USCL news and gossip

Ace Reporter Unmasked as Serbian War Criminal

2008-07-24T10:05:00.006-04:00

Yesterday, Radovan Karadzic, the former leader of Bosnian Serbs who is wanted by the Intenational Criminal Court and thought to be responsible for the massacre at Srebrenica, was apprehended in Belgrade (on a bus, of all places). He had escaped notice all these years by becoming a New Age/ Whole Foods hippie.

But does anyone else notice an eerie resemblance to a certain figure in American Chess??

Let me be the first to demand the US government immediately begin extradition of Jerry Hanken to The Hague in the interests of justice and international healing. I also demand that he be forced to blog daily for CLO during the trial.

Imagination in Chess

2008-07-15T18:49:00.008-04:00

is a fantastic book. I'm enjoying it a lot this afternoon. Here are some puzzles for your enjoyment.
Answers will be up tomorrow, but perhaps some geniuses will post solutions in comments?

I hope everyone's enjoying the manic posting pace of the last couple days, but I should mention that it will dry up shortly. I'm going away for a week's vacation on Friday. Then I'm back for just a couple days before going off to play in Edmonton and Dallas (US Open). After that its directly to Greg's next US Chess School session. So expect only sporadic posting for the next month or so. I'm just letting you know in case you think I died.

White to move

Black to move

White to move

An Ad on the London Underground

2008-07-15T14:12:00.007-04:00

"Similar ads were posted for Atlanta, Boston, Las Vegas, New Orleans and Washington, D.C., none of which reported any negative backlash. But in South Carolina, reaction to the posters — dubbed “the gayest ever mainstream media advertising campaign in London” by Out Now, the Australian advertising firm that designed the promotion — was swift."

What a surprise. Really, nobody saw this coming?

Travel agency exec Andrew Roberts explains:

“From where we sit, and for all our many customers, being described as ‘so gay’ is not a negative thing at all. We think it is just great to be so gay,” said Roberts, who called the campaign a success, having reached more than 2 million people in London.

I love this kind of thing: when people are coming from such completely different places that they just don't get what the other side could possibly be thinking.

Chess Makes Strong Players Sad, Too

2008-07-14T16:51:00.002-04:00

Remember that great Chess Life cover with Alex Shabalov and the knocked over crates in the loft with the damaged walls?

There's more here.

I Hate Myself

2008-07-13T23:34:00.006-04:00

(207) Vicary,Elizabeth - Hua,David [B52]
Marshall July Open (4), 13.07.2008
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Bd7 4.Bxd7+ Qxd7 5.0–0 Nc6 6.c3 Nf6 7.d4 Nxe4 8.d5 Nd8 9.Re1 Nf6 10.Bg5 e5

Now I know what the choice is. I can take on f6 and have a nice, pleasant positional edge, space, a better structure, development, everything. For the pawn, yes, but it's nice for me.

Or.... I can take on e5 like a HUGE F&^*ING STUPID ASSHOLE. I'm sorry about that.

11.Nxe5 [11.Bxf6 gxf6 12. Nh4] 11...dxe5 12.Rxe5+

Now of course I have missed that after 12... Ne6 13.Na3 0–0–0 my pawn will in fact still be pinned. Why did I miss that? Because I was only interested in the black king, and I didn't even stop to think about where the black rook would be. I am a stupid stupid ridiculous excuse for a human being. I love chess most of the time; why do I have to be so awful?

12... Be7 13.Qe2 Kf8

Of course I forgot he could unravel like this also...

14.Nd2 Bd6 15.Bxf6 Bxe5 16.Bxe5 Qxd5

17.Nc4 Ne6 18.Rd1 Qc6 19.Qg4 Re8

Still, despite huge retardation, I seem to have some tactical possibilities.

20.Bd6+ Kg8 21.Ne5 Qc8 22.Qh5 g6 23.Qh6? [23.Qf3 f5 24.h4] 23...Qd8 24.f4

24...Nd4 25.Bxc5 Ne2+ 26.Kf2 Qxd1 27.Ng4 Qg1+ 28.Kf3 Qf1+ 29.Bf2 Ng1+ 30.Kg3 Qd3+ 31.Kh4 Qd8+ 32.Kg3 Ne2+ 33.Kh3 f5 34.Ne5 Qd2 35.Bc5 Nxf4+ 36.Kh4 Nxg2+ 0–1

I don't mind losing, it's just the feeling of being such a f&*ing stupid dumbass. I feel like punching myself in the face. I'm just so dumb, all the time. And you know what occured to me last night that I was going to tell you about? I realized that I play chess because it's pretty much the only time I ever feel anything. The rest of the time, with just a couple exceptions, I am almost completely numb. Somewhere along the way I turned into zombie.

Chess is the only time I have more than an absolutely nominal interest in anything or anyone. And I study all the time, and dozens of good players help and have helped me, and I am still absolutely awful.

don't leave me some stupid cheer up message.

Hurray! I slime a child!

2008-07-12T23:03:00.018-04:00

I'm playing in the July Open at the Marshall. I'm 2-0, which is lucky. Let's look at my amazing swindle against a young child, who was totally crushing me:

(206) Vicary,Elizabeth - Sandburg,Evan [B31]
Marshall July Open (2), 12.07.2008

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6

What was disconcerting here is that I'm pretty sure I switched lines, and don't take here anymore, but for the life of me, I could not remember what I switched to. Not even the first move. But I taught a couple kids to play 4. Bxc6 a few months ago, so I remember that well enough.
4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d3 Bg7 6.h3 e5 7.Nc3

The knight usually goes to f6, which I think is part of some unbelievably long-winded plan of Ng8-f6-e8-c7-e6-d4. Seems ridiculous to me, also. Also, I can't play 8. Nxe5 because of 8...Nxe4.
7... Ne7 8.Be3 Qd6 9.Qd2 0–0 10.g4

Yeah, I don't know about this anymore either. I figure he wants to play ... f5, because I can't see how else he's going to activate his knight. I'm not sure that ... f5 is a good move, really, because it seems like if I take it, then I should get either the e4 square if he recaptures with a piece, or an exposed king to attack if he takes with the pawn. But still, I kinda wanted to stop it just to piss him off.

Let me tell you what I do know: in the main position of this opening:

white has four plans:

1. 0-0-0 and a kingside attack with a pawn storm (I guess h4? I think I read somewhere h3 and g4, but I never understand what those pawns are threatening there.)
2. 0-0 and kingside attack based on trading dark bishops and playing f4.
3. 0-0 and a3, b4 to loosen up the queenside
4. playing a4 and getting a knight (my memory says the c3 knight, but that looks crazy slow to me) to c4.

I am incredibly proud of myself for knowing that.

Now back to the game.

10....Be6 11.0–0–0 f6 12.Bh6 b5 13.Bxg7 Kxg7 14.g5? a5 15.Rdg1 a4 16.gxf6+? Rxf6 17.Nh2 a3! [17...h5!] 18.b3 Qd4 19.Ng4 Bxg4 20.hxg4 Ng8 21.f3 b4 22. Qh2

OK, at this point I have 2 minutes left for 8 moves, I'm down a piece, and I'm quite possibly getting mated. Or his a pawn is queening. It turns out I play much better in time pressure when I'm completely lost, because I don't agonize over decisions too long. Starting from this point, I am quite proud of my play, which is not something I can remember feeling.

22...bxc3? 23.Qxh7+ Kf8 24.Qb7 Rd8 25.Re1 Qd7 26.Qa6 Rf7 27.Rh8 Re8 28.Reh1 Rd8

He had 12 minutes last move but spent a long time here, leaving himself with just a minute for the last two moves. I had had 40 seconds for 6 moves at some point, but it didn't bother me because I had already relinquished any expectations.

29.Qc4 Qe7 [29...Qd4 30.Qa6 Qe3+ 31.Kb1 Qxf3] 30.Qxc3 Qg5+ 31.Kb1 Qe7 32.Qc4 Rd4 33.Qa6 Rxf3 34.Qxa3 Rd8

35.R1h7! Rf7 36.Rxf7+ Qxf7 37.Qxc5+ Kg7 38.Qxe5+ Kf8

Where did all his pawns go????

39.g5!

I just felt like this move would be annoying. It stops checks on f6 and takes some squares from the knight.

39... Re8 40.Qd6+ Kg7 41.Qh2 Kf8 42.Rh7 Qf1+ 43.Kb2 Re7

44.Qd6 Qf2 45.a4 Qb6 46.e5 Qe3 47.d4

[47.Rxe7 Nxe7 48.Qf6+ Ke8 (48...Kg8 49.Qxe7) 49.e6] 47...Qd2

48.e6 Qa5 49.Qb8+ Re8 50.Rf7# 1–0

Hurray!

I had two other thoughts while playing this game that I would like to tell you about.

Two Other Thoughts!

1. Chessplayers are very tolerant. I say this because so unbelievably many chessplayers* have unbearably annoying board manners / habits/ smell /loudness of breathing and/ or compulsively vibrate the table with their legs, yet it seems like I'm the only person who ever says anything. Everybody else is a complete saint. I really do not know how they do it.

2. I want to do a project at the next big open that I can't for some reason play in. I want to hang out in the low sections and collect data on which openings are most effective at different rating levels. For example, is it really true that the Grand Prix works every single time under 1500? Maybe the Dutch scores 85-90% under 1200? I could make a CLO article out of it, right? Definitely. It's probably the most interesting thing in the world to enthusiastic D players.

*although surprisingly not my young opponent, who was totally fine.

A Sveshnikov from the World Open

2008-07-10T00:00:00.009-04:00

Point,Gary - Vicary,Elizabeth [B33]
World Open, U 2200 round 4

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5

Oh my goodness, a Sveshnikov. I have a very strange love/hate relationship with this opening. I know some theory but I'm definitely not prepared to play the typical endgames. I don't understand what's going on in any profound way. It's kind of surreally anti-positional, so when I win, it's usually because my idea was so weird that my opponent couldn't find it. I know long term I should switch and play something strategic and logical like the Accelerated Dragon. But sometimes it's really a lot of fun, and perhaps I have a sentimental attachment to it also...

6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.Qh5 Ok, so I haven't looked at this line in .. umm.. not since 2006 I think, but my memory is that it didn't look so hard to play for black.

12...Rg8 13.g3 Rg6

I think the rook usually goes to g5 or g4, but Rg6 is an interesting square too.. There are some ideas of trapping the queen, for example 14. Qxh7? Rh6 15. Qg8 followed by ...Nd4 and ...f6

14.c3 b4 [14...fxe4 This doesn't work quite yet: 15.Bxe4 Bg4 16.Qh4 Qxh4 17.gxh4 Rh6? 18.Nf6+; 14...f4 15.gxf4 Bg4 16.Qxh7 Rh6 17.Qg8 Rg6 18.Qh8 Rh6=]

15.Nc4 [15.cxb4 Nd4]

15...Rc8 I was pretty happy with my position here. Ncb6 is nothing-- I'll just play Rb8 and he has to go back, so I gain a tempo.

16.Rd1

And now I feel triumphant, since my opening strategy has worked and now I can win his queen. Of course Rybka calls this -.68, but for me at that moment, I was wildly happy.

16...fxe4 17.Bxe4 Bg4 18.Bxg6 Bxh5 19.Bxh5 bxc3

Why not, right? He has to take back. But at this point I start to become afraid. Last summer I had three positions where I was up a queen for a rook and piece, and I lost all of them horribly. I remember the last one especially-- it was at the Continental Open on Sunday morning, I was playing some tiny kid who was not really all that good, After the game I completely lost it. I cried all through lunch, sobbing into the calamari and two glasses of wine. Oh my god, how humiliating that was.

20.bxc3

So how am I going to organize myself? I'm realizing that this is nto going to be easy at all-- my bishop is bad, my knight isn't on a good square, my king is unsafe, and while white's kingside rook is undeveloped, all the rest of his pieces look great.

20...Nd4

So I talk myself into this move, envisioning the lines 21. cxd4 Rxc4 22. dxe5 Re4+ (super) or 21. Ncb6 Rxc3 22. Nxc3 Qxb6 (for an exchange I have a pawn, a beautiful square for my knight, plus I'm blocking the d file, which makes his rook not so good and my d6 pawn not so bad. Then as soon as I put my knight down, I realize that I didn't look at Ndb6 at all. Desparation fillls me. Luckily he doesn't play it. Afterwards, Rybka shows a funny refutation: 21. Ndb6 Nc2+ 22. Kd2 Na3! 21.Nce3 [21.cxd4 Rxc4 22.dxe5 Re4+; 21.Ncb6 Rxc3 22.Nxc3 Qxb6; 21.Ndb6 Nc2+ 22.Kd2 Na3 23.Nxc8 Nxc4+ 24.Ke2 Qxc8]

21...Nb5 22.0–0

So here I have a long think. Of course, my initial intention was to take on c3, but then I decide that I really don't want to exchange a pair of knights or a pair of rooks, (on the general theory that when you have one of something and your opponent has two, you shouldn't exchange.) So then I'm thinking, ok, but what else to do? I'd like to play Bg7, but I might need the bishop where it is to defend d6. And I start looking at Qg5. My thinking goes like this: 22... Qg5 23. Bf3/e2 f5. Then I'm interested in either f4 (to start an attack) or e4 (vacating e5 for my bishop, opening the 5th rank for my rook/queen, blocking the long diagonal for his bishop, maybe someday preparing ...e3)

22...Qg5?? Of course as soon as I make the move I realize I'm not threatening to take on h5 because of Nf6. I spend 10 minutes screaming at myself inside my head. Then I look back at the position and realize he's going to play f4 and it's very very strong.

23.f4! exf4 24.Rxf4 Bg7?? What's so awful, yet hilarious about this move is that he can now trap my queen, in almost exactly the same way I trapped his, [24...Nxc3! 25.Nxc3 Qxh5] 25.Bxf7+ [25.Rf5 Qh6 26.Bxf7+ Kd8 27.Rh5]
25...Kd8

He thought for a very long time here. I had seen Rf5 and was sure he was going to play it. I hated him so much, and also myself. I could not sit at the board, it was all so disgusting.

26.c4?? Now I felt angry that I was losing to someone who didn't see things. [26.Rf5 Qh6 27.Rh5]

26...Nc3 27.Nxc3 Bxc3 28.Rxd6+ Kc7 29.Rd5 OK, so I have a choice of three squares: e7, g7 and h6. 29... Qe7 looked like it lost something to 30. Rd3, which threatens both my bishop and Nd5. 29... Qg7 looked bad to me after 30. Be6, which threatens both Rf7 and Rd7. I couldn't see an immediate win after 29...Qh6, and even though it looks pretty lame, I can dream about the variation 29... Qh6 30. Rh5 Qb6 31. Rxh7 Qb1+ 32. K moves Qxh7.

29...Qh6 30.Rh5

It's happening!! I try to play 30...Qb6 as casually as possible.

30...Qb6 31.c5 Qb1+ 32.Rf1 Qd3 33.Nd5+ Kb8 There's a few choices for my king, but I want a dark square and not d8.

34.Nf4

34...Bd4+ [34...Qe4 35.h3 Bd4+ 36.Kh2 Qc2+ 37.Kh1 Rxc5 38.Rxc5 Bxc5 39.Bb3 Qd2]

35.Kg2 Qc2+ 36.Kh3 Rxc5 37.Rxc5 Bxc5 38.Bb3 Qf5+ 39.Kg2 Qe4+ 40.Kh3 Qf5+

And I agreed to a draw here, which is pretty stupid. It seems like I just totally lose my fighting spirit after four hours. I torture myself endlessly with accusatory mind chatter "youregoingtoloseyouregoingtoloseyousucksomuchihateyou." I gotta figure out how to become less neurotic. Ok, I admit that having no clue how or where to start in thinking about this position made things much worse, and also that if I knew more about endgames I would understand that I am the one trying to win here, and that I DON'T NEED TO FREAK OUT. I can push my a pawn, and then try to win his, somehow, cleverly: [40...Bd6 41.Rf2 a5 42.Bc2 Qd4 43.Rf3 a4 44.Bf5 (44.Rf1 Qc4 45.Rf2 Bxf4 46.gxf4 Qxa2) 44...Qb2 45.Be6] ½–½

BREAKING GOSSIP*!!!!

2008-07-09T16:00:00.006-04:00

Rumor has it that GM John Fedorowicz will be playing for the New York Knights this fall.

This is an Amateur Team I was on called "Being John Fedorowicz." We won best name/gimmick/costume, beating, I believe, the Chess Police. It was the year that the movie Being John Malkovich came out, if that explain things.

Left to right: Samson Benen, Ron Young, me, Lew Eisen.

*Greg said I couldn't call it news.

Twin Peaks, 3 Photos, Some Chess

2008-07-08T22:53:00.013-04:00

So yeah, the World Open, soon, but what I really want to talk about is Twin Peaks. I was watching it on VHS cassette last night, and previously I had always thought "how amazing that this show was made in the 80s," but this time I thought "there is no way this show could be made today." And that's not the prelude to a whiny rant about the stupidity of television these days. Actually, I think a lot of great television is being made these days and that television should be much better than movies. It's just a richer format. People form long-term emotional relationships.

But back to my thesis-- "Twin Peaks could not be made right now."

Look at the great tv shows of the last 10 years: Seinfeld, the Simpsons, Law and Order (SVU), The Office (American version), Sex and the City, the Wire, the Sopranos, 6 Feet Under, Lost. (I haven't seen the last three.)

What do they all have in common? They are all primarily character driven. The characters determine the plot is what I mean, not the other way around. There is no interest in either cinematography or style for its own sake. When either is featured, it is always in the service of character development or to set the mood for a good character interaction.

Because of their importance, it's natural that the characters (these days) are exceptionally well-developed. What's also (but maybe not necessarily) true is that modern characters are almost all written to be believable/ familiar.* The Simpsons are funny because you know a kid like Bart.

It might be hard to imagine a TV show that isn't like that, just because it's so ubiquitous these days, but let me suggest some:

Murder She Wrote was mostly about the genre of mystery,

Macgyver was mostly concerned with being brilliantly DIY,

BayWatch was about being sexy**,

The Adams Family was about being Goth.

The Twilight Zone was about ... I don't know, but you get it.

A lot of shows were probably really plot-driven.

And Twin Peaks is a very stylized show.
--very interested in creating memorable still shots.
--fine with tangents that would 100% be cut these days-- there's one in which a lawyer is standing in his older brother's jail cell and he thinks back to when they were kids, lying on bunkbeds, and this little girl danced for them. You see the girl dancing and hear the record she's dancing to for a long time, at least a minute.
-- ok with characters who are completely implausible- not just underdeveloped or badly acted, but intentionally weird and unrecognizable.

I'm kinda half reading a book like this-- A Sport and a Pastime. The language couldn't be written today: "Past and haunting images of France, reflected over and over like facets of an inexhaustible stone. I walk through the silent house, the talls rooms chilled with wintr light, the furnishings crossed by it, the windows. The quality of stillness is everywhere. There is no single detail that provides it. It exists like a veiled face."

I guess the thing they have in common is being self-consciously arty?! And maybe that's not ever done in popular culture now?

*it's possible Seinfeld has the least realistic characters, but that was also one of the earlier shows

** Honestly, I don't know because I never saw it, but it seems like that, second-hand.

Three amusing moments from my World Open games....

White to move

Should black play 20... Rxc3?

World Open Photos

Alan Stein
Alex Shabalov

mystery man

Answers

1. 11. Rxa6! Rb8 (11...Rxa6 12. Qxb5+) 12. dxe5 dxe5 (continued)

2. 13. Qxb5! Rxb5 14. Ra8+ Qd8 15. Rdxd8 Ke7 16. Nc3 Rc5 17. Be3 1-0

3. No, because 20.. Rxc3 21. Bxc3 Qc5+ 22. Bd4! Bxd4 23. Kh1 Qxa3?? 24. Bxf7+!

PS I like my CLO article (http://main.uschess.org/content/view/8544/468), except I say the words "really enjoyed" way too many times in the beginning.

Greg Buys Pot

2008-06-29T20:06:00.016-04:00

In San Diego, everyone stayed in student apartments on campus. They were very nice, big, 4-person apartments with a kitchen and living room. The kitchen, however, didn't come with pots or pans or utensils*, so the Krishnans very kindly lent Greg cooking supplies for the 5 days we were there. But of course we had to return them the last night.

Now Greg makes a habit of over-buying groceries (don't get me started on the history of this) and so on the last night we still have a box of pasta, a jar and a half of pasta sauce, 4 large cans of soup, a large block of chedder cheese, an unopened package of grated cheese, 10 string cheese sticks, a box of Cheez-its, 4 King Cones, 2 individual apple sauces, half a box of Lucky Charms, some milk, lemonade, orange juice, and most of a large package of raw cookie dough. (again, long story)

For some reason, ok, I can't resist telling you, for the reason that the pizza at the after party had vegetables on it, Greg really wanted to make soup for dinner when we got home Saturday night. But now we don't have a pot to make it in, because we returned them. I suggest that it should be possible to heat up the soup in the can itself on the (electric) stove. Mike Casella, who happens to be at this after-party, agrees, but Greg sees it as "too risky." So he gets Elliott Liu, who is giving us a ride home, to stop at the grocery store so he can buy a pot.

Greg enters store

Greg does not want to be photographed (Elliott behind him, laughing).

Greg looks at pots.

Greg selects pots.

Greg feels pots are unreasonably expensive ($12).

Greg considers buying the cheaper cake pan.

Greg settles on a small pot. Notice the straight line of his body that continues upward past his head and becomes the placard announcing the goods in the aisle.

Greg asks cashier if there is an aisle where they keep other pots.

* Although they did come with a shopping cart, which we kept in the living room for four days before replacing it with an orange traffic cone.

The Photos From the US Chess School Never End

2008-06-29T17:35:00.012-04:00

US Chess School Participants, June 2008

top row: Kevin Wang, Jarod Pamatmat, (Ryan) Joseph Moon

bottom row: David Adelberg, Varun Krishnan, Alexander (Sasha) Velikanov, Luke Harmon, Alex Ostrovskiy

US Chess School participants with Trainer GM Gregory Kaidanov

On the last day, students played a consultation game. When one side got under five minutes, each team elected a representative to finish the game. Alex Ostrovskiy represented his teammates Kevin, Jarod and Sasha, while Luke Harmon played for Joseph, David and Varun. Luke's team won the game when Luke checkmated by under promoting to a knight. The game, an exciting Najdorf, will appear with annotations in an article on CLO soon.
Luke concentrates in the consultation game.
Alex Ostrovskiy defends.
Sasha Velikanov

David Adelberg, positional master
Jarod Pamatmat
Joseph Moon, winner of the blitz tournament and playoff game.
Kevin Wang, tied for first in the blitz tournament but lost the playoff game.

Fun and Games at the After Party

Sasha shoots.
David slides.

Basketball game
Kevin, Carl (Luke's brother), Varun (background), Luke
David swings.
Joseph with basketball.
Luke lies on the ground, laughing. This kid is going to be a very, very strong player some day. He reads Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual without a board on long car trips, and he remembers every position perfectly. It's unreal. Check out his website: http://sponsorluke.com/

Friday Pictures from US Chess School

2008-06-27T19:23:00.008-04:00

Most of the day is serious endgame study, but there are blitz breaks every couple of hours. Unfortunately, there are only two sets. What do the kids do?

They play blindfold. Above: Luke Harmon and David Adelberg.

Luke keeps his eyes closed in the opening.

Alex Ostrovskiy and Kevin Wang also try.

They get in an argument about the position.

"No, YOU forfeit"

Alexander (Sasha) Velikanov

More Pictures from the US Chess School

2008-06-26T19:11:00.009-04:00

This is a really fantastic chess camp.

Mornings are spent looking at looking at the kids' own games. Each kid brings one heavily annotated loss to camp; maybe 2-3 present each day. Kaidanov is a big genius at recognizing general problems each player is having-- some examples from this group: not thinking enough about the opponent's counterplay, being overly optimistic, missing in-between moves, and making premature exchanges (current running count for everyone in the first 3 days of camp: 39 premature exchanges). He's very good at keeping all of these issues in mind and pointing out when the same types of mistakes come up in other ways, like during problem-solving or guess-the-moves activities.

Other topics so far: positional exchange sacrifices, material vs. initiative, sicilian for black: najdorf/scheveningen, prophylaxis. Lots of guessing the moves and problem solving.

Upcoming topics tomorrow and Saturday:
Sicilian for Black: how to handle anti-Sicilian systems.

How to play complex technical endgames.
How to play complex sharp endgames.

The group works on a laptop projected on a screen.

A blitz break

David Adelberg watches Joseph Moon play.

Luke Harmon

Jarod Pamatmat, Luke Harmon, Kevin Wang

Basketball before lunch.

David Adelberg

Sasha Velikanov

Joseph Moon

US Chess School Photos

2008-06-26T10:54:00.010-04:00

I'm in San Diego, observing the current incarnation of the US Chess School. This is a nonprofit run by Greg Shahade that brings 8 of the country's top juniors together for 5 days of intensive training with a top grandmaster. Kaidanov is the trainer for this session; Shulman has done a camp and Joel Benjamin is scheduled for the August session. All the kids are 1900-2150 and 9-12 years old. The training is free for students thanks to the generous sponsorship of Jim Roberts, in conjunction with the AF4C. I'll be writing about the camp for CLO, but if you are curious now, more info is available at www.uschessschool.com.

Gregory Kaidanov plays blindfold blitz against Luke Harmon at the end of the day. Greg Shahade assists relaying moves.

Luke Harmon plays blitz.

Sasha Velikanov plays blitz.

Sasha's rook gets trapped.

Alexander Ostrovskiy enjoys the campJarod Pamatmat isn't scared of you.
Varun Krishnan

The Moods of Greg Shahade

Greg's friend Noel took us for a scenic beach hike.

reflective Greg

happy Greg

pensive Greg

Thoughtful Greg looks at sky.

Invisible Greg

More photos and commentary coming soon.

Photos from Marshall International

2008-06-23T23:04:00.015-04:00

NM Chris Williams and GM Alejandro Ramirez
GM Jaan Ehlvest and Frank Marshall
IM Jay Bonin
FM John Bick
FM John Bick's hand.

Now prepare yourself: coming up are three almost identical pictures of GM Sergey Erenburg. It's your job to spot the five differences.

GM Sergey Erenburg 1
GM Sergey Erenburg 2

GM Sergey Erenburg 3

Isn't that just some fantastic light? It makes him look almost angelic, don't you think?

No, so, really, the five differences was just a joke, just trying to get you interested in looking at the same picture 3 times. Suckers. But I really do want to know which photo you would select if you absolutely had to pick one. I know you don't care at all, ok, but just humor me and vote in the poll?

I'm doing a blurb on the tournament soon for uschess.org. This will include complete answers to the following questions:

1. What aspect of video game design does Alejandro Ramirez believe he excels in?

2. How did Alejandro Ramirez know his sixth round opponent, GM Mark Paragua, would accept a draw in 9 moves with white?

3. Which IM exclaimed loudly after round five, "Beating a sucker is the greatest thrill there is!"

actually....

2008-06-22T14:37:00.001-04:00

http://billionairesforbush.com/music/dontvote.mp3

Really, How Is He Not Going to Win? And Easily?

2008-06-19T21:37:00.007-04:00

Please watch.

I'm so excited. It's the first time I've ever felt 100% behind a political candidate. I can't believe he hasn't said one single thing I thought was stupid.

(I saw his much-maligned comment about lower-class Pennsylvanians turning to God and guns out of hopelessness as a statement of obvious fact rather than a controversial opinion. It makse sense that when people feel powerless, they turn to things that seem very powerful. Noticing that doesn't mean you don't believe in the existance/power of god any more than it means you don't believe in the existance/ power of guns.)

Alex Shabalov, former Republican

Adia Onyango, NY State delegate for Barack Obama and winner of the Cleveland Open, Under 1400 section.

What's really impressive is she didn't lose this position.

A Gallon of Karma Is Cheaper Than 200 Gallons of Gas

2008-06-16T18:18:00.009-04:00

I have a favor to ask you guys. I teach a really amazing person, Angelica Berrios. She's a brilliant and hard-working chess player, a gracious and mature young woman, and a person who hasn't had a whole lot of opportunities in her life. She's one of my all-time favorite kids and she's graduating eighth grade this year, so I wanted to try to do something special for her. She's hardly gotten to play in any adult tournments ever, and I'd really like for her to be able to play in the World Open.

I should mention her recent accomplishments: she's the 2008 Brooklyn High School Champion, the 2008 National Girls 16 and Under Champion, and came 6th in the 2007 National Eighth Grade Championship. She's over 1800 (but not officially).

I was hoping some generous blog-reader might sponsor all or part of the cost of the World Open. It would bring you a truckload of good karma. She's a super-deserving kid, and it would mean a great deal to her.

I'm thinking the costs are about $750 ($375 entry fee, $250 for part of a hotel room (maybe less), and $125 food for 5 days). If you are moved to give something, but can only afford a smaller amount, we'd be extremely grateful for that also. Of course, you'll see every receipt. If she wins anything (not unlikely, as she's eligible to play the Under 1800 section), you'll get your money back first. And we'll go over your WO games with you, if that means anything to you.

Also, you have three straight years of being guaranteed not to be hit by a bus.

Thanks.

What's Up with the Watson-Hating?

2008-06-15T12:32:00.027-04:00

I've been reading these two books, Attacking Manual 1 by Jacob Aagaard, and True Lies in Chess by Lluis Comas Fabrego, both from Quality Press (overall a great publisher). They are both interesting and rich with ideas, but I'm struck by the recurrant cheap shots both take at John Watson. I should say up front that I'm a HUGE fan of Watson-- I find his books instructive, philosophical, and extremely enjoyable to read. I think his Secrets of Chess Strategy is a very important book in the history of chess thought. However, even if I thought he was a hack, I would still be taken aback by the treatment he's getting here.

Let's take a look:
Attacking Manual 1, Preface, p. 21:

"I remember when I read John Watson's Secrets of Chess Strategy back in 2000 that I was unconvinced about his idea of "rule-independance" where he was claiming that the strongest players were relying less and less on rules and more and more on calculation. I had a problem with this notion for several reasons.

One is that Watson is American and that the strongest players in the US do not have the kind of chess culture players in Eastern Europe (and even some in Western Europe) have. If your training consists solely of opening analysis and tactical exercises and is not based on a chess education, it is an understandable point of view to have. However, the East Europeans who have thought a lot about rules (just go through Watson's hero Mark Dvoretsky's books on positional play) are much better. At one point there were no autodidact American's (sic) on the US National team."

Where to start? OK, I am absolutely the last person to express pro-American opinions, but you can't attack someone's thoughts because of their nationality. It's a well-known logical fallacy (ad hominem) to attack an argument because of the person making it rather than the ideas themselves, but attacking an argument because of the author's country of origin? It's incomprehensible to me that Aagaard seriously tries to do this.

Secondly, Aagaard uses Dvoretsky as an example of why Watson is wrong, yet calls Dvoretsky Watson's hero sarcastically. That doesn't make any sense, right?

Thirdly, (and this might seem bitchy of me, but I'm an English teacher) if you are going to be high-brow enough to casually use the word autodidact (meaning self-taught person), then I think you should know the difference between a plural and a possessive. It's also not clear to me which US National team Aagaard refers to-- certainly not one in recent memory. And again, let's say this was true in 1985. Let's say they were also all tobacco-chewing second cousins with three arms who had never seen a chess book in their lives. What does that have to do with Watson's ideas?

The second thing I am struck by is the comparative discussion in both books about inaccuracies in the annotations of classic games.

Aagaard (p 21):

"Later in his writings, Watson included strategic decisions in his definition of calculation and it seemed to limit rules to be something uttered by Tarrasch and Lasker a hundred years ago. Understood in this way, meaning that the top players think for themselves at all times and are not bound by dogmas, it is impossible to disagree with Watson, though I would question the assumption that would then be inherent in this interpretation: that Capablanca, Lasker, and Tarrasch were excessively dogmatic in their play. I choose to believe that they simply annotated their games with a weak audience in mind and therefore explained their thoughts in a simplistic way at times, bowing to the expectations of the public."

So, first of all, the assumption that Tarrasch, Capa etc were dogmatic is absolutely not inherent in "this interpretation" (which is arguably not even a completely fair summary of what Watson says). It would be like saying Watson and Crick (sorry, of course a different Watson: he and Crick discovered that DNA was structured as a double helix) were dogmatic for not mapping the human genome. It's not dogmatism or inflexible thinking not to be ahead of your time. It's just normal.

Secondly, you can't criticize Watson for "limiting the rules to be something uttered ...a hundred years ago" when his book is sub-titled "Advances Since Nimzowitsch."

But Aagaard's point about annotating for weak audiences is fair enough and I agree.

But then Comas Fabrego begins chapter one with the words:

"In the games that appear in the classic manuals the analysis is usually too one-sided. History is always written by the winners and often their research lacks objectivity. Later treatises blindly copy these 'exemplary games' thus reinforcing the transmission of the inaccurate, sometimes utterly false, knowledge they try to show." But he's pissed off about this-- in the introduction he claims his own chess education was slowed by the "lies and mistakes" of annotations, and he blames "authors' lack of chess strength, scant ability to pass on their knowledge, superficial analysis, etc." as well as their "lack of honesty." Is he really calling Watson (who he names repeatedly as one of these problematic authors) a liar? That seems quite ridiculous, especially since in the game that follows, Comas Fabrego agrees more often than not with Watson's annotations.

Now these are two completely different authors, but given that Aagaard runs, or co-runs Quality Press, it seems strange that the two books that appear almost simultaneously express such contradictory opinions. But maybe I shouldn't be surprised: Aagaard is writing a book about the rules of attacking play, while Comas Fabrego is writing about the dangers of overly general applications of rules and the importance of rigorously accurate analysis. But I'm quite sure it's strange that they use these seemingly opposed viewpoints to attack Watson.

While I'm complaining, let me quote one more bizarro piece of reasoning from Comas Fabrego on a Geller annotation:

"Regarding the assertion that after a2-a3 the c5-knight feels at home, it reminds me of the classic and somewhat naive saying 'When a piece is badly placed the whole position is bad' only I would feel like phrasing it 'When a piece is well-placed, the whole position is good.' Obviously this is a somewhat limited statement" (p 21).

Slow down there, Nelly: you can't do that. The inverse of a statement is not implicitly true. (In other words, if a--> b, you can assume the contrapositive, ~b-->~a, but you cannot assume either the inverse (as is being done here) ~a --> ~b, or the converse, b--> a.) So he's correct to say this statement is somewhat limited, but that's because its truth value is totally unrelated to that of the original rule. Furthermore, Geller never comes anywhere close to saying "The well-placed nature of this knight alone is enough to make black's position good."

Conclusion:

I like both books and have learned things from each. True Lies is a little dense and difficult for my taste: I think I have an above-average work ethic when it comes to reading chess books, but this one kicked my ass. It's the kind of book I imagine Ray Robson reading. However, I really like his in-depth discussion of specific positions and his comparison of different authors' explanations of how to understand them. I also appreciate his summary of key points at the end of several games, although I found it more useful to read these before I began looking at the game.

Aagaard's book is much more enjoyable and reader-friendly. I love that he previews key positions at the beginning of each chapter and asks the reader to analyze them. I appreciate that he tries to limit the variations and explain ideas in words. I do notice that he sometimes cheats, explanation-wise-- giving absurdly computerish lines in a book that endeavors to explain how humans can use principles and intuition to guide us. (p. 29, top of the second column, for example)

It's a shame that I will remember both books primarily for their unprofessional and logically questionable attacks on John Watson.

Girls/Women Rock!

2008-06-14T18:46:00.009-04:00

Some recent fantastic results by IS 318 female chessplayers:

Angelica Berrios (1800) won the Brooklyn High School Chess Championship today, beating 4 Murrow High School students, and leading IS 318 to our first place team finish. Angelica also recently won the National Girls 16 and Under Championship (she's 14)

Jasmine Fermin (1405) won the Brooklyn Junior High Chess Championship, also leading 318 to our first place finish in that section (ok, I should mention that there was an eight way tie for first individually, but all eight students were from 318. Jasmine won the blitz playoff.).

Angelica Berrios and Jasmine Fermin

Last week, at the New York Mayor's Cup, Rochelle Ballantyne (1761) went 4-0 on first board to lead IS 318 to team victory there. Rochelle and Jasmine tied for first last month in the National Girls 14 and Under Championship.

Rochelle Ballantyne

UPDATE: WFM Abby Marshall tied for first this weekend in a FIDE invitational in Virginia, beating 2 2300s. http://www.vachess.org/invitational.html

Adia Onyango tied for first in the Under 1400 section of the Cleveland Open!