Greenpoint Chess and Go Club

Jeffrey and I had a discussion last night about Bird's Opening, and he noted that c5 was an "offbeat" response. I had chosen it from MCO 14 because of De Firmian's commentary calling it the "Professional's response."

It's funny that De Firmian also noted that it was not highlighted by theory, but the idea behind it is to control e5 with a well timed d6. This supposedly minimizes risk. I guess this is why I chose it, and it has become my stock answer to Bird's. See Bird's Opening col. 6 MCO 14. I guess the "pros" follow this offbeat opening with an offbeat response. It is the last column in the MCO after all.

Related tags: birds

Black to move and win in two moves

Add a comment to this post with your solution. I'll buy a beer for the first person to correctly solve the problem next Tuesday, during our regular session at Matchless.

DiagTransfer screenshot

What every chess blogger is looking for, right? A free, easy-to-use piece of chess diagramming software that produces attractive diagrams. While I haven't made an exhaustive sweep of the field, based on cost, usability, and output, I recommend DiagTransfer, freeware for Windows 2000/Windows XP by Alain Blaisot.

Within minutes of downloading and installing the program, I was able to produce a good-looking diagram and save it as either .png or .jpg [both web-suitable formats]. While this was my primary reason for getting the program, I was also interested in its ability to "tranfer" diagrams "by setting the DiagTransfer window in semi-transparent mode and resizing a board on the diagram to be copied. At this point, you have only to trace the pieces—no need to remember piece locations!"

(more…)

The Benko Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5) is one of my favorite answers to 1.d4 Black offers up two of his pawns to be immediately snuffed out in exchange for open files, easy development, and intricate counter play that leaves white tap dancing around threats throughout the middle game. In my opinion, the strongest continuation is when white does not accept the gambit fully, but pushes to b6 after capturing the b5 pawn. This continuation takes the sting out of the queenside counter play, however white must play accurately to hold the isolated d pawn on the fifth rank. All in all, I'd rather play benko's accepted as black then white.

Benko Gambit

Our blog now features a combined chess feed built using Pipes. We're currently aggregating Gambit and The Kenilworthian, but if anyone reads another chess blog that must be part of our combined feed, please leave a comment. Thanks!

This review of Michael Weinreb's book, The Kings of New York:
A Year Among the Geeks, Oddballs, and Geniuses Who Make Up America's Top High School Chess Team, was originally published by the New York Times on 4 March 2007 and is authored by James Kaplan.

Approximately one million years ago, when I was in my early teens, I briefly dipped a toe into the world of competitive chess. Much of the action in those days (the mid-1960s) took place in the old Henry Hudson Hotel on West 57th Street: I sharply remember the deep hush in the second-floor ballroom on tournament Sundays, the long tables lined with green-and-cream-squared oilcloth boards, the soft ticking of a hundred chess clocks amid the miasma of deep thought. On the walls of the Manhattan Chess Club, also in the hotel, hung black-and-white glossies of visiting greats: Reshevsky. Denker. And, of course, with his plaid shirt buttoned to the neck, his long haughty nose and basilisk stare, the boy genius Bobby Fischer.

Fischer was my ideal, the towering prodigy who at 13 had destroyed one of America's top players in a match called "The Game of the Century." He was brilliant and merciless, withering in his scorn for lesser players (which meant all other players), whom he called "weakies"—also known as "patzers" or "fish." (Soon enough, I would discover that far, far down the chess food chain, one of the fish, or rather minnows, was me.)

Chess was an exclusively masculine world, and largely adolescent. Fischer's boyhood style—call it nerd-macho—still set the tone when I played: shirts buttoned all the way up were in evidence, as were eyeglasses repaired with Scotch tape. Yet rather than haplessness or distraction, the quality most characteristic of chess nerds was ferocity. However awkwardly they might navigate the outside world, over the board they were killers.

(more…)

Supposedly this Squidoo lens "keeps track of all the chess blogs out there," but it seems pretty short for such an ambitious goal [it does mention the Kenilworthian, though].

I just added a comment requesting that our humble blog be added to their illustrious list, but, in the meantime, check out Takchess Chess Improvement, where a Novice chessplayer works to get better at chess using an improvement program based upon the methods of Michael de la Maza and the teachings of Dan Heisman.

Thanks, Greg, for telling me about this amazing chess blog—you're right, it's replete with well-written, reasoned, and extensive analysis. And, of course, the first post I see on my first visit is about a new French site dedicated to the Nimzovich. Any possibility you'd care to translate?

Veselin Topalov of Bulgaria won the M-Tel Masters for the third time [3/3] by beating Krishnan Sasikiran of India in the last round. Final standings of M-Tel: Topalov, 5.5; Sasikiran, Kamsky, Shakhriyar Mamedyarov, Liviu-Dieter Nisipeanu, 5; Adams, 4.5. Games from the tournament can be replayed here at the tournament's Web site.

→ read more

Gambit, the New York Times chess blog, was started on 13 May 2007 to coincide with the United States Chess Championship in Stillwater, Oklahoma. It will cover tournaments and events, trends, and developments.

→ read Gambit

Double elimination tournament. Experience, prizes, and bragging rights. Top three winners will choose from either $100 cash, Embora services, or dinner for two at Soule restaurant. Registration fee is $13. Register soon, because space is limited. Register at 718.857.4360.

Sunday, 27 May 2007
1:30–5 pm
Embora Fitness and Movement Studio
900 Fulton St, Brooklyn [map]

Reading and thinking about game theory and daisyworld again… in my research I found a reference to Go and chess, which seems relevant to this blog simply because of the preferred ordering of words on wikipedia.
“Zero sum games are a special case of constant sum games, in which choices by players can neither increase nor decrease the available resources. In zero-sum games the total benefit to all players in the game, for every combination of strategies, always adds to zero (more informally, a player benefits only at the expense of others). Poker exemplifies a zero-sum game (ignoring the possibility of the house’s cut), because one wins exactly the amount one’s opponents lose. Other zero sum games include matching pennies and most classical board games including Go and chess.”

After last night, I'm happy to say we're finally the Greenpoint Chess and Go Club. While Greg and I played Chess, Rae and Jackee played Go and a fine evening was had by all.

Rae and Jackee appeared fairly matched, but my game was even more amateurish than usual and Greg spent the night trouncing me. Game after game, he smashed my openings, denied my castle, and scythed my pieces. It was straight brutal, sir.

I think it's time to hit the MCO…

The Brooklyn Speed Chess Meetup plays five-minute blitz every Friday at 7 pm. Everyone is welcome, but bring a board and clock if you have one. Membership is $1/per week—join the group for the location.
→ more info

It appears that the New York City Chess Meetup Group hasn't met since March. However (when/if they play again) everyone is welcome on all levels—novice, intermediate or advanced. The most important thing is to enjoy the games, learn something new, and hopefully meet nice people.
→ more info

[in homage to this week's opening, the Queen's Gambit]

At the end of the 15^th century, the rules underwent a sudden sea change. The queen transformed from the weakest piece on the board to the strongest [consequently modern chess was referred to as "Queen"s Chess" or "Mad Queen Chess".]! At the same time, the bishop became the long-range piece that it is today. These changes quickened the game's pace. The battle was intensified. Mistakes were harshly punished, tabiyas [midgame starting positions to speed up the game] were no longer necessary, and violent checkmates were executed much more often than before. The inventor of these changes is unknown; probably the new rules were not thought up by an individual, but came about from collective experimentation. These new rules were standardized by the 16^th century advent of mass production and the printing press. The faster paced game was more suitable for organized play, chess notation, codified rules, and strategy books.

source :: USCF Chess History

jeffrey and i had our FIRST chess game, after dating for 5 1/2 months. why did it take him so long to ask me for a game? well… the reasons are too complicated. but suffice it to say that it was much better than our Go games and we held hands the whole time (mushy, i know).

it was sort of fun. why? i’m a beginner, but advanced play is easier to grasp than Go since there are less possible moves to count. chess is also more finite, less complex, and pieces don’t come back to life… with Go, you have to search for groups that are weak and see how they might connect with other groups, which is a bit more tricky.

there is a great website for Go problems at gobase.org, though i might start getting into chess tactics too. at least it’s more concrete than martin gardener.

after a long hiatus, i recently returned to Crystalpunk [formerly social fiction] to learn the latest about psychogeography—to my surprise i discovered chess and go instead!

A hand colored engraving by Charles Dana Gibson, creator of the famous "Gibson Girl." Title is "The Greatest Game in the World: His Move." It depicts a young couple facing each other across a chess board, too wrapped up in the romance of the moment to concentrate on the game. [Obviously Mr. Gibson wasn't a chess player, because no true player would ever be too wrapped up by a lover to concentrate on the game!] From Prints Old & Rare.

via Crystalpunk

The Queen's Gambit is one of the oldest known chess openings, as Lucena wrote about it in 1497 and it is mentioned in the earlier Göttingen manuscript. During the early period of modern chess, queen pawn openings were not in fashion, and the Queen's Gambit did not become common until the 1873 tournament in Vienna. As Steinitz and Tarrasch developed chess theory and increased the appreciation of positional play, the Queen's Gambit grew more popular. It reached its peak popularity in the 1920s and 1930s and was played in 32 out of 34 games in the 1934 World Chess Championship. Since then Black has increasingly moved away from symmetrical openings, tending to use the Indian defences to combat queen pawn openings. The Queen's Gambit is still frequently played, however, and it remains an important part of many grandmasters' opening repertoires.

(more…)

ChessGames.com has 2,357 Scotch Games in their database spanning the years 1770 through 2007. White wins 35.5% of the time, Black wins 28.9% of the time, and it's a draw 35.6% of the time [hence the Scotch's reputation as drawish?]. As an opening, it appears to have peaked in popularity during the 1870s.

Honestly, I'm not sure why I'm so taken with the Scotch, but it's this week's opening for me. (And Greg, I'm ready for the Steinitz variation (4. … Qh4) now!)

The Scotch Game received its name from a correspondence match in 1824 between Edinburgh and London. Popular in the 19^th century, by 1900 the Scotch had lost favor among top players because it was thought to release the central tension too early and allow Black to equalize without difficulty. More recently, the Scotch has regained some popularity and it has been used by grandmasters Kasparov and Timman as a surprise weapon to avoid the well-analyzed Ruy Lopez.

White aims to dominate the center by exchanging the d pawn for Black's e pawn. Black is practically forced to play 3. … exd4 as there is no good way to maintain the pawn on e5. After 3. … d6, White is better after 4. dxe5 dxe5 5. Qxd8+ Kxd8 6.Bc4, or 4. Bb5, when 4. … exd4 5. Nxd4 Bd7 transposes to the Steinitz defense to the Ruy Lopez. 3. … Nxd4? is a strategic error: after 4. Nxd4 exd4 5. Qxd4 (5.Bc4 is the Napoleon Gambit) White's queen stands on a central square, and is not developed too early since it cannot be chased away effectively (5. … c5? is a seriously weakening move that blocks Black's king's bishop). After 3. … exd4, White can respond with the main line 4. Nxd4 or play a gambit by offering Black one or two pawns in exchange for rapid development.

There are 2,657 Scotch Games at ChessGames.com.

(more on the Scotch Game to follow… See also The Scotch, Statistically, Scotch Commentary)

Source: Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_Game. Retrieved 2007-04-26

Move 29…Bxh2??? Even Fischer made mistakes.

This is a subtle, yet important lesson…wing pawns are not always free in endgames where the king is developed to a central square.

Follow the link below to play through the full game!! This is a must see game that turns into a similar style game as Kramnik's English.

Boris Spassky vs Robert James Fischer, 1972

Firstly, the Scotch does have the reputation of [a] high number of draws (many exchanges, seemingly little advantage) as most of you pointed out. That's probably the reason why elite GMs don't ever play the Scotch, at least, I could not remember seeing the Scotch in any recent major tournaments. However, it may be me, or just me, that finds the Scotch the one and only ideal (dream) position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6…Let me explain.

Upon the fundamental opening themes, development, centre control etcetera… the typical continuation plan would be to attack on the queenside(whichever non-castled side) and usually the queenside pawns want to be as mobile as possible. Looking at major good alternative positions(eg.1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc5 Ruy Lopez or even 3.Bc4(the name depends on what Black follows right?) and 2.Bc4 Bishop’s opening. All these have the same flaws of hidering the queenside assault IMO. In the Ruy Lopez, the 3.Bb5 Bishop seems out of place, and why bother to threaten capture on the c6 Knight when the Black Knight is considered misplaced(Blocking the c-pawn, same idea of the Queenside advancement) The same things goes for either 2.Bc4 and/or 3.Bc4. Now I’m not condemning these famous, well established opening systems, I’ll be an idiot to do so. But my point is that there are still characteristics or reasons why the Scotch is superior in some ways as compared to the other major popular alternatives. Not forgetting that 3.Nc3 Petroff’s 3 Knights game is also suffering from this ‘flaw’.

Also, if anyone still remembers the idea of not placing the Bishop out too early. If I remembered what I read a few years ago correctly, the reason to develop Knights before Bishops was that Bishops develop faster to any ideal squares that Knights. Not that I can fault it, but I think this reason even looks abit lame to me now. It simply takes one move to get to the Natural Knight position(Nf3 for 0-0’s) and a minimum of 2 moves to get a Bishop onto another square! While the counter against this is that a Bishop can open it’s scope within one move, my counter is that Knights don’t even need 1 pawn move to open it’s scope. Anyway, the bigger picture is that I feel the positioning values of the Bishops depend largely on the pawn formations, and moving the Bishop into action at the 2nd or 3rd move may be a premature act- they may be misplaced as pawn formations can still laargely change. Also, a piece out in action also suggests that it’ll be traded off easier, which again, may not be what those “double Bishop” fanatics would agree upon.

Hence, I suggest 3.d4 to be the more ‘idealistic move’. following 3…exd4 4.Nxd4, 4…Bc5 and/or maybe evem 4…Qf6 aren’t really much of a concern… “alive play” can still be easy for White but the real counter is indeed 4…Nf6! highlighting the characteristical flaw of 1.e4(comparable to 2…d6 Sicilian, ie:1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6…)5.Nxc3 bxc3 White made Black produce doubled c pawns, but Black has practical chances with a open b file and the c8 Bishop has more options.

From the same blog:

>I used to play the Scotch as my second White opening (if I didn't feel like playing the Ruy Lopez), but now I dislike the awkwardness of the first two moves, like two kids that have been told to dance by their parents, it generally doesn't lead to a good dance/game.

This post was originally written by Gregory Keener on 24 April 2007. It was revisited and re-annotated by Jeffrey Barke on 9 February 2008.

Jeffrey Barke vs Gregory Keener
Brooklyn, NY . 23 April 2007
Alekhine's Defense: Modern with Bg4 [B05]

Alekhine's Defense, Modern.

Alekhine's Defense, Modern [B05]. 922 games at ChessGames.com

If 6…Bxf3 7.Bxf3 Nxc4 winning the "free" pawn, either 8.Qa4+ winning the knight or 8.Bxc7 winning material.

6…c6 avoids both possibilities and makes it possible for Black to win the c4 pawn on the next turn.

7. Nbd2 is the last book move. Note—there are 25 games at ChessGames.com that follow this move order and White has a win rate of 76%!

White has the option to recapture Black's queen's bishop with either the queen's knight or the king's bishop. Better is 10.Nxf3, leaving the bishop to protect c4 and having both the knight and queen protect d4 in anticipation of 10…Bg7. Capturing with the knight also avoids a cheap Qe7 check.

I, of course, played 10.Bxf3

13…c5 is a blunder. While it protects the Black bishop, it opens a8-h1 diagonal and allows White to win the Black queen's rook.

Better is 13…Be5.

16…h5 seems inaccurate. Right now, the action is occurring in the center and queenside. While it's often a good idea to answer a threat on one side of the board by generating a counter-threat on the opposide side, in this case h5 seems too slow.

At this point, I was an even worse attacking player than I am now! I believe I played 16.Nb3 to threaten Black's king's bishop and to free my queen's bishop. However, move 17 I play Be3? when the correct move is to capture the bishop and then play Be3.

Instead of giving the material back, I think 18.Rad1 is stronger.

20…Nc4 is incorrect due to 21.Qf6 Rd8 22.Rc1 N6e5 23.Be7 Qc6 24.Bxd8 Qxf6 25.Bxf6 Kb8 26.Bh8 g5 27.Nd2 leaving White with a bishop, knight, and rook vs two black knights.

Better for Black is 20…Rd8 21.Qf6 22.Qb7.

21…Rh7 tucks the Black rook safely away, but at the expense of removing it from the game. Given Black's pawn structure, what future does the rook have on h7?

For the remainder of the game, almost every move on both side is inaccurate.

I can't remember if this was a blitz game or not, but regardless the inaccuracies continue. 22. Rc1 is better, attacking the the c4 Black knight and ultimately threatening an absolute pin against the c6 Black knight.

I'm not sure what the rationale behind 22…a5 was, but it doesn't seem to accomplish anything other than losing the queen with 23.Re8+.

23.Nd4?? Why not the obvious 23.Re8+ winning the Queen for free when the king steps to d7? Note—if 23…Nd8 24.Qxd8+ Kb7 25.Qxa8+ losing both the queen and a knight. If 23…Kb7, attempting to pick up the rook after losing the queen, 24.Rxa8 Kxa8 25.Qxc6+ Kb8.

Better is 24.Nxc6 Nxc6 25.Re8+

And Black resigns after 24…g5, in light of 25.Qf5+ forking the king and rook.

→ Download PGN

Gregory Keener's original analysis:

The opening is well played by both sides, although Black is not quite able to equalize. On move 10, Black develops his king's bishop to g7 logically, preparing to castle kingside in keeping with general theory, however, overlooking that the Qe2+ causes him to lose his castle and chokes his position. Here, a queen exchange would have been advantageous to Black after playing Qe7, Qxe7, Kxe7, because although he would have lost his castle, the position would have been less volatile with the queens off the board. Once the king is pushed to d7 though, the castle is lost and all bets are off. Black was thinking here that the king's position was not weakened, and that after White's kingside castle, a pawn rush on the king side accompanied by pressure in the center from the bishop would be constricting for white, however, move 13 loses outright and makes the game an easy win for White, who now has not only the crushing material advantage, but the spatial and positional advantage to launch an attack as slowly and precisely as the position calls for.

Honestly, I wish I could say I learned something from this game, however, I already know that pushing the c pawn to the fifth rank loses the rook to the bishop parked on f3 after the logical bishop knight exchange in the modern variation. Ugh…one day, I will learn from my mistakes.

On a minor note, I have learned that 8. g5 generates sharp counterplay for Black in this variation, but loses to a specific response from White. If White doesn't respond appropriately though, the g5 push can create sharp counterplay for Black in the center after move 8. I'm too much of a wimp to risk it.

It's nice to note, though, that we now play chess well enough that a single mistake in the transition to middlegame leads to an instant victory. I would like to think that as a group, our chess was not this strong six months ago, and that such missteps as Kd7 as opposed to Qe7 wouldn’t have been dispositive in the outcome of the match.

Kudos Jeff…next one's on me.
—checkers is for tramps

Related tags: alekhines-defense, annotated-games

The Marshall Attack is a variation that arises out of the Ruy Lopez when the bishop backs off after a6.

It goes as follows:

Supposedly, Marc Orleans knows a nice pawn push that White can interject into this position that halts the attack. For the benefit of myself and everyone out there who reads this blog (all one of you), we would love to see it. So Marc… this is your chance to add something to the repertoire of checkers is for tramps…