Pages

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Download Chess Ebook How to Beat GM

Welcome back my friends. We began to provide the materials you need to improve the ability of chess you so that you can be a champion, please download for free and I hope you succeed! we will give you Great Resources! If you have a request e-mail me : asepna@yahoo.com.
Below you can download a guide that people rarely held. This book describes a method of slaughter grandmaster. Please take this book for free, how to beat a grandmaster! Hopefully your success! Greeting us

Do you know that a wooden chess set or an electronic chess game can make your children smarter? Do you know that playing the "game of kings" can make you smarter, as well?

Playing chess makes people smarter, and observations as well as studies in academia, and life in general, prove this. It doesn't have to be played on a wooden chess set, either--it's just that a well-made wooden chess set lends a creative, artistic angle to the whole experience of playing this historically royal, aristocratic game. Whether chess is played on a traditional chess set or an electronic chess game--it will make the consistent player of the game become smarter.

Children who play chess learn how to develop their decision-making, analytical, and synthesizing mental skills which transfer over to all areas of their lives. And as they learn to take part in thorough and deep chess research, they build up their self-confidence in their ability for doing academic research--and this especially becomes apparent in higher mathematics and reading comprehension test scores. Children today tend to have very poor attention spans, and a decaying education system doesn't help this very much. Chess also teaches children how to accept and appreciate healthy competition.

According to D. Calvin F. Deyermond, the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction at the North Tonawanda City School District, "Chess develops intellectual, aesthetic, sporting, decision making, concentration, and perseverance skills...Not only is it mentally challenging, [the game] attracts not only gifted pupils but also students at all levels of learning. Many students who have been experiencing problems, particularly in mathematics and reading, sometimes demonstrate remarkable progress after learning chess."
A wooden chess set or an electronic chess game, therefore, could be one of the best gifts you can give to your children. Sit down with them, play chess with them, and stimulate their minds. You, too, as an adult, can enhance your own cognitive powers and self-confidence with chess.
Read More...

Chess Software

I have played chess around 15 years, but only in the last 8 years or so have I taken the game seriously enough that I could consider myself an avid student. By reading books, using chess software to analyze games, and by hiring a coach I have been able to raise my game to a reasonable level (about 1800 FIDE rating, about one class below "expert", two below Master). Due to lack of time to commit to the game I did not pursue a higher rating, but I have gained a solid understanding of the path that must be walked in order to master the game. I still have much of the path to walk, but I do own the road map, so to speak.
Chess is broken down into various facets for the purpose of teaching and learning. Aside from the obvious necessity to learn how the pieces move, and the other rules of the game, chess lessons come in four basic subjects:

1. The opening. Sometimes this is simply common or "accepted" opening moves annotated for the purpose of memorizing, and sometimes it involves more principles than specific moves.

2. Tactics and combinations. This is how the pieces interact in the short term, and how one might take advantage of a weakness with a sacrifice, in order to gain a major advantage, or even an outright win. Checkmating falls into this category, except where it relates to the end game.

3. Strategy. This is the subject of long term objectives and how to obtain them. It can be sub-divided into two categories: piece placement and pawn structure.

4. End game. This is where the majority of the pieces are traded off and the emphasis turns to the attempt to promote a pawn to the last rank to gain a queen or another piece. The end game is often considered to have started when the King becomes a fighting piece.

Learning all of these subjects was an eye-opening experience, as I had no idea there was such a vast amount to learn. In fact, as I mentioned before there is still a lot left for me to work on! But I have always been a student of learning as well as a student of whatever subject I am studying, and I was left with a feeling that there was something missing from the process that could have made it easier, or perhaps more efficient.

My understanding of the chess learning process deepened when I started teaching a young fellow by the name of Tanraj Sohal. I learned as much by teaching him as he did, perhaps more so since he is a much more gifted player than I am. However, I had wisdom and experience on my side, and together we improved his game to the point that he won the Canadian Championship for his grade that year. More than learning how to make good moves, getting better at chess is about learning how to not make bad moves. You can play solid chess for 30 or 40 moves, and then make one bad move and lose the game. To prevent these bad moves, we have to overcome weaknesses in understanding, and we need to learn them so well that we will recognize them when the situations arise in game play.

There needs to be an "aha!" moment that forever changes the way you look at the game. I have experience this enough, and seen it happen in other players enough to know that this is an absolute requirement to deepening your understanding of the game.
First, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of "ahas" required to master the game. Second, they can be tough to achieve.
Mostly because the average player has had most of his instruction from books. The "aha" factor occurs mostly with a combination of instruction and repetition. Books can certainly offer instruction, but if you have to set the board up all over again just to repeat a lesson, or even move on to the next one, how often are you really going to repeat it? I know from experience it is often too much work to do the first time!

E-books may be even harder, since most players will find it difficult to set up a board on a computer desk; plus, flipping between text and board diagrams is harder with a PDF file than with a physical book.

In recent years there have been many new chess programs, and these are great for repetition, but I have yet to see one that gives adequate explanation for anything other than the basic lessons.

More recently there has been an introduction of chess videos that can be downloaded and played on your computer. These are usually just videos of a board from a chess program that the instructor is using to play through the moves of whatever he is teaching. The beauty of the video lesson is that not only does it come with verbal instruction (much easier to follow while watching the board than reading), but it is easily repeated. There is so little effort required that repetition seems to happen naturally.

I recently purchased a chess video lesson package, and I was amazed at how many "aha" moments I had. I was able to approach the lesson with more anticipation than with any other method. Sometimes I was wrong, but the amount of times I was right told me that my game was already improving. Or, at the very least I was learning something new!


Read More...

Chess Engines

A chess engine is a computer program that can play the game of chess. A computer program (also a software program, or just a program) is a sequence of instructions written to perform a specified task for a computer. A computer requires programs to function, typically executing the program's instructions in a central processor. The program has an executable form that the computer can use directly to execute the instructions. The same program in its human-readable source code form, from which executable programs are derived (e.g., compiled), enables a programmer to study and develop its algorithms.

Chess Engine Protocols


Introduction


Today we take for granted the idea of engine communication protocols, and the ability to switch engines from GUI to GUI whether it is through the use of the open Xboard/Winboard protocol ,the newer Universal Chess Interface protocol, or the proprietary Chessbase protocol.

At the same time,we are faced with an explosion in Winboard and UCI chess engines. Not a day goes by without a dozen new versions of an existing engines being announced and we are blessed with the release of an average of 4-5 brand new chess engines per month. Maintainers of chess engines lists like Frank Quisinsky/Thomas Mayer in the past and now Leo Djiksman routinely update their sites daily to keep up with the rapid pace.

But how and why did this development come about? The Bible tells the tale of the Tower of Babel, where God cursed man with different tongues.This is roughly similar to the situation before the rise of Xboard/Winboard communication protocol, where each Chess engine "spoke" it's own language and could only work within it's own interface. It was probable that programmers didn't really think in such terms as chess engines and interfaces as both were tightly integrated. Whenever someone wanted to build a chess program they had to code both the interface and engine from scratch.. A strict separation between the 2 was not necessary since the engine was not designed to be portable.

However, there was nothing inevitable about this, this article attempts to explain why the concept of protocols came about.We will first turn to the biggest and most successful protocol to date, the Xboard/Winboard protocol.

Interestingly enough, the development of the "Winboard protocol" was more a quirk of fate than of deliberate planning. According to Tim Mann (in a email interview with Frank Quisinsky, 2 April 2000) , at the time Xboard was built as the interface for Gnuchess and like most programs wasn't really designed to allow other Chess engines to be imported in. However, unlike most programs, the engine part, GNUchess and the interface Xboard were distinct enough to be considered 2 programs. When Internet Chess server (ICS) support with zippy was introduced in Sept 1993, suddenly programmers began to realise the possibility and advantages of porting their engines into Winboard and they began asking Tim for instructions on how to do so!
The rise in the Xboard/Winboard protocol

Why would programmers want to do that?

Perhaps for the following reasons

  1. Winboard had ICS support, which meant that any Chess engine that ran in Winboard could run automatically in Internet Servers. This was obviously very useful for testing. Today, commercial packages like Chess Assistant,Chess Vision,Chess partner,Arena etc and even Fritz 7 allow users to use Chess engines online, but back then, Xboard (and robofics) was the only and easiest way to get a Chess engine online.


  2. The possibility and ease of engine matches on the same computer, now programmers could run automatically hundreds of automated games between 2 engines (either different versions of the same one, or against a different engine)


  3. A starting Chess programmer, could just concentrate on working on the engine or Chess playing part, which most people consider interesting and not waste time working on the interface since Winboard could handle that.


The power of a common communication protocol had being discovered! And it was from those questions that the ad-hoc Winboard protocol was built up.

For the record Crafty was probably the first free Chess engine that supported winboard, By Jan 97 there were some 17 known free engines that supported the protocol, 50 by June 2000 and over 160 at the time of writing (year end 2002)
Below is a graph (drawn from the work of Gunther Simon) showing the increase in number of free Winboard engines through the years.



"The Winboarder effect"

Naturally like any standard, as more chess engines supported the standard the more useful it was to implement the standard. In addition to the above advantages, one unexpected advantage arose.

Due to efforts of webmasters like Djordje Vidanovic, (whose website on Winboard engines with tournaments and rating lists was probably one of the first) and Frank Quisinsky, a thriving community of experienced Winboard Chess engines users began to develop around his site and Volker Pittlik's Winboard web forum.
Mainly enthusiasts hobbyists,they enjoyed tinkering with free Chess engines, building opening books and running tournaments where winboard engines ran against each other (or in other interfaces through adaptors when that was available).

As a result, any amateur chess engine programmer, by implementing the Winboard protocol would be able to tap the expertise of these experienced users (dubbed by some as "Winboarders") to help test their engine. 3

The effect fed on itself and By June 2000, there were 50 free Winboard engines.The 100th mark was reached in May 2000, and depending on how you figure it 4 , the honour belonged to Chezzz.
The commercials join in the act

By then, many began to take notice of the "Winboard effect" and by Feb 2000 many commercial software including Chessvision,Chess Assistant, Chess Partner and Chess Academy began to support the Winboard protocol (on top of their own)

Finally in 2001, Chessmaster 8000 a product usually aimed at the mass market , began to support winboard engines .While Chessmaster was the last of the major chess commercial products to join in the party, it's support of Winboard was a milestone in Winboard history. For the first time, millions of users of the chessmaster product were introduced to the world of Winboard engines.

While the commercial software support of the winboard protocol was carried out by and large smoothly without any fuss , one of the first commercial software to do so did it so poorly that it triggered off a long standing debate.
The Chessbase protocol

While the Xboard/Winboard movement was gathering steam, Chessbase, the makers of Fritz also saw (perhaps independently) the idea of allowing other Chess engines to be used within their interface. By June 1998, Fritz 5 supported the use of Junior 5 (fresh from it's victory at WMCC), HIRACS and NIMZO. By doing so, they probably had some of the best chess engines in their stable. However, unlike the open Xboard/winboard protocol,this protocol was not open to all Chess engines, and the number of engines that could be used in Fritz was limited to those handful of engines.

However, in Dec 1998, Fritz 5.32 introduced the revolutionary (for it's time) feature of allowing winboard engines to be adapted into chessbase gui. It was hailed as a great step forward for Winboard engines as it meant that engines versus engine matches between top commercials and winboard engines was possible without resorting to frail setups with null serial cable modems auto232 players and Winboard auto232 adaptors .(Remi Coulom had released a auto232 adaptor for Winboard in Nov 1998)
Trouble with Chessbase's support of the Winboard protocol

Back then, there were 2 ways for a chess engine to run in chessbase. The first, was to submit the source to the chessbase people, who would then proceed to change the source to create a native engine that presumably ran on the chessbase protocol.This was the so called native version. This was done with Crafty which was a open source engine (similar but not exactly under the GNU license). The other which most people used (for various reasons, maybe because they didn't want to reveal their source), was to use the winboard adaptor.

Unfortunately within one month, it was discovered that there were serious flaws in the adaptor The technical details are long and hard to detail, in essence the chessbase gui sends a "new" command each turn to the engine, which makes it think there is a new game. It will then resend all the moves for the game up to that point.In addition there were a couple of oddities in the way it handled Winboard/Xboard engines ,with respect to odd moves,pondering, time problems etc.

This resending of moves (amusingly, the newer Universal Chess Interface protocol which will be covered later, does the same thing) weakens the adapted engine since it loses all the information stored in the hash tables up to then. There are other serious flaws as well, but this was the major sticking point

Through the years up to Fritz 6, chessbase refused to change the adaptor, despite complains from many chess engine authors and testers, who wanted a level playing field for winboard engines.

Despite years of debate, no one really knows why Chessbase has refused to fix this problem . One Chessbase representative even reportedly mentioned the bug could probably be fixed easily.One reason often stated was that the Winboard engines were meant merely as additional analysis engines (where they are presumably less or not weakened), and it was not anticipated that people would try to run engine versus engine matches in them. While some speculated darkly about conspiracies to weaken the performance of free Engines to make their own commercial engines look better in comparison, the truth might be simpler. It just wasn't worth the time or effort to fix the bug. Probably only a small percentage of their users even used the winboard adaptor (Crafty the most famous Chess engine was already available in the native version) and of these people even fewer were aware of the problem. And as for the hardcore computer chess addicts, they would buy Chessbase products regardless of what happened! So it was probably simple economics rather then intentional malice.

Of course, this all became moot, when in Jan 2002, Chessbase ( in a reorganisation of their webpages) , quietly dropped offering the Winboard adaptor for download without any explanation. At the same time, rumours began circulating that with Stefan Meyer-Kahlen (author of Shredder and Universal Chess Interface Protocol) joining the chess team, Chessbase would begin to support the Universal Chess Interface (UCI) instead. This duly happened in Feb 2002, with a update for Fritz 7. More about UCI later.
The Winboard Protocol marches on

Interestingly enough, there was little or no trouble mostly with other commercials chess interfaces (exception seems to be the Shredder 5),

There were even attempts to sell commercial Winboard engines like Gandalf by Gambitsoft in Sept 2000. 5 This was a significant event, because for the first time a product was sold on the strength of it's engine and not the interface which was free. In theory, the consumer could pay less by just paying for the engine without the need to buy the same interface over and over again.For example, customers who bought Fritz 6, Junior 6 , basically paid for the same interface twice. 6

In the following years, there were attempts to improve the aging protocol, but due to the nature of the protocol which was mainly formed ad-hoc and the need to keep backward compatibility with older engines, progress was slow. In Dec 2000, Winboard 4.2.0 beta with support for the Winboard protocol II was released.

A minor fix it added a couple of commands requested by Chess engine programmers.To date, discussions are still going on for the third version of the protocol. For example changing the level command to allow secondary time controls (now supported in Arena and Chessmaster 9000?) is one discussed improvement.
The UCI challenge

The Winboard protocol was not the only attempt at a communication protocol. In Nov 28,2000 Stefan Meyer-Kahlen began to publicise a new open free, Chess communication protocol known as UCI. 7

Like the winboard protcol it was free to use without license fees, but it had one drawback unlike Winboard which was a free interface, there was no free interface that supported UCI. At that time, the only interface that supported it was the commercial shredder 5.

A totally new protocol built from the scratch, it was not constrained to supporting older engines . It was built on a totally different principle from Winboard protocol. Unlike the latter, UCI was a stricter protocol that closely monitored the actions of the engine. While the author lists several advantages , some of them no longer apply to the newer Winboard protocols, and others have being dismissed as irrelevant or doable with the current protocols. The remaining were considered features that would be implemented in the winboard protocol III. For a semi-technical article on the standards war between Winboard and UCI refer to my article Winboard versus UCI the big debate.

One of UCI's greatest strength was that it was similar enough to Winboard protocol, that in theory anyone could convert a winboard compatible one to a UCI one quickly . In fact,some authors could use the same executable too support both protocols (though some had to use different ones).

Still progress was slow. Besides commercials engines like SOS,Shredder (by the authors of the UCI protocol), very few engine supported the standard. This was probably due to the lack in demand from users since there was only one interface that supported UCI (the next interface was the commercial chess assistant 6 in March 01), while dozens supported winboard protocols.

The UCI engine list was increased in May 2000, when Gambitsoft continued the experiment of selling stand alone engines, this time selling Winboard and UCI versions of Lambchop,Patzer,Capture and Gandalf (UCI only). A third series was planned but did not materialise, most of those (Pharaon,Dragon,Nejemet etc) were eventually released as UCI engines for free

There were few free UCI engines either (exceptions was Yace in Jan 2001, and later Pepito), From the amateur's point of view, there was little point in supporting UCI because the majority of users were not willing to buy a UCI interface (Shredder) just to help test a UCI amateur program.

Basically, it was a classic chicken and egg problem. No one would support UCI in their interface because there were few UCI engines and no one would implement UCI support in their engines because there was only one interface.

All this changed in Jan 2002, when Chessbase began to market Shredder .First, they released Shredder 6 in two versions a classic UCI version and a Chessbase version. But more importantly, perhaps because of constant complains of the winboard adaptor (as mentioned before) they announced that the patched version of Fritz 7 (and presumably all future Chessbase products) would support UCI while dropping the download of the adaptor from their site.

This alone gave a big boost to the popularity to UCI. After all Fritz and the Chessbase stable of products are probably the most popular interface for serious chessplayers. Competitors like Lokasoft/Rebel hastened to support UCI as well.

Chess engine authors also had the incentive to implement UCI, especially after it was found that UCI engines were not weakened as badly compared to the Winboard adaptor in Fritz 7 (or so they thought but see this for a description of a recently found serious problem ). Given that the World's strongest commercial engines Fritz,Junior,Hiarcs,and in 2001 Shredder,Tiger all ran in Chessbase protocol , this was the easiest way for Chess engine authors to get their chess engines running unweakened against these strong opponents.

In fact, the advantage of running chess engines in UCI mode compared to the Winboard mode was so great, that when Odd Malin's released his free wbitouci adaptor in April 2002 to adapt Winboard engines to UCI, many testers found that doing so led to better results than using the Winboard adaptor!

At the same time, Frank Quinsksy announced Arena by Marin Blume, .Arena was the first free interface to support both UCI and Winboard protocols.

Due to the twin effect, many Chess engines authors and users began to see reason to support UCI. Now that there was a free interface and a very popular commercial interface, the demand for UCI began to grow quickly. By March 2002 Chesspartner began to support UCI, this was followed by Gandalf 5.1 (the interface not engine) and Chess Academy 7 will follow suite by the end of 2002

In fact, since Jan 2002, besides the engines from the failed "Winboard Edition 3" package of UCI engines about 20 more UCI engines were released. For a total of 35 odd UCI engines (about 5 are commercial).
The future of Winboard and UCI

So which protocol will finally win out?What does the future hold?

In terms of functionality, UCI engines are easier to use because you can set common setting like Hash table size, endgame table base path etc for all UCI engines. There are also provisions within UCI to allow you to change settings within the interface.UCI also as provisions for showing hash table information. Other functions like multi-pv (or K-best lines) might also appeal to some.

On the other hand, some programmers have expressed concerns that the UCI mode is ugly or inelegant (it sends the whole move list each game), difficult to program, inflexible etc.. All this is probably a matter of taste.

In terms of user demand driving the use of the protocols, given that UCI now has both free and commercial interfaces available, Winboard no longer holds the upper hand.In fact, given the crippled Winboard support in Chessbase, UCI engines might have a slight edge here. for chess engine authors seeking to test their engines against the best Chessbase engines.

Still, I don't expect the Winboard protocol to become obsolete. In a review article on June 2002 , I made the prediction that while the number of UCI engines would continue to rise, this would not be at the expense of Winboard engines as existing and new engines would continue to support both. As of Dec 2002, it appears my prediction is still on track, of the 30 or so new UCI engines, only 5 do not support UCI.Of the 5, 2 are dedicated mate solvers, and only 1 is an existing Winboard engine which has dropped Winboard support (Goliath) and 2 (Silke Chess and Delphimax) are new engines with only UCI support. This is still heavily outweighed by existing Winboard engines adding UCI support and new engines supporting both protocols.

1. Much to the chagrin of FICS/ICC (and before that ICS) admins, this caused the online server to be flooded with GNUChess and later Crafty clones in 1997/8. This situation was repeated much later with Chess Tiger (by far the strongest commercial engine that could be used easily, since Fritz required the use of a combination of Winboard and Winboard auto232 adaptors plus a null modem cable) , flooding the servers, when Chess assistant/partner was released.

2. Of course,for a while it looked like auto232 players might become the de-fato standard given that many including Shredder 2,Fritz,Nimz0 98 supported it, but those were too difficult to use for the average user and was often unstable

3. It appears the pendulum might have swung the other way.With over 150 engines,it's difficult to get excited over yet another new chess engine.There are now far too many engines for even the most devoted fan to keep track of all and inevitably, the weaker engines are ignored and get little help in testing . In recognition of this, Holmes - a mid-level engine by Andreas Herrmann has being withdrawn from public testing and is available only by email request from serious testers. (Discussion in Winboard forum)

4. I'm following Thomas's Mayer's counting method here. In Gunther Simon's list , the 100th engine is Pharaon.Here's a older list by Frank Quisinsky . For a full explanation of the reasons for this difference , see Appendix II

5. Technically, Gandalf was not the first commercial Winboard engine. Nimzo2000b was packaged as a Winboard engine as part of a package of Engines sold by Millennium Chess in Nov 99. Also Shredder 3, had a undocumented feature that allowed it to be used as a Winboard engine.

6. There was also a short lived attempt by Chessbase to sell a packet of Chess engine at reduced prices. Dubbed "Young talents" (mostly but not all Chessbase versions of Winboard engines). However there was no sign, they would do this for their first rate Commercial engines. (Fritz,Junior etc)

7. After a first attempt,in 1998 with another new protocol MCS (Millennium Chess System) supported by Zarkov , Shredder 3, Wchess2000 and Chess Genius failed to take off
Read More...

Chess Program

Chess Program or Computer chess is computer architecture encompassing hardware and software capable of playing chess autonomously without human guidance. Computer chess occurs as solo entertainment (allowing players to practice and to amuse themselves when no human opponents are available), as aids to chess analysis, for computer chess competitions, and as research to provide insights into human cognition.

Can anything really be learned by having a student play chess against computer opponents? Many people believe that playing chess is a purely human skill. After all, the ability to formulate a plan and execute it against thinking opposition is one of the primary markers that defines us as human, or Homo Sapiens. The problem with this idea is that the top chess grandmaster in the world (Gary Kasparov) was beaten by a computer several years ago. The idea that computers have nothing to teach us about chess is quite wrong. While computer chess programs have as yet quite poor strategic thinking, they do excel in tactical awareness. Playing strength in chess is determined by many things but at the lower end of the spectrum it is largely dictated by two factors only - tactical awareness and avoiding blunders. Of course knowledge of opening theory plays a role but please note that I do not here say that opening knowledge is important - opening knowledge is a different thing altogether. Far too many beginners spend too long attempting to memorise openings by rote with little understanding of why the pieces should be moved in a particular fashion already. If a beginner develops sound tactical awareness and avoids blunders they will grow in strength rapidly.

Providing a beginner has knowledge of basic chess tactics such as pins, skewers, overloading and so on, then a chess program can teach them to improve and develop this aspect of their game in a rapidly increasing manner. Some programs will show pieces under threat whilst playing in tutorial mode, others will allow takes back of poor moves or open a window where an electronic coach will offer "hints" to the player so they can avoid a poor move and so on.

The really great thing about a chess computer though is that it can often be set to play at a particular level of ability and will play like that relentlessly. If the machine is set to play slightly stronger (roughly 100-200 Elo) than the player then it is still possible for the player to win, but only if they concentrate and avoid blunders. This will focus the mind wonderfully and it will also instruct the player rapidly as they will always be playing against stronger opposition.
Overall a chess computer can be an exceptionally useful instructional tool, but only if applied in the correct fashion. So, is it possible to improve tactical understanding by playing chess against computer opponents?


Read More...

Chess Strategy

Chess strategy is concerned with the evaluation of chess positions and setting up goals and long-term plans for future play. During the evaluation, a player must take into account the value of the pieces on the board, pawn structure, king safety, position of pieces, control of key squares and groups of squares (e.g. diagonals, open files, black or white squares), and the possible moves the opponent will make after any move made.

The most basic way to evaluate one's position is to count the total value of pieces on both sides. The point values used for this purpose are based on experience. Usually pawns are considered to be worth one point, knights and bishops three points each, rooks five points, and queens nine points. The fighting value of the king in the endgame is approximately four points. These basic values are modified by other factors such as the position of the piece (e.g. advanced pawns are usually more valuable than those on their starting squares), coordination between pieces (e.g. a bishop pair usually coordinates better than a bishop plus a knight), and the type of position (knights are generally better in closed positions with many pawns, while bishops are more powerful in open positions).

Since pawns are the most immobile and least valuable of the chess pieces, the pawn structure is relatively static and largely determines the strategic nature of the position. Weaknesses in the pawn structure, such as isolated, doubled, or backward pawns and holes, once created, are usually permanent.

Conclusion

Chess is a conceptual strategy board game for two players. It is played on a square board of eight rows and eight columns. The rows are known as ranks and the columns are known as files. This results in sixty-four squares of alternating color. Each player starts the game with sixteen pieces, which are gradually eradicated in time (captured and removed from the board by opposing pieces) as the game proceeds. The main objective of the game is to checkmate the opponent. This usually takes place when no further move can prevent the king from being captured. Chess has since long reigned as one of the world's most popular games. Chess strategies are extremely important as it helps players understand the finer aspects and features related to the game of chess.

A game of chess is divided into three segments, the chess opening, the middle game, and the end game. An appropriate analysis of the openings is also considered to be extremely vital in conceptualizing an effective strategy. Players should be well conversant with the subtleties and beauties of the many and compound variations in the different chess openings. The middle game refers to the phase of the game that takes place after the opening and usually merges somewhat with the endgame. During this time, an effective strategy revolves around players attempting to reinforce their positions while weakening their opponent's. The endgame is that point of the game when there are only some pieces left on the chessboard. Here the strategies used in the beginning and the middle comes to use.

In chess, detailed knowledge of the moves and how to play under certain given conditions play a crucial role in determining the game strategy to be followed. An efficient strategy acts as a guideline in ensuring a good game of chess.




Read More...

Chess Tactics

In chess, a tactic refers to a sequence of moves which limits the opponent's options and may result in tangible gain. The fundamental building blocks of tactics are move sequences in which the opponent is unable to respond to all threats, so the first player realizes an advantage. This includes forks, skewers, batteries, discovered attacks, undermining, overloading, deflection, pins and interference.

The Encyclopedia of Chess Middlegames gives the following tactical categories: Double Attack, Pawns Breakthrough, Blockade, Decoying, Discovered Attack, Passed Pawn, X-ray Attack, Interception, Deflection, Pin, Demolition of Pawns, Overloading, Annihilation of Defense, Pursuit (perpetual attack), Intermediate Move, and Space Clearance.
Often tactics of several types are conjoined in a combination.


Learn Chess - Tactics

Tactics play an essential role in all chess games, and are the ingredients of any strategy. A strategy is an overall game plan, a statement about where you want to be at each point in the game. Tactics are used to execute a strategy. Tactics are used to force your opponent into accepting your moves. Tactics represent one or more moves used to obtain a short term advantage. They are the stepping stones in progressing an overall strategy.

As more tactics are learned, the players arsenal becomes more powerful. Learning new tactics, when to deploy the tactics and what combination of tactics work best together is an ongoing activity throughout a players entire life.

Explained below are several tactics that are very common and well worth practicing:
Guarded Piece: This is simply the act of protecting one piece with another that is in turn protected or out of harms way. This tactic is often used when attacking or defending valuable real estate such as the center of the board.

Attacking With Pawns: Pawns are generally the lowest valued pieces on the board. Attacking with a guarded pawn may force an opponents higher value piece to retreat from an attacking position.

Pinning: Pinned pieces are pieces that are forced to remain on their current square as moving will expose a greater value piece to the same attack. For example, a bishop may be attacking a pawn. If the pawn is moved, it may expose the queen behind the pawn to the same attack. In this instance, the bishop will likely take the queen as it is of a higher relative value.

Skewer: Similar to the pin, except the piece being attacked is of higher relative value. When the piece moves away, it will expose a lesser value piece to the same attack. For example, If a guarded bishop is threatening a queen and the queen is forced to move, it may expose a rook to the same attack. Fork: The fork is achieved by attacking two or more pieces with a single piece. The fork is normally executed using a pawn or knight, however it can be achieved using other pieces. The opponent is forced to sacrifice one of the attacked pieces as only one piece can be moved per turn.




Read More...

Chess Endgame

In chess and chess-like games, the endgame (or end game or ending) refers to the stage of the game when there are few pieces left on the board.

The endgame, however, tends to have different characteristics from the middlegame, and the players have correspondingly different strategic concerns. In particular, pawns become more important; endgames often revolve around attempting to promote a pawn by advancing it to the eighth rank. The king, which has to be protected in the middlegame owing to the threat of checkmate, becomes a strong piece in the endgame. It can be brought to the center of the board and be a useful attacking piece.
Many people have composed endgame studies, endgame positions which are solved by finding a win for White when there is no obvious way of winning, or a draw when it seems White must lose.

Usually in the endgame, the stronger side should try to exchange pieces (knights, bishops, rooks, and queens), while avoiding the exchange of pawns. This generally makes it easier for him to convert his advantage into a won game. The defending side should strive for the opposite.

How to Finish Off Your Opponent in Chess

If you have a winning position in a game of chess, you'd expect to finish it off in a couple of moves, expecting your opponent to resign sometime soon. But, if your opponent wants to test your chess abilities i.e. endgame technique, then you better pass the test because that could be the difference between a win and a loss.
Many a time have players tried to find ways to remedy this deficit. Some say you have to force yourself to read through Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual or buy the Convekta Total Chess Training software to fully understand the endgame. This in itself, is not true, because number 1: you'd have to be a machine to memorise the 1000s of variations and key positions of the endgame and number 2: you'd be stupid to even try.
No doubt, the above mentioned materials are of great use to understanding the endgame but learning things from theory is different from doing it in practice. It's best if you understood the basic endgame concepts such as opposition, triangulation, Philidor's position etc. since these situations occur much more often and is therefore more useful in understanding the endgame.
And also too, odds are that you may not even reach the endgame phase, since you may play sharp openings such as the Sicilian Najdorf Poisoned Pawn Variation or the King's Indian Defence Bayonet Attack and finish off (or be finished) within 30-40 moves. Nevertheless, endgame chess theory is essential in developing a solid chess playing ability and at the same time also enriching your "chess culture", as Dvoretsky puts it.




Read More...

Chess Middlegame

The middlegame in chess refers to the portion of the game that happens after the opening. There is no clear line between the opening and middlegame, and between the middlegame and endgame. In modern chess, the moves that make up an opening blend into the middlegame, so there is no sharp divide. At elementary level, both players will usually have completed the development of all or most pieces. The king will usually have been brought to relative safety. However, at master level, the opening analysis may go well into the middlegame.

Likewise, the middlegame blends into the endgame. There are differing opinions and criteria for when the middlegame ends and the endgame starts (see the start of the endgame). Factors such as control of the center are less important in the endgame than the middlegame. In endgames the number of pieces and pawns is much reduced, though even after queens are traded, one may talk about a "middlegame without queens". The key issue is often said to be: when the kings are safe to play an active role, then it is an endgame.

Theory on the middlegame is less developed than the opening or endgames. Since middlegame positions from game to game are unique, memorization of theoretical variations is not possible as it is in the opening.

Middle Game Tactics in Chess

Good chess attitudes don't win games, good moves do. The mastery of good moves reflects on the middle game. However, the player also needs to play with a positive, sensible plan.
Middle game tactics in chess come immediately after the opening and usually refer to the first move following the parade of moves which make up a normal opening. Players find that it happens somewhere around move twenty. And the middle game blends somewhat with the endgame. Each one tries to strengthen his movements while weakening the opponent's positions.
The objective of the middle game is to develop tactics for capturing more of your opponent's pieces than your opponent can capture from you. Tactics denote the immediate plans that you use to capture your opponent's pieces. Middle game tactics normally involve checking the king. This situation forces the opponent to move the king rather than take your piece.
Another tactic is an attempt made by a player to capture his opponent's pieces for free or by giving low valued pieces. The term 'for free' means that the player captures his opponent's pieces without losing the chess piece that he used to take the opponent's. Taking a bishop or knight with a pawn is an example for the move 'sacrificing for a lower valued piece'. Being able to arrest your opponent's chess pieces for any of the above methods gives you a great chance for winning the game.
When competing with professionals, it is very difficult to maintain appropriate middle game tactics. Chess is a complicated game, and everyone makes mistakes. Good players use good middle game tactics, i.e. they are usually aware of the entire board and find or make openings for them to attack.




Read More...

Chess Opening

A chess opening is the group of initial moves of a chess game. Recognized sequences of opening moves are referred to as openings as initiated by White or defenses, as created in reply by Black. There are many dozens of different openings, and hundreds of named variants. The Oxford Companion to Chess lists 1,327 named openings and variants. In addition to referring to specific move sequences, the opening is the first phase of a chess game, the other phases being the middlegame and the endgame.


A sequence of opening moves that is considered standard (often cataloged in a reference work such as the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings) is referred to as "the book moves", or simply "book". These reference works often present these move sequences in simple algebraic notation, opening trees, or theory tables. Some analysis goes to thirty or thirty-five moves, as in the classical King's Indian Defense and in the Sveshnikov and Najdorf variations of the Sicilian Defense. Players at the club level also study openings but the importance of the opening phase is smaller there since games are rarely decided in the opening. The study of openings can become unbalanced if it is to the exclusion of tactical training and middlegame and endgame strategy.

How to Learn Chess Openings Without Memorization

One of the things that I cringe in the method of teaching chess is memorization. Beginners who are taught to memorize chess opening positions, and not to understand the principles behind it, does not improve the chess growth of the player. In this article, let me expound to you the basic opening principles of chess and how you can use it to improve your game.
For the purpose of simplicity, I would like to separate the opening principles into two concepts. Space and Time.
Space
When playing chess, a player who controls most of the 64 squares on the board have a higher chance of winning the game. It is also an important stuff to take control of the center squares of the board to give us more flexibility and cover a lot of squares. For the purpose of our discussion, lets take a look at the knight. If the knight is at the corner of the board, it looks silly. Not only it does control less squares, but also have less options in going for the kingside or queenside for an attack! On the other hand, if our pawns and pieces are geared towards the center, we have a huge spatial advantage to work with.
Time
Tempo, as called in the chess world, is essential in quickly building an attack. If for example, you have 3 moves ahead of your enemy, then, you have a lot of pieces activated than your enemy. Generally, the best attacking players sacrifice a pawn or a piece just to gain time or tempo. If you take your time to learn how to utilize it, you can beat any strong opponent in chess!
To do this, develop your pieces without moving it twice in an opening, while taking control of the central squares. If you do these simple things, you will notice an improvement in your game.
Conclusion
This article cannot possible cover everything about chess. My only advice is to learn additional chess principles and avoid memorizing chess positions. Remember, chess openings have principles behind them so you don't need to memorize openings blindly. I promise you, if learn the principles of chess, then, it will guide you along the path of the masters!




Read More...

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Petrosian

An ethnic Armenian, Tigran Petrosian was born in the village Mulki of Aragatsotn region, Armenia, and lived during his childhood in the city of Tbilisi, Georgia, USSR. Most of his life he lived in the Russian capital, Moscow. He learned the game of chess at the age of eight. A significant step for Petrosian was moving to Moscow in 1949, and he began to play and win many tournaments there. He won the 1951 tournament in Moscow, and began to show steady progress.

His results in the triennial Candidates Tournament, held to determine the challenger to the world champion, showed a steady improvement: fifth at Zürich in 1953, equal third at Amsterdam in 1956, third in Yugoslavia in 1959, and first at Curaçao in 1962. In 1963 he defeated Mikhail Botvinnik 12.5–9.5 to become world chess champion. His patient, defensive style frustrated Botvinnik, who only needed to make one risky move for Petrosian to punish him. Petrosian is the only player to go through the Interzonal and the Candidates process undefeated on the way to the world championship match.

Petrosian defended his title in 1966, defeating Boris Spassky 12.5–11.5, the first World Champion to win a title match while champion since Alekhine beat Bogoljubov in 1934. In 1968, he was granted an M.Phil. from Yerevan University for his thesis, "Chess Logic". In 1969 Spassky got his revenge, winning by 12.5–10.5 and taking the title.

Tigran Petrosian was the only player to win a game against Bobby Fischer during the latter's 1971 Candidates matches, finally bringing an end to Fischer's amazing streak of twenty consecutive wins (seven to finish the 1970 Palma de Mallorca Interzonal, six against Taimanov, six against Larsen, and the first game in their match).

Some of his late successes included victory in the 1979 Paul Keres Memorial tournament in Tallinn (12/16 without a loss, ahead of Tal, Bronstein and others), shared first place (with Portisch and Huebner) in the Rio de Janeiro Interzonal the same year, and 2nd place in Tilburg in 1981, half a point behind the winner Beliavsky. It was here that he played his last famous victory, a miraculous escape vs. the young Garry Kasparov. Petrosian died of cancer in 1984.

Tigran Petrosian has two major opening systems named after him: the Petrosian variation of the King's Indian Defence (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. d5) and the Petrosian system in the Queen's Indian Defense (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 4. a3). A variation of the Caro-Kann defense also bears his name, along with former world champion Vassily Smyslov; the Petrosian–Smyslov variation (1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7).

Tigran Petrosian is most famous for being one of the best players pioneering the theory of prophylaxis, years after Aron Nimzowitsch. His style of play was often highly strategical, notable for anticipating opponent's possible attacks and he based many of his games on avoidance of error, content with accumulating small advantages. His games are now widely used for instruction in chess schools around the world. He was also the chief editor of the chess magazine, "Shakhmatnaya Moskva" from 1963–66.


Playing style

To commemorate the 75th anniversary of his birth, the Republic of Armenia issued this 220 dram stamp on February 25, 2005.
Petrosian was a conservative, cautious, and highly defensive chess player who was strongly influenced by Nimzowitsch's idea of prophylaxis. He made more effort to prevent his opponent's offensive capabilities than he did to make use of his own. He very rarely went on the offensive unless he felt his position was completely secure. This style of play often lead to draws, especially against other players who preferred to counterattack. Nonetheless, his patience and mastery of defense made him extremely difficult to beat. He was undefeated at the 1952 and 1955 Interzonals, and in 1962 he did not lose a single tournament game. Petrosian's consistent ability to avoid defeat earned him the nickname "Iron Tigran".
Petrosian preferred to play closed openings that did not commit his pieces to any particular plan. As black, Petrosian enjoyed playing the Sicilian Defense, Najdorf Variation and the French Defense. As white, he often played the English opening. In a game against Mark Taimanov during the 1955 USSR Chess Championship, Petrosian moved the same rook 6 times in a 24-move game, with 4 of those moves occurring on consecutive turns. A number of illustrative metaphors have been used to describe Petrosian's style of play. Harold C. Schonberg said that "playing him was like trying to put handcuffs on an eel. There was nothing to grip. Boris Spassky, who would succeed Petrosian as World Chess Champion, described his style of play as such: "Petrosian reminds me of a hedgehog. Petrosian's style of play, although highly successful for avoiding defeats, was criticized as being dull. Chess enthusiasts saw his "ultraconservative" style as an unwelcome contrast to the popular image of Soviet chess as "daring" and "indomitable". His 1971 Candidates Tournament match with Viktor Korchnoi featured so many monotonous draws that the Russian press began to complain. However, Svetozar Gligorić described Petrosian as being "very impressive in his incomparable ability to foresee danger on the board and to avoid any risk of defeat. "I could be more 'interesting'—and also lose."
Read More...

Tal

Tal "the Magician from Riga", born in Latvia in 1936, was relatively unknown to the chess world compared to his famous Soviet compatriots, viz., Botvinnik, Smyslov, Keres, Bronstein, Spassky, Petrosian, etc., until the late 1950's, when his name shot around the chess world when he won the Championship of the Soviet Union both in 1957 and 1958, and then winning the World Championship Interzonal Tournament in 1959 to become the official challenger to Botvinnik's chess throne. In the 1959 tournament, he even scored 4-0 against the young, but brilliant future World Champion, Bobby Fischer. Tal's style mesmerized the chess world, and GM Ragozin explained the reason best: "Tal does not move chess pieces by hand, he uses a magic wand".
Tal was one of the greatest attacking geniuses in the history of recorded chess. His attacking style consisted of beautiful displays of multiple, cascading fireworks, where the true nature of the positions during the execution of his combinations was unfathomable by his opponents, even Tal himself!, in the scant time limit imposed in human over-the-board chess games.

Tal purposely played moves that created the maximum complications for both sides. He once said, "One doesn't have to play well. Tal was so intimidating in those years that he made seasoned Grandmaster opponents shudder with fear. A case in point is a game played between GM Tal (as Black) and Hungarian GM Pal Benko (as White) at the Interzonal Tournament in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, 1959. So Benko took with him sunglasses and wore them while at the chessboard. But Tal, who had heard of Benko's plan to wear sunglasses before the game started, borrowed enormous dark glasses from GM Petrosian. When Tal put on these ridiculously enormous glasses, not only did the spectators laugh, but other participants in the tournament did, as did the tournament controllers, and finally even Benko himself laughed. But unlike Tal, Benko did not remove his glasses until the 20th move when his position was hopeless.

After winning the 1959 Interzonal, skeptics still thought that Botvinnik was such a solid, positional player, that Tal's attacking style, somewhat purposely flawed by Tal's design, would not be able to penetrate Botvinnik's granite-like defense. But in 1960, when Tal played Botvinnik for the World Championship, he won the 6th game with an outrageously complicated and risky piece sacrifice, because Botvinnik couldn't navigate through all of the complicated variations that Tal created on the board. Tal then went on and won the match and was crowned the 8th Chess Champion of the World.

However, Tal faded away as quickly as he sprang out of anonymity. Not that he started playing badly or sloppily; he remained one of the strongest chess players in the world until his death in 1992. But in 1961, he played against Botvinnik in the obligatory return match and found that Botvinnik had spent the time since the first match doing his homework and systematically finding ways to take advantage of the kinks in Tal's incredibly complicated attacking style. Botvinnik retained his World Championship title, and Tal never reached the pinnacle ever again, due to the succession of chess geniuses Petrosian, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov and Kasparov.

Read More...

Kramnik

Vladimir Kramnik (born June 25, 1975) is a Russian chess player. In 2000, he beat Garry Kasparov in a 16 game match played in London. In the eyes of the participants and many observers, this was a match for the world championship, and made Kramnik the chess world champion, although the International Chess Federation (FIDE) did not recognise the match as such.
Kramnik was born in the town of Tuapse, on the shores of the Black Sea. As a child, he studied in the chess school established by Mikhail Botvinnik. His first notable result in a major tournament was his gold medal win as first reserve for the Russian team in the 1992 Chess Olympiad in Manila. His selection for the team caused some controversy in Russia at the time, as he was only sixteen years old and had not yet been awarded the grandmaster title, but his selection was supported by Garry Kasparov. The following year, Vladimir Kramnik played in the very strong tournament in Linares. He finished fifth, beating the then world number three, Vasily Ivanchuk along the way. He followed this up with a string of good results, but had to wait until 1995 for his first major tournament win at normal time controls, when he won the strong Dortmund tournament, finishing it unbeaten.
Vladimir Kramnik continued to produce good results (including winning at Dortmund, outright or tied, in 1996, 1997 and 1998). In 2000, he played a sixteen game match against Garry Kasparov in London, a match that was billed as a world championship match, and widely accepted as being one in the tradition going back to Wilhelm Steinitz. Kramnik began the match as underdog, but his adoption of the Berlin Defence to Kasparov's Ruy Lopez opening was very effective, and Kasparov was unable to turn the theoretical advantage he had in games where he played white into wins. Kramnik won the match 8.5 - 6.5 without losing a game.
In October 2002, Vladimir Kramnik competed in Brains in Bahrain, an eight game match against the chess computer Deep Fritz in Bahrain. Kramnik started well, taking a 3 - 1 lead after four games. However, in game five, Kramnik made what has been described as the worst blunder of his career, losing a knight in a position which was probably drawn. He quickly resigned. The last two games were drawn, and the match ended tied at 4 - 4.
In the FIDE rating list for April 2003, Vladimir Kramnik was ranked number two in the world, behind Kasparov. However, some people consider Kramnik's World Championship match victory over Kasparov to be more significant.


Read More...

Kasimdzhanov

Rustam Kasimdzhanov (Uzbek: Rustam Qosimjonov; Russian: Рустам Касымджанов) (born December 5, 1979) is an Uzbekistani chess Grandmaster, best known for winning the FIDE World Chess Championship 2004. He is an ethnic Uzbek.
His best results include first in the 1998 Asian Championship, second in the World Junior Chess Championship in 1999, first at Essen 2001, first at Pamplona 2002 (winning a blitz playoff against Victor Bologan after both had finished the main tournament on 3.5/6), first with 8/9 at the Vlissingen Open 2003, joint first with Liviu Dieter Nisipeanu with 6/9 at Pune 2005, a bronze-medal winning 9.5/12 performance on board one for his country at the 2000 Chess Olympiad and runner-up in the FIDE Chess World Cup in 2002 (losing to Viswanathan Anand in the final).

Read More...

Capablanca

Jose Raul Capablanca Graupera (November 19, 1888 - March 8, 1942) was a famous Cuban chess player in the early to mid twentieth century.
He was the game's third World Champion, between 1921 and 1927.
Biography
Referred to by many chess historians as the Mozart of chess, Jose Capablanca was a chess prodigy whose brilliance was noted at an early age.

According to Capablanca, he learned the rules of the game at the age of four by watching his father play. Capablanca was taken to the Havana Chess Club when he was five, where the leading players found it impossible to beat the young boy when giving him the handicap of a queen. In 1901, at the age of 12, he defeated Cuban national champion Juan Corzo by the score of 4 wins, 3 losses, and 6 draws.

In 1909, at the age of 20, Capablanca won a match against US champion Frank Marshall. Marshall insisted that Capablanca be allowed to play in a tournament at San Sebastián, Spain in 1911. It was one of the strongest tournaments of the time. All of the world's leading players except world champion Emmanuel Lasker were in attendance. At the beginning of the tournament Ossip Bernstein and Aaron Nimzowitsch objected to Capablanca's presence because he had not won a major tournament. But after Capablanca won his first round game against Bernstein, with an effort which was to win the tournament's brilliancy prize, Bernstein quickly acknowleged Capablanca's talent and said that he wouldn't be surprised if Capablanca won the tournament. Nimzowitsch took offense when Capablanca made a comment while watching one of his blitz games, and remarked that unproven players should hold their tongue in the presence of their betters. Capablanca quickly challenged Nimzowitsch to a series of fast games, which he won easily. The assembled masters soon concluded that Capablanca had no equal at fast chess, a distinction which was to remain his until virtually the end of his life. Capablanca went on to win his tournament game with Nimzowitsch as well, using an opening setup much admired by Mikhail Botvinnik. By tournament's end, Capablanca had astounded the chess world by taking first place at San Sebastián, with a score of +6 -1 =7, ahead of Akiba Rubinstein, Carl Schlechter and Siegbert Tarrasch.

In 1911, Jose Capablanca challenged Emanuel Lasker for the world championship. Lasker accepted his challenge but proposed seventeen conditions for the match. Capablanca disapproved of some of the conditions and the match did not take place.

In 1913, Jose Capablanca played in his home town of Havana and came second to Frank Marshall, and lost one of their individual games after having a much better position. Reuben Fine claimed that Capablanca had the mayor clear all the spectators so they wouldn't see him resign, and this story has uncritically circulated in books and around the Internet. However, Winter's book below (pp. 47–48) documents that Fine's story has no basis whatever. Instead, there were 600 spectators present, who naturally favored their native hero, but sportingly gave Marshall "thunderous applause". In September 1913, Capablanca secured a job in the Cuban Foreign Office. In Berlin, he defeated Jacques Mieses and Richard Teichmann; in Moscow, he played a six-game series, two games against Alexander Alekhine, Eugene Znosko-Borovsky and Fyodor Dus-Khotimirsky, losing once to Znosko-Borovsky and winning the rest—his first encounters with Alekhine, who was outclassed; then in Vienna he defeated both Richard Réti and Savielly Tartakower 1.5-0.5 each. Then he beat Bernstein in Moscow in a game listed in many anthologies as a brilliancy for winning move ...Qb2!! and for the new strategy with hanging pawns, and defeated Nimzowitsch in an elegant opposite-colored bishop endgame. Capablanca also gave many simultaneous exhibitions noted for their speed and very high winning scores.

At the great 1914 tournament in St. Petersburg, with most of the world's leading players (except those of the Austro-Hungarian empire), Capablanca met the great Lasker across the chessboard for the first time in normal tournament play (Capablanca had won a knock-out lightning chess final game in 1906, leading to a famous joint endgame composition). Capablanca took the large lead of one and a half points in the preliminary rounds, and made Lasker fight hard to draw. He again won the first brilliancy prize against Bernstein and had some highly regarded wins against David Janowsky, Nimzowitsch and Alekhine.

However, Jose Capablanca fell victim to a comeback by Lasker in the second stage of the tournament, including a famous victory by Lasker. Capablanca finished second to Lasker with a score of 13 points to Lasker's 13.5, but ahead of third-placed Alexander Alekhine. After this tournament, Tsar Nicholas II proclaimed the five prize-winners (Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Tarrasch, Marshall) as "Grandmasters of Chess".

In 1920, Lasker saw that Capablanca was becoming too strong, and resigned the title to him, saying, "You have earned the title not by the formality of a challenge, but by your brilliant mastery." Capablanca wanted to win it in a match, but Lasker insisted that he was now the challenger. They played a match in Havana in 1921, and Capablanca defeated Lasker +4 -0 =10. This feat of winning the world title without losing a game to the incumbent went unequalled for almost eight decades, until Vladimir Kramnik's win over Garry Kasparov +2 -0 =13 in 2000.

The new world champion, Capablanca dominated the field at London, 1922. There was an increasing number of strong chess players and it was felt that the world champion should not be able to evade challenges to his title, as had been done in the past. At this tournament, some of the leading players of the time including Alexander Alekhine, Efim Bogoljubov, Geza Maroczy, Richard Réti, Akiba Rubinstein, Ksawery Tartakower and Milan Vidmar, met to discuss rules for the conduct of future world championships. In the following years, Rubinstein and Nimzowitsch challenged Capablanca but were unable to raise the stipulated funds. Alekhine's subsequent challenge, in 1927, was backed by a group of Argentinian businessmen and the president of Argentina who guaranteed the funds.

Jose Capablanca was second behind Lasker in New York 1924, and again ahead of third-placed Alekhine. He was third behind Efim Bogoljubov and Lasker in Moscow 1925. But he dominated the 6-player match tournament in New York 1927, not losing a game and 2.5 points ahead of Alekhine.

As World Champion, Capablanca also underwent major changes in his personal life. In December 1921, he married Gloria Simoni Betancourt. Capablanca had overwhelming success in New York 1927, a quadruple-round robin with six of the world's top players. He was undefeated and 2.5 points ahead of the second-placed Alekhine. Capablanca also defeated Alekhine in their first game, won the first brilliancy prize against Rudolf Spielmann and won fine two games against Aron Nimzowitsch

This made him the prohibitive favorite for his match with Alekhine, who had never defeated him, later that year. However, the challenger had prepared well, and played with patience and solidity, and the marathon match proved to be Capablanca's undoing. Capablanca lost the first game in very lacklustre fashion, then took a narrow lead by winning games 3 and 7 — attacking games more in the style of Alekhine — but then lost games 11 and 12. He tried to get Alekhine to annul the match when both players were locked in a series of draws. Alekhine refused, and eventually prevailed +6 -3 =25.

Alekhine refused to play a return match, even though doing so had been a pre-condition of the match. Despite the collapse of the financial markets in 1929, Alekhine continued to insist on the London conditions, with a $10,000 purse to be secured by the challenger. Capablanca found it difficult to satisfy this condition. Instead, Alekhine played two matches against Efim Bogoljubov, a fine player, but one who posed no great threat in a long match. (Capablanca had a 5-0 lifetime record against him). Throughout his tenure as champion, Alekhine refused to play in the same tournaments as Capablanca.

After Capablanca lost the title, he won a number of strong tournaments, hoping that his showing would force Alekhine to grant him a rematch, but it was not to be. In 1931 Capablanca defeated the fine Dutch player Max Euwe +2 -0 =8. Then he withdrew from serious chess, and played only less serious games at the Manhattan Chess Club and simultaneous displays. Reuben Fine recalls that in this period he could fight on almost level terms with Alekhine at blitz chess, but that Capablanca beat him "mercilessly" the few times they played.

In 1934, Jose Capablanca resumed serious play. He had begun dating Olga Chagodayev, whom he married in 1938, and she inspired him to play again. In 1935, Alekhine, plagued by problems with alcohol, lost his title to Euwe. Capablanca had renewed hopes of regaining his title, and he won Moscow 1936, ahead of Botvinnik and Lasker. Then he tied with Botvinnik in the super-tournament of Nottingham 1936, ahead of Euwe, Lasker, Alekhine, and the leading young players Reuben Fine, Samuel Reshevsky (avenging a defeat here) and Salo Flohr.

This was Capablanca's first game with Alekhine since their great match, and the Cuban did not miss his chance to avenge that defeat. He had the worse position, but caught Alekhine in such a deep trap, allowing him to win the exchange, that none of the other players could work out where Alekhine went wrong, except Lasker who immediately saw the mistake. Capablanca recounted this episode in Capablanca's Legacy: Capablanca's Last Chess Lectures, pp. 111–112, expressing his admiration for Lasker's insight even in his sixties. But Capablanca didn't mention that his opponent was Alekhine. In 1937, Euwe, unlike Alekhine with respect to Capablanca, fulfilled his obligation to allow Alekhine a return match. Alekhine gave up drinking, prepared well and easily regained the title. Thereafter there was little hope for Capablanca to regain his title, and Alekhine played no more world championship matches till the time of his death in 1946. The absolute control of the title by the title-holder was a major impetus for FIDE to take control of it, and try to ensure that the best challenger has a shot at the title.

Capablanca's health took a turn for the worse. He suffered a small stroke during the AVRO tournament of 1938, and had the worst result of his career, 7th out of 8. In the 1939 Chess Olympiad in Buenos Aires, he made the best score on top board for Cuba, ahead of Alekhine and Paul Keres.

On 7 March 1942, he was happily kibitzing a skittles game at Manhattan Chess Club in New York when he collapsed from a stroke. Remarkably, the Cuban's great rival, German-born Emanuel Lasker, had died in that very hospital only a year earlier.

His bitter rival Alekhine wrote on Capablanca's death, "With his death, we have lost a very great chess genius whose like we shall never see again."

In his entire chess career, Jose Capablanca suffered fewer than fifty losses in serious games. He was undefeated for over eight years, from February 10, 1916, when he lost from a superior position against Oscar Chajes (pronounced Ha-yes); to March 21, 1924, when he lost to Richard Reti in the New York International tournament. This was an unbeaten streak of 63 games, and included the strong London tournament of 1922, as well as the world championship match against Lasker.

In fact, only Marshall, Lasker, Alekhine and Rudolf Spielmann won two or more serious games with the mature Capablanca, but their overall lifetime scores were minus (Capablanca beat Marshall +20 -2 =28, Lasker +6 -2 = 16, Alekhine +9 -7 =33), except for Spielmann who was level (+2 -2 =8). Of top players, only Keres had a narrow plus score against him (+1 -0 =5), and that win was when Capablanca was 50.

Capablanca founded no school per se, but his style was very influential in the games of two world champions Bobby Fischer and Anatoly Karpov. Mikhail Botvinnik also wrote how much he learned from Capablanca, and pointed out that Alekhine received much schooling from him in positional play, before their fight for the world title made them bitter enemies.

Botvinnik regarded Capablanca's book Chess Fundamentals as undoubtedly the best chess book ever written. In it, Capablanca pointed out that while the bishop was usually stronger than the knight, queen + knight was usually better than queen + bishop--the bishop merely mimicks the queen's diagional move, while the knight can immediately reach squares the queen cannot. Botvinnik credits Capablanca as the first with this insight.

Earlier, Jose Capablanca had received some criticism, mainly in Britain, for the allegedly conceited description of his accomplishments in his first book, My Chess Career. So Capablanca took the unprecedented step of including virtually all of his tournament and match defeats up to that time in Chess Fundamentals, together with an instructive group of his victories.

However, J. du Mont, in his foreword to Golombek's book Capablanca's 100 Best Games, wrote that he knew Capablanca well and could vouch that he was not conceited. Rather, critics should learn the difference between the merely gifted and the towering genius of Capablanca, and the contrast between a British tendency towards false modesty and the Latin and American tendency to say "I played this game as well as it could be played" if he honestly thought that it was correct. Du Mont also said that Capablanca was rather sensitive to criticism. And the chess historian Edward Winter documented a number of examples of self-criticism in My Chess Career.

Most of the criticisms center upon his alleged laziness. This trait manifested itself sometimes in deep calculation, where he occasionally relied on instinct and instead made a mistake. Also, occasionally some difficult endgame wins escaped him.


Read More...

Ponomariov

Ruslan Ponomariov (Ukrainian: Руслан Пономарьов; Russian: Русла́н Пономарёв) (born October 11, 1983) is a Ukrainian chess player and former FIDE world champion.

Ponomariov was born in Horlivka in Ukraine to parents of Russian ethnicity. In 1994 he placed third in the World Under-12 Championship at the age of ten. In 1996 he won the European Under-18 Championship at the age of just twelve, and the following year won the World Under-18 Championship. In 1999, he was a member of the Ukrainian national youth team, which won the U-16 Chess Olympiad in Artek, Ukraine.
Among Ponomariov's notable later results are first at the Donetsk Zonal in 1998, 5/7 in the European Club Cup 2000 (including a victory over then-FIDE World Champion Alexander Khalifman), joint first with 7.5/9 at Torshavn 2000, 8.5/11 for Ukraine in the 2001 Chess Olympiad in Istanbul, winning gold medal on board 2, and first place with 7/10 in the 2001 Governor's Cup in Kramatorsk.


Read More...

Karpov

Anatoli Yevgenyevic Karpov (born May 23, 1951) is a Russian chess player.
Anatoly Karpov was born in Zlatoust, Russia and started off his playing career by annexing the World Junior Chess Championship in 1969 (not won by a Russian since Boris Spassky), everything sky-rocketed from there.
After the Junior world championship, Anatoly Karpov was a "mere" grandmaster, but in the following year there was a "quantum leap" in his playing strength. The first Candidates cycle (1974) he participated in was the one to find a challenger for the then World Champion, Bobby Fischer. Karpov beat Robert Byrne in the first Candidates match to face the ex-World Champion Boris Spassky in the next round. Karpov was on record to say that it would be Spassky that would win the Candidates cycle to face Fischer, but Karpov would win the following Candidates cycle (1977).
The Spassky-Karpov match was a spectacle. Tenacious and aggressive play from Karpov secured him a memorable win (an exquisite Sicilian Scheveningen was probably the game of the match). The Candidates final match was against fellow Russian Viktor Korchnoi, a notable fighting player. Intense games were fought, one "opening laboratory" win against the Sicilian Dragon, and Karpov had achieved the right to challenge Fischer for the World Championship.
This thrust the young Karpov into the role of World Champion without beating the reigning one. This tournament success eclipsed the pre-war tournament record of Alexander Alekhine, and was thought to be unmatchable in today's tournament standards.
Anatoly Karpov's playing style was solid positionally based, taking no risks but reacting mercilessly to any tiny errors made by his opponents. People believed Karpov's style was bland, but looking at games such as Torre-Karpov, Bad Lautenberg 1976 shows Karpov provoking his opponent then counterattacking through the centre with a pawn sacrifice. Karpov's mastery of the ending was unparallelled, although he kept his openings repertoire relatively narrow, his middlegame was always solid.
One of the first pinnacles of Karpov's tournament career was the exceptional Montreal "Super-Grandmaster" tournament in 1979, where he ended joint first with Mikhail Tal ahead of a field of superb grandmasters (Jan Timman, Ljubojevic, Boris Spassky, Kavalek).
Karpov's first title defence in 1978 was against Viktor Korchnoi, the opponent he beat in the previous Candidates tournament. The match was played in Bagiuo in the Philippines, and a vast array of psychological tricks were used during the match, from Karpov's Dr Zukhov who attempted to hypnotise Korchnoi during the game, to Korchnoi's mirror glasses to ward off the hypnotic stare, Korchnoi not being allowed to play under the Swiss flag (his adopted country) so offering to play under the Jolly Roger flag, to Karpov's yogurt being used to send him secret messages, to Korchnoi inviting two local cult members (on trial for attempted murder) into the hall as members of his team.
Karpov took an early lead, but Korchnoi staged an amazing comeback very late in the match, and came close to winning. Karpov narrowly won the last game to take the match 6-5.
Three years later Korchnoi re-emerged as the Candidates winner against German finalist Dr. Robert Huebner to challenge Karpov in Merano, Italy. This time the psychological trick was the arrest of Korchnoi's son for evading conscription. Again the politics off the board overshadowed the games, but Karpov easily won what is remembered to be the "Massacre of Merano".
Anatoly Karpov had cemented his position as the World's best player, and real world champion when Kasparov arrived on the scene. After the aborted first match, Karpov lost his title - a ten year tenure was over.
Karpov remained a formidable opponent for most of the eighties, fighting Kasparov in over five arduous World Championship matches, all of them were close.
It came as a surprise that Karpov lost a Candidates Match against Nigel Short in 1992, but Nigel's success was richly deserved. But Karpov reacquired the FIDE World title when Kasparov and Short split from FIDE in 1993 by overwhelming Jan Timman - the loser of the Candidates match against Short.
The nineties showed the gradual decline of Anatoly Karpov's playing strength - apart from one strong performance against the World's best players in Linares in 1994. Karpov won the tournament, which included Kasparov by a large margin, which put his tournament performance way over 3000 ELO. As of this date (March, 2003) this is still the highest performance rating of any chess player in a tournament in chess history.
Karpov's serious tournament play has been seriously limited since 1999, preferring to be more involved in politics of his home country of Russia.


Read More...

Morphy

Paul Charles Morphy (June 22, 1837 - July 10, 1884), known as "The Pride and Sorrow of Chess," was generally considered to have been the strongest chess master of his time and an unofficial World Champion. He was also the first American since Benjamin Franklin to have been recognized as the pre-eminent world figure in an intellectual field, as well as the first recorded chess prodigy in history.

Early life

Paul Morphy was born in New Orleans, Louisiana to a wealthy and distinguished family. His father, Alonzo Michael Morphy, was a lawyer, state congressman, state attorney general, and state Supreme Court Justice of Louisiana. Morphy's mother, Louis Therese Felicite Thelcide Le Carpentier, was the musically talented daughter of a prominent French Creole family. Morphy grew up in an atmosphere of genteel civility and culture where chess and music were the typical highlights of a Sunday home gathering.

According to his uncle, Ernest Morphy, no one formally taught Morphy how to play chess. Ernest wrote that as a young child, Morphy learned on his own from simply watching the game played. His uncle recounted how Morphy, after watching one game for several hours between his father and him, told him afterwards that he should have won the game. They both were surprised, as they didn't think that young Morphy knew the moves, let alone any chess strategy. They were even more surprised when Morphy proved his claim by resetting the pieces and demonstrating the win his uncle had missed. Later, a similar story was told about the Cuban chess prodigy José Raúl Capablanca.

Childhood victories
After that Morphy was recognized by his family as a precocious chess talent. Taken to local chess activities and allowed to play once a week at family gatherings on Sundays, Morphy demonstrated his innate ability in contests with relatives and local players. In 1846, General Winfield Scott visited the city, and let his hosts know that he desired an evening of chess with a strong local player. Chess was an infrequent pastime of Scott's, but he enjoyed the game and considered himself a formidable chess player. After dinner, the chess pieces were set up and Scott's opponent was brought in: diminutive, nine-year-old Morphy, dressed in a lace shirt and velvet knickerbockers and looking like anything but a ferocious opponent. Seeing the small boy, Scott was at first offended, thinking he was being made fun of; but when assured that his wishes had been scrupulously obeyed, and that the boy was a chess prodigy who would tax his skill, Scott consented to play. To General Scott's surprise, Morphy beat him easily not once, but twice. The second time the boy announced a forced checkmate after only six moves. Two losses against a small boy was all General Scott's ego could stand, and he declined further games and retired for the night, never to play Morphy again.

In 1850, the strong professional Hungarian chess master Johann Löwenthal visited New Orleans, and could do no better than the amateur General Scott could. Löwenthal played three games with Morphy during his New Orleans stay, losing all three. (Note: One of the games was incorrectly given as a draw in Löwenthal's book Morphy's Games of Chess and subsequently copied by sources since then. David Lawson, in his biography of Paul Morphy, listed in "Further Reading" at the bottom of this page, corrected this error, provided the moves that were actually played, and urged that game records be corrected.)
Schooling and the First American Chess Congress
After 1850, Paul Morphy did not play much chess for a long time. Studying diligently, he graduated from Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama in the spring of 1855. He then was accepted to the University of Louisiana to study law. He received a law degree in 1857, in preparation for which he is said to have learned the Louisiana Civil Code by heart.

Not yet of legal age to begin the practice of law, in 1857 Morphy found himself with free time. He received an invitation to participate in the First American Chess Congress, to be held in New York in the fall. At first he declined, but at the urging of his uncle, who was quite proud of Morphy's chess skill, he eventually decided to play. After securing parental permission, Morphy made the long trip to New York via steamboat up the Mississippi River and overland by railroad to New York. There, he defeated each of his rivals, defeating the strong German master Louis Paulsen in the final round. Morphy was now hailed as the chess champion of the United States, and such was his strength of play that many urged him to test his skill abroad.
Morphy goes to Europe
Still too young to start his law career, he was invited to attend an international chess tournament soon after returning to New Orleans, to be held in Birmingham, England in the summer of 1858. He accepted the challenge and traveled to England but ended up not playing in the tournament, playing a series of chess matches against the leading English masters instead and defeating them all except English chess master Howard Staunton who promised to play but eventually declined.

Staunton later was criticised for failing to meet Paul Morphy. Staunton was flattered and at first intended to prepare for a contest in which he had little chance of success. Staunton later conducted a newspaper campaign to make it seem that it was Morphy's fault they did not play, suggesting among other things that Morphy did not have the funds to serve as match stakes when in fact he was so popular that numerous wealthy people and groups were willing to stake him for any amount of money.

Seeking new opponents and now aware that Staunton had no real desire to play, Morphy then crossed the English Channel and visited France. There he went to the Café de la Regence in Paris, which was the center of chess in France. He played a match against Daniel Harrwitz, the resident chess professional, and soundly defeated him.

In Paris he suffered from a bout of intestinal influenza and came down with a high fever. In accordance with the medical wisdom of the time, he was treated with leeches, resulting in his losing a significant amount of blood. Despite the fact that he was now too weak to stand up unaided, Morphy insisted on going ahead with a match against the visiting German champion Adolf Anderssen, who was considered by many to be Europe's leading player, and who had come to Paris all the way from his native Breslau, Germany, solely to play against the now famous American chess wonder. Despite his illness Morphy triumphed easily, winning seven while losing two, with two draws. When asked about his defeat, Anderssen claimed to be out of practice, but also admitted that Morphy was in any event the stronger player and that he was fairly beaten. Anderssen also attested that in his opinion, Morphy was the strongest player ever to play the game, even stronger than the famous French champion Bourdonnais.

In France, as he had before in England and America, Morphy played many exhibition matches against the public. He would take on eight players at once while playing without sight of the board, a feat known as blindfold chess, the moves of his opponents and his replies being communicated verbally. It was while he was in Paris in 1858 that Morphy played a well-known game at the Italian Opera House in Paris, against the Duke of Brunswick and Count Isouard.
The world hails its champion
During his chess travels, Paul Morphy was very popular. He was extremely polite, cultured, quiet, and reserved. In appearance he was small in stature, slim, and always impeccably dressed. His sense of sportsmanship was of the highest caliber, and his combination of brilliant play and personal modesty made him a welcome guest everywhere.

While in Paris, he was sitting in his hotel room one evening, chatting with his companion Frederick Edge, when they had an unexpected visitor. "I am Prince Galitzin; I wish to see Mr. Morphy." the visitor said, according to Edge. Morphy then stated that he was Mr. Morphy. "No, it is not possible!" the prince exclaimed, "You are too young!" Morphy was very secretive about his personal life, so the facts are not known, except that his brother-in-law actually came to Paris about this time, most likely for the purpose of escorting Morphy home. Returning to England in the spring of 1859, Morphy was lionized by the English. A match therefore was set up where he was pitted against five masters (Jules Arnous de Rivière, Samuel Boden, Thomas Barnes, Johann Löwenthal, and Henry Bird) simultaneously. Morphy won two games, drew two games, and lost one. No other world champion has since duplicated his feat of playing five of his closest rivals at the same time.

Shortly after, Paul Morphy started the long trip home, taking a ship back to New York. Word of his exploits in Europe had reached America, and he found himself the man of the hour. Popular acclaim was such that he had to travel home slowly, stopping in all the major cities, where the leading citizens in each competed to heap honors on him. Famous people such as Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes honored him at testimonial banquets, manufacturers sought his endorsements, newspapers asked him to write chess columns, and a baseball club was named after him. He was feted again and again, and in exchange, he thrilled the public with demonstrations of his skill, including more blindfold chess exhibitions.
Morphy abandons chess
Prior to his getting home, Paul Morphy had issued an open challenge to anyone in the world to play a match where he would give odds of pawn and move; and to play for any amount whatsoever. Finding no takers, he declared himself retired from the game, and with a few exceptions, he gave up the public playing of the game for good. Unfortunately, he was unable to, as in 1861 the American Civil War broke out, disrupting life in New Orleans. Opposed to secession, Morphy did not serve in the Confederate Army but remained for a while in New Orleans, then left the city for Paris. He lived for a time in Paris to avoid the war, returning to New Orleans afterwards.

His principled stance against the war was unpopular in his native South, and he was unable to begin practice of the law after the war. Attempts to open a law office failed due to a lack of clients; if anyone came to his office, it was invariably in regards to chess. Financially secure thanks to his family fortune, Morphy had effectively no profession and he spent the rest of his life in idleness. Asked by admirers to play chess again, he refused, considering chess not worthy of being treated as a serious occupation. Chess in Morphy's day was not a respectable occupation for a gentleman, but was admired only as an amateur activity. Chess professionals in the 1860's were looked upon as akin to professional gamblers and other disreputable types. It was not until decades later that the age of the professional chess player arrived with the coming of Wilhelm Steinitz, who barely made a living and died broke, and Emanuel Lasker who, thanks to his demands for high fees, managed a good living and greatly advanced the reputation of chess as a professional endeavor.

Tragedy and twilight
Morphy's final years were tragic. Depressed, he spent his last years wandering around the French Quarter of New Orleans, talking to people no one else could see, and having irrational feelings of persecution.

Morphy was found dead in his bathtub on the afternoon of July 10, 1884. The doctor said he had suffered congestion of the brain, brought on by entering cold water after being very warm from his mid-day walk. He died young, at the age of only forty-seven. Despite the fact that Morphy had not played chess publicly for over twenty-five years, it was not until after his death that Steinitz proclaimed that his match with Zukertort would be for the "official" world chess championship. Steinitz's forbearance to claim the title while Morphy was still alive was a recognition of Morphy's chess strength.
Morphy's chess play
Today many amateurs think of Paul Morphy as a dazzling combinative player, who excelled in sacrificing his Queen and checkmating his opponent a few brilliant moves later. One reason for this impression is that chess books like to reprint his flashy games. There are games where he did do this, but it wasn't the basis of his chess style. In fact, the masters of his day considered his style to be on the conservative side compared to some of the flashy older masters like La Bourdonnais and even Anderssen.

Morphy can be and generally is considered the first modern player. If his games do not look modern, it is because he didn't need the sort of slow positional systems that modern grandmasters use, or that Staunton, Paulsen, and later Steinitz developed. His opponents hadn't yet mastered the open game, so he played it against them and he preferred open positions because they brought quick success. He played open games almost to perfection, but he also could handle any sort of position, having a complete grasp of chess that was years ahead of his time. Morphy was a genius who intuitively knew what was best, and in this regard he was much like Capablanca. He was, like Capablanca, a child prodigy; he played fast and he was hard to beat. At the same time, he was deadly when given a promising game. Anderssen especially complained of this, saying that one false move against Morphy and one may as well resign. Morphy would win his won games, but if he made an error, it was still a long, hard process trying to beat him, and more likely than not the game would still go to him in the end. "I win my games in seventy moves but Mr. Morphy wins his in twenty, but that is only natural..." Anderssen moaned, explaining his poor results against Morphy. Anderssen was perhaps grateful that he did get a 70 move win, as he didn't get many wins of any kind against Morphy.

According to the online database chessgames.com, Paul Morphy suffered only twenty losses out of about two hundred games in the database, giving him a far higher scoring percentage than any other great master in the database.
Quotes
"Morphy's principal strength does not rest upon his power of combination but in his position play and his general style....Beginning with la Bourdonnais to the present, and including Lasker, we find that the greatest stylist has been Morphy. - former world chess champion Jose Raul Capablanca, in Pablo Morphy by V. F. Coria and L. Palau.

"...Morphy, the master of all phases of the game, stronger than any of his opponents, even the strongest of them..." - former world chess champion Alexander Alekhine, in Shakmatny Vestnik, January 15, 1914

"...the greatest chess player that ever lived...no one ever was so far superior to the players of his time" - former world chess champion Emanuel Lasker, Lasker's Chess Magazine of January 1905

"...Morphy was stronger than anyone he played with, including Anderssen" - former world champion Wilhelm Steinitz, International Chess Magazine 1885.

"Morphy, I think everyone agrees, was probably the greatest of them all." - former world chess champion Bobby Fischer


Read More...

Steinitz

Wilhelm (later William) Steinitz (Prague, May 17, 1836 – August 12, 1900) was an Austrian and then American chess player and the first undisputed world chess champion from 1886 to 1894. From the 1870s onwards, commentators have debated whether Steinitz was effectively the champion earlier. Steinitz lost his title to Emanuel Lasker in 1894 and also lost a rematch in 1897.

Statistical rating systems give Steinitz a rather low ranking among world champions, mainly because he took several long breaks from competitive play. However, an analysis based on one of these rating systems shows that he was one of the most dominant players in the history of the game.

Although Steinitz became "world number one" by winning in the all-out attacking style that was common in the 1860s, he unveiled in 1873 a new positional style of play and demonstrated that it was superior to the previous style. Steinitz was also a prolific writer on chess, and defended his new ideas vigorously. The debate was so bitter and sometimes abusive that it became known as the "Ink War". By the early 1890s, Steinitz' approach was widely accepted and the next generation of top players acknowledged their debt to him, most notably his successor as world champion, Emanuel Lasker.

As a result of the "Ink War", traditional accounts of Steinitz' character depict him as ill-tempered and aggressive; but more recent research shows that he had long and friendly relationships with some players and chess organizations. Most notably from 1888 to 1889 he co-operated with the American Chess Congress in a project to define rules for the future conduct of contests for the world championship title that he held. Steinitz was unskilled at managing money and lived in poverty all his life.


Read More...