Chess Files

The Chess Files

The answers are out there.

By Jim Eade

There is no single answer to the question: What do you do after you’ve learned the basics?  I will assume that learning the basics includes becoming proficient at basic tactics, such as forks and pins.  Indeed, I maintain that you should do tactical drills until you’re seeing knight forks in your sleep.  Then what?

You’re really trying to develop a positional or strategic understanding of chess at this point.  My first column on this subject recommended Aaron Nimzowitsch’s book “My System.”  Published in the first part of the 20^th century, it quickly became and remained a classic work in the field.

Today, I am recommending a book from the mid-part of the 20^th century:  Larry Evans’ “New Ideas in Chess.”  Putting aside his bad habit of using words such as “New” or “Modern” in some of his titles, which had the unfortunate consequence of dating his works, Evans was a four time U.S. Champion and an excellent writer.  His explanations of difficult concepts are clear and concise.

He begins with a light, but interesting, examination of the evolution of chess up to the time of his writing.  He then turns his attention to what he considers the elements of chess:  Pawn Structure, Force, Space and Time.  He concludes with chapters on problems taken from actual play, his approach to chess openings, and one called “Summing Up.”

Any book first published in 1958, and still in print today, has to have something going for it.  This one does.  Anyone who studies this fairly thin book cannot fail to come away with a deeper understanding of the game. 

Evans taught about the importance of converting advantages in one element into an advantage in another.  The following example illustrates the conversion of an advantage in Space into an advantage in Force.

Solution: 1.e6 fxe 2. Qxe6+ Rf7 3. Nc7 Nf8 4. Rxd8 Bxe6 5. Rxa8 Rxf4 6. Nxe6 1-0

As always, you can send your chess questions directly to me at jimeade@comcast.net.

Chess Files

                  The Chess Files

The answers are out there.

By Jim Eade

The stereotypical chess scene involves two elderly men playing in the park.  Chess is a great solace in old age, but the question is: Is chess a young person’s game?  My answer is an emphatic: Yes!

The number of players who remained at a world class level after turning 50 can be counted on one hand.  The number of players remaining among the world’s elite past age 40 is almost as bleak.  It is true that Anand is 42, and he is the current World Champion, but things are not looking up for him these days.

Consider the latest list of the highest rated players in the world:

1. Carlsen - 2847.6  age 21

2. Aronian - 2815.4  age 31

3. Kramnik - 2795  age 37

4. Radjabov - 2789.7  age 26

5. Caruana - 2786.5  age 21

Anand had been a top five mainstay for years.  It’s become increasingly difficult to imagine him ever making this list again. Furthermore the Grand Slam finals were just completed in Bilboa, Spain, and Carlsen won on tie breaks.  Here are the final standings:

1-2. Carlsen and Caruana - 17,

3. Aronian - 11,

4. Karjakin - 10,

5. Anand - 9,

6. Vallejo - 6.

The amazing thing is not that Carlsen won, but that Anand did not manage to win a single game!  Carlsen is favored by virtually everyone to not only become the next world challenger, but to dethrone Anand as well.  The gap between them in ratings and results is simply too much to ignore.

Carlsen had White in the following position, and Anand, who was in a hopeless position, resigned.

As always, you can send your chess questions directly to me at jimeade@comcast.net.

Chess Files

The Chess Files

The answers are out there.

By Jim Eade

Alex Sunshine recently asked, “What do you recommend for a player who already knows the basics?”  The more I thought about my initial answer, the more I thought it was incomplete, and I will return to this theme in subsequent columns. 

I’ve always maintained that the best way to improve early on in your chess development is by systematically drilling yourself on tactics.  You must be able to spot forks, pins, skewers etc., if you are to have any hope of surviving chess combat.

However, Alex was asking a different type of question.  How do you develop your strategic (or positional) chess understanding?  The classic work in this area is “My System” by Aaron Nimzowitsch (1886-1935).  His play was considered odd, even ugly, and he had to battle to get his ideas understood by his peers.

His work was broken into three sections: 1. The Elements 2. Positional Play and 3. Illustrative Games.  My first copy of this book has not survived the years.  It is now in the public domain and multiple publishers have come out with new editions, so it can be purchased fairly inexpensively.

Some of Nimzowitsch’s ideas have not stood the test of time.  He was in love with a concept he called “Overprotection” but today’s theoreticians consider it to be too eccentric.

Most of his insights, however, are thought to be as valid today as they were when he first proposed them.  His writing style was very personal, and could leave lasting impressions on players of all ages.  I still recall his description of a passed pawn calling it “was a dangerous criminal, which had to be kept under lock and key.”  I don’t think it would’ve been as memorable if he had simply written that you should try to prevent a passed pawn from advancing.

The importance of restraining a passed pawn led Nimzowitsch to develop the concept of the blockade.  A blockade is used to prevent a pawn’s advance.  If a pawn cannot advance it is immobilized, and Nimzowitsch demonstrated how, if you can’t move your pawns, your pieces will have trouble moving too!

He provided the following example from one of his own games.

Classical theory taught that you should not move knights to the edge of the board, because it limits the knight’s mobility.  No wonder people shook their heads when Nimzowitsch played 1. Na4.  He correctly saw that he needed to prevent the pawn on c6 from advancing to c5.  Today’s masters would spot this move immediately, but they didn’t understand it back in 1912!

As always, you can send your chess questions directly to me at jimeade@comcast.net.

Chess Files

The Chess Files

The answers are out there.

By Jim Eade

The U.S. Chess Trust is a 501 (c)(3) organization, which means donations are tax deductible.  Do we need a chess charity?  In the spirit of full disclosure, I am the Trust’s President, but my answer remains an unqualified yes.

The Trust was a co-sponsor with the University of Texas at Dallas (UTD) of the Second Koltanowski Conference on Chess and Education last November.  The conference brought together teachers, researchers and other interested parties from all parts of the country and included speakers from other countries.  The key finding from this conference was new research showing that playing chess builds character.

The Trust also supports American players in the World Youth Championship, the Collegiate Final Four, the World Junior, and the U.S. Blind Championship.  We also support a scholarship program that is based on a combination of academics and chess.

We help sponsor the Denker Tournament of High School Champions every year, which awards a scholarship to UTD.  This year’s winner was Atulya Shetty of Michigan.  We also help sponsor the Barber Tournament of K-8 Champions, which was won this year by Tommy He of Texas.

The Trust sends chess sets to Title 1 schools nationwide and to Americans serving in our armed forces overseas.  We also sponsor scholastic memberships in the United States Chess Federation for qualifying schools.

I urge you to visit our web site: www.uschesstrust.org, and check out this year’s Scholar-Chessplayer award winners, or write to us at:

US Chess Trust

PO Box 838

Wallkikill, NY

12589

As always, you can send your chess questions directly to me at jimeade@comcast.net.

The Chess Files

The Chess Files

The answers are out there.

By Jim Eade

Thanks to the generosity of Tibor Weinberger, the Mechanics’ Institute of San Francisco held the Third Imre Konig Memorial on September 22-23. The event, which began as a way to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the death of International Master Konig, the first really top rated player to reside in San Francisco, was held as a seven-player round-robin, featuring a rapid chess time control of Game in 30 minutes, with a 15-second increment from move one.

The invited players consisted of the top six rated players from the Bay Area: Grandmasters Sam Shankland, Nick de Firmian, Vinay Bhat, Jesse Kraai and Walter Browne, and International Master Daniel Naroditsky.  It was won by Shankland and Naroditsky with four out of seven.

The real story, however, might be the return to play by Walter Browne.  Browne, born in 1949, and the past winner of six US Championships has been fighting ill health the last several years.  He recently completed a new book: The Stress of Chess: My Life, Career and 101 Best Games.

My question was, “Is it worth it to keep playing chess, if you find it stressful?”  According to Browne, the answer is: “If you’re competing, you’re a winner, regardless of the result.”

Browne stills has a few tricks up his sleeve as can be seen from his game against Bhat in this event.

Browne played 31…Rxd5, and after 32. Rxd5 Rxe6+, which is the move that Bhat said surprised him.  Bhat was forced to play 33. Re5, and after 33…dxe5 34.Bxe5, Browne was a pawn up.   The game ended in a draw, but, if you’re still catching the younger generation by surprise at this stage of your career, you should by all means keep playing!

The Chess Files

The Chess Files

The answers are out there.

By Jim Eade

It has been so long (1986) since a team from the US has beaten a team from Russia that you could be forgiven for wondering whether it would ever happen again.  It has.  Although the US team ultimately finished in 5^th place in Istanbul, where it was originally seeded, it scored a 9^th round win over Russia.

In the Olympiads, teams are comprised of four players each.  The US team scored wins on boards 1 and 2, the Russians won on board 4 and the board 3 game was a draw.  Kamsky’s win over Grischuk on board 2 was not too surprising.  Grischuk is rated slightly higher, but Kamsky has been one of the world’s top players for many years.  Players of that caliber are all capable of defeating one another on any given day.

I was somewhat surprised by Nakamura’s win over Kramnik on board 1.  Kramnik is a former World Champion, who is still at the top of his game.  Upon further reflection, however, I realized that Nakamura is now firmly planted in the world’s top ten, and he has established himself as a world title contender.  Should anyone be surprised when Nakamura beats anyone?  Not anymore.

The only real surprise was the way their game ended.  I cannot recall a similar piece configuration as the one presented below:

Black resigned in this position, because White will play Ne4+ forcing the Black king to, and trapping it on, the h-file.   Checkmate would then be inevitable.  If you can find another game that ended with three minor pieces against one, please write to me about it at: jimeaade@comcast.net.

Defeating the Russians is always a newsworthy event, as is defeating past World Champions.  September 6^th, 2012 was certainly a day to remember for US chess.