sexta-feira, 31 de julho de 2009
quinta-feira, 30 de julho de 2009
quarta-feira, 29 de julho de 2009
Denker excelled in many sports, and until his old age he radiated energy, youth and confidence. He was an excellent writer, teacher and promoter of the game. In 1984 he founded the Denker High School Tournament of Champions, an annual event that became his legacy. In 1992 he was inducted into U.S. Chess Hall of Fame.
Denker's most important game was a victory against Reuben Fine at the 1944 U.S. championship in New York that virtually clinched the title. It featured a spirited pawn sacrifice in the Nimzo-Indian defense that is still being debated six decades later.
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 b6 5.Bd3 Bb7 6.Nf3 Ne4 7.0-0! (An exciting pawn sacrifice, invented during the game, gives Denker a dangerous initiative.) 7 . . . Nxc3 (The notion that black can draw after 7 . . . Bxc3 8.bxc3 Nxc3 9.Qc2 Bxf3 10.gxf3 Qg5+ 11.Kh1 Qh5 12.Rg1 Qxf3+ 13.Rg2 f5 14.Qxc3?! Qd1+, as in the game Petrosian-Averbakh [Moscow 1955], was dispelled in the Candidates game Keres-Spassky [Riga, Latvia, 1965], when14.Ba3! gave white an overwhelming attack. More logical seemed protecting the aggressive knight with 7 . . . f5, although Denker thought that after 8.Bxe4 fxe4 9.Nd2 Bxc3 10.bxc3 0-0 11.Qg4 should net white a pawn. But in 1966 the great Dane, Bent Larsen, discovered 11 . . . Rf5! with the idea 12.Nxe4? h5! and black wins.) 8.bxc3 Bxc3 9.Rb1 Ba5?! (Leaving the scene of the crime voluntarily. Bobby Fischer believed that after 9 . . . Nc6! " white hasn't got enough for his pawn." This is a rather optimistic view, although I saw Larsen beat Svetozar Gligoric with it in a tournament we played in Lugano, Switzerland, in 1970. White's attack succeeded in many other games. The latest try is 10.c5!?, for example 10 . . . Ba5 11.Ba3 with the idea 11 . . . Ne7 12. Ne5, threatening 13.Nc4. After 12 . . . Ng6 comes 13.c6! and now either 13 . . . Bxc6 14.Nxc6 dxc6 15.Be4 Ne7 16.Qg4!; or 13 . . . dxc6 14.Nc4! gives white an overpowering advantage.)
10.Ba3 (Larsen thought that 10.e4 could be even stronger.) 10...d6 11.c5! (Opening the c-file and softening the pawn on d6.) 11...0-0 12.cxd6 cxd6 13.e4 (Threatening 14.e5.) 13...Re8 14.e5 dxe5 15.Nxe5 (A critical point of the game. Denker thought that he was winning and expressed his feelings to Kenneth Harkness, a co-editor of Chess Review, with the words: "Right now Fine is busted higher than a kite." It is not that simple. First of all black has to defend against the obvious combination 16.Bxh7+! Kxh7 17.Qh5+ Kg8 18.Qxf7+ Kh7 19.Rb3 and white wins.)
15...Qg5?! (The queen move was criticized, but it is quite playable. Fine thought that he could have defended his kingside better with 15...g6, for example 16.Bb5 Qd5 17.f3 Bc618.Ng4 and here the two opponents disagreed:
(Denker gave 18...Qd8? 19.d5! Bxb5 20.Rxb5 a6 21.dxe6! Qxd1 [21...axb5 22.Qa1!] 22.Nf6+ Kh8 23.Rxd1 Rxe6 24.Rd8+ Kg7 25.Bb2 Rxf6 [On 25...axb5 26.Rg8+ Kh6 27.Bc1+ mates.] 26.Rbd5 and black is helpless.
(Fine called 18...Qd8? "almost the worst move on the board" and proposed 18...Kg7! 19.Qc1 Bxb5? 20.Qh6+? [Here 20.Rxb5! Qd8 21.d5! still gives white the edge.] 20...Kh8 21.Rxb5 Qxd4+ 22.Kh1 Nd7 and black has a clear advantage. Today's computers tilt the verdict slightly to Fine's side. After 18...Kg7! 19.Qc1 they come up with the sharp 19...f5!, e.g. 20.Qh6+ Kh8 21.Ne3 Qd7 22.d5 Bxb5 23.dxe6 Qg7 24.Bb2 Bc3 25.Bxc3 Qxc3 26.Rxb5 Na6 with a small edge to black.) 16.g3 g6?! (After16...Nc6 Denker planned the amazing 17.Nxf7! Kxf7 18.Rb5!!, claiming that black is lost either after 18...e5 19.Qb3+ Kf6 20.f4!; or after 18...Qf6 19.Qh5+ g6 20.Qxh7+ Qg7 21.Bxg6+ Kf6 22.Qh4+!. And after 18...Nxd4 19.Rxg5 Nf3+ 20.Kg2 Nxg5+ 21.f3 e5 22.Qb3+ Kf6 23.Be4 white's material advantage is decisive. However, 16...Rc8!? gives black a playable game.) 17.Qa4 Qd8 (After 17...Na6 comes 18.Qd7; and after 17...Rd8 18.Rfc1, black is tied up.)
18.Rfc1 b5? (It does not solve black's problems and Fine might as well let Denker finish the game elegantly with a queen sacrifice 18...Na6 19.Qxa5!! bxa5 20.Rxb7, for example 20...Nb4 21.Bxb4 axb4 22.Nxf7 Qxd4 23.Nh6+ Kh8 24.Rcc7 mating soon; or 20...Qxd4 21.Bb2 Qd5 22.Bxa6 with three pieces plus a winning attack for the queen.) 19.Bxb5 Qd5 20.f3 Bb6 21.Rc5! (The quickest way to end the game.) 21...Bxc5 (On 21...Qxa2 22.Rd1 Bxc5 23.dxc5 Rc8 24.Bc4 traps the black queen.) 22.Bxc5 (Black can't cope with a double threat: 23.Bxe8 and 23.Bc4 Qd8 24.Rxb7.) 22...Rc8 23.Bc4 Bc6 24.Bxd5 Bxa4 25.Bxa8 Black resigned.
segunda-feira, 27 de julho de 2009
terça-feira, 14 de julho de 2009
domingo, 12 de julho de 2009
Understand that you need to study the endgame, but don't make it the highest priority. You need to become 'comfortable' at each stage of the game. Perfect endgame play does you no good if you get slaughtered in the opening consistently, or don't understand the basics of good defense in the middlegame and get mated or drop mucho material from poor tactical play..
I would recommend studying only those endgames that are the most frequent.
1) Rook Endings
2) Bishop vs. Knight
3) Pawn endings
I would not waste *significant* time on any other endings at first as a beginner because the frequency of them appearing in practical play is comparitively low. Get a basic book on endgame play that explains the basic positional aspects of each kind. Play the computer in a bunch of these endings. Using Chessbase, you can search for a practically unlimited amount of endgame positions you can play out for practice. Keep the endgame book open in front of you so you can reference the ideas of what you are trying to accomplish in each category of endgame.
For Openings, you need to make some decisions and stick to it for a few months to see how it works for you.
Determine what openings you like to play, taking into account the complexity of the opening. As a beginner, I would recommend something along the lines of the Caro-Kann (Karpov Pet) as black against 1.e4, and the Slav agains Q-pawn openings. Both these openings tend to avoid pawn structure weaknesses, are solid, and are not too explosive. But, this is just a preference.
Go over a ton of games quickly. You are just trying to get a feel for what types of positions in the middlegame you end up with and what types of endgames come about. Pay attention. If you find you do not like what you see at this stage, CHANGE YOUR OPENING.
Once past this stage, examine well-annotated master games, preferably those that explain the strategic goals behind the opening.
Do this for a few months. Once you feel you understand the ideas behind the opening, only then do *might* venture into the realm of Opening Manuals if you got cash to burn. The only one I would buy is Nunn's Chess Openings.
Whatever you pick, stick to it for at least 100 games.
MOST IMPORTANT: Analyze your game afterwords. and try to get a better player (Cat A at least) to go over the game with you at some point, or if not possible, use a chess computer. Fix your opening errors. If your opponent made an opening error, and you did not punish him for it, discover the correct play via computer or reference or better player. Even post to the site for advice.
Get Organized. Database your games. http://www.chessbase.com
Middlegame improvement requires you to pay attention to the types of positions you get in your games from your selection of openings. Does your opening tend to end up with an Isolated Center Pawn? Perhaps a minority attack is frequent? Locked Center? If so, read chapters out of strategy books that are specific to the subjects and go over your games intensly where these situations arise. You can improve quickly woith a great deal of understanding by using this method. You will also help your pattern recognition skills because you will be playing similar positions in the middlegame from the same opening.
Tactics! Tactics! Tactics!
You cannot study tactics and combinational play enough. It is the first and foremost cause of losses in lower rated players games.
Study. Play. Apply what you learn. analyze mistakes. Again...
Reassess your play every few months. If you are losing games with a particular opening choice, either hit the grindstone and figure out what is going wrong, or dump it and try something different.
From this, you can see that your opening choice determines largely the strategic elements that will reoccur in your games, as well as the types of endings you will get.
READ REASSESS YOUR CHESS, AMATEUR'S MIND and REASSESS YOUR CHESS WORKBOOK.
These books will drill into you useful habits of assessing a position. There are reasons these books are so popular - they WORK!
sexta-feira, 10 de julho de 2009
quinta-feira, 9 de julho de 2009
[Site "Manila (Philippines)"]
[White "Ian Rogers"]
[Black "Gilberto Milos"]
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d6 3.Nc3 Bg4 4.e4 e6 5.h3 Bh5 6.Qe2 c6 7.g4 Bg6
8.Bg5 Be7 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.h4 h6 11.O-O-O Nd7 12.Kb1 Qc7 13.Rg1
h5 14.g5 Be7 15.d5 e5 16.Bh3 O-O-O 17.Nd2 Kb8 18.Nc4 Nb6
19.Nxb6 Qxb6 20.Rd3 Ka8 21.a3 Rdf8 22.Bf5 Bh7 23.Rgd1 g6
24.dxc6 bxc6 25.Bd7 Qc7 26.Bxc6+ Qxc6 27.Nd5 Bd8 28.Rc3 Qb7
29.Rb3 Qc6 30.Rdd3 Ba5 31.Rdc3 Bxc3 32.Qa6 1-0
|Apr-16-05 ||notyetagm: Yes, that's the game, Kaspy vs Nikolic. It doesn't have the tactical fireworks of the Rogers game but look how badly Milos played that game. I mean, my god, that bishop on h7??? Maybe Rogers should have won the prize for the <Best Tactical Sequence> and Kaspy should have won for the <Best Played Game>. |
That would be kind of like at 1927 New York where Capablanca won the <First Brilliancy Prize> for his victory over Spielmann and also a special prize for the <Best Played Game> for his Black Caro-Kann victory over Nimzovich.
|Apr-16-05 ||notyetagm: Here are the games mentioned in my previous post: |
First Brilliancy Prize Capablanca vs Spielmann, 1927
Best Played Game Nimzowitsch vs Capablanca, 1927
|Apr-16-05||Hidden Skillz: <notyetagm> i agree with u..i still prefer the rogers game tho..|
|Apr-16-05||Madman99X: DexterGordon, your line: |
30. Rdd3 Qd7
Loses to 33. Qc8+
I agree with Cheski's analysis.
b3 is forced to protect white's king. Qc7 drives out the offending bishop, (Black's only good move at this juncture, I think.) Bh3 is forced to keep white from going down a piece, because the bishop sacrifice fails with the rook on the B-file. The position after 28. Na2 seems well balanced to me.
Some of you more experienced players might want to check my work. I may have missed something.
On the side, this defense seems to have transposed to pirc lines. Should this be listed under Pirc instead of queen's pawn game?
|Apr-16-05 ||who: i found 30. Rdd3 using the following line of thought |
the threat of 31. Rdc3 requires the removal of blacks dark squared bishop from the d8-h4 diagnal. This is neccessary for white to keep material equality by keeping the light squared bishop out of play. I didn't see the line played out in the game so i don't give myself full credit for the solution.
On a separate note.
|Apr-17-05||Madman99X: 30...Bb6 loses to 31. Rxb6! axb6 32. Rc3 Qb7 33. Rc7 and black cannot save his queen. |
(Again unless I missed something.)
|Apr-24-05 ||patzer2: Rogers 30. Rdd3! is the only move left for White to sustain the attack on Black's weakened castled position, and it's just enough to pull off a win.|
|Jan-04-06 ||Timothy Glenn Forney: Here's the best lines- 32...Rc8 33.Nb6+ Kb8(33...Qxb6 34.Rxb6 Rb8 35.Rxb8+ Kxb8 )34.Nxc8+ Kc7 35.Rxc3|
|Jan-05-06||THE pawn: I watched the final position and it's really funny to see black's light-squared bishop...what a useless piece. The two rooks are not doing a really good job either. 2 pieces up and yet so weak.|
|Dec-09-06 ||Jonathan Sarfati: Rogers should have won the prize. It is totally corrupt to have a contestant for the prize be one of the judges, as Kasparov was. Any fair judge would have recused himself. |
And if one wants to quibble, Kasparov's 20. g4 instead of Qg4+ could have thrown away the win or at least made it very difficult, according to Igor Stohl's book of Kaspy's games.
|Apr-15-07 ||KingG: <It is totally corrupt to have a contestant for the prize be one of the judges, as Kasparov was. Any fair judge would have recused himself.> |
While i prefer Kasparov's game to this one, i totally agree with <Jonathan Sarfati>. It seems to me that more than three judges should be used for deciding these kinds of prizes anyway.
|Apr-20-07||somitra: It would be a good puzzle at white's 31st move . Maybe Wednesday/Thursday type.|
|Nov-30-08 ||notyetagm: 31 ? |
click for larger view
click for larger view
LarryC calls this game "one of the umltimate rook life games".
|Nov-30-08 ||notyetagm: GM Larry Christiansen covers this brilliant game in one of his "Attack with LarryC" videos on the ICC: https://webcast.chessclub.com/icc/i....|
|Jan-14-09||Jim Bartle: Kasparov to Seirawan, reported in Inside Chess: "You know this games is terrible! What is Black doing? Bishop on h7? Pawn on g6? Is this resistance? This game is a shame! How can this be brilliant?"|
|Jul-09-09 ||chessgames.com: Many thanks to User: whatthefat for suggesting today's game and title.|
|Jul-09-09||Funicular: What's wrong with simply capturing the bishop with 24... gxf5 25 cxb7+ Qxb7 Am i missing something? it's not a deep analysis, yet it seems to lead to a not-so-bad position for black. Ill have crafty check on that first thing in the morning. |
BTW, i agree with kasarov "IS THIS RESISTANCE??" ahahhaha lol
|Jul-09-09 ||keypusher: <funicular> If 24. dxc6 gxf5 White continues with 25. Nd5, and if Black protects the bishop with ...Qd8 then either 26. cxb7+ or 26. Rb3 [Shredder] is crushing.|
|Jul-09-09 ||WannaBe: Well, of course <whatthefat> is gonna pick an Aussie GM!! |
By the way, the picture of GM Ian Rogers is by your truly!! During the American Open, held in LA! =)
|Jul-09-09||tommy boy: Rdc3; Qa6 |
What a moves!!!
|Jul-09-09 ||WannaBe: Notice how black's light squared bishop did absolutely nothing??|
|Jul-09-09 ||whiteshark: What a joyless life c8 had in this game...|
|Jul-09-09||ozmikey: <Kasparov to Seirawan, reported in Inside Chess: "You know this games is terrible! What is Black doing? Bishop on h7? Pawn on g6? Is this resistance? This game is a shame! How can this be brilliant?"> |
I remember that controversy very well, especially Seirawan's coverage of the whole thing in Inside Chess. Kasparov submitted THREE of his games for the brilliancy prize, including one positional crush which included no sacrifices at all, refused to step down from the judging committee, and then basically lectured everyone as to why to vote for his game.
To contrast his behaviour with Ian's typically honourable conduct: Ian was originally supposed to be on the judging committee but withdrew in favour of Peter Parr (the Oz team captain) when it became clear that his game against Milos was a serious contender.
|Jul-09-09||levelzx: Kasparov's causes are hard to judge. Whenever he votes for his games he might be called 'arrogant'. But his games are indeed delightful. Of course it wasn't Rogers' fault that his opponent played bad. But "it takes two to produce a beautiful game", as old proverb says. |
So in my opinion, Kasparov's choice to pick his game was fully justified. A quite similar situation occured in famous Kasparov vs Radjabov, 2003 game, which was selected by GM's as the best at Linares 2003. IT WAS NOT THAT GOOD though, but of course it had to be chosen, as Gazza lost a tournament game to huge underdog, which was a really rare upset.
|Jul-09-09||ozmikey: <levelzx> The relative merits of the two games is not the point at issue, though: Kasparov's unabashed lobbying for his own game was what reflected so badly on him on this occasion. |
Funnily enough, the Kasparov-Radjabov game you mentioned brought Kasparov and Rogers together again, so to speak; Ian was one of the GMs who picked that game as the game of the tournament, and when an angry Kaspy confronted Rogers afterwards and asked him which game he'd voted for, Rogers admitted quite openly that he'd chosen the Radjabov game...upon which Kaspy berated him loudly and at length in full view (and hearing) of the assembled company!