London Chess Classic 2009

Mega-GMs playing for glory including Nakamura and Carlsen. I usually don't do tournament news here, but this tournament is special. They have enacted a different point system to promote fighting chess. Three points for a win, one point for a draw, zero points for a loss.

Great point system, in my opinion. There is little incentive to go for a gentleman's (i.e. lazy man's) draw. It will force the GMs to play out the games, to fight for a win, and in the last couple of rounds things should be really crazy as players six points back still have a chance to tie for first.

In round one, Carlsen got the full three points against Kramnik, as did the lesser-known McShane against Nigel Short in a seven hour battle.

The tournament site is here.

=============

On an unrelated personal note, when I first started playing chess about five years ago my goal was to have a fun lazy past time, something I could do quickly before bed or during lunch break to help me relax. I got my butt handed to me, was simply destroyed in every game. To improve, I bought a book (I think my first book was 'Teach Yourself Better Chess'). Not too long (maybe two months) and I was hooked, I had bought de la Maza's book, and wasted too much time on this crazy hard game (if it weren't a challenge I wouldn't give a crap about it).

Now I'm no longer working on improving at the game, I'm just enjoying it. I've been like this for a couple of months. In other words I met my goal from five years ago, to get good enough to have fun at the game. I sort of forgot that goal as I got obsessed with improvement and ratings. I had forgotten that this game is actually really cool even if you don't care much about it, perhaps especially when I don't care much about it.

That said, good luck to the ACIS people. I'll keep posting infrequently. I requested a review copy of that Zuke 'em book on the Colle Zuckertort as it might be fun to mess around with a new opening, so I'll post a review of that within a few weeks of receiving it.

On the Complementarity of Queens and Knights (Guest Blogger)

Hank, a frequent commenter at this blog, and someone I've played in real life (and usually lost) , gave me permission to publish the following excellent piece he wrote. Beautiful, deep, yet simple ideas. Thanks, Hank!
========================

I've seen a number of different articulations about piece coordination and the complementarity of certain pieces, that explain why the relative value of individual pieces can vary depending on what other pieces they are teamed up with, and especially how redundancy of function can account for the lower combined piece values of certain configurations of pieces (due to a lesser degree of coordination)...

And in fact it is the lack of redundancy that accounts for the higher combined "scores" of other combinations of pieces. For example, strength of the famous "bishop pair" lies precisely in the perfect non-redundancy of the 2 bishops, which will never overlap one iota in the squares that they cover/guard/control/attack.

Another noteworthy example is the queen+knight combo, in which the 2 pieces are said to work particularly well together.

So I was just idly daydreaming about queen moves when the image below popped into my head:


Basically I was realizing that a queen at the center of a 5x5 grid covers or influences a high percentage of the squares in that grid. It turns out that the queen influences 16 of the 24 other squares in the grid (not counting the center square on which it stands), which is 2/3.

And then it struck me that those "other" 8 squares - the remaining 1/3, which are not influenced/guarded/attacked by the queen - are precisely the 8 squares that a knight would influence from the same center square.

So those 16 squares that the queen controls are either a rook's move or a bishop's move (or a king's move) away - betraying a certain redundancy of influence with those other linear pieces, but the elusive in-between squares that remain inaccessible to the queen are all a knight's move away. And in fact the sets of squares influenced by a centralized queen and knight in that 5x5 grid are 100% complementary.

Anyway, I thought there was something particularly tidy and aesthetically pleasing about this image. It conveys somewhat how a "knight's-eye point of view" would tend to see the world somewhat myopically in terms of "local" 5x5 (or smaller) grids, whereas the "vantage" of a bishop/rook/queen can "take in" up to a full 8-square span or expanse. Or you could say that their "sphere of influence" has a radius of 5, versus (up to) 8 for the stronger pieces. Hence we can also see why knights would be at a disadvantage in endgames with few pieces where action is taking place in different quarters/corners/regions of the board (they might run short of viable targets, or end up in the wrong place).

This kind of rudimentary thinking about the way pieces occupy and interact with space is inspired by my current browsings in Maurice Ashley's new book "The Most Valuable Skills in Chess". It's all pretty basic stuff, but I find it helpful (and entertaining) when a couple of insights can be crystallized in a single image like this.

ACIS: bold as love

Or ACIS of evil. Or ACIS in the hole.

Any way you pun it, Adult Chess Improvement Seekers (ACIS) are a staple of the blogoshere, and aren't going away. Also, it is quite clear that the Knights Errant aren't big enough to contain the blogosphere's burgeoning mass of people scrambling to improve. The Circles are cool and all, but the Knights Errant have pretty much died.

There are googles more paths to improvement than dreamt of in the Circles. Some people read books, some get a coach, some play correspondence chess. What they have in common is a struggle to improve at this impossibly difficult game (if it were easy my hunch is we wouldn't bother with it). Nobody knows what the heck they are doing, nobody knows if it will work, and we all should just chill out and support one another. That's where Blunderprone's great idea for ACIS comes in: the next step in the evolution of chess improvement blogs (my hunch is they won't mind children being in the loop as well).

Keep an eye on Blunderprone and others' blogs for new developments. I think we are witnessing a speciation event in the blogosphere. I'll try to keep you updated, please link in the comments to any updates, new discussion.

The instrumental part at the end (starting ~2:50 into the song) is freaking amazing nobody can replicate Hendrix (though I think 'Tuesday's Gone With the Wind' by Skynyrd tries)...a gorgeous anthem to climbing the chess ladder.

Boycott Liquid Egg Product's Blog

Don't believe his lies.

Are the Knights truly dead?

Question from a reader:

============
Hi BlueDevil,

I would like to join the Kights Errant. It appears as though the secretary is inactive? Can you help me? Your post reminds me of some some comments that I read about Lasker on chessgames.com having a great "Geometer", looking around for features and only then calculating.
smiteknight.blogspot.com

=============

What's going on, Knights?

Sorry smiteknight this is all I can do, but I fear the Knights are pretty much dead....Perhaps the FAQ site should reflect this fact, or we need a new Secretary Knight who will take up the responsibilities.

Look around, not ahead

It is amazing that nearly every game in the lower levels of chess are decided by people literally not seeing obvious interactions between pieces on the board. Leaving a piece open to be taken, or forgetting a piece is pinned, or even not seeing mate in one.

Yet many of us in these lower levels still insist on looking many moves ahead in silly lines. We aren't losing because we fail to look ahead enough moves. We are losing because we don't look ahead one or two moves in the correct lines. We look ahead six moves in the line that might get us a nice outpost, but don't see that our rook is about to be taken due to a one or two move tactic.

So, instead of looking ahead in a particular game tree, first relax and inspect the trunks of the different trees. Look around. See what is going on in the position, its most elementary tactical and strategic contours. What if your opponent was a beginner? What kinds of mistakes would he make? Perhaps he was kind and made such a mistake. You won't know if you don't look. Don't assume he knows what he is doing. Lord knows I never know what the hell I'm doing, but my opponent gives me too much credit and misses the little treats I leave him on the board.

This can be really hard to do when you feel "momentum" in your game, when you are caught up in plans you made four moves ago. But yesterday's plan can easily become today's disaster. 'Long analysis, wrong analysis' as they say. You can see the board in front of you now much better than you could visualize it four moves ago. Slow down, don't be like a hyperactive teenage boy shown a boobie for the first time. Keep it in your pants. Look around. Take stock of the situation in front of you. Don't let momentum push you about.

Note added: since we can't explore all of the game tree all the way to the end, we have to choose whether to cut our exploration short by not considering as many shallow trees, or by not considering as many branches on one tree. My argument here is that it is better to err on the side of considering too many trunks, rather than too many leaves. Of course, some extremely sharp lines are so promising they need to be visualized, so in really sharp positions you probably want to err on the side of thinking ahead in fewer lines (e.g., if he is about to mate you, then there may be only two or three lines worth considering). The quieter the positon, the more trees the better, but not deeply, just a quick walk around the forest.

This is already in my Chessplanner stuff (see blog highlights), but not in the same language. If I ever update it perhaps I should phrase things in terms of width versus depth, looking around versus looking ahead.


As an added bonus, below is my favorite new video game song from Portal. The lady singing is GLaDOS (Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System), who is your guide in the Portal world...This game is intellectually challenging, but unlike chess I was actually able to figure out how to beat it. If you have played the game, the song is hilarious. If you haven't I'm frankly not sure how it will come off.

Poking a dead guy with a stick

Click here to for a journalist revisiting revelations about Bobby Fischer's ancestry, among other things (LA Times). Not much chess in there.

Chess Opening Advice for Beginners

The following is an email I sent to a chess bud. I think it is enough to get you to a decent middlegame. It applies whether you are playing as black or as white. Of course I don't claim it is unique: it is the standard opening boilerplate prep talk.

There are two goals you want to aim for in the opening of a chess game:
1. Develop all of your minor pieces (Knights and Bishops), preferably so they control as many central squares as possible.
2. Castle and get your King to safety.

The four opening rules all follow from the above goals. They are:
1. Make as few pawn moves as possible, and preferably move either the d or the e pawn two squares forward.
Make as few pawn moves as possible because you want your pieces to do the heavy attacking (for the most part). Moving a central pawn forward two squares is the most permissive, and least restrictive move for your pieces (e.g., you won't block in a Bishop). It also gives you some control over the center.

2. Move Knights before Bishops.
This is because Knights almost always belong on f3 or c3, and we know that early in the game. However, we are often not sure where Bishops belong until we see what our opponent is up to. Also, the Knights move more slowly than the Bishops, so there if there is action somewhere on the board your Knights will be better able to reach it from the center.

3. Don't move a piece twice in the opening.
Use your moves to develop other pieces. Get all of your army into the board. You wouldn't just send the cavalry out if you have tanks and guns in your arsenal.

4. Castle early.
The longer you wait to castle, the more likely your opponent is going to harass your King. Castling is a very smart move, as it is really two moves in one. You not only tuck your King away into a safe place, but you get to develop your Rook at the same time! By move 10, if you haven't castled you better have a good reason.


Caveats etc
Of course, there are some tactical exceptions to every rule. Also, there are perfectly good openings that violate the principles, but if you follow the principles you will be OK.

Synoptic versus myopic views of chess

Tommyg has similar themes in his recent great post.

Speaking of fresh perspectives, Dk Transform has some great new videos up. The first could be a Saturday Night Live audition tape. Great to associate a face/voice with his David Foster Wallace style blog.

OK, now on to the main topic of my post....

-----------------------------------

I made a visit to the library where the Carolina Cobras played last night, where Loomis was TD. It was fun, after a couple of months away from chess, just to hang out and talk about chess, to play some blitz, and to not be all wrapped up in it like my life (and most literally, my self esteem) depended on it.

Watching IM Jonathan Schroer do a postmortem of his game (he's an IM and drew a 2600 GM) was like watching Mozart perform. It was fucking awesome he is so good it is a joy to watch. I was speechless I had nothing to offer but just watching he and loomis talk over the position was awesome and I soaked everything up that I heard.

I got to talk to Ron Simpson, a super nice guy. He told me to not try to force things in chess, to play solid chess and let the other person make a mistake. He pointed out that brilliancies are only possible when someone makes a mistake. Craig Jones was there, an intense dude who typically is at the first board by the end of the tournaments in my area (typically it is him against Simpson). He also seems really nice, and I liked his team-first attitude.

It made me want to play chess again. It also made me consider something new. No chess study. Every coach I've had has commented on how much I like to study, as opposed to just play chess. Schroer used to be my coach and would tell me to just play a bunch of chess, stop studying stuff. I never really listened. Not only would it just be fun, but perhaps I'd actually get better. Frankly, I don't give a shit any more. I just want to enjoy this game. It is really a beautiful game, and doesn't deserve to be sullied by getting linked to the self-esteem of insecure people.

Nobody at my level knows deep opening theory. I don't need to stress. Nobody knows deep endgame theory. I don't have to worry. I can have fun playing at the level at which I'm supposed to be. If that's the U1400 section for the rest of my life, fuck it.

A Knight of Yore

Chess blogger extraordinaire Nezha is back at it!