ChessUpdated.com   Chess World in Synthesis

Source: Streatham & Brixton Chess Club http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

Source: Streatham & Brixton Chess Club http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

Logical Chess: Move by Move
by Irving Chernev
Batsford

If I could transport myself back in time to give advice about chess to the nine-year-old-me -

- the nine-year-old who’d just about stopped blundering a piece or two every game, the nine-year-old starting to sense that chess was in some indefinable way more than a game, the nine-year-old who’d had one chess lesson in which he’d been taught about the Sicilian Dragon, but which he misremembered and played only in a mirror image, with f5 and the fianchetto on the queenside, the nine-year-old beginning to get some kind of clue about a little more than the basics, the nine-year-old starting to like chess rather a lot more than his other hobbies - then I would simply advise him to play through the classic book Logical Chess by Irving Chernev.

After all, the first chapter called The Kingside Attack deals with the stuff young boy’s dreams are made of: dashing kingside attacks, devastating invasions on the light-squares weakened by an absentee g-pawn, mating assaults on the castled monarch, sacrifices on h3, f7, the enemy king smoked out from his corner and swept across the board, and the like. And it does so from basics such as why we develop knights before bishops, why we move pieces only once in the opening where possible, from the importance of castling and rapid and efficient development, the fight for the centre and the centre as the zone of counterplay against flank attacks, the avoidance of weakening pawn moves in front of the castled position, how combinations arise as a matter of course from good play against weak play. And it does so in an enthusiastic, captivating prose style, that makes a virtue of repetition - the Move by Move of the subtitle is literal; each move is commented on - which enables the concepts to soak in gradually and unobtrusively in the learner.

In other words, there is a thematic compactness to the games chosen and the way they are explained, and this is Chernev’s outstanding (both senses) pedagogical style in this book. This thematic compactness extends even to the variations he demonstrates and the order of the game, these things cleverly chosen to bring his points truly home. For instance, take a look at the position to the left of this text, from game 12 in the book. White’s pieces got in a muddle earlier and abandoned his kingside, after which black was able to provoke the pawn-weaknesses we see in the chain running from f2 to h4 in front of a worried-looking white king. It’s Flohr, black to move, and with 17…Qxh4! he caused Pitschak’s immediate resignation thanks to the mate coming on h2.

Now take a look at the position to the right from game 13 in the book, where it’s black to move in Dobias-Podgorny - one game later and eight pages on. White has just played 14.Rfe1!, and Chernev explains: “This unexpected zwischenzug (in-between move) threatens immediate victory by 15. Rxe7 Qxe7 16. Bxf6″ - the analysis could have stopped here, but instead continues - “16… Qd6 17. Ng5 h5 18. Qxh5! gxh5 19.Bh7#!” How could a learner fail to absorb this exciting motif, demonstrated vividly in differing circumstances but so closely together in the book?

All this praise extents to part two of the book, The Queen’s Pawn Opening. The emphasis here different: it’s on the positional-pressure starting with 1.d4 promises white, which in these games usually manifests itself along the c-file in Queen Gambits Declineds, or via the built-up energy of Colle systems and similar. In other words, it’s the sort of stuff positionally-naive nine-year-olds need to know how to avoid being on the receiving end of, the sort of stuff they might want to try out against tactically-rampant ten-year-olds. If this sounds less like the chess-dreams of children that chapter 1, it doesn’t really matter. Chernev’s pizazz, humour and enthusiasm carries us through. He even manages to describe castling kingside as “probably the most significant contribution to civilization since the invention of the wheel,” and the chess-besotted-child is likely to half-belief this. Perhaps my life would have turned out better had I read this at nine - rather than instead deciding that the sofa and bath were civilization’s greatest achievements, and that Man should more or less ceased his inventiveness with their discovery, as more or less I did in my life.

The third and final and weakest chapter of the book is called The Chess Master Explains his Ideas, and it is here Chernev’s partiality as an author in this work is particularly visible. In several of these games, the winner plays reasonable moves, the loser pretty awful moves, and an absolute walloping results; yet Chernev rates these games as positional masterpieces. Crushes, yes; Masterpieces, no. Perhaps he rates them so highly because they demonstrates the principles he is determined the reader ought adhere to (despite occasional disclaimers to the contrary about flexibility.) Or some games in this section suffer the opposite problems. In these Chernev again explains the winner’s play as flowing logically from ideal principles such as rapid and efficient development in the opening, piece-coordination in the middle-game, and accurate and efficient play in the endgame - whilst the loser flouts at some point one of these dictums, and suffers the consequences, he says. But in fact the actual losing point is sometimes a lot more elusive, the win far more sophisticated, the decisive error far later. Chernev’s over-confidence that classically-correct play ought be rewarded with such wins risks confusing the learner who believes he is applying absolute-rules only to find the victories don’t follow as smoothly from then as he’s been lead to believe. No sense in this book of dynamics, hypermodernism, the “ugly” nature of modern play can be discerned; the reader who reads only this book will be strong against a certain type of victim, but against more sophisticated others the conceptual limitations will soon tell.

That is why, if I could go back twice in time, I’d travel back six months later and run through some of the limitations with the book. These are most easily seen in the lack of defensive resources Chernev demonstrates, and it is fun to try to search through these games for defensive improvements. Some are interesting but for Chernev’s purposes ultimately irrelevant. In the diagram to the left, for instance, it is black to move, and the pin on the f6 knight implies he has two choices: 13…Kg7 or 13…Bf5. He chose the former, and white Spielmann already in his sacrificial-element finished the game off nicely starting with 14.Nce4!. Of the latter defence, Chernev analyzes after 14.Nxf5 gxf5 15.Qg3 how both 15… Kg7 and 15…Kh8 lead to immediate disaster for black.

Could black - Wahle - have done any better? Chernev omits an important possibility from the point of view of understanding the game more fully. After 13… Bf5 14.Nxf5 gxf5 15.Qg3, black can play 15… Nh5 or 15… Ne4 bailing out to an endgame. True after then 16.Bxe7 Nxg3 17.fxg3 (17.Bxf8 Nxf1 18.Bh6 is witty but inferior) white will pick up the f5 pawn and should have little difficulty winning the endgame, but nonetheless this would have been a much better try for black. And given this, perhaps even 13…Bg4 might be his best bet in the diagram. It is reasonable of Chernev to omit all this, since it doesn’t change the ultimate result, and it is not thematically in-keeping with the chapter - but the reader should be aware this sort of thing quite often exists in these games, and must be look at the book not as a source of all wisdom but as a good starting point to understanding the spirit of a certain type of game of chess, but not the accuracy or sometimes even the inevitability of the result.

Sometimes the omission of a defensive resource is rather more deceiving for the reader. Take the position to the right from Tarrasch-Mieses (1916). White with his two bishops, better development, and extra space undoubtedly has a clear advantage. Black played 15… Rfe8? and after 16.Qh3 Qd6? (that 16…h5 is the only move here says enough about black’s position) 17.Bxf6 gxf6 18.Qh6! soon lost. All this is well and good and clearly explained by Chernev. However, black’s best defence is 15…h6! in the diagram position. It is true that after 16.Bh4 or 16.Bf4 white retains a clear advantage, but 15…h6 staves off immediate disaster by neutralising the threat of 16.Qh3 h6 17.Bxh6. Not only that, in several variations in the surrounding moves Chernev analyzes …h7-h6 to show how it loses. Why did he not include 15…h6 in his notes, really the only move that keeps black in the game, and a defensive try he was happy to analyze in similar positions where it lost? Because, presumably, it contradicts Chernev’s “message” about not making weakening pawn moves in front of your king unless absolutely necessary. But here it was necessary, albeit less obviously absolutely necessary than in some cases he presents, for instance cases where such a move stop an immediate mate. One might even say that Mieses applied the principles Chernev advocates rather too severely here and almost-immediately it cost him the game; this is something that without a doubt Chernev should have pointed out to his reader.

The omission of certain defensive opportunities is not the only partiality displayed by Chernev. For instance, in his note to 1.d4 in game 23 he writes dogmatically about how white’s general plan should include keeping a pawn in the centre - especially for it to act in support of a knight outpost at c5 or e5, about the ideal deployment of the bishop and rooks, deployment of the queen at c2 or e2, and kingside castling. This is ludicrously over-prescriptive, yet Chernev castigates white’s actual choice of the Stonewall Attack for similar reasons, writing that “Aside from the fact that making so many pawn moves in the opening is a flagrant violation of principle, the adoption of a system which calls for the launching of an attack by a preconceived formation of pieces, without regard to the advisability of an attack and without reference to the requirements of the particular position, is contrary to the concept of proper strategy and to the spirit of chess itself.” That’s true, but Chernev’s own prescriptions seem perilously susceptible to a similar criticism. The practical problem is that occasional-disclaimers aside, it is not hard to imagine an easily-swayed reader becoming as dogmatic as Chernev is as to what is right and wrong in chess, without realising that chess is just not like that for the most part.

Why was Chernev apparently so unaware of these problems? Probably due to a lack of strategic sophistication that is evident in certain places in the book. Take the diagram position to the left. Black can recapture on d5 in two plausible ways: with the pawn or with the knight. He chose the pawn, a perfectly reasonable move, and Chernev condemns the alternative capture with the knight on the grounds that e3-e4 will leave white in control in the centre. But the situation is strategically a lot more complicated than this, and 9…Nxd5 is also perfectly reasonable move, since it more or less obliges the exchange of two minor pieces: after which white’s extra-space counts for less, since after the exchange black’s pieces won’t be treading on each other’s toes.

Still, all this shouldn’t put off improving players picking up this book and playing through each game, with Chernev’s commentary warm and welcome company. This is the book children who have learnt a bit about chess should get from Santa, this is the book adults who’ve picked up the basics should use to get to the next level, and every public library should have a copy. As for me, there weren’t many surprises reading this work nowadays, because I have picked up these ideas in dribs and drabs over years. I only need a time machine now to receive their gift in one convincing, direct, memorable dosage at the stage one should, and perhaps to the nine-year-old-me I’ll add in some advice about haircuts too.

PS. Take a look here for an example of how Chernev writes.

Source: Streatham & Brixton Chess Club http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
How was your weekend? Not quite chessy enough? Well, that needn’t be the case next weekend - because a Richmond Rapidplay is taking place Sunday 13th July. I know several Streatham and Brixton Chess Club players are already going, and if that isn’t enough to tempt you, you’ll find below excellent photographs from the last one (thanks to Vad from Streatham Chess Club). Oh, more details and entry stuff is here.

Tough competition (click for larger) . . .

. . .

The action begins . . .

Source: Streatham & Brixton Chess Club http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
“500 Master Games of Chess. Love it,” commented PG about Tartakower & Du Mont’s classic, having perused a certain picture of my cat-occupied chess books. “Went through the lot when I was about nine. It made me the player I am today. (Take that any way you wish!)”

The way I took it was as an excuse for a dawdle down memory lane, and flicking through the falling-out pages I re-encountered this old position from Rubinstein - Hromadka (1923), where it’s white to play. The killer-move that white unleashed is implied in the text below, so take a little while to try to solve this one before scrolling down:

. . . which in turn reminded me of something else entirely different. In this position (Young - Kittsley, 1902) from the neighbouring book Chess Middlegames by Laszlo Polgar, it’s white to play, and - supposedly - win:

Polgar’s solution is 1. Qe4! Qxh5 2. Qxh7+ etc, adding the variations 1…Qxe4 2.Nf7 mate and the more interesting 1…Rdf8 2.Qxg6! hxg6 3.Rd3! gxh5 4.Rh3 +-.

Now assuming that you’ve solved today’s first puzzle, you’ll see that the connection between today’s two positions is more, of course, than their geoegraphical proximity on my book-shelf. It’s that both feature the queen wafting into an attack on herself in empty space, but with devastating effect on the opponent’s position. Quite the manouver: so regal, so aloof, so final, so beautiful; something of the feline about it, certainly a motif deserving its own name. Except, alas, in this second position after 1.Qe4, black has a far more satisfactory defence* than those offered by Polgar, after which white is at best equal. Puzzle 2 today is for you to fish that one out.

* maybe not - see the comments.

Source: Streatham & Brixton Chess Club http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

Tuesday 15 August 2008

Prospero Pichay Jr, President of the National Chess Federation of the Philippines and Deputy President of the ASEAN Chess Confederation today announced the launch of the Asia-Pacific Pro Tour 2008/9 with back to back tournaments in the Philippines.

The Asia-Pacific Pro Tour, with an overall prize fund for players from participating national chess federations, is expected to involve between 10 to 12 Grandmaster Open Events stretching across Asia and to date 5 countries and 8 tournaments have been confirmed. 

The 3rd President Macapagal Arroya Cup and the 3th Prospero Pichay Jr Cup will both be held at the Duty Free Festival Mall, Ninoy Aquino Airport, Manila, Philippines respectively from 6 to 13 September 2008 and 13 to 20 September 2008.

Together, the tournaments will have a total prize fund of USD 70,000.

Enquiries may be directed to:

Tournament Director: Willy Abalao ncfpsecretariat@yahoo.com 
and copied to Asia-Pacific Tour Pro Director: Peter Long peter@aseanchess.com

Please download prospectus and entry forms

1. 3rd PGMA Cup, 6-13 September 2008
2. 4th Pichay Cup, 13-20 Septemebr 2008   
Source: http://www.fide.com/index.php?format=feed&type=rss

The Head of the Republic of Kalmykia, FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, at the invitation of the Prime Minister of Montenegro, Milo Dukanovic, had a working visit to Montenegro on July 9, 2008. During the meeting, the FIDE President expressed his deepest appreciation for the invitation and said that it was his third meeting with the Head of the Government of Montenegro. Previous meetings were held in February 2004 in Kotor, Montenegro during the FIDE Presidential Board and in September 2006 in Herceg Novi during the European Youth Chess Championship 2006.

The FIDE President said that chess in Montenegro is developing dynamically; also he noted the activity of Montenegro Chess Federation. It is well known that in June 2006 at the FIDE Congress in Turin, the city of Budva candidacy was nominated for the holding of the Chess Olympiad 2010 and only in the third round was eliminated by a slender voting margin.

Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, on behalf of FIDE, thanked the Montenegro Government and Montenegro Chess Federation for handing in an application for the 40th Chess Olympiad and the FIDE Congress in 2012. He also noted that Montenegro will have very strong opponents - Sweden and Turkey.
FIDE President requested Milo Dukanovic to consider the possibility of introducing chess into the school curriculum.
The parties also discussed the possibility of establishing a Chess centre in Montenegro.

Here are some photos from the meeting:

Source: http://www.fide.com/index.php?format=feed&type=rss

FIDE and Global Chess is pleased to announce the appointment of Peter Long as a Web Editor of FIDE.com to facilitate the publication of news and information from the international chess community.

He is a FIDE Master, FIDE Trainer and FIDE Arbiter who currently serves as Executive Director of the ASEAN Chess Confederation and is the coordinator of the Asia-Pacific Pro Tour, a series of 10 to 15 GM Open Tournaments stretching geographically from India to Korea.

Peter is a former National Champion who was active in international competitions in the 80’s and early 90’s while making a living as a journalist with columns in 3 major newpapers. He is also an active instructor at coaches seminars and frequently serves as an arbiter in international competitions held in the region.

He has a blog at http://thefidetrainer.blogspot.com/ and can be contacted at webeditor@fide,com

Source: http://www.fide.com/index.php?format=feed&type=rss

7 July 2008

The FIDE Singapore Office has issued the second batch of Trainers’ Badges to the trainers who had sent in their data and made payment.

The next batch of badges will be processed and sent out in September 2008 and those badges take effect from 1st February 2008 for 2 years thus expiring on 31st January 2010 for those who obtained their titles by direct application; and for 3 years thus thus expiring on 31st Januart 2011 for those who had obtained their titles by passing seminar examinations.

The Title & License Fees payable are:

All existing titleholders shall transfer the Licence Fees to FIDE, whose account details are:

Account Name:           Federation Internationale d’Echecs (FIDE)
Bank:                          UBS, Switzerland
IBAN:                         CH76 0024 3243 3420 8761 W
BIC:                            UBSWCHZH80A
Address:                      Case Postale
                                    CH-1002 Lausanne, Switzerland

The FIDE Singapore Office will send the badges provided all relevant information had also been sent by email to:

1. Tang Kum Foo kftang@starhub.net.sg 
2. with copy to Jovan Petronic jovanpetronic2003@yahoo.com.sg 
3. and copy to Alberto Muniz Pardino asdracles@hotmail.com 

The email shall carry the subject line: FIDE Trainers’ Data and give the following information:

Name & Surname:
Member Federation:
Date of Birth:                          dd/mm/yyyy
Gender:
Email Address:
Mailing Address:
Passport Number:
Passport expiry date:               dd/mm/yyyy
all FIDE Titles held:                 example - GM, IM, IO, IA, FA, etc …
Photograph:                             jpg fomat

With effect from 1st February 2008, all academies conducting seminars shall collect ALL fees and transfer them to the FIDE account noted above within 10 days after the end of each seminar so that successful candidates shall receive their certificates & badges within one month from the end of the seminar.

Ignatius Leong
FIDE General Secretary

Source: http://www.fide.com/index.php?format=feed&type=rss

FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov signed cooperation agreement with the President of the Russian Badminton Federation Sergei Shakhrai on the 1 July 2008 in Moscow. The subject of this agreement is popularization of badminton among FIDE members as the most optimal for physical activity of chess players, and also popularization of chess among badminton players.
The parties are planning together develop and realize social programmes aimed at promoting healthy lifestyle and mass sports, involvement chess and badminton players in them and also experience and information exchange necessary for the successful development of chess and badminton in the Russian Federation and abroad. The agreement supposes organization of chess tournaments among badminton players and badminton competitions among chess players and also media coverage of the main points of joint activities.

Source: http://www.fide.com/index.php?format=feed&type=rss