Gearing up for the World Open.

When I tell my co-workers what I am about to do for vacation next week, the common response I get “ You call that a vacation?” For the uninformed, the American chess scene that lacks sponsorships like our European cou

nter parts, attracting the masses of amateurs with a hefty prize does draw a crowd. However, the time table is a grueling 6 hours per game at 2 games a day during the peak. So when they hear I am signing up for 12 hours a day while holding my head as if I am in agony staring at 64 squares and a few little wooden pieces scattered about, they tend to go “ I you say so”. I call that fun.

I’ve been ramping up my preparations for this event. Because I am not a big named GM nor am I any way near the level of play of a GM, I have no “second” helping me train. Rather, my “second” is of the silicon base and add to it a very good chess club that has strong players who I can get a “lesson” from when I play against them. I’ve shared some of those lessons recently.

What I’d like to share about is how I am using my “silicon second”. Years ago, I signed up for pieces of software called Bookup, spent the money they Mike Leahy updated the software on several occasions almost to the point where it annoyed me as the next version always meant “ for a little more money” . At one point I emailed him back and told him flat out “ look, I paid for this earlier version and I use it, I don’t want to have to pay more for something that does the same thing.”

Mike was very receptive to this feedback and provided me with the registration code for the new stuff with no strings attached. That was two years ago. I finally got over myself and installed the new version called Chess Opening Wizard.

First, I must say that I used to use it purely as a memory drill exercise putting the tool in “training” mode where I would select an opening and play through variation after variation without thinking too much. Problem with this is that I have a horrible memory to retain such rote responses. I needed to augment the learning experience by verbal queues. This led me to barking at my computer screen cursory positional values but it was somewhat successful. The problem was that the database I used would drill each variation down to the last move of the game before cycling to the next branch causing me to start and stop the training at various points.

Then, I discovered the feature of “speed learning” . The COW tool will take a starting position of your choice in your database and create a set of flash card like problems from that line. You can select how far down the rabbit hole you want to go, select whose side to move for the positions and voila! You have a canned batch of exercises specifically out of your repertoire! I can’t tell you how excited I am about this. I’ve been trying to do this with ChessBase but its so cumbersome. Mind you CB has its merits …much for another post later.

Mike Leahy has a nice chess improvement tool out there and he’s been doing this for quite a while. http://www.bookup.com/ It’s worth checking out the “light” versions to get an idea.

Baffled by the Benko

Because I play 1.d4 with the White pieces, I am constantly challenged to recall a dozen or so different responses like QGD, QGA, Nimzo-Indian, King’s Indian, Grufeld, Benoni, Dutch, Pirc, etc… I try to find a “system” for my insanity and steer the game towards a familiar pawn structure or position I am somewhat comfortable with. For the most part, I have been able to steer most of the games to an advanced d5 pawn chain, a palatable IQP or a Minority attack.

The big exception, has been the Benko Gambit.

At the last World Open, I was prepared for most of the above variations against 1.4 except for the Benko because I hadn’t run into all that much at the club. I was out of my game early as I declined the gambit and tried like hell to steer it into a more familiar positional territory. After the game, Dan Heisman spoke with me and gave me sage advice: “always accept the gambit , make them prove its merit”.

That’s all I remembered. I never looked at it again because I haven’t run into all that often, until recently. Once again, in the lion’s den at the club, I was faced with another Master. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 I thought I was getting ready for a Benoni… but then 3…b5 was played. I took the pawn 4.cxb5 a6 and took again 5 bxa6 Bxa6 and then asked myself “now what?”

My game is too embarrassing to post here as it quickly went down hill fast from this point as I tried to avoid Black taking my Bishop on f1 and ruining my chances of castling…only to leave me in a horribly undeveloped position with Black on the attack.

Not all is lost. I asked my opponent to go over the fine points of this wretched opening and help me come up with a better plan that suits my style. Accepting the a6 pawn is a line but not for the faint of heart. It requires castling manual after the Bishop exchange on f1. It is very sharp tactically with open lines and lots of swashbuckling. I am more of a boa constrictor than a venomous viper I asked for a different way.

When I described my Samisch pawns and the d5 advanced chain he had a great suggestion: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.f3! and I can play e4 next.

( diagram) It doesn’t give Black the a6-f1 diagonal so early. Black will attempt to control the dark squares as they are weak with a Queen on b6 and B on c5. But that means playing …c4. White can grab Black’s c-pawn and hold on to two pawns fro compensation.

Black’s best response then is to go after the head of the snake and play 5…e6 6.e4 exd5 7.e5 Qe7 8.Qe2 Ng8 9.Nc3 Bb7 10.Nh3 c4 11.Nf4

This is an attacking line that can be very dynamic. I am still exploring this and not sure I am comfortable with a piece exchange for initiative and two pawns:

11..Qc5 12. Nxd5! Bxd5 13. Be3 Qb4 14.a3 Qa5 15.Bd2 Be6 16 Nd5 ( discovered attack) Qd8 17. Qxc4 Ra7 18. Rc1

White has a two pawns, lead in development, initiative and an easier position to play in exchange for the knight.

My alternate choice is 5.e3 a quieter line still under review.

In any case, if I face this at the World Open, I will enjoy playing it knowing a little more about this gambit and what to avoid.

Into the Lion's den: How I beat a Candidate Master

First A quick check in with the Knight’s Errant. Looking across the interweb, and the Knight’s Errant Revival seems to have lost some steam with exception to the energizer bunny otherwise known as Empirical Rabbit (http://empiricalrabbit.blogspot.com/) . I see he’s still sharpening his tactical skills through scientific analysis. As for myself, I shifted from doing exercises from CT-Art to Convektica’s Strategy 2.0 puzzles and do about 10 a day. These are more along the lines of “find the right strategy” but are mostly tactical in nature.

I’ve been working more on understanding Pawn structures and looked at several videos here on Chess.com as well as picked up an out of print copy of Andy Soltis’ book Pawn Structure Chess and devoured it.

I am training for the upcoming World Open in Philly at the end of the month. Since I can’t afford lessons from a master, I decided to do the next best thing, play in the open section at my club for the Month of May and June. Every week is a lesson.

My first encounter with a Master in the Open section came at the hands of a 2300 player. It was an advanced Caro Kann, and I played a little too timid not understanding the advanced e-pawn chain structure fully. Had I known then, what I know now, I would have played 6…Qb6 to begin putting pressure on White’s d4. Then I failed to castle and chased ghosts instead. But hey, I got a good lecture after the game from my gracious opponent. Here is this sloppy game.

Fast forward to last week, by this time, I had played 3 games in May against strong players ( masters and experts) and absorbed their wisdom following post game analysis. I was also doing my background activity of learning the pawn structures most common in my games. I made notes and diagrams with ideas behind them. I set up positions and played against the computer to practice playing these positions so I could be comfortable “knowing” the position enough so I wouldn’t chase ghost. I did my daily exercises with the strategy CD and signed up for the open section again at my strong local chess club.

My goal was to reach a playable and familiar position I understood coming out of the opening and into the middle game. My opponent was a Candidate Master( at one time in his life he was beyond USCF 2200). He had a history of playing slightly odd opening s with move orders out of whack to throw people out of the comfort zone.

I had Black and played 1..c6 following his King pawn advance. He plays an odd variant of the Panov-Botvinick attack with 2.c4. My head was like “ I must support d5… Can I play it? Usually the knight comes out” ..and I played ..my first mistake on move 2…Nf6.

I never played the Alekhine Defense before but I soon had a feel for what this defense was like. After moving my knight for the 4^th time off to a6, I was finally able to advance the d-pawn.

“ Ok, so much for familiar positions” I thought. But I looked again and realized that White was about to play an advanced e-pawn structure like my previous game. THIS TIME, I knew a little more about how to handle it. I got Qb6 in early and it made the master think for a long time. I had a plan of putting pressure on d4 and controlling the c-file. It helped in looking at his threats and prioritizing where I needed to play. Since I had more energy in the center and open file, I was able to follow through with my plan before my opponent had a chance to execute his. At one point he sacrificed a pawn to gain activity on the King side but I was able to see through this and defend well. As he started to run into time trouble, he gave me opportunities and I found myself actually up the exchange!

That is not to say I went without blundering. By move 40, my opponent’s clock was running REALLY low and I found myself getting caught up with the “quickening” where had I used my time and slowed down, I would have trapped his knight . At one point I put myself in a position where he could have equalized with a knight fork but he missed it too much to the amazement of some onlookers.

Bottom line, a point is a point. A point from a master is my first victory against such a strong opponent.


Lessons to walk away from this include:

-take my time, what’s the rush.

-Knowing pawn structures and what plans work best helps when traveling in unchartered territory.

-Keeping the pressure on a weakness causes more problems than actually taking that pawn or square.

New York, New York… an Historic chess Legacy

New York has a rich chess history of Super tournaments. Back in 1857, The first American Chess Congress was held. Paul Morphy won the event but refused the hefty prize of $300 ( estimated worth about $7000 today). Instead, he accepted a silver service consisting of a pitcher, four goblets and a tray! The event invited the top 16 American players shown below in the lithograph. Louis Paulsen was one of the players who came in second behind Morphy.

The Fifth (held in 1880 won by George Henry Mackenzie) and sixth ( held in 1889 and tied for first place by Mikhail Chigoran and Max Weiss,) American Chess Congresses were also held in New York Where this later event seemed to be the first to open the invitations to the greater International community. Gunsburg, Blackburne and Amos Burns finished 3-5^th in the cross table. The top American , Lipschutz, game in sixth place. Because of such strong players at the sixth congress, challenges were made to then World Champion, Steinitz. Steinitz supported the idea that once a clear winner was determined that he must face a challenge from the second or third place competitor within a Month. IN a playoff match, Max Weiss and Chigoran remained tied. Weiss was not interested in playing a championship match. Ginsburg, however, challenged Chigoran and drew a match with him in 1890.

Fast forward 34 years and in 1924, we see ANOTHER great super tournament. This time at the site of the Alamac Hotel from March 6 to April 18^th, we see an event organized by the Manhattan Chess Club ( A friendly rival to the Marshall Chess Club). This invited another group of strong international players. I mentioned in my last post that Dr. Em Lasker, at age 54, wins first place in this event and $1500 (worth $19,000 in today’s dollars). Richard Reti was one who broke Capablanca’s winning streak incidentally. ( I did a whole series on this event a couple years ago). The top American was Frank Marshall. He came in fourth.

Funny I should mention, Frank Marshall. Inspired by the great coffee houses of the past that supported this great game, like Café De La Regence and Simpsons in the strand, he decided to form a chess club that rivaled the Manhatten Chess Club (no longer in existence since 2002). His objective was to establish a meeting place for chess lovers and provide instruction for young players.

So with this long winded somewhat historical thread, I present the next big New York strong tournament. The 4^th Annual New York International will be held on June 17^th-21^st. Top prize is $5000 in the open, and $4000 in the top B and C section ( U2200 and U1800). If you win, you could do what Morphy did and demand a silver set instead of the cash! Maybe you can throw the gloves down and challenge a World Champion. One thing is for certain, there will be opportunities for IM and GM norms because of such a strong event. The main event will be held at St. John’s University. You can register on line at the Marshall CC : http://www.marshallchessclub.org

So if you are in the spirit of playing in a historic chess town, in a strong event sponsored by a historic chess club, you owe it to yourself to come on down to New York in couple weeks and get your game on.

Foot note: alright, guys at Brooklyn 64, if this gets you the Blunderprone Bump you seek… all I ask for in return is a Marshall CC tee-shirt in return ;)

Part 6 ( Finale): Dr. Emanuel Lasker; Old Lions still have sharp teeth.

In 1911, Lasker was challenged by an up and coming star, Jose Raul Capablanca. Having witnessed Steinitz decent into poverty as a former chess champion, Lasker was reluctant because of the stipulation of “first to win ten games”. The match could last well over 6 months and the expenses to endure such a match were not prevalent. He made a counter-proposal. If neither player had a lead over 2 points by the end of the match, that it should be drawn AND the match be the best of 30 games. He had more stipulations but the gist was to favor the existing Champion. Capablanca didn’t like these rules ( especially the 2 point lead) and refused the match. Lasker took offense to the objections and broke off negotiations.

In 1912, Akiba Rubinstein and Lasker entered negotiations for a world title match. Rubinstein actually had a better tournament record than Capablanca. Again, Lasker pushed the envelope with asking for the challenger to come up with funds. Rubinstein didn’t have the funds and the match was never played.

In 1914, the St. Petersburg tournament saw a great collection of strong future players :Alekhine, Rubinstein, and Capablanca . It also had extended the invite to a couple of Master’s past their prime. Lasker was considered one in the corner ( as well as Blackburne). The tournament committee decide to hold two events. The five winners of the preliminary event would go on to the second. The event saw Rubinstein, Nimzovitch and Bernstein fall short of qualifying for the second event. Lasker was strong in the first event which qualified him for the second event. Despite a loss to Berstein and a draw to Nimzovitch, he managed to land in the finals a full point and half behind Capablanca. Here is a game against Rubinstein in the first section where he uses the rule of two weaknesses to land a favorable R and P endgame against an up and coming endgame genius.

The five winners of the first section were, Capablanca, Alekhine, Marshall, Tarrasch, and Lasker. Not on speaking terms with Capablanca, Lasker couldn’t afford any losses or draws. He had to win EVERY game in the second event. Indeed, he does this, with the deciding game in the second to last game against Capablanca. On Lasker’s 12^th move, he demonstrates a better understanding of the position by playing a move that seems to create a nice hole for Black… only to allow a king side attack by White.

.

At the event, Capablanca proposed a new set of rules for the World Championship match which all the leading players accepted. But, World War I broke out and any talk about a World Championship match was on hold for the near future. During WWI, Lasker only played in a couple events.

An agreement was signed in 1920 between Capablanca and Lasker to play a much anticipate World Championship Match in 1921. In August of 1020, it was reported that Lasker had simply resigned the title of World Champion in favor of Jose Raul Capablanca mainly because he was concerned there was not enough funds. He couldn’t justify spending nine months on a match . He was not aware that Chess enthusiast in Havana had actually raised the money for the match ( provided it was played there). Upon hearing of Lasker’s resignation, Capablanca went to Holland to let him know that the money was there. In a letter dated in August 1920 confirming this agreement, it also stated that he would resign even if he beat Capablanca so that younger masters could compete for the title. (http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/capablanca2.html)

The match was played between March –April 1921. The deciding game was really in game 5 where Lasker appears to blunder in an equal endgame.

Here is the game where on Black’s 34^th move ( sealed move of an adjournment) he was quoted as saying:

“It is usual to attach a "?" to this move. "31...Kg6 was better. Then if 32.hxg5 Ne4 33.Qd3 Qg4+ 34.Rg2 Qh4 35.Qb1 Kg7, the Pawn at g5 falls and Black has a good position"

At first sight here it is indeed impossible to convert the exchange advantage: the White King is exposed, and Black's Queen and Knight dominate. And yet White has a way to gain an advantage: 36.Qd1 Kg6 37.Qf3! (threatening Qf4) 37...Nxg5 38.Qg3, with good winning chances. So that 31...Kg6 was by no means better than the move in the game.”

After 27 years of the title of second World Champion, he passes it on to Capablanca. His next to last tournament before he retired from public chess events, was New York 1924. Here, at age 56, he demonstrates that old lions still have teeth and wins the event. He shows he has what it takes to go against the hyper-modern school of the young masters. Here is a game against Alekhine.

After finishing second place in Moscow in 1925 he bowed out of serious chess activity.

I will end this series on this triumph. Lasker’s life encompassed many triumphs. With a PhD in mathematics, he had papers published that formed the basis of modern game theory. He and his brother wrote a drama ( “History of Mankind”) that was performed in Berlin ( but not critically acclaimed).

Late in life, he returned to competitive chess for the money. He finished fifth in Zurich 1934 and third in Moscow in 1935 at the age of 66!

Lasker’s influence on chess was profound. Max Euwe put it plainly “It is not possible to learn much from him. One can only stand and wonder.” He was a practical yet attacking player . He delivered several “ Lasker’s variations” to chess opening theory. Some may argue the peculiar way he demanded more financial support for match play as contrary to his professionalism in the chess world. However, raising the standards paved the way for the rise of full time chess professionals. Lasker also fought for the copyrights of the games to be owned by the players.

So this ends this series. I hope you all enjoyed this. For me, this was nice public study of the second World champion who’s 27 year reign on the top has yet to be matched. I like these stories of old lions who still can leave a mark!

Part 5 Dr. Emanuel Lasker: Defending his World Title

In the last post, we saw how Dr. Lasker, while multitasking, was able to maintain his World title and still have strong finishes at top tournaments. After the Cambridge Springs event in 1904, Lasker’s appearance at tournaments became increasingly more infrequent.

With Frank Marshall’s first place victory at Cambridge Springs in 1904, it only stood to reason that he challenge Lasker for the World Championship. In 1907, this match finally took place but it became clear early on that the American master was far from Lasker’s equal. Despite his aggressive style(…or perhaps because he was too aggressive?) he lost games and drew seven against the World Champion.

Below is one of the games where Lasker has an incredible endgame combination.

Following this Match, Tarrasch challenged Lasker for the title. Reading the accounts of the banter that went back and forth, I could not help think of the similarities of two World Wrestling Federation trash talking each other before a “fixed” match. Tarrasch, who firmly believed that chess was governed by a precise set of principles, viewed Lasker merely as a “coffee house” player who wins solely by his dubious tricks. At the opening ceremony of the match, Tarrasch commented: “ Mr. Lasker, I have only three words to sat to you: check and mate!” Lasker’s best response was winning the match against his arrogant rival. Here is one game which showcases that Lasker is more than a coffee house trickster.

Because there is too much material in this series, I will briefly touch on the Match against Janowski. This started with a short drawn match in 1909 ( 2 wins and 2 losses). Several months later, it was followed up with a longer, more decisive match in Lasker’s favor. Lasker was more prepared for Janowski’s attacking style. More prepared, the attacks proved to be premature and left him vulnerable. There is a historical debate whether this was truly a World Championship match. In 1910, Lasker agreed to a “revenge” match under the guise of World Championship Match in Paris. Lasker won this with 8 wins, three draws and no losses. Next victim please.

Now we enter the period of one of the most dramatic trial of Lasker’s World championship. Carl Schlechter challenged the Champion in 1910 but limited the event to only 10 games. It is argued that Lasker agreed under the premise that in order for Schlecter to declare World Title, he MUST win by two points. This meant that both players were desperately playing for wins with sharp aggressive lines. Despite that, the first few games of the match played in Vienna were drawn and Lasker actually lost on the fifth game. When they reconvened in Berlin, four more draws followed. This meant that in order for Lasker to retain the title, he HAD to win the last round. Schlechter also had to play for a win in the final game though in the book,Lasker’s Greatest chess games, by Reinfeld, he cites only a draw was required by Schlechter to win the championship casting some doubt on the two-point rule. The following game is not with out positional blunders from both parties. Schlechter’s final misstep is what enabled Lasker to take this final match game to full point.