ChessUpdated.com   Chess World in Synthesis

Source: Susan Polgar Blog

The Canadian Open just finished yesterday. 49 players took part in this tournament.

1-4. GM Moiseenko (UKR), IM Cornette (FRA), GM Mikhalevski (ISR), GM Rozentalis (LTU) 6½/9

Games and more info can be found here: http://monroi.com/the-2008-canadian-and-quebec-open-chess-tournament-home.html

Source: Susan Polgar Blog

Source: Susan Polgar Blog

The XXVI Andorra Open just concluded yesterday. 179 players took part in this event. GM David Howell of England won the event clear first. Here are the top finishers:

1. GM D. Howell (ENG) 8/9
2. IM R. Edouard (FRA) 7½
3-5. GMs Granda Zuniga (PER), Comas Fabrego (ESP), Marin (ROM) 7

Official website: http://www.escacsandorra.com/Open2008/

Source: Susan Polgar Blog

Source: Susan Polgar Blog

The 2008 Politiken Cup took place from Saturday 19 July 2008 to Sunday 27 July 2008. 6 GMs tied for 1st with 8 points in 10 rounds. Here are the top finishers by order of tie-breaks:

1. GM Sergey Tiviakov 2645 8
2. GM Vladimir Malakhov 2689 8
3. GM Yurij Kuzubov 2578 8
4. GM Peter Heine Nielsen 2652 8
5. GM Boris Savchenko 2578 8
6. GM Jonny Hector 2537 8

7. GM Michael Roiz 2680 7½
8. GM Mikheil Mchedlishvili 2604 7½
9. GM Pavel Eljanov 2716 7½
10. GM Konstantin Landa 2615 7½
11. GM Alexei Iljushin 2546 7½
12. GM Emanuel Berg 2592 7½
13. IM Oliver Kurmann 2394 7½
14. IM Christian Jepson 2358 7½
15. GM Lars Schandorff 2537 7½

Here is the official website.

Source: Susan Polgar Blog

Source: Streatham & Brixton Chess Club Streatham & Brixton Chess Club
In May last year, I wrote here:

I don’t know anyone who can say: “I followed Rowson’s advice, and gained this many grading points.”

Well, I do now. It’s me, because in the season just gone I gained 23 ECF points - approximately 115 FIDE Elo points according to the usual conversion, although Richard commented previously that 180 Elo points is the traditional figure! Anyway, although there were several things I tried to improve my chess, the simple advice of Rowson’s I followed was to simulate over-the-board (otb) chess at home. Indeed, aside from “practice concentration” that’s more or less the only piece of direct advice Rowson offers in his two books about psychology and chess improvement. And despite that, and despite all my misgivings about advice (here) - today, I’m advising you not just to base your attempts at chess improvement around otb simulation - but also to read Jonathan Rowson’s two books about chess improvement. That is, my advice today if you are an adult player wishing to improve who has hit an impasse is just to read The Seven Deadly Chess Sins and Chess for Zebras and in that order.

And, that’s it for today, that’s all. The next in this series is on Monday next week. For now, all that’s left to say is:

What?

Still here?

Not entering your credit card details at Amazon, and simulating otb chess while you wait for the postman? You mean you’ve dared not to follow my advice? I knew it. I suppose I had better justify my opinion instead then. I’ll focus on The Seven Deadly Chess Sins, henceforth Sins, adding a brief word about Chess for Zebras, henceforth Zebras, toward the end.

There are two reasons why you should read Sins, and the second is somewhat paradoxical and requires substantial justification. The first reason is simple, and it is that some of the content of the book - about psychological causes of error in chess with a number of well-annotated examples - will almost certainly be pertinent to your play, training, and thinking. However, there are lots of books that are pertinent to every chess player’s play, in this kind of way or in other ways. Why I am recommending this one in particular? Indeed, over and above its practically-orientated competitors? Now I come to the second, paradoxical reason: the second reason you should read this book is for the style in which Sins is written, which is as follows. Sins is very badly written but in very useful ways which oblige you to really think differently about chess and yourself. The next few paragraphs are a justification of that statement, whereby I state the main ways Sins is badly written and how this links to reader’s learning. I am using here a slightly stretched meaning of “style” which includes Rowson’s use of not-chess to write about chess. Anyway I’ve given each way a subheading.

Humpty Dumpty
Firstly, although there is an overarching structure at work in Sins - the book is organized by the seven different sins - for the most part the writing is disorganized, rambling, and stuffed full of digressions. This manifests itself less in the annotations than in the long stretches of unbroken prose, but even here there are plenty examples. Take the position to the right, for example, from Tal-Botvinnik, World Championship 1960 game 17 - on page 151 in the book in Chapter 5. Tal has just played 24.Qe3, and Rowson has just quoted Tal’s explanation of why white is objectively worse, but why this isn’t the end of the story: there are subjective factors at work here, because the position is complicated and the decisive complications look likely to crop up during time-trouble. Indeed this is what happened, and Botvinnik eventually blundered the whole game away on move 39.

Now, to Tal’s description of the position and events, Rowson adds this digression:

This reminds me of something GM Peter Wells told me of a post-mortem with GM Stuart Conquest in which Peter asked ‘Did you think you were better here?’, to which Stuart replied: ‘I don’t have such thoughts during the game. I just look for ideas.’ This is a little at odds with my suggestion in Chapter 2 about having some feel for whether your position is getting better or worse, but it is a valuable insight all the same. Certainly in games which are exceptionally tense, like last-round games for example, you might do more harm than good by trying to keep track of the ‘objective’ assessment because the errors which decide the outcome will be more closely related to the tension than to the assessment.

This anecdote demonstrates the disorganization in the book because it is more pertinent to the content of chapter two than the diagram position, and it is a digression because the diagram position and game itself have already been more than adequately explained up to this point. So all this is a distraction from Tal’s explanations and Rowson’s additional analysis. And this is one reason why the book is so useful. At this point, the reader who is willing to be fully engaged with the book is thrown back to thoughts of a previous chapter and further distracted from what’s going on in the game for himself. In other words, s/he is forced to mentally arrange the book, the chess content and the psychologizing for him/herself, if s/he is going to keep up; in fact I might go so far as to say s/he has to deal with something of the messiness of thinking that occurs in our actual games. To stretch this even further, I might say that we are forced to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together again: But that because this impossible, the experience means that the book fully commands our mentally faculties, and in doing so even reminds of us of the infinite difficulty of chess.

In other words, all this enables us to learn by making us think for ourselves, and helps teach us some broad lessons about our thinking and chess in general.

Memories are made of this
Rowson’s book is stuffed full of phrases, aphorisms and quotes, and I mean both stuffed and full. For instance, by page 25 we have had quotes from St Teresa of Avila, Gerald Abrahams, Tarrasch, Samuel Beckett, J. Krishnamurti, Sartre, Rumi, Octavio Paz, Kierkegaard, The Lutterworth Dictionary of the Bible, Simon and Garfunkel, and Bruce Lee. Then on page 25, we get one of the first direct pieces of chess advice Rowson offers: to talk with your pieces. Later on, amidst the analogies with quantum physics, relativity, philosophy, pop songs, Picasso and Churchill quotes, and a whole smörgåsbord more, we find other little snippets of chess advice too, such as remembering to ask yourself if you really believe something (for instance a speculative sacrifice.) If chess imitates life, then Rowson is clearly imitating DJs like DJ Yoda who have a real “mash up” style.

So what? Well, compare this to John Nunn’s Secrets of Practical Chess, which contains nothing comparable of the sort. There are a few snippets of aphoristic advice in Nunn’s book regarding things one should remember to remind oneself at the board such as “LPDO” (”Loose Pieces Drop Off”) and DAUT (”Don’t Analyze Unnecessary Tactics”) amongst several worthy examples and mini-essays about other practical matters. The struggle with Nunn is making his acronyms memorable at the board, and the lack of alternative phrases if these don’t really stick or make much sense to you. Indeed, if you are a strategical player with a taste for closed positions, remembering Nunn’s LPDO and DAUT advice is more likely to do more harm than good, since you are probably not analyzing enough tactics and not allowing your pieces to venture out from behind your pawns enough.

With Rowson, there is no such problem. Something is bound to stick, because there is so much random stuff- and for the same reason, something is bound to be relevant. In my case for instance, I find, talking to my pieces ludicrous and a somewhat demeaning experience at the board. However, asking myself if I really believe something has really influenced my play in the season just gone, by cutting out unnecessary worrying. Who knows what will stick for you? Maybe, “jam lust”, maybe “moment sensitivity”, maybe “talking to your pieces”, maybe one of the many others. Who knows? There is only one way to find out.

From The High Street to the Garden
The above section is about how Rowson’s writing is great for allowing us via memorable phrases to package broad advice into a small mnemonic. However, the opposite is true too: Rowson’s style of writing is great at “opening up” our thinking as well. This is partly because Rowson makes reference to a great many things, but also because he allows himself to “think out loud”, unashamedly mentioning passing thoughts in, well, passing. For instance, for no real reason on page 35 Rowson talks about how the stronger the player, the more abstract their visual image is of the chess board. This had an interesting point of contact for me personally, because I have studied the psychology behind mathematical learning (I am a Mathematics graduate) where there is an interesting division between visual learners of mathematics and those who learn in other ways. For now I won’t go any further, although sharp readers may wonder what the connection is to my advice here. Instead my point is there are many improbable points of contact that reading Sins allows different readers to make. Perhaps for instance you understand yourself via Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? Well, that’s here. So too Taoism. So too existentialism. And there’s a mention of Star Trek. Or maybe you have a lot of knowledge about quantum mechanics? That’s there too, and perhaps reading Rowson’s thoughts about it will help you open up and change your own thinking about chess. After all, if you’re an adult player who has hit an impasse, that is probably one thing you need to do.

If you’re still unconvinced, let me suggest two analogies. One, imagine someone who lives a life of routine based around an average UK high-street, with its supermarkets of microwave meals, its clothing shops of slave-labour jeans - then imagine them visiting Camden Market, at least for an afternoon. They may not buy very much there or even like it, but the effect on their concept of food and clothing will be enormous, opening up new possibilities, although they may only find useful one or two for themselves. I said above that Rowson is a bit like a DJ with a “cut up” style; he’s a bit like Camden Market, too.

Or, secondly, think about it this way. Each human mind is like a garden with unknown soil: we know things can grow there, but we don’t know what will take root, what will perish. Rowson’s writing style corresponds to the scattering of many seeds, whilst the chess content of Sins is about psychological causes of error in chess - so in this paragraph’s analogy, it’s a weed-killer. It’s important to remember that, however uncomfortable it may sound, learning is like this: we don’t know what will work in advance, as my experience of chess coaching also taught me. Although Rowson’s content is somewhat prescriptive, his writing style works differently and more usefully in this way.

Remember to Forget
I mentioned above that Sins includes enough phrases, quote and aphorisms that something is bound to be memorable. However, the book’s style is so chockablock with bric-a-brac that reading it inevitable involves a great deal of forgetting. This then helps us discover anew at least some of its lessons, because as I argue above reading it involves the planting of many seeds.

In my own case, I actually managed to forget the book’s main message entirely. A little while back I was thinking over chess, and the difficulty of trying to align our thought processes to the enormous actual difficulty of the game itself. Of course we can’t do this perfectly, as computers show, but in understanding our limitations we can do our best to work both with and around the ultimately-unknowable reality of the game. Failure to do so often involves some misapprehension of the game itself - supposing it is more positional than it really is, for instance. I was thinking of writing a blog post about all this, when I suddenly thought it sounded like something Rowson might have said something about. In fact, it’s very close to the overall main message of Sins, which I had more or less managed to entirely forget. There is, though, no way I would have thought anything along these lines had I not read Sins, both for the stimulation of its content and the high level of forgetability that comes from the (apparent) flaws of Rowson’s writing style.

Conclusion
So, in conclusion, the content of Sins is likely to be pertinent to your play, if you are an adult player who has hit an impasse. However, it is the literary weaknesses of the style in which the book is written that provides unique opportunities to learn, because in various ways these oblige the committed reader to come to chess anew.

The same, in my opinion, holds for Zebras, although there are some differences. Zebras has a less clear overall structure than Sins, although internal chapters and passages themselves tend to command more clarity. The reason for this moderate tidying in writing style is probably that Rowson was slightly “dumbing down” in response to certain negative reviews, although this is a shame in my opinion. Btw, I should mention in passing two negative reviews that were useful in the writing of this piece: Taylor Kingston’s at ChessCafe, and JimmyBob’s at amazon.com. I agree with some of what they say, but my overall conclusion is entirely different.

Anyway, I believe Sins is a better book than Zebras but that you should read both, with Sins first. Of course, by read I mean not just the words - but that you also get out an actual chess set and actual pieces, play through all the examples and games as they come along, and whenever you can put the books to the side to analyze or play back through the particularly memorable sequences. And if you don’t believe that, all I can do is recommend you read Rowson’s writing in order to convince yourself. And who knows what else might happen if you do?

Source: Streatham & Brixton Chess Club Streatham & Brixton Chess Club

Source: Susan Polgar Blog

White to move. How should White proceed?

8/4p3/1pkP3Q/5p2/1K3p2/5Pq1/8/8 w - - 0 1

Kubbel 1928, presented by Andreas

Source: Susan Polgar Blog

Source: Susan Polgar Blog

Top seed GM Humpy Koneru lost with the White pieces in the first round against former women’s world champion Stefanova. All other games were drawn.

Round 1 results:

Koneru, Humpy - Stefanova, Antoaneta 0-1
Cramling, Pia - Muzychuk, Anna ½-½
Pogonina, Natalija - Ushenina, Anna ½-½
Xu Yuhua - Sebag, Marie ½-½

Official website: http://www.northuralscup.ru

Koneru,H (2622) - Stefanova,A (2550) [D45]
Krasnoturinsk RUS (1), 27.07.2008

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 a6 6.b3 Bb4 7.Bd2 Nbd7 8.Bd3 0–0 9.0–0 Qe7 10.Qe1 a5 11.a3 Bd6 12.c5 Bc7 13.e4 e5 14.exd5 cxd5 15.Nb5 Bb8 16.dxe5 Ne4 17.Bxa5 Nxe5 18.Nxe5 Bxe5 19.Ra2 Nxc5 20.Bb1 Bd7 21.Nc7 Rxa5 22.Qxa5 Qd6 23.f4 Qxc7 24.Qd2 Bf6 25.Qc2 g6 26.b4 Bd4+ 27.Kh1 Bf5 28.Qd2 Bxb1 29.Rxb1 Ne6 30.f5 gxf5 31.Rc2 Qd6 32.Re1 Bg7 33.Qd3 f4 34.Rec1 Qd7 35.b5 Nd4 36.Rb2 Re8 37.Rb4 Qe6 38.Rf1 Ne2 39.b6 d4 40.Qb5 Qe3 41.Rb3 Nc3 42.Qd7 Qe2 43.Rg1 d3 44.Rb2 Qe3 45.Rf1 Ne2 46.Rb3 Re6 0–1

Source: Susan Polgar Blog

Source: Susan Polgar Blog

The Avalanche Journal, Lubbock’s largest newspaper, featured the 2008 Susan Polgar National Invitational on the Sunday cover.

In addition, TTU’s own Daily Toreador, and local TV networks also came to cover the event. Chess Dad and President of the NC Chess Association will cover this event for CLO.

Special thanks to Provost Dr. Marcy, Associate Provost Dr. Brink, Ambassador Tibor Nagy, Lubbock Commissioner Ysidro Gutierrez, Cory Chandler, Lee Bobbitt, and so many others for coming to support this event. We had around 200 people at the Opening Ceremony.

Big thanks to Peggy Flores and her family, Dr. Hal Karlsson, Dr. Rich Rice, Jerry Perez, Chase Watters, Stefanie Ballom, Dewain Barber, and Frank K. Berry, etc. for their help to make this wonderful tournament happen.

Source: Susan Polgar Blog

Source: Susan Polgar Blog

This is Ashley Carter from Michigan. Ashley is the ONLY 5-time qualifer of the Susan Polgar National Invitational for Girls.

Here are the pictures of all the participants.

Source: Susan Polgar Blog

Source: Susan Polgar Blog

This is 6-year old Annie Wang from California. She is the youngest ever qualifier of the SP National Invitational for Girls.

# Name Rtng State Score

1 Courtney Jamison 2046 TX W31 1.0
2 Sylvia S Yang 1911 TX W32 1.0
3 Ashley Carter 1877 MI W33 1.0
4 Rita Mirchandani 1813 FL W34 1.0
5 Michelle Xue Chen 1762 MA W35 1.0
6 Eve Zhurbinskiy 1747 NJ W36 1.0
7 Fiona Lam 1727 MD W37 1.0
8 Rheanna English 1713 TX W38 1.0
9 Amelia Wheeless 1711 NC W39 1.0
10 Janice Chen 1700 UT W40 1.0
11 Angel Bohannon 1700 TX W41 1.0
12 Rebekah Liu 1699 CA W42 1.0
13 Shinan Jin 1686 PA W43 1.0
14 Sayaka Foley 1652 AZ W44 1.0
15 Taylor Bailey 1650 OR W45 1.0
16 Sonya Vohra 1621 IL W46 1.0
17 Jamie Olsen-Mills 1617 UT W47 1.0
18 Rebecca Lelko 1595 OH W48 1.0
19 Brianna Conley 1573 OH W49 1.0
20 Alexandra Wiener 1560 CT W50 1.0
21 Michelle Farell 1506 OK W51 1.0
22 Elizabeth Oliver 1322 NE W52 1.0
23 Melanie Newell 1198 MS W28 1.0
24 Morgan Mahowald 994 MN W29 1.0
25 Ashbea Oyadomari unr. HI W30 1.0
26 Linda Diaz 1726 NY D27 0.5
27 Joanna Gossell 1255 MO D26 0.5
28 Nisha Deolalikar 1726 CA L23 0.0
29 Ananya Roy 1683 GA L24 0.0
30 Leanne Hwa 1436 WA L25 0.0
31 Emily Tallo 1349 IN L1 0.0
32 Hannah Hellwig 1337 AL L2 0.0
33 WCM Claudia Munoz 1324 TX L3 0.0
34 Erica Barkell 1315 ID L4 0.0
35 Georgia Olvera 1300 TX L5 0.0
36 Sarah Garza 1294 TX L6 0.0
37 Mira Ensley-field 1258 WI L7 0.0
38 Rebecca Deland 1166 NM L8 0.0
39 Autumn Douthitt 1154 TN L9 0.0
40 Alexa Lasley 1141 CO L10 0.0
41 Dhrooti Vyas 1117 IA L11 0.0
42 Sorel Edes 1098 ME L12 0.0
43 Katrina Pritchard 1008 KS L13 0.0
44 Susan Lynn Brown 969 VA L14 0.0
45 Crystal Qian 924 AR L15 0.0
46 Catherine Oliver 900 NE L16 0.0
47 Ann Marie Fitch 893 DE L17 0.0
48 Annie Wang 879 CA L18 0.0
49 Alisha Chawla 819 CA L19 0.0
50 Kaitlynn Loos 734 SD L20 0.0
51 Hannah Whatley 669 SC L21 0.0
52 Faith Munoz unr. TX L22 0.0

Source: Susan Polgar Blog

Source: Susan Polgar Blog

Bd - White Player Name - Black Player Name

1 Courtney Jamison (2046 : W : 1.0) - Shinan Jin (1686 : B : 1.0)
2 Taylor Bailey (1650 : W : 1.0) - Sylvia S Yang (1911 : B : 1.0)
3 Ashley Carter (1877 : W : 1.0) - Sayaka Foley (1652 : B : 1.0)
4 Rita Mirchandani (1813 : W : 1.0) - Sonya Vohra (1621 : B : 1.0)
5 Jamie Olsen-Mills (1617 : W : 1.0) - Michelle Xue Chen (1762 : B : 1.0)
6 Eve Zhurbinskiy (1747 : W : 1.0) - Rebecca Lelko (1595 : B : 1.0)
7 Brianna Conley (1573 : W : 1.0) - Fiona Lam (1727 : B : 1.0)
8 Rheanna English (1713 : W : 1.0) - Alexandra Wiener (1560 : B : 1.0)
9 Michelle Farell (1506 : W : 1.0) - Amelia Wheeless (1711 : B : 1.0)
10 Janice Chen (1700 : W : 1.0) - Elizabeth Oliver (1322 : W : 1.0)
11 Melanie Newell (1198 : W : 1.0) - Angel Bohannon (1700 : B : 1.0)
12 Rebekah Liu (1699 : W : 1.0) - Ashbea Oyadomari (0 : W : 1.0)
13 Linda Diaz (1726 : W : 0.5) - Morgan Mahowald (994 : B : 1.0)
14 Nisha Deolalikar (1726 : B : 0.0) - Joanna Gossell (1255 : B : 0.5)
15 Ananya Roy (1683 : W : 0.0) - Sorel Edes (1098 : B : 0.0)
16 Dhrooti Vyas (1117 : W : 0.0) - Leanne Hwa (1436 : B : 0.0)
17 Katrina Pritchard (1008 : W : 0.0) - Emily Tallo (1349 : B : 0.0)
18 Hannah Hellwig (1337 : W : 0.0) - Crystal Qian (924 : B : 0.0)
19 Susan Lynn Brown (969 : W : 0.0) - WCM Claudia Munoz (1324 : B : 0.0)
20 Catherine Oliver (900 : W : 0.0) - Erica Barkell (1315 : B : 0.0)
21 Georgia Olvera (1300 : W : 0.0) - Ann Marie Fitch (893 : B : 0.0)
22 Annie Wang (879 : W : 0.0) - Sarah Garza (1294 : B : 0.0)
23 Mira Ensley-field (1258 : W : 0.0) - Alisha Chawla (819 : B : 0.0)
24 Kaitlynn Loos (734 : W : 0.0) - Rebecca Deland (1166 : B : 0.0)
25 Autumn Douthitt (1154 : W : 0.0) - Hannah Whatley (669 : B : 0.0)
26 Faith Munoz (0 : B : 0.0) - Alexa Lasley (1141 : B : 0.0)

Source: Susan Polgar Blog