving this position:

NN vs. Hypermodernprodige (Black to Move)

The bad news is that Hypermodernprodige finds himself on the wrong end of this opening -- danger is seriously looming. The good news is that white misses the initiative and plays 3. Qh5+?. This is a fairly serious blunder. 3. Bxh6 is decisive. Black cannot retake the poisoned bishop. 3... gxh6 is met with 4. Qh6## checkmate! (See below). Thus, as of move three white should have been a full piece ahead.

New Record!

2005-12-12T17:50:00.000-05:00

Well, I finally broke my record on FICS!

After a long (and unsual!) winning spell, I finally broke my FICs blitz record over the weekend. It was a startling game against a player a good 100 points my senior. I was playing as black and managed to gain a good, solid three-pawn lead only to lose that advantage going into the endgame. (I am still a bit peeved with myself for dropping three pawns like that). With the material equal, we were both down to a lone knight and a handful of pawns. Knight endgames can be brutal. Especially as in here when there was heavy pawn action on both sides of the board (knights are not designed for cross-board conflicts).

In the end, my opponent ended up resigning when a series of my pawns grew ever closer to promoting. I don't think it was the best of decisions on his/her part. I thought the game was pretty much drawn, but . . . a win is a win! And more importantly a new record is a new record!

(Of course, in true BlueEyedRook style, after this milestone win, I played another game against an opponent 150 points my junion only to lose because my clock ran out!)

Poll: Accept the King's Gambit?

2005-12-11T14:01:00.000-05:00

The King's Gambit is one of the oldest, and most analyzed openings in all of chess. Despite the amount of study devoted to it, the questions remains: should it be accepted or declined?

You decide!

RESULTS: Poll close 12/26/2005

Subtle Advantages

2005-12-08T22:52:00.000-05:00

One of the key problems with tactics programs and tactics books is that they focus on extraordinary situations/positions. For example, the unseen bishop fork you are supposed to find attacks two rooks, or the "correct" queen sacrifice you are looking for leads to checkmate. Very rarely do such books or problems deal with much more simple and subtle maneuvers. As a point, I can't recall any such problem where the solution to a given tactics exercise was the gain of a pawn. However, such subtle moves are how games are won!

Diagram 1 (left) is an example of a position I came across the other day in one of my FICs games. It is black to move.

The key move is 1... Qc7. Notice how the Black queen is forking the unprotected c3 knight and also the h2 pawn (more specifically the queen is reinforcing black's own d6 bishop's attack on the h2 pawn). See Diagram 2 (below) with the threatened pieces in red.

One of those pieces must now fall. The logical choice is, of course, saving the knight, with 2. Bb2 probably being the best move. But after 2... Bxb2, black has a not only a solid pawn advantage, but white's king-side is seriously weakened.

In the current game, I was actually able to fully exploit this advantage to victory. The position in Diagram 3 (left) was reached about 5 or 6 moves later. It is mate in two (black to move). 1... Qh6+. 2. Kg1 Qh2#.

Now I was able to see the original fork (Diagram 1), but I remember being rather surprised that I did so. I truly believe such subtle moves are intrinsically harder to see because all my tactics exercises focus on more substantial tactics (i.e., where the award is greater than just capturing a pawn).

Chess Movie: Knights of South Bronx

2005-12-05T13:49:00.000-05:00

Kudos for www.chessbase.com for announcing the upcoming chess movie starring Ted Danson (Cheers fame). See http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2775.

The chess community will always have Searching for Bobby Fischer as the greatest movie regarding chess, but it is nice to see other directors/producers trying to incorporate the chess theme. We'll see how it works out. (The theme sounds goods, using chess to help under-privileged children, but it might be a little too "cutesy, wutesy" for my taste).

On a other chess note, one of the Biography channels is airing an episode regarding Bobby Fischer in the next couple days. I have it TIVOed, but if I get more information, I'll be sure to share it. I am curious to see if he is generally portrayed in a positive or negative light.

Life's Ups and Downs

2005-11-30T17:16:00.000-05:00

When it rains it pours . . . . but when the sun shines, it shines bright.

My personal life has been a real wreck lately. Lots of crazy stuff going on and almost all of it deals with work. That, however, is for another web blog! One that absolutely no one would want to read (who wants to hear about some person griping . . . about non-chess related stuff!).

The reason I bring it up though is that it is amazing how well I have been playing chess lately. Oh, I still hang pieces, miss obvious wins, and fumble openings, but for the most part things have been very solid. I have had higher FICS ratings before, but never consistently. My FICS score has been floating a good 20-30 points higher than where my general average is. . . . and it has been doing this for a couple weeks! It strikes me how strange it is to have my chess life so up, while my career is looking so down.

Maybe God is taking some form of pity on me?! Though if the Heavenly Father is reading this web blog, while very appreciative of my chess related successes, I would much prefer help with the career aspects of my life (unless I can make chess my career . . . . which I don't think even Divine Intervention can provide!).

Sore Losers Part Two

2005-11-21T23:34:00.000-05:00

(EyesOfBlue vs. NN)

(FICS Nov. 2005)

(White to Move, Mate in Two)

I posted a couple weeks ago complaining about poor losers -- most particularly people who abandon clearly lost games.

I was kind of surprised by the backlash I got. Many people felt that my frustrations and anger were both unjustified. Many www.chessgames.com users were particularly hard on me -- complaining I was the one who should apologize.

The problem to the left is not rocket science. White is clearly ahead, but there's a pretty clear mate-in-two. 1. Qxa6 bxa6. 2. Rxa6#. I caught black (who once again will remain nameless in case he was just having a "bad day") totally off guard. Well, I saw the (relatively easy) winning move and played 1. Qxa6. Black had exactly 4 minutes and 16 seconds on his clock (I was playing 2 12 on FICS, nonetheless!).

What happened?

Well, I sat there for 4 minutes and 16 seconds as NN let the clock run down to zero. Round about the third minute, my anger just boiled over. "There is one legal move. . . can you please make it or resign?!" No answer. "I'll give you a hint, it involves using your pawn to capture a piece." Again, no answer.

To all my earlier critics, I present Exhibit B in the growing array of evidence I have against poor online chess players. Does this kind of behavior not bother anyone else? Am I the only one who calls people out on this kind of stuff?

Not much to report

2005-11-18T17:42:00.000-05:00

I've had many slow chess days lately . . . too many I am afraid! I have a nice 5 day holiday coming up (Thanksgiving, plus one vacation day), so that'll be a good time to get some matches in.

Alas, winter has raised its ugly head here in Washington. Apparently it was down to 29 degrees here this morning. All the chess players in Dupont Circle are gone -- the true sign (at least to me) that the cold season has truly begun. I'll miss those guys (and girls -- a few!). It was always nice to come home and see them duking it out on the chess tables.

For those who don't know the Washington, DC area, here is a quick link to Dupont Circle where a lot of people play.

http://sarkastisch.buzznet.com/user/

Pawn Game Debacle

2005-11-13T20:17:00.000-05:00

(FICS Nov. 2005)
(Eyesofblue vs. NN)
(White to move and win)

I like pawn endgames because they are conceptually easy . . . relatively of course! Indeed, often times pawn endings are extremely difficult.

The following position (See Diagram One, left) is hardly a Class A endgame problem, but it is deceiving. Black has just played f3. The winning move is, of course, 1. h5! The move is unbeatable. 51... gxh5 allows 52. g6 and easy promotion. 51... fxg5 allows 52. hxg6 and once again an easy promotion.

The conceptually difficult part is that white must "sacrifice" a pawn, but it hardly matters as the other king-side pawn will easily queen. I played the awful 1. gxf6?. This throws the entire game away. After 1... Kxg6 the game is hopelessly drawn.

Sore Losers

2005-11-09T00:18:00.000-05:00

(Black to move and Draw)
(EyesOfBlue vs. NN)

Scholars will look at this problem in disbelief. Black can acheive a draw out of this position? How?! Simple, it's called "logging out."

Ah, the joys of online play. This is a common phenomenon on the internet chess circuit. People have perfect, impeccably working computers during the match only to have those very same computers go terribly heywire when they suddenly fall behind in material. (Funny, how nobody's computer ever crashes when they are a queen ahead?!). I won't give the offender's name away. Everybody gets a bad day (maybe he was having one?), but I thought I would share with everyone the interesting dialouge that followed. Needless to say I was angry, hence my opening barrage.

EyesofBlue: Nice.... your computer "loses connection" when I am up a full queen and rook. Real nice. I'll wait the two weeks and have this adjudicated.

NN: well since your being a dick about it fine wait two weeks atleast i attemted to come back

Eyesofblue: You are the one who bailed.

NN: idid not bail out the damm phone range i have a phone line moron

EyesOfBlue: right when I promoted my pawn to queen and had you beat the phone rang?!

NN: thats what happens when your on call

NN: gosh what a marvel

And this where I dropped the conversation. You can't win with these people . . . I mean literally . . . they will just continue to bail out of games when they find themselves losing. My favorite part of this story is that this guy still hasn't conceded defeat. If his phone reallly did ring, he could just resign this game. But no . . . this is his tactic.

It won't work with me though. God bless the "adjudicate" function at FICS. . . it's the only weapon people have again such poor sports.

Draws

2005-10-28T13:48:00.000-04:00

I achieved a remarkable feat the other day. . . . four consecutive draws! The phenomenon is weird since I generally only draw about 7% of all my games. According to my math the probability is roughly 1 in 50,000 to have four draws in a row (based on my current 7% rate).

To celebrate this event, I have posted this picture (probably my favorite chess-related cartoon). I love the irony of it!

"Chess Parade"?

2005-10-26T10:04:00.000-04:00

I love this game as much as the next fanatic, but a chess parade? Come on... while we should all embrace our dorkiness, we don't need parades. Look at these poor kids! In ten years, they are all going to be telling their therapists how their parents made them march in this thing.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=2698

And why does Chessbase have to include that little kid on the far left picking his nose?!?!? C'mon, you are featuring him in a chess parade. That'll get him beat up at least for a couple weeks. But you also have to include a shot with his finger up his nose... that's just friggin' cruel! This kid will be in therapy for years.

Under Pressure.....

2005-10-25T22:49:00.000-04:00

Well, when you're rushed, you make mistakes. As in life, as in chess. Here (see Diagram One), as black, I am facing a pretty tight endgame. The advanced pawn and the guarding rook have been driving me nuts for most of the game, and I eagerly looking for away of doing away with one or both of them. But how... if at all?

Well, unfortunately, my thoughts on this consumed up all my playable time, and with less than one second left (no exageration!) I chose the dubious 1... Rxc7?. There are several much more playable moves, but the key is to focus on why this move is such a loser. What I failed to notice is that minus, the c7 white pawn, the e4 black pawn and the two rooks, this is an easy win for white. The white king, can just waltz over to the king-side and snatch up black's remaining pawns. (See Diagram Two). The black king, forced to c7 to take the white rook, simply can't get back in time.

Now believe it or not, I actually drew this game. A tit for tat.... white making a horrible endgame move. I got very lucky. After my key mistake, this was clearly white's game to win.

Defensive Tactics

2005-10-23T22:40:00.000-04:00

I have always felt that it is easier to see forks, picks, pins, x-rays, etc. from an offensive standpoint. That is I can more easily spot, for example, a fork I can execute with my knight, then play moves correctly preventing my opponent from using a knight fork on me.

I do not think this is a coincidence. All tactics programs and books focus on tactics from the offensive prospective. This is only fair. An offensive tactical problem demands the reader to play one accurate move. A defensive tactical problem would demand the reader to avoid making a key move. In the former, a reader would be "right" with only one (or usually only one) key move (i.e., the move leading to where the fork, pin, etc. could be executed). In the latter, the reader is "right" if he or she makes any move other than the move leading to the fork, pin, etc. This is a subtle but profound difference. How could a book be composed of defensive problems? when 99.9% of all the moves are viable and correct?

Here's an example my current troubles:

This is the position (see diagram 1) I faced in a recent game. As the reader can see, as white, I am a pawn ahead. However, I am nervous by the black a-pawn and the fact that it has the a8 rook providing a strong defensive cover for it. Fearing the worse, and not really thinking throughly (once again, time pressure was looming its ugly head), I went with the obvious, but clearly wrong 1. Rxa3?.

This only lead to diaster. After this move came, 1... Rxa3 2. Nxa3 Bd6! And now I am facing an awful a bishop attack on both my knights. (See Diagram 2). Nothing can be done. One of them will clearly fall to the menacing bishop.

As soon as I played 1. Rxa3 I saw this unfold. Too little, too late, huh? But after that move, then I could visualize black's attack, and no longer was I examining the position from a defensive perspective.

It's an interesting self-observation. Now how do I rectify it, I have no idea! But as they say, the first part in overcoming one's shortcomings is to identify what that shortcoming is.

Top Chess Websites

2005-10-21T11:30:00.000-04:00

If you type "chess" in GOOGLE, you are going to get a hundred million (exaggerated, but probably not overly so!) amount of "hits." 99.9% of these will be pure, unadulterated crap. It's amazing how much knowledge one can gain from the internet, but it's also amazing how much trash there is. On that note (and the fact that I am having a slow day at work!), I am going to sum up what I think are the best chess sites around:

1. http://www.freechess.org/ (Free Internet Chess Server (FICS)).

In my humble opinion, this is the best place to play online chess. Why? Several reasons. First, it has a large number of people on it. Have you ever requested a game on other servers and have no one respond? I have had this happen on FICS, BUT I can count how many times in the last three years this has happened on the fingers of my right hand. In short, it rarely occurs. Second, it has incredible features. Right now I have it set up where every game I play is automatically e-mailed to myself. This has been incredible in analyzing and inventorying my games. Other features include an online lecture series and online tournaments. Third, it has an adjudication feature. Tired of people wimping out and logging out on you when you are up two full rooks. Well FICS has an entire system for making sure you get the win, even if your opponent conveniently gets disconnected. Fourth, it is absolutely free!!!! Can't beat that!!!

Caveat: FICS (like most chess servers) has the same peanut gallery clogging up the chat lines. (Generally, conversations can be muted, but, of course, not easily filtered. So muting conversation generally runs the risk of missing something worthwhile or important). Politics, religion, philosophy.... you name it, it is usually debated endlessly on this site. It truly baffles me how people go to chess sites to sit there and not play chess!

2. http://chess.emrald.net/ (Chess Tactics Server)

"Chess is 99% tactics." I am not sure if I 100% agree with that quote, but there is no question tactics are important. As such, every chess player should know about this site. It is an inventory of tens of thousands of tactical puzzles. It includes all themes (i.e., forks, pins, etc.) and has problems for every skill level. What's more incredible is that there is a "quiz" type function that allows a person to test their skill with all the problems. You will be given a problem and given a score based on if you got the problem right and how fast you did so. As your score goes up, the problems get harder, as your score goes down, the problems get easier.... in short the problems reflect your performance. This sounds unextraordinary, but it is not. Because of this, problems rarely ever repeat and you are never thrown problems that are way above your head (or way below it!).

Caveat: This site seems designed for blitz play. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that. However, to advance your score you must often answer problems in 5 seconds or less-- an amazingly short amount of time. This is good for me, since I generally play blitz games and always have "time trouble," however, this fact has drawn many people away from this site.

3. http://www.chessgames.com/ (Chessgames.com)

Without question the best "social" chess site out there. Want to talk about some obscure opening or an even obscurer chess player? There are people on this site who are not only willing to listen, but are willing to actually respond! No chess subject is too remote or too mundane. The site's "Kibitzer Cafe" is a gold mine of chess thought and commentary. The site also features daily puzzles/games that users can discuss. The site also covers in realtime (or close to it) high-level matches and tournaments where again people can comment and discuss them. Feel isolated? Feel like a great big chess dork? On Chesssgames.com you can openly boast your knowledge of Morphy, Steintz, and Pulgar -- and instead of being shunned, you will be idolized!

Caveat: Chessgames.com has the same problems as any other website with chat features -- idiots and morons! People love talking about politics or about how other users suck. Blah, blah, blah. Second, and more disturbingly (since it can easily, or at least I think it can be easily fixed) the site's posting room has only one posting. In short every new posting is perceived to be a comment from the last. So if I post something about Morphy, and somebody responds totally off subject about the King's Gambit, that second post is treated as a comment from the first. Sounds like not a big deal, right? Wrong! With hundreds of people posting it becomes very easily to lose your post in the shuffle. Unanswered posts, an inability to determine who someone is responding to -- these are all horrible problems for this site. Third, the site has features that only paying members can use. This is perfectly fair, but obviously takes away from the site.

4. http://www.chesspositiontrainer.com/ (Chess Position Trainer)

This is not so much a website, but a download. Either way, it is phenomenal! How many chess books do you have on openings? Where are they now? Sitting on a shelf unused in years, collecting dust, right? This site will brings those books back to life! The site allows you to enter a pre-set of opening moves and then quizzes you on them. Thus you can easily memorize all your major openings. By presetting the moves of a chess book, you can then have all the major lines of that book easily memorized. Oh, and once again, it is perfectly free!!!

Caveat: On a basic level the download is not particularly user friendly (not atrocious mind you, but not good either). The system needs a lot of work. On a more conceptual level: what is the utility in memorizing openings? Many say you should memorize the themes of openings (i.e., developed pieces, pawn structures, etc.) as opposed to memorizing actual openings. Is this true? You be the judge. It's awesome to have the first 10 moves of all major lines of the Sicilian defense memorized. Am I a better chess player for it? Yes, if my opponent plays one of those 10 lines. But if he plays an 11th line I haven't memorized... guess what -- all my memorization won't mean anything. And as I have learned, there is always an unmemorized “eleventh line.”

5. http://scid.sourceforge.net/ (Shane's Chess Information Database (SCID))

What SCID lacks in name, it makes up for in sheer excellence. This is by far the best database organizer I have seen. It allows you take millions of games and arrange them by player, year, opening, etc. This is all pretty common, but SCID allows other amazing features. It has an ability to search games by piece positions (common) and number of pieces (uncommon). In other words, you can find all games where it is two pawns versus one pawn (regardless of position!). It also allows you to determine what your win/loss ratio is according to what opening is played. For example, this is how I was able to tell I win less than 20% of the time against the king's gambit! The program even has a feature that tells you where your pieces tend to be played during a given game. Thus, for example, after a thousand games I am able to determine that my queen almost never leaves her queen side. Oh, and once again, can you say -- FREE!

Caveat: I can honestly think of none! Still more features would be nice, but I just love this program.

HONORABLE MENTION

1. www.labatechess.com/store

I love chess books! I think part of me more enjoys collecting them than actually reading them! Well, this website is my absolute favorite place to buy chess books. The gentleman in charge is a saint of a man, who is a sincere and generous chess enthusiast. It is not uncommon for him to throw in free score cards in with my orders, and he is excellent at recommending books. A first class merchant, this is the website to go to for all your chess literature needs.

Caveat: Sadly chess books are expensive. I think this is because demand is relatively low (compared to most books) and publishers can't use high-volume sales to make up for publishing costs. www.labatechess.com has some really fantastic prices (far better than most websites!), but on a personal note, I just can't afford very many books. That and there really is a wealth of stuff on the internet that is usually free. I think chess books are generally going the way of the dodo. I could be wrong. But I think chess authors need to rethink their trade and that websites are going to be the future of chess publications. We've seen it happen with music (itunes and similiar services are totally replacing CDs), chess books might go the same route.

2. www.chessbase.com

This is your best, most detailed source for chess-related news. Games, tournaments, players, you name it.... if it is chess news it is here.

Caveat: Some will wonder why I didn't place this in the top chess websites. It is the best at what it does -- provide chess news. But largely, I don't find chess news all that important. Yeah, there is some major chess tournament in Milan. Yes, Fischer's extradition to the United States was unsuccessful. Yes, Susan Polgar is touring the United States with the former Soviet Union Premier Gorbochav. But really... who cares? Many people do! However, I am not one. Ulimitately, like most news sources, the articles here are hit or miss (some are interesting some are not). It all depends on the reader! I personally think www.chessbase.com has more misses than hits, but that's my humble opinion.

Spammers SUCK!

2005-10-21T10:19:00.000-04:00

I got barraged with no less than four separate splogs ("spam" + "blog" = "splog") last night on my dead rat posting. I saw that there some 5 comments, and was wondering if my picture of a large dead rodent really generated that much discussion. Turns out every single comment was just spam!

I am very annoyed.

Dead Rat

2005-10-20T16:40:00.000-04:00

This is 100% (well 95%) non-chess related, but I thought I would share with everyone the latest traumas affecting my life. . . . namely RATS! I was sitting at my computer playing chess the other night (that's where the 5% comes from) when I heard one of the many rat traps in our condo go off. I race to the kitchen open up the drawyer below to find this (albeit dead as a door nail) beast!

I added the beer bottle for scale... note how the tail is almost as big as the bottle.

Ahh, I love city life!.

Two paths diverge in a wood . . . .

2005-10-19T20:15:00.000-04:00

(Eyesofblue vs. Maguey)
(FICS Game)
(White to Move ... and, well.... not screw up!)

Decisions.... decisions... decisions.... As Robert Frost suggest, the simplest of them make "all the difference."

Here, I face such a dilemmna. I am smart enough to realize that the f6 bishop needs to go, but the crucial question is how. 1. Bxf6 or Nxf6. Well, I tried 1. Bxf6?? Disaster soon followed. 1... Nxf6 wins the game.

The white knight is being attacked three different ways, and it can't flee or 2... Qxd4 will occur. That poor knight fell on the next turn. Clearly, 1. Nxf6 was the correct move.

In all this was a horrific mistake. I am embarrased by it. I do note that it occurred over three years ago when I just started playing online chess, and I vaguely recall being under crazy time pressure. But I really hate making mistakes so obvious.

Chess Vacation

2005-10-19T17:01:00.000-04:00

Well, I have a couple days of vacation I need to take before losing them to our company's vacation day policy system. Turns out the girlfriend just got a new job and can't take any vacations in the near future.

So I am flying solo on this one!

Can anyone recommend any chess-related vacations? Without the ol' ball and chain around, I wouldn't mind totally "dorking out" and hitting some chess-related events or places. (You know... places you'd never be able to convince the girlfriend to go to if she was coming along!).

I know there is apparently some kind of chess cruise in January? Anyone going? Any other ideas?

Thanks.

Cricket vs. Chess?

2005-10-19T16:44:00.000-04:00

I have been very distracted from my chess playing due to a new love interest... namely, cricket. It's a weird story... similiar to the same strange tale (see my first postings) on how I got into chess. However, as with chess, I once again find myself hopelessly addicted... much to the bewilderment of all my friends, family, and girlfriend who know nothing about the game and are dumbfounded by my lack of interest in "more American" games.

Despite my new found fling . . . chess is still there.

In between "knocking over some wickets" and practicing my "bowling," I have been finding some time for some quick FICS matches and doing some puzzles on chess tactics server. The good news(?) is that with fall firmly setting in there will be less and less chances to hit the outdoors…. thus I expect a full chess resurgence in the next couple months.
I have a lot to explore. Of special note, I have run into a lot of problems with playing the Gruenfeld lately. I am having problems with the king side g7 pawn placement, and (believe it or not?!) also the kingside's pawn structure. I feel like my position becomes very easily cramped and overworked (I lost one game on a really nasty bishop knight pin the other day). The interesting thing about the Gruenfeld is that though I prefer it (i.e., I'll do everything in my power to get the position there), it is relatively rare. 1. d5 Nf6 is so rarely followed by 2. c5. Thus, I feel like it is an opening I have neglected for the more likely 1.e5 openings. I do have a book on it that probably is worth reviewing.

I am alive!

2005-10-06T12:10:00.000-04:00

Sorry, folks. Work has been keeping me super, super busy. That and I have developed a new hobby, that has been stealing me away from chess. But no fears.... I am still playing, and we'll continue to posts on this blog!

Uh-oh!

2005-09-06T23:00:00.000-04:00

(Eyesofblue vs. NN) (FICS 08-06-05)
(Black to move)

Black is contemplating 1... Ba6 and actually goes through with it. This is a horrible mistake. Do you see why?

It leads to any easy mate-in-four (and that's only if black's wants to prolong the inevitable!).

2. Rg3+ Kh7 (forced). 3. Bc2+ then quickly leads to mate. (3... Kh8 is easily met with 4. Rh6#) (3. Bd3 only prolongs black's agony with 4. Bxd3+ and 5. Rh6# to follow).

I actually spotted this one... can't remember the last time I saw a mate-in-four in an actual game. I would say it is a "good sign," but I am been playing so miserably lately, I won't!!!

Minor Piece Attack

2005-08-24T23:28:00.000-04:00

(A. Webster vs. V. Akopian) (1992)
(White to move)

Blacks's minor pieces have deeply penetrated white's position. Can anything be done? Possibly. Black spies 1. Qxb2. Is such a move wise?

No.

It is absolutely fatal! 1. Qxb2? leads to 1... Rxe2!. Thus, the score is even, but white's woes have just begun. White's queen must fall back, but where? 2. Qc1 is the only move (2. Nxe2 is, of course, suicide since now the black queen is lost by the black bishop), but now watch. 2... Rc2! (forking the knight and queen!), and the black bishop is looming down on the rook. No matter what... white is going to lose a piece! (See below).

Greed Kills Part II

2005-08-22T22:56:00.000-04:00

(Eyesofblue vs. NN)
(Black to Move)

It's black's turn to move here. He's already down a couple pawns, so you can't blame him for just trying to get something started, but he is about to make an awful mistake: namely, 1... Rxh3?.

Do you see why this is such a major blunder? It is because that same greedy rook is now lost. 2. Rxb7+ Ka8 (forced). 3. Rh7+! with the inevitable 4. Rxh3 to follow.

Chess Set

2005-08-20T01:02:00.000-04:00

What makes a good chess set? Several people can provide several answers. Some like fancy and elaborate, some like simple and plain. Some like pure staunton-style, others like modern design. In my humble opinion, really good chess sets (ones that make family heirlooms, or ones you would have laying out eternily in your living room) have two basic elements with one super-rare feature:

1. The queen must be a female. This is lost in so many sets these days. I saw a civil war chess set the other day that Ulysses S. Grant as the queen (with Lincoln the king of course). It's chess! There are two queens on the board. Stripping them of their femininity is a crime . . . and more importantly, just plain boring.

2. The opposing side must not be different in just color. How many chess sets have I seen where the only difference between the white and black pieces are that some pieces are white and some are black? This, of course, is not an issue with a "working" chess set (i.e., one you play most of your games on), but for truly decorative and elaborate chess sets, variety really is needed. Your standard, tournament, staunton-style set is for traveling. . . . not for displaying or giving to your grandchildren.

Bonus. Every piece is truly different (i.e., not any of white's 8 pawns are identical; etc.). This is truly rare. I have only seen a handful of sets with this truly awesome feature. It is this that separates the good chess sets from the great ones.

On that note: I present my original chess set. As you can see, it possesses the two main elements that I think are important (not the third, I am afraid, but I still think it's a great set!). The sentimental value for these pieces cannot be described. It is from this set that my chess really furnished (See first two posts below).

(Queens and Kings)

This is an "Islam versus Christendom" themed set. Of intersting note, notice how Christendom is the darker of pieces (i.e., black). Usually, with theme-based sets, the "bad guys" are black. For this reason, I suspect this set came from the middle east.

(Knights and Bishops)

Again, notice how elaborately different the white pieces are from the black.

(Rooks and Pawns)

This shot doesn't due the rooks justice. They are probably the two most beautiful pieces of the set.

Put a fork in me.... I'm Done!!!

2005-08-17T23:55:00.000-04:00

(Eyesofblue vs. NN)
(FICS Game) (White to Move)

I faced a nasty position in this game. The knight, queen, bishop, knight setup on the 3rd rank combined with the two black pawns at d5 and e5 are potentially disasterous. Either d4 or e4 leads to a nasty pawn fork where at least one of my pieces is lost. Is there a way out?

I didn't think so, hence my dubious move of 1. Ng5(?) instantly losing to 1... d4. (I was hoping for some kind of attack on h7... which by the way never occurred!). Instead, the right move was 1. Nxe5. If the queen retakes, 1... Qxe5 then 2. Bb6. After the black queen moves (it is being attacked by the rook), 3. Bxd8 Rxd8 leads to fairly equal chances.

Philidor Defense: When white doesn't play 3. d4

2005-08-15T22:42:00.000-04:00

For better or worse, I have become a minor "expert" on the Philidor Defense. Probably for the sheer fact nobody else in their right mind plays it (except me), I am often asked about various nuances on it. The following move order was discussed the other night:

(1.e4 e5. 2. Nf3 d6. 3. Bc4) (Black to Move)

What is black's best move? Black's confusion is understandable. It is rare in the professional chess world (and thus in chess opening books) for white to play anything other than 3. d4 (here white has played 3. Bc4).

3. Bc4 is popular in amateur chess for the same reason the Napoleon and Patzer opening are. It is white brandishly putting pressure on the f7 pawn (red pawn above) hoping for a quick, easy win. After 4. Ng5 both the white knight and bishop are bearing down on the poor pawn. Amateur and blitz chess are all about such quick and sudden attacks. It is, thus, key for the Philidor practitioner to recognize this position (I guarantee you'll see it... almost as much as 3. d4 (the universally accepted "correct" move)).

(3. Bc4 Be7) (white to move)

By far, black's move is 3... Be7 (see blue piece above). It accomplishes two things that ultimately defeat white's plans to put pressure on the f7 pawn: 1) It prevents the white knight from going to g5 (blue "x" above) (at least for now); 2) It makes white's goal of castling king side one step closer. And as an added bonus: it activates black's dark bishop, the notorious character of the Philidor (usually it is horribly cramped up). With this position, white's advantage is largely minimal.

Diagree? Let me hear about it. I purposely put quotation
marks around my self-given "expert" title.

Books

2005-08-15T00:27:00.000-04:00

My Modest Library

I am currently in a slump... so I thought, I would procrastinate and share with everyone my ever-growing (albeit slowly!) chess library. There's a couple titles missing, but this constitutes the bulk of my chess books. My girlfriend has only given me the middle shelf, so as you can see... I am running out of room! You'll recognize some classics, and some truly rare gems (yard sales while only rarely providing chess-book outlets, can be truly incredible).

If you're ever in Washington, DC... give me a call. I ain't no library, but for true-chess fans I would be willing to lend out some titles!

BlueEyedRook

Chess Books on Kindle

The Greatest Chess Move of All Time?

The Knight/Bishop Mate -- An Almost Complete Waste of Time

Puzzle

Stubborn People and Chess

Chess Flash = Awesome

Tactical Problem

More Allegations of Cheating in the Chess World

Not Seeing an Easy Mate-In-Three (D'oh!)

Searching for Bobby Fischer (The Book vs. The Movie)

Chess Books O'Plenty

Howdy

Good vs. Evil (Part Two)

Alleluhiah!

The UnHoly Beast . . . .

Hail to the Chief!

The USCL -- Assessing the Openings

The Day After . . . . .

Boston vs. Philadelphia

Game Day, baby.... Game Day.

An Undefeated Philadelphia Team?!

Philadelphia Beats Miami in Week One

US Chess League -- Opening Day!!!

Chess -- The Dark, Underside

Oh, Crapola......

The Top Youtube Chess Videos

The Philidor Opening

The rumors of my death . . . .

Mate in Three

Chess' Loveable Loser -- The Philidor Defense

Awake From My Slumber

Throwing In the Towel

Instinct?

Desperate Times

... And there are days I hate this game.

Sweet!

Goofy Chess Terms

Missed Chances

Charity -- the BEST Kind

Beating a Dead Horse

Charity -- The Good Kind

Charity -- The bad kind

Easter

Alive

Previous Post

Important Chess Endgame Tactics

The Most Important Move of My Life

Battle of the Sexes: Chess

Reflections

Games of Note

One, Simple Mistake

Thank You!

Poll: 1. e4, 1... ?

The agony of..... a draw?!

Tactics, Tactics, Tactics

Jerks

..... But no cigar!

When Knights Attack!

The Dangers of an Unprotected King.

Bishops versus Knights (a general assessment)

Cheating.... what is it?

Tis the Season . . . .

Endgame Observations

New Lap Top!

Missed Opening Opportunity

New Record!

Poll: Accept the King's Gambit?

Subtle Advantages

Chess Movie: Knights of South Bronx

Life's Ups and Downs

Sore Losers Part Two

Not much to report

Pawn Game Debacle

Sore Losers

Draws

"Chess Parade"?

Under Pressure.....

Defensive Tactics

Top Chess Websites