Share This

I realize that most of you are coming here for just three reasons: Anand, Gelfand, and Shipov. However, I hope that some of you, at least, will take a look at some of my other posts at “dana blogs chess.” A good place to start might be the top ten posts list (link provided in the sidebar). Also, if you’re interested in any of my other writing endeavors such as my recent book The Universe in Zero Words, please go to http://danamackenzie.com.

My main order of business today is to let you know the schedule of translations for the rest of the match. As I said in a previous post, I am splitting them with Chess in Translation, with six games here and six there (assuming the match goes to its scheduled twelve games). Here is where you can find the final six rounds.

I don’t know what GM Shipov’s plans are in case of a tiebreak. If there is a playoff and if Shipov decides to do commentary on it (which is somewhat questionable — how can you do meaningful live commentary on a rapid game?) you should probably go to Chess in Translation. I guess we’ll cross that bridge if and when we come to it.

But definitely come back here tomorrow for more exciting action!

P.S. There was a comment on my last translation asking for a PGN file of the translation. In future rounds I will put a link to the PGN in my blog post (an extra step that will delay my posts by at most 5 minutes… but since they’re not live, I don’t think that will be a big issue). The PGN for game 4, as well as the PGN files for the other games I translate, will be permanently archived on my “Chess Translations” page, which you can get to by clicking on the navigation bar at the top of the page.

Share This

Here is Grandmaster Sergey Shipov’s analysis of the fourth game of the World Championship match, between Boris Gelfand and Viswanathan Anand. The original Russian text can be found, as always, at www.crestbook.com. (This translation will be posted there as well.)

Without further ado, I’ll turn the podium over to Shipov.

Good day to you, whatever the time of day, dear fans and connoisseurs of chess! Let’s look together at the fourth game of the world championship match, which is taking place in Moscow. Yesterday’s battle left an impression — I have the sense that the two adversaries have gotten into playing form. And it seems as if neither one is going to dominate over the other. That’s good! The suspense will build up interest in the match, raise our adrenaline, make us want to follow the progress of the games again and again.

At this moment I can only guess what opening variations Boris and Vishy will choose in today’s game… There is no doubt about the move 1. d4!, and the Slav Defense is hardly likely to leave the stage, but which variation we will see can only be predicted by reading the coffee grounds. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that even the participants are vacillating over their decisions this morning.

They have no lack of preparation, but which prepared line to play at which moment is a subtle matter. Psychology plays an important role. You have to understand your own condition (if you’re feeling brave you might play a sharp variation, if you’re not sure of yourself it is better to choose a more solid setup), and also you have to guess the condition of your opponent. You have to anticipate the opening strategy of the opposing camp and make an unexpected choice of your own. It’s a whole science!

So let’s see which of our two academics — Anand or Gelfand — is a better scientist. The criteria for determining the truth will be the course of play and, of course, the score on the wall chart …

(3) Gelfand,Boris – Anand,Viswanathan [D45]

2012 World Championship, 15.05.2012

[Shipov, Sergey (translated by Dana Mackenzie)]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6

And so it is. The Slav Defense.

3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Nf3 a6

We are repeating the hybrid variation from the second game of the match. A Meran in the style of Chebanenko. Judging from everything, the champion’s work on this scheme was fundamental, deeply calculated and intended for repeated application.

6.b3 Bb4

I wonder who will be the first to leave the beaten path?

7.Bd2 Nbd7 8.Bd3 0–0 9.0–0

The grandmasters are moving quickly and surely…

9…Bd6

The same prophylaxis [as game 2]. Just for kicks, let me show you White’s trick: [9...Re8? 10.Nxd5! Nxd5 (in case of 10...exd5 11.Bxb4 Black will be just a pawn down) 11.cxd5 Bxd2 12.dxc6 and White wins a pawn and seizes the initiative as well.]

10.Qc2

Position after 10. Qc2. Black to move.

A local novelty — for this match. [10.Rc1 was played in the second game.]

10…e5

Vishy’s answer was instantaneous. He and his seconds foresaw the opponent’s choice! Which, to be honest, is no wonder, because after all the queen move to c2 was the main theoretical path and, it appears, will continue to be in the future. Any delay could allow White opening up the center first, or allow him to prepare thoroughly for Black’s attack. Here is a good example from the challenger’s corpus: [10...h6 11.Ne2 Re8 12.Ng3 e5 13.cxd5 Nxd5 14.Rad1 exd4 15.Nxd4 Nb4 16.Bh7+ Kh8 17.Qb1 Nd5 18.Bf5 Qc7 19.Rfe1 N7f6 20.e4 Ne7 21.Bxc8 Raxc8 22.Qc1 c5 23.Nf3 Ng4 24.Ba5 Qxa5 25.Rxd6 Qxa2 26.Re2 Qxb3 27.h3 and here in the game B. Gelfand - A. Sokolov, Wijk aan Zee 2006, it turned out that the knight on g4 has no way back. On 27...Nf6 would have followed 28.Rxf6 gxf6 29.Qxh6+ Kg8 30.Nh5 with decisive threats. To make a long story short, Boris won.]

11.cxd5 cxd5 12.e4

And once again Boris strives for a sharp opening of the game. [12.dxe5 is well known to be harmless for Black, for example, 12...Nxe5 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 14.Rad1 Bg4 15.f3 Bd7 16.Ne2 Rc8 17.Qb1 Qb6 with good chances for Black in A. Brown - N. Vityugov, Kalitea 2008.]

12…exd4 Playing by analogy with the second game would not have worked here: [12...dxe4 13.Nxe4 Nxe4 14.Bxe4 Nf6 15.dxe5 Nxe4 16.Qxe4 and White gets a healthy extra pawn.]

13.Nxd5 Nxd5 14.exd5

The first direct threat to Black’s rear has materialized — the pawn on h7 is under attack.

14…Nf6 15.h3

In this way White prevents the bishop sortie … Bc8-g4. The weak pawns in the center remain alive for the moment. Other moves that have been tried are [15.Rae1; and 15.Rfe1 ; however, 15.Nxd4 is for the moment not a serious threat because of 15...Be5 16.Bc3 Qxd5 with complete equality.]

15…Bd7

Playing for development. Black is prepared to sacrifice a pawn. In the game I. Krush – T. Enkhbat, Internet 2005, Black replied in symmetrical fashion: [15...h6 16.Rad1 Nxd5 17.Nxd4 Qf6 18.Be4 Nf4 19.Be3 and here Black lashed out with 19...Bxh3 20.gxh3 Qg5+ 21.Kh1 Qh4 and only survived because White mistakenly failed to play 22.Bf5! Nxh3 23.Kg2]

16.Rad1

Position after 16. Rad1. Black to move.

Before retreating to b1 with the queen, it’s a good idea to let the queen rook pass through. The coordination and harmony of the pieces is more important than a pawn. With the text move Boris has created a tower of Babylon on the d-file. An attractive setup, dang it!

16…Re8

The foes have not slowed the pace of their play. It would seem that Anand, after yesterday’s trials and tribulations in time trouble, has decided not to waste time on variations that he is already familiar with. He has been making his choices almost immediately. Now taking the pawn on d4 is a serious possibility. Will Black have enough compensation for the pawn? I’ll also note here that Black’s move is a novelty. It’s no wonder that Gelfand has sunk into thought… Previously Black has played [16...Rc8 17.Qb1 Rc5 18.Bg5 h6 19.Bh4 g5 20.Bg3 Bxg3 21.fxg3 Nxd5 22.Bh7+ Kg7 23.Rxd4 Qb6 with chances for both sides in E. Levin - P. Martynov, St. Petersburg 2012.]

17.Nxd4

The principled move! There is no sense in further preparations. Now the Black knight cannot immediately win the pawn back on d5 because of the threat on h7.

17…Rc8

[The direct 17...Re5 would have led to a very dangerous initiative for White: 18.Bc3 Rxd5 19.Bc4 Rc5 20.Nf3 and as you can see, the villainous rook on d1 is literally mowing down the crowds of innocent bystanders with its attack along the file...]

18.Qb1 h6

Astounding cold-bloodedness! The champion plays as if the pawns were even. Without any hurry he tends his chess garden, plants a few flowers, pulls out some weeds. And he doesn’t trespass on his neighbor. In fact, the pawn on d5 remains weak. As a result of the activity of Black’s pieces it might fall all by itself, like a ripe fruit from a fruit tree. Such an experienced gardener as Anand knows this better than anyone… The time remaining is now 1:18 – 1:51. You’ll agree that this is a serious difference. If I were in Gelfand’s shoes I would think about invading on the square f5. For example, with 19. Nf5 there is a chance to achieve the advantage of the two bishops. It’s not a gold nugget, but at least it’s something.

19.Nf5

And so it goes. The other way of taking control over f5 would not have been successful: [19.Bf5 Rc5! 20.Bxd7 Qxd7 21.Nf5 Bb8! and Black wins back the pawn with full equality.]

19…Bxf5

There is no point in putting up with this jerk on f5.

20.Bxf5 The two bishops are on the board!

20…Rc5

Position after 20. ... Rc5. White to move.

Black is close to being able to pluck the fruit from its branch. As a result there will be wide open spaces in the center of the board. A well-mown lawn.

21.Rfe1

More exchanges are inevitable. White’s problem is to coordinate his pieces, to defuse Black’s activity and then attack… say, either the pawn on b7 or the Black king. [21.Rc1 was worthy of consideration, with the idea of sending the rook to c8. For example, in case of 21...Rxd5 22.Rc8 Qb6 (22...Qe7 23.Re1) 23.Rxe8+ Nxe8 24.Be3 Bc5 25.Bh7+ Kh8 26.Be4 Rd7 27.Bf4 White retains a certain initiative; however, I have a suspicion that after 21.Rc1 Vishy would have played 21...Qb6 , not rushing to win back the pawn.]

21…Rxd5

Perfect timing. At the moment White does not have any direct threats. Indeed, the most frightening prospect for Black is the possibility that all of the heavy pieces will disappear from the board, the White king will march into the center, and then the advantage of the two bishops will become a very weighty factor — that is, their ability to put pressure across the whole width of the battlefield and on squares of any color. For that reason Black must strive for active counterplay before the aforementioned endgame arises. From the defender’s point of view it would not be a bad idea to trade off a pair of bishops. And if he could trade his knight for a bishop, that would be completely wonderful.

22.Bc3

Played after long debate. All four rooks are under attack. Few will survive… It’s unlikely that Black will put up with the pressure of the bishop on c3 for long. The opposing bishop begs to be played to e5. Although, strictly speaking, even an exchange on f6 with the doubling of Black’s pawns might not be that dangerous for Black, if he can in response organize pressure on the f2 pawn… The clocks read 1:05 – 1:30. [Most likely 22.Rxe8+ Qxe8 also came under consideration -- here the threat of ... Qe8-e5 underscores the unfortunate position of the bishop on f5. The game might continue 23.Bc3 Be5! 24.Rxd5 Nxd5 25.Bd2 Bc3! and Black has achieved the desired exchange of minor pieces.]

22…Rxe1+

Possibly this is one way of illustrating my words about the doubling of pawns on f6. I think that on [22...Be5 Boris would have answered 23.Bb4!?]

23.Rxe1 Bc5

Position after 23. ... Bc5. White to move.

Just so! Black organizes serious counterplay on the dark squares. If White doesn’t take on f6, then the bishop on c3 will be neutralized by … Bc5-d4. Black also has some prospects of playing … g6 (making sure not to overlook the sacrifice on g6) and … Kg7, converting his little garden into an absolutely comfortable place to live. And of course I’m not even mentioning the possible attacks on the f2 pawn…

24.Qc2

A solid and refined move, but not aggressive. Indeed, White would not get anything out of [24.Bxf6 gxf6 (of course not 24...Qxf6?? 25.Re8+ Bf8 26.Bh7+ Kh8 27.Rxf8#) 25.Qe4 Rd2 26.Qg4+ Kf8 and the necessity of defending f2 shackles White's pieces. He will have to play 27.Re2 Qd6 28.Bc2 Rxe2 29.Qxe2 Qf4 and the battlefield turns into a complete wasteland; I also scrutinized the position without dark-squared bishops: 24.b4 Bd4 25.Bxd4 Rxd4 26.Qb3 Visually White's position appears a bit better, and for the moment Black does not have the advance ... g7-g6. But on the other hand, I don't see any clear plan for White. The game might continue 26...Qd6 27.a3 b5 28.Rc1 g5 29.g3 Kg7 with rough equality.]

24…Bd4

Of course. It appears that we will now have one-third as many bishops on the board. The bishop on c3 has nowhere to go. If 25. Bd2? Black will take on f2, and on 25. Bb4 Qb6! is unpleasant. [The naive 24...g6? will not do because of 25.Bxg6 fxg6 26.Qxg6+ Kf8 27.Bxf6 with a win for White.]

25.Bxd4 Rxd4 26.Qc8

Position after 26. Qc8. Black to move.

This is Gelfand’s idea. He plans, in very forthright fashion, with the bluntness of a soldier, to storm the opponent’s queenside. Beginning with the pawn on b7. [I thought that it was more promising to lay siege in a more patient fashion: 26.Qc3 Rd2 (26...g6 27.Bc8! is strong) 27.Bc2 (here, however, 27.Bc8 is no longer good because of 27...Rxa2 28.Bxb7 Qb6!) 27...g6 28.b4 Kg7 29.Bb3 and White retains a certain ... psychological pressure.]

26…g6

Black opens the window and gives his king some more air.

27.Bg4

The bishop continues to defend the queen. Its mission is to land on c8.

27…h5

But alas, it is not meant to be. The trap [27...Nxg4? 28.Re8+! was too obvious.]

28.Qxd8+

Forced.

28…Rxd8 29.Bf3

I also looked at the poisonous continuation [29.Rd1 Rxd1+ (if 29...Re8 30.Bf3 the answer 30...b6 is unplayable because of 31.Rd6) 30.Bxd1 From here the kings of both players will run to the center, and Black will have to play somewhat precisely, because the pawns on the kingside are vulnerable and it is not so simple for him to control the squares on which White's king can invade the queenside. But on the other hand, it's quite possible that I am exaggerating the difficulty -- it's really just wishful thinking.]

29…b6

Position after 29. ... b6. White to move.

A well-considered reorganization. Black will arrange his pawns and pieces in such a way that they all defend one another, and there will be nothing for White’s bishop to do. White cannot prevent the move … a6-a5 because of tyhe penetration of Black’s rook.

30.Rc1

With the threat of invading on c6.

30…Rd6

Played very rapidly. But is it the right move? [I think it might have been worth choosing a more active method: 30...Rd2 31.a4 (31.Rc6 Nd7) 31...a5 32.Rc6 Nd7 Here the activity of black's pieces will most likely lead to a further reduction in the number of pawns.]

31.Kf1

Even though Black’s defenses are strong, White still has some chances for success.

31…a5

All of the soldiers are defended now.

32.Ke2

Position after 32. Ke2. Black to move.

Apparently Boris is planning an exchange of rooks, reducing matters to a king race. After Ke2-e3 he can play Rc1–c6, opening up the road for his king. I suspect that Vishy is already regretting the fact that he didn’t put his rook on d2. Now there’s no getting there… The champion continues to ponder, and his time advantage is melting away: 0:30 – 0:56. The battle continues.

32…Nd5

Realizing that a passive tactic could lead to serious problems, Anand — albeit belatedly — strives for counterplay. Oh well, better late than never! The knight aims for b4 or f4. One also has to work out whether Black can hold the rook endgame after an exchange on d5 followed by Rc1–c6. [If 32...Kf8 33.Ke3 Ke7 34.Rc7+ Ke6 35.Rb7 Black has fallen into the wrestling pit. White has quite a few resources for improving his position (for example, a2-a3, g2-g3, Bf3-e2-c4) while Black has nothing, aside from the desperate attack ... g6-g5-g4. And, of course, the knight jump to d5 again.]

33.g3

Technical prophylaxis. [If 33.Bxd5 Rxd5 34.Rc6 Black is saved by the activity of his rook. For example: 34...Re5+ 35.Kd3 Rd5+ 36.Kc4 (36.Kc3 b5 37.Ra6 b4+ 38.Kc4 Rg5 39.g3 h4! 40.g4 Re5=) 36...Rd2 37.a4 Rxf2 38.Rxb6 Rxg2 39.b4 axb4 40.a5 Ra2 41.Kxb4 g5 42.Rb5 f6 43.Kb3 (43.Kc5 g4=) 43...Ra1 44.Kb2 Ra4 45.Kb3 Ra1 with a draw by repetition.]

33…Ne7

The knight makes an interesting whirligig. Apparently it is planning to go to d4 via f5. The clocks show 0:19 – 0:49. [In my analysis I did not find any serious problems with the calmer 33...Kg7 . For example, 34.a3 Ne7! and the knight descends on d4 with even greater effect.]

34.Be4

Cutting off the cavalry’s raid. After [34.Rc7 Nf5 35.Be4 Re6! 36.Kd3 Rd6+ 37.Kc3 Nd4! we have arrived at a rather strange position, which I find personally surprising, in which for the time being White's three pieces are unable to overcome Black's two.]

34…Kg7

Position after 34. ... Kg7. White to move.

All as it should be. Without the collaboration of all of his pieces Black can hardly expect a positive outcome. It’s best not to count on study-like miracles. You need a certain reserve of solidity in your position…

And suddenly… What? WHY A DRAW? I have to admit that I completely fail to understand Gelfand’s decision [to accept a draw]. There was no risk of any kind for White, and no matter what happens he will retain a small advantage. You might say that he didn’t like the time situation? I think that in such a simple position it would not be a problem to quickly make six moves. From the competitive viewpoint the challenger is categorically wrong. One must never let the champion off the hook so easily! If you have any kind of advantage — press on, keep playing, keep trying! If you give him presents like this you can hardly hope to win the match.

Oh well, Boris is his own boss. It’s his decision…

Thank you for your attention, dear readers. I, grandmaster Sergey Shipov, bid you farewell until the day after tomorrow, when the fifth game will take place. Best wishes.

½–½

Share This

Share This

For people who enjoyed following Shipov’s commentaries to the 2010 World Championship match between Anand and Topalov, I’m glad to announce that I will again be translating some of his commentaries here. I have agreed with Colin McGourty, who runs the site www.chessintranslation.com, to split the games, with six of the translations appearing here and six at his site. Here is the schedule that we have agreed on:

As always, Shipov’s commentaries in the original Russian will appear at Crestbook. I hope you will agree that they are among the wittiest and most insightful world championship commentaries on the Internet.

Because I live eleven time zones behind Moscow, where the match is being played, I will not attempt to translate the games live. (I would have to get up at 3:30 AM!) However, I will try to post the translations within a couple hours after the completion of the games, and definitely on the same day.

I look forward to welcoming you back here on Tuesday for the fourth game of the match!

Share This

The game was played in the Monterey Chess Center monthly tournament on February 24, 2002. I remember it well because Ted Yudacufski awarded me a brilliancy prize for it (which I think was $10). I don’t think he awarded one every month, only when there was a game that he especially liked.

Although the picture could have been taken that day, I think that it was more likely taken the next time I played in Monterey, which was September 22, 2002. I suspect that Ted took the photograph himself when he awarded me the prize.

My opponent was Ramesh Mantri, a class-A player. You can play the game over in the PGN viewer, or look at some of the key moments below.

The opening was the Bird Variation of the Ruy Lopez, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nd4 4. Nxd4 ed, and White walked right into the trap, 5. c3? Qg5!

The Egg on Face Variation

FEN: r1b1kbnr/pppp1ppp/8/1B4q1/3pP3/2P5/PP1P1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq – 0 6

I call this the “Egg on Face Variation,” because White’s best move is to undevelop his bishop with 6. Bf1, admitting that he has made a mistake. If you play the Bird Variation in speed chess or against players rated below 2000, your opponents will walk into this trap fairly frequently. I think that is not sufficient reason in itself to adopt the Bird Variation, but it’s a nice side benefit.

Next, let me show you the move that probably explains why Ted awarded me the brilliancy prize.

Position after 10. Bb2. Black to move.

FEN: r1b1k2r/pppp1ppp/1b3n2/6q1/1P2P3/1QPp1B2/PB1P1PPP/RN2K2R b KQkq – 0 10

The game had continued 6. Be2 d3 7. Bf3 Bc5 8. b4 Bb6 9. Qb3 Nf6 10. Bb2, leading to the position above. It’s the position just before the one in the photograph in my last blog post. (So if you look carefully at the photo, you’ll see what the solution is!)

The move I played, 10. … d5!, was pretty obvious to me from previous games in the Egg on Face Variation. The pawn sacrifice is more than justified because it enables Black to get more pieces into the attack and it exposes White’s king on the open e-file. Black is simply winning.

However, I almost blundered away my advantage just two moves later. After 10. … d5 Mantri played 11. ed Bg4 12. Bxg4, leading to the position below.

Position after 12. Bxg4. Black to move.

FEN: r3k2r/ppp2ppp/1b3n2/3P2q1/1P4B1/1QPp4/PB1P1PPP/RN2K2R b KQkq – 0 12

Now the question is: What plausible move for Black actually botches the attack?

If you answered 12. … Qe5+?, you’re right! Just because you can play a tactical trick (here, a zwischenzug), it doesn’t mean you should.

I played this move because I wanted to keep White from castling. Unfortunately, it puts my queen on the worst possible square! In the diagrammed position, Black should play the simple and powerful 12. … Nxg4. Now 13. O-O doesn’t solve any of White’s problems, because after 13. … Qh4 he’s going to be mated soon.

Fortunately, my opponent blundered right back with 13. Kf1? and I won very quickly from there. The correct move for White was 13. Kd1 (threatening a skewer on the e-file) 13. … Nxg4 14. c4 (discovering an attack on the queen) Nxf2+ 15. Kc1 and now, with his queen hanging, Black does not have time to capture the rook on h8. In fact, I can’t find a clear win for Black here, although I think that Black still stands better.

Obviously, when Ted awarded me the brilliancy prize, he didn’t know the game was flawed by the double blunder on moves 12-13. I felt a little bit guilty when I discovered this later, but not guilty enough to send back the prize!

Share This

Where Am I?

I discovered this old photo on my computer when I was updating my website. Old-timers on the Santa Cruz/Monterey Bay chess scene should be able to figure out where the picture was taken. Any guesses before I reveal the answer?

(Space provided for people who want to think about it.)

While you’re thinking, let me apologize to anybody who came to visit this blog over the weekend and got a message saying “Internal Server Error.” I contacted my Internet service provider this morning and they fixed the problem. It was related to the server migration that took place last month when I updated my main website. I hope that this will be the last glitch, but I can’t promise it.

Okay, are you done thinking? The photo was taken in Ted Yudacufski’s old chess emporium, the Monterey Chess Center. I don’t remember the exact date, but it must have been around 2001 or 2002, when Ted was still running his monthly tournaments and I was playing in them semi-regularly. I don’t even remember posing for the picture, so it was quite a surprise to find it in my old computer files.

The Monterey Chess Center was a wonderful place, and it’s sad that it no longer exists. With old photos of world champions and yellowing newspaper clippings on the walls, it was a place where time seemed to be suspended. I recall that one wall had a list of the world’s top players that hadn’t been updated since the 1970s. That “World Chess News” bulletin board behind me in the photo probably doesn’t have any news younger than ten years old on it!

Yet for all that, it was comfortable as an old shoe. The chess center occupied the second and third floors of a building that had a movie theater on the first floor. The second floor had a little shop with chess books and equipment and darts paraphernalia for sale (darts being Ted’s other hobby). There were tables for skittles chess and several dartboards on the walls. The third floor, where the photograph above was taken, had a mostly empty room that Ted used for his monthly chess tournaments.

I don’t know the exact story behind the closing of the chess center, but the approximate version is that the whole building with the movie theater was sold to a new owner, and either they raised the rent or Ted was simply asked to leave.

Unfortunately, I never saw Ted again after that. He passed away on the day before Christmas in 2011. According to his obituary, he died while doing what he loved best: playing chess with his grandson. I did not know about his death at the time; I found out about it just now, when I did a web search to see if I could find any more recent news about him for this blog entry.

Chess is so dependent on people like Ted, who are willing to put forth herculean individual efforts to keep the game alive and get new generations of players excited. He was so modest that he never really spoke much (to me, at least) about his accomplishments, either over the chessboard or away from the board. If you know any more details about his life or his chess career, please add your comments below.

Anyway, Ted was an inspiration to me, and I’ll miss him.

Share This

On the weekend after New Year’s Day in 1988, I decided to play in one of Bill Goichberg’s big tournaments, the Continental Open, to start the year. I was living in North Carolina at the time and the tournament was in Rye, New York, so it was a pretty long trip. But I was on the cusp of making my first National Master rating (2200), and I had just won my second state championship. I was feeling very confident in my chess and thought that I had a good shot at a prize in the Under-2200 section.

In fact I tied for second, with a 4½-1½ score, and I did reach my goal of 2200. So it was a great tournament for me.

The one person who finished ahead of me, at 5½-½, was an UNRATED player named Gustavo Hernandez. Right away, when you are playing at a Bill Goichberg tournament and you see an unrated player from a foreign country winning game after game in the under-2200 section, you think, “Ringer.” It’s a problem Goichberg has faced throughout the years, because he organizes the biggest money tournaments in the U.S., and they are a magnet for sandbaggers and foreign players with no USCF rating. Goichberg does his best to figure out the true strength of these people, but he doesn’t always succeed.

So going into this game, I knew I was facing a strong player but I didn’t know how strong. I heard after the tournament that he was the champion of the Dominican Republic. But nobody told me — probably nobody knew — that he was in fact the world under-18 champion! I didn’t find out until 23 years later — last year, in fact — when I just happened to read the Wikipedia article on the World Youth Chess Championship. At the very top of the list of winners of the under-18 title, the winner of the first tournament in 1987, was … Gustavo Hernandez of the Dominican Republic!

In future years, the winners of this title would include a virtual Hall of Fame of chess talent: Vladimir Kramnik, Shakhriyar Mamedyarov, Ruslan Ponomariov, … I’m still very proud of earning a draw against a player on such a list. (Hernandez, by the way, is still active in FIDE chess and is an International Master.)

The opening and middlegame of this game are not too interesting, but the endgame is very interesting indeed. Hernandez felt after the game that he must have missed a win somewhere. I didn’t think so. I was especially proud of my move 35. … b4, a pawn sac that allowed me to activate my rook.

Twenty-four years later, Rybka reveals the truth … but you don’t want me to give it away so easily, do you? For readers who want an analytical challenge, play through the game in the PGN viewer below. I have deliberately not made any comments after move 23. You have two questions to answer:

1. Was Hernandez right? Did White miss a win?
2. Was my move 35. … b4 a game-saver or a blunder?

For the rest of you who prefer slightly easier challenges, I’ll talk about a couple other critical positions in the game before I go on to these questions.

Position after 24. ... Rxg6. White to move.

FEN: 2k5/1p6/p1pp1pr1/7p/3PP3/7P/PPP4K/3R4 w – - 0 25

Here Hernandez played what I thought at the time and still think was a real master move: 25. Rd3! Rybka is not so impressed, and considers it just one of many moves that lead to approximate equality.

This is one case where I think the computer analysis is misleading. I’m sure that Hernandez looked first at the king-and-pawn endgame after 25. Rg1 Rxg1 26. Kxg1 Kd7 27. Kf2 Ke6 28. Ke3 f5 29. Kf4 fe 30. Kxe4 (diagram)

Position after 30. Kxe4 (analysis). Black to move.

FEN: 8/1p6/p1ppk3/7p/3PK3/7P/PPP5/8 b – - 0 30

Win for White or draw? This one is right on the borderline. The idea for Black is to play 30. … Kf6 31. Kf4 a5! Note that Black can never win the battle for the opposition, because White has a free move (h4) and Black doesn’t (… h4 loses a pawn). Nevertheless, White cannot break through unless he dislodges the pawn at d6. In order to do this, White has to play for the break  c4-c5. Black’s defense is to play … a5 and … b6 and exchange as many pawns as possible. Rybka says that this idea is just good enough to draw, although Black has to find a couple of only moves. I’ll leave it to you (or your computer) to figure out the remaining details.

Hernandez’s 25. Rd3 showed great judgement. He obviously couldn’t work the K+P endgame out to a clear win, and there’s an old saying that you don’t want to enter a K+P endgame unless you’re absolutely sure it wins. The point of 25. Rd3! is that White would like to enter the same K+P endgame  a tempo ahead, after 25. … Kd7 26. Rg3 Rxg3 27. Kxg3. Now he would be completely winning!

Of course Black doesn’t have to allow this. The simplest solution, as Rybka points out, is just to play 25. … Rg7 with the idea of answering 26. Rg3 with 26. … Re7 pressuring the e5 pawn. I can’t argue with that. So technically, Rybka is right. White’s subtlety with 25. Rd3 made no difference if Black defended perfectly.

However, humans aren’t perfect! I was afraid of 26. Rg3 and played 26. … h4?! This isn’t the losing move but it is an inaccuracy, because the pawn on h4 is an easier target than it was before.

Now let me get to those questions I started out with. I’ll answer the second one first.

Position after 34. c3. Black to move.

FEN: 8/8/p4p2/Pp1p1k1r/3P2Rp/2P2K1P/1P6/8 b – - 0 34

Up to this point White has played extremely well. His move 34. c3! has created a zugzwang, where Black has to retreat with either his rook or his king. I played 34. … Rh7 and Hernandez played 35. Rg8. And now I played the surprising 35. … b4, with the idea that after 36. cb? Rb7, essentially all five of White’s pawns are islands. None of them can defend the others.

However, Hernandez continued to play perfectly for several more moves and achieved a winning position. So we have to conclude that 35. … b4 was a blunder, even though it looked great at the time. Rybka says that Black must first safeguard the d-pawn with 35. … Rd7! and only after a move like 36. Rh8 play 36. … b4! If White tries to stop … b4 altogether with 36. Rb8, Black seizes the g-file with 36. … Rg7! and sinks the rook into g3, with enough counterplay to save the game.

In other words, I had the right idea but the wrong execution. Chess is pretty darned subtle sometimes. When you see a great shot like … b4 it’s very hard to hold back from playing it.

Hernandez capitalized on my error in exactly the right way, according to Rybka: after 35. … b4? he played 36. Rd8! (hitting the d-pawn) bc 37. bc Ke6 38. Kg4 Rc7 39. Ra8 Rxc3 40. Rxa6+ Ke7 41. Ra7+ Ke6 42. Ra6+ (obviously played to gain time on the clock) 42. … Ke7 and now we reach the position where White makes his only blunder of the game.

Position after 42. ... Ke7. White to move.

FEN: 8/4k3/R4p2/P2p4/3P2Kp/2r4P/8/8 w – - 0 43

I’ve said before that one reason chess is so much harder than it appears to be in books is that when you’re playing a game, you never have someone to tap you on the shoulder and say, “White to play and win.” That gives you two big clues: First, White should be looking for a win. (Well, that is obvious here, but sometimes it isn’t.) Second, the fact that it’s a puzzle in a book means the obvious move probably isn’t the right move.

In the game Hernandez played what seemed like a completely natural move: 43. Kxh4? I doubt that he even took very long thinking about it. This is exactly where he needed someone to tap him on the shoulder and say, “Think about it.”

What’s wrong with 43. Kxh4? The answer is that it gives Black enough time to win the d-pawn. With 43. Ra8! the a-pawn gets moving one tempo quicker and Black does not have time both to win the d-pawn and to get his king to the “safe haven” of g7 and h7. After 43. … Rd3 44. a6 Rxd4+ 45. Kf5 Ra4 46. a7 Kf7 and White wins with the oldest trick in the book: the X-ray check 47. Rh8! Rxa7 48. Rh7+. Black was one tempo short of a draw.

But after the tempo-losing 43. Kxh4? Black does have time both to corral the d-pawn and to stop the a-pawn. The game concluded 43. … Rd3 44. Rb6 (some kibitzers criticized this after the game, but there was nothing better) Rxd4+ 45. Kh5 Ra4 46. a6 d4 47. Kg4 d3+ (my second discovered check with a pawn in one game!) 48. Kf3 Rd4! 49. a7 d2 50. Rb1 Ra4 51. Rb7+ Ke6 52. Ke2 Ra2 53. h4 f5 ½-½. With the threat of … f4-f3+ looming, White has to give up his a-pawn to win the d-pawn, and the game is then a complete draw.

I think that the position on White’s 43rd move is a beautiful case study to illustrate the fact that TEMPI are more important than MATERIAL in rook endgames. It’s ironic that White’s excellent 25th move showed his awareness of the value of a tempo, but he forgot to be aware of it later.

Also, this game shows that you can’t see what you don’t look for. An IM-level player should be able to spot the winning idea with Ra8 and the X-ray check — it’s a familiar pattern that is in every endgame book. I think that Hernandez just took the h-pawn automatically and forgot to look for something better.

Hope you enjoyed this game!

Share This

Max and tomatoes

Share This

Anyway, I figured out later what my little-known fact should have been. In fact it’s such a little-known fact that I didn’t even know it myself until recently! The fact is that I have played two chess world champions in my life, and I have a record of one win and one draw against them.

Of course there is a catch: One was the world computer champion, and the other was the world under-18 champion. The first is the one that I already know about; the second is the one that I only figured out eleven months ago.

Just for fun, I’d like to show you the two games in question, which I have never presented on this blog before. The first one has actually been posted on my (old) website for quite a long time, but I doubt if very many readers of this blog have noticed it. I also lectured on it for ChessLecture, but again that was so long ago that everyone has probably forgotten.

The notes were written in 2007, when I was still using Fritz instead of Rybka (not that it would make very much difference). Here is the game in the PGN viewer:

Mackenzie, Dana – Belle [D31]
US Amateur Team Championship, 2/21/1983

The game below was played at the U.S. Amateur Team Championship in 1983. I was playing for the Princeton University team, and we were paired against a team from Bell Laboratories. One of the “players” on the Bell Labs team was Belle, a dedicated chess computer that was built by the legendary computer scientist Ken Thompson.

At the time of this game, Belle was the world computer champion, and had recently become the first chess computer ever to achieve a master rating in tournament competition. As it turned out, Thompson more or less retired Belle from tournament competition after 1983, so this was one of the last games of its “career.” My victory in this game is one of my most treasured chess accomplishments, and an opportunity that will never be repeated.

There’s one other cool thing about this game. A couple weeks after it was played, Ken Thompson sent me a printout of Belle’s analysis! The printout shows how much time Belle took on each move, its evaluation of the position, and also what moves it considered best at each “ply” of analysis. (A “ply” is half a move, so when Belle was analyzing at a depth of 4 ply, it was looking 2 moves deep.) Even though it had dedicated hardware, Belle was slow enough that it never looked more than 10 plies (5 moves) ahead. Today’s chess computers routinely look that deep in seconds.

Recently, as an experiment, I re-analyzed the game with Fritz 9, one of today’s top commercial chess computers, giving it the same amount of time on each move as Belle took. In some ways, comparing the two computers is actually more interesting than watching the game itself.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Bb4+ 6.Nc3 …

I was unfamiliar with this variation, and did not know about Bronstein’s gambit 6.Bd2!? Qxd4 7.Bxb4 Qxe4+ 8.Be2! But my ignorance may have worked in my favor, because the game would have proceeded more along tactical lines, where the computer would be stronger.

6…Nf6 7.Nf3 O-O

This is the first move where Belle was out of its book and had to find its own move. Fritz would have played 7. … c5 right away.

8.Bd3 c5 9.O-O cxd4 10.Nxd4!? …

Position after 10. Nxd4. Black to move.

FEN: rnbq1rk1/pp3ppp/4pn2/8/1bPN4/2NB4/PP3PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b – - 0 1

A very interesting moment in terms of chess strategy. White could have avoided the doubling of his pawns with 10.Ne2. However, I actually wanted to lure Black into doubling my pawns, because I felt that it would give me very active piece play. At this point in my career I had a theory that doubled pawns are not always as weak as many people think, and I suspected that the programmers might have given Belle the same prejudice against doubled pawns that most players have.

10…Bxc3?!

Belle takes the bait! Fritz prefers 10. … Nbd7, by the way.

11.bxc3 e5 12.Nb5 e4?

This is the mistake that really gets Belle into hot water. Fritz prefers 12. … Bg4. Belle’s opening play was clearly inferior to Fritz’s. It neglected its development, and gave too high a priority to attacking without thinking of the positional consequences (here, putting a pawn on the color of its remaining bishop). At this point Fritz’s evaluation and Belle’s start to diverge. Belle gives Black a 0.12-pawn advantage, while Fritz gives White a 0.43-pawn advantage. This pattern continued for the rest of the game — Belle and Fritz mostly found the same moves, but Belle overestimated its chances.

13.Bc2 Qa5 14.Bf4 Nc6

Fritz would have played 14. … Bg4 here. Up to this point Fritz and Belle have disagreed several times, but it’s interesting that after this point they were almost uncannily alike. They agree on 20 out of the next 22 moves for Black. One of the two disagreements was essentially meaningless, but the other turned out to be a critical mistake by Belle, where it “almost” chose the right move.

15.Nc7 Bg4 16.Qb1 Rad8 17.Qxb7 …

Position after 17. Qxb7. Black to move.

FEN: 3r1rk1/pQN2ppp/2n2n2/q7/2P1pBb1/2P5/P1B2PPP/R4RK1 b – - 0 1

In spite of my efforts, the game is now proceeding along very tactical lines. I remember at this point feeling totally confused, but nevertheless I did not think I could possibly be worse, because of my very active pieces. Fritz rates the position 0.99 pawns in White’s favor, and Belle now sees it as 0.46 pawns in White’s favor.

17…Qxc3 18.Qxc6 Qxc2 19.Bd6 Rxd6 20.Qxd6 Qxc4

Psychologically it was very important to me that I now had a tangible material advantage. Belle sees a 0.53-pawn edge for White, Fritz sees it as 0.56 pawns — both in agreement with the conventional wisdom that a rook for a bishop and pawn is a “half-pawn” advantage.

21.Rfc1 Qa4

An interesting thing is revealed by Thompson’s printout: Belle changed its mind five times on this move! It vacillated between the text move and 21. … Qd3, which Fritz prefers.

22.Nd5 Nxd5 23.Qxd5 Be6 24.Qe5 …

Position after 24. Qe5. Black to move.

FEN: 5rk1/p4ppp/4b3/4Q3/q3p3/8/P4PPP/R1R3K1 b – - 0 1

24. … Rd8?

Here is the only other place between moves 14 and 37 where Fritz and Belle disagree. Once again, Belle debated between this move and the move Fritz prefers, 24. … Re8. This time it definitely chose wrong. This may seem surprising: Don’t rooks belong on open files? Yes, but in this case White’s next move is going to completely tie Black’s pieces down to passive defense. By contrast, 24. … Re8 threatens a discovered attack on White’s queen and kind of makes White’s last move look stupid. A very tricky position that I think a lot of humans would have misjudged, too!

25.Re1 Bd5 26.Red1 …

Ouch! This is a nasty pin. White is now in complete control. Fritz says White is ahead by 1.99 pawns. Belle is still oblivious, and thinks that it is only 0.51 pawns behind.

26. … f6 27.Qc7?! …

This is my most significant inaccuracy of the game. I had a much better move: 27.Qd4! after which the pressure on the d-file is absolutely decisive. For example, 27…Qxd4 (or 27…Qd7 28.Rac1 threatening 29. Rc5) 28.Rxd4 Kf7 29.Rad1 Ke6 30.Rxe4+! snags a big pawn.

27…Rd7 28.Qc8+ Kf7 29.h3 …

A useful precautionary move, preventing any back-rank mates.

29…Be6 30.Rxd7+ Qxd7?!

Position after 30. ... Qxd7. White to move.

FEN: 2Q5/p2q1kpp/4bp2/8/4p3/7P/P4PP1/R5K1 w – - 0 1

I was stunned during the game when Belle played this move, and stunned again to see that Fritz agrees with it! This shows a huge difference between computer and human thinking. In my opinion, this move trades down to an endgame that is dead lost for Black. But the computer programs (both of them) apparently feel that White’s potential for a queen-rook battery on the seventh or eighth rank poses a greater danger. Objectively, I guess they’re right: That would end the game faster. Still, if I were black there is no question I would have kept the queens on the board, hoping for a miracle. After this move there is no hope for Black.

31.Qxd7+ Bxd7 32.Rb1 a5 33.Rb7 Ke6 34.Ra7 a4 35.Kf1 f5 36.Ke2 f4 37.Kd2 g6

This is the point at which Belle and Fritz start disagreeing again. Fritz would have played 37. … g5. It scarcely makes any difference. Black cannot prevent White’s king from circling around to d4 and winning Black’s too-far advanced pawns.

38.Kc3 f3 39.gxf3 exf3 40.Kd4 h6 41.Ra6+ Kf7 42.Ke3 Bxh3 43.Rxa4 Bg2?

Position after 43. ... Bg2. White to move.

FEN: 8/5k2/6pp/8/R7/4Kp2/P4Pb1/8 w – - 0 1

A horrendous case of the “horizon effect,” caused by the fact that Belle cannot look more than 10 plies ahead. Any human player can look at the board and see in one glance that this move cuts the bishop off from the queenside and allows White’s a-pawn to march down the board unimpeded. However, Belle couldn’t see this because the pawn takes more than 10 plies to reach the queening square. Fritz does not have this “horizon effect” (or else, its horizon is much farther off than Belle’s was).

44.Rd4 h5 45.a4 Ke6 46.Rd1 Ke5 47.a5 Bh3

Too late.

48.a6 Bc8 49.a7 Bb7 50.Rd8 1-0

Here Thompson resigned on the machine’s behalf.

Fritz’s understanding of the opening seems better than that of its predecessor. In the middlegame their play would have been virtually identical. If Belle had possessed fast enough hardware to look as far ahead as Fritz does, it probably would not have made the decisive mistake on move 24. In the endgame Belle had a severe “horizon effect,” but I suspect this was entirely due to the hardware limitations. In this game at least, it would seem that the Fritz software is not markedly superior to its ancient ancestor, except possibly in the opening.

The two machines have a profound “genetic similarity” to each other, which is reflected in the fact that Fritz correctly predicted many more of Belle’s moves than my moves. Leaving out the six “book moves” in the opening, Fritz predicts 30 out of Belle’s 43 moves (70 percent) correctly, with most of the disagreements coming either in the opening or in the endgame when the game was already basically over. On the other hand, Fritz correctly predicts only 23 of my 43 moves over the same period (53 percent).

In retrospect, I was somewhat lucky in this game to have a clear-cut strategic plan and, after move 20, a comfortable material and positional advantage. That’s why I was able to get away with so many moves that were (in Fritz’s opinion, at least) not the absolute best. A particularly dramatic example is the queen trade on move 31, which Fritz considers to be not best, but which in fact gives White a simply won game.

I want to thank Ken Thompson for sending me Belle’s analysis of the game 29 years ago, and also for giving me permission 5 years ago to publish the analysis.

Share This