I woke up early this morning and was shocked to learn of Australian IM Greg Hjorth passing from The Closet Grandmaster blog at the age of 47.
Greg was a strong junior when I first met him in 1981. We were playing in a masters tournament in Hong Kong and I was told he was one of the Australian talented juniors. I had difficulty pronouncing his name and finally he told me to just call him "Horth".
He left Australia for the US in 1990's or thereabouts. He was not very active while in the US.
In recent years he had returned to Australia and attempted to compete in some tournaments there.
Greg is one of those talented players who decided very early that a career in chess is not the sort of life for him.
My condolences to his family.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
Stories from beyond the board - Game throwing is cheating
The year was 1984 after I achieved my first IM norm (read about it here). I was playing a Swiss tournament in Singapore. I had already collected a number of points and in the running for first place as well as picking up a final norm. When the final round pairings were published , everyone knew that I just required half a point in the last round. My final round opponent, Singapore's IM Tan Lian Ann , offered a draw perhaps thinking both sides had chances in the position. It was perfectly reasonable for him to expect a peaceful end to the game.
In the tournament were a number of Filipino players. From observations I determined that they were playing as a group. Basically they were fixing the games in favour of the one with the best chance of winning the highest prize. One of them was racing with me for the first prize.
If I drew it was a certainty that one of the Filipino would take clear first prize. I considered a safe draw to secure the IM title. But I felt victimized by the Filipino game throwing tactics. It was incredibly frustrating. I had to struggle every round (I played six Filipinos) while they could plan to draw or lose their games.
I refused the draw offer which kind of shocked my opponent. Instead I took a big risk. I sacrificed the exchange eventually winning the game and tied for first with the Filipino and completed my title requirements.
In the tournament were a number of Filipino players. From observations I determined that they were playing as a group. Basically they were fixing the games in favour of the one with the best chance of winning the highest prize. One of them was racing with me for the first prize.
If I drew it was a certainty that one of the Filipino would take clear first prize. I considered a safe draw to secure the IM title. But I felt victimized by the Filipino game throwing tactics. It was incredibly frustrating. I had to struggle every round (I played six Filipinos) while they could plan to draw or lose their games.
I refused the draw offer which kind of shocked my opponent. Instead I took a big risk. I sacrificed the exchange eventually winning the game and tied for first with the Filipino and completed my title requirements.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Some changes to Renegade Rapid Weekender
After the previous post, at least one person have seen the light. I find Najib is quite a reasonable person if you present the facts accurately , unlike some other people around.
Najib has announced changes to the Renegade Rapid Weekender due to be held on 30th January. The changes are:-
1) An Unrated prize has been added for players who are unrated.
2) Tie Break for the event is also advertised to avoid controversies.
Go here to read the full details. The announced tie-breaks are
1. Bucholz with variable [37]- For Best and Weakest game dropped are counted as "0",
- For not played games (forfeit, bye, etc) is "compute with real points"
- For adding own points is "No"
- For dropped players is counted as "No points (for all rounds)"
2. SB with variable [52]- variables are the same as above
3. Bucholz with variable [37]
- variables are the same except - For not played games (forfeit, bye, etc) is "compute as draw against the player himself"
Here is an explanation of what the tie-breaks actually mean. The first tie-breaker is the normal Buchholz that we all know. Under this tiebreak the 17th Rapid placing would be Fadzil, Ian, Abdullah.
The second tie-break is normal Sonneborn-Berger. Under this tiebreak the 17th Rapid placing would be Fadzil and Ian tie followed by Abdullah.
The third tie-break is the one actually used in 17th Rapid and the result will be Abdullah, Fadzil then Ian according to me but chess-results give Abdullah, Ian , Fadzil.
Najib has announced changes to the Renegade Rapid Weekender due to be held on 30th January. The changes are:-
1) An Unrated prize has been added for players who are unrated.
2) Tie Break for the event is also advertised to avoid controversies.
Go here to read the full details. The announced tie-breaks are
1. Bucholz with variable [37]- For Best and Weakest game dropped are counted as "0",
- For not played games (forfeit, bye, etc) is "compute with real points"
- For adding own points is "No"
- For dropped players is counted as "No points (for all rounds)"
2. SB with variable [52]- variables are the same as above
3. Bucholz with variable [37]
- variables are the same except - For not played games (forfeit, bye, etc) is "compute as draw against the player himself"
Here is an explanation of what the tie-breaks actually mean. The first tie-breaker is the normal Buchholz that we all know. Under this tiebreak the 17th Rapid placing would be Fadzil, Ian, Abdullah.
The second tie-break is normal Sonneborn-Berger. Under this tiebreak the 17th Rapid placing would be Fadzil and Ian tie followed by Abdullah.
The third tie-break is the one actually used in 17th Rapid and the result will be Abdullah, Fadzil then Ian according to me but chess-results give Abdullah, Ian , Fadzil.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Idiosyncrasies of Swiss Manager program
I saw some comments regarding the recently concluded 17th Chess Club Rapid. Three players tied for the first three places. Some wondored how Abdullah could have been awarded the first prize on tie-breaks. If you look at his opponents you will see that he actually has the worst Buchholz tie-break amongst the three players.
The majority of tournaments are run using a software called Swiss Manager. This piece of software works out the round by round pairings making the tournament director job much simpler and allows pairings to be posted much quicker. The software also works out the final standings and tie-breaks if needed (as well as a lot of other functions which I do not need to go into here).
Description of common tie-break systems
The TD chooses the tie-break systems that he/she wants to use when creating the tournament. There are many tie-break systems available. The most commonly used are the Buchholz (SK) and Sonneborn-Berger (SB) and the Progress or Cumulative . The Buchholz computes a score using the sum of the score of each of the opponents of a player. The Sonneborn-Berger is similar to Buchholz but uses a weighting, a win takes the full score of the opponent, a draw half of that and a loss is zero. The Progressive system takes the players current score at the end of each round and sums it.
There are weaknesses in the Buchholz and SB systems. If you are paired (usually in the first round) with an opponent who subsequently drops out or worse, never started the tournament, your tie-break will be negatively affected. You will be unfairly penalized through no fault of your own. There are attempts to address this by modifying the method of calculating the tie-break score in cases of unplayed games such as forfeits or walk-over. This variations are selected in Swiss Manager at the beginning of the tournament. They are refered to as Buchholz Tie-Breaks (variabel with parameter) and Sonneborn-Berger-Tie-Break variable.
These variables describe how unplayed games are computed for tie-break purpose. There are three variations -
a) using opponents actual points (this is the original Buchholz)
b) the game is treated as a draw for tie-break purpose but still using the opponent's points
c) the game is treated as a draw against the player himself (please note the italics because this will really surprise you later.
Analysis of 17th Chess Club top three players tie-break
TB1 is first tie break and TB2 is the second tie break. The tie breaks taken from chess results (not shown in the picture but they are at the bottom of the web page) are -
Tie Break1: Buchholz Tie-Breaks (variabel with parameter)
Tie Break2: Sonneborn-Berger-Tie-Break variable
There is no way to tell which variable that the TD selected based on the posted results. We can deduce it with a little analysis on how Abdullah got his tie-break score since he had a walk-over in the first round.
The results of top three by round
The tie-breaks works out like this -
SK and SB is worked out by me while the SK (variable) and SB(variable) are taken from the chess-results as in the link I given above. Note that Fadzil opponent's results must be wrongly reported. because there is a one point difference between my computations and the published one.
For Abdullah the difference between the normal and variable SK are a massive 5.5 points. This can tell us what the TD selected as the variable which I worked out to be (c) above. Here is my analysis. His first round game is treated as a draw (irrelevant in Buchholz) against himself. So his first round Buchholz score is 6-0.5 which is 5.5. Total Buchholz (5.5+4+5++4+6+4+5) giving the total 33.5 which is consistent with the score published in chess results.
This is outrageous. Not only did he not have to exert himself in the first round to get the full point, he benefitted tremendously in the tie-breaks. If his opponent had turned up to play, Abdullah would have been third in the tie-breaks by the rules. I for one, find that extremely ironic.
The majority of tournaments are run using a software called Swiss Manager. This piece of software works out the round by round pairings making the tournament director job much simpler and allows pairings to be posted much quicker. The software also works out the final standings and tie-breaks if needed (as well as a lot of other functions which I do not need to go into here).
Description of common tie-break systems
The TD chooses the tie-break systems that he/she wants to use when creating the tournament. There are many tie-break systems available. The most commonly used are the Buchholz (SK) and Sonneborn-Berger (SB) and the Progress or Cumulative . The Buchholz computes a score using the sum of the score of each of the opponents of a player. The Sonneborn-Berger is similar to Buchholz but uses a weighting, a win takes the full score of the opponent, a draw half of that and a loss is zero. The Progressive system takes the players current score at the end of each round and sums it.
There are weaknesses in the Buchholz and SB systems. If you are paired (usually in the first round) with an opponent who subsequently drops out or worse, never started the tournament, your tie-break will be negatively affected. You will be unfairly penalized through no fault of your own. There are attempts to address this by modifying the method of calculating the tie-break score in cases of unplayed games such as forfeits or walk-over. This variations are selected in Swiss Manager at the beginning of the tournament. They are refered to as Buchholz Tie-Breaks (variabel with parameter) and Sonneborn-Berger-Tie-Break variable.
These variables describe how unplayed games are computed for tie-break purpose. There are three variations -
a) using opponents actual points (this is the original Buchholz)
b) the game is treated as a draw for tie-break purpose but still using the opponent's points
c) the game is treated as a draw against the player himself (please note the italics because this will really surprise you later.
Analysis of 17th Chess Club top three players tie-break
TB1 is first tie break and TB2 is the second tie break. The tie breaks taken from chess results (not shown in the picture but they are at the bottom of the web page) are -
Tie Break1: Buchholz Tie-Breaks (variabel with parameter)
Tie Break2: Sonneborn-Berger-Tie-Break variable
There is no way to tell which variable that the TD selected based on the posted results. We can deduce it with a little analysis on how Abdullah got his tie-break score since he had a walk-over in the first round.
The results of top three by round
| Abdullah Che Hassan | |||
| Rd | Opponent | Opp Score | Result |
| 1 | Muhd Taufik Azman | 0 | 1 (walkover) |
| 2 | Razali Hamzah | 4 | 1 |
| 3 | Muhd Syazwan Zulkifli | 5 | 1 |
| 4 | Norizzudin Afendi Norazman | 4 | 1 |
| 5 | Ahmad Fadzil Nayan | 6 | 0 |
| 6 | Nor Ilhamuddin Shaikh Ali | 4 | 1 |
| 7 | Mohd Saprin Sabri | 5 | 1 |
| Ian Udani | |||
| Rd | Opponent | Opp Score | Result |
| 1 | Nge Jia Xuan | 4 | 1 |
| 2 | Saharuddin Mappa | 4 | 1 |
| 3 | Nor Ilhamuddin Shaikh Ali | 4 | 1 |
| 4 | Nik Ahmad Farouqi Nik Abdul Aziz | 4 | 1 |
| 5 | Mohd Saprin Sabri | 5 | 0 |
| 6 | Kamaluddin Yusof | 5 | 1 |
| 7 | Ahmad Fadzil Nayan | 6 | 1 |
| Ahmad Fadzil Nayan | |||
| Rd | Opponent | Opp Score | Result |
| 1 | Kabir Singh | 2 | 1 |
| 2 | Izuddin Ahayat | 4 | 1 |
| 3 | Abdul Aziz Abdul Shukor | 5 | 1 |
| 4 | Ismail Ahmad | 5 | 1 |
| 5 | Abdullah Che Hassan | 6 | 1 |
| 6 | Mohd Saprin Sabri | 5 | 1 |
| 7 | Ian Udani | 6 | 0 |
The tie-breaks works out like this -
| Player | SK | SB | SK (variable) | SB(variable) |
| Abdullah Che Hassan | 28 | 22 | 33.5 | 27.5 |
| Ian Udani | 32 | 27 | 32 | 27 |
| Ahmad Fadzil Nayan | 33 | 27 | 32 | 26 |
SK and SB is worked out by me while the SK (variable) and SB(variable) are taken from the chess-results as in the link I given above. Note that Fadzil opponent's results must be wrongly reported. because there is a one point difference between my computations and the published one.
For Abdullah the difference between the normal and variable SK are a massive 5.5 points. This can tell us what the TD selected as the variable which I worked out to be (c) above. Here is my analysis. His first round game is treated as a draw (irrelevant in Buchholz) against himself. So his first round Buchholz score is 6-0.5 which is 5.5. Total Buchholz (5.5+4+5++4+6+4+5) giving the total 33.5 which is consistent with the score published in chess results.
This is outrageous. Not only did he not have to exert himself in the first round to get the full point, he benefitted tremendously in the tie-breaks. If his opponent had turned up to play, Abdullah would have been third in the tie-breaks by the rules. I for one, find that extremely ironic.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Richard Feynman on rules of chess
Richard Feynman is an American physicist who won the Nobel prize for Physics in 1965. He has a gift of explaining very complex ideas in a simple and interesting way. Here he uses chess rules as an analogy to how scientific methods are used to understand nature laws.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Thoughts on chess development - Part Two
In order to develop the advanced group , the trainer might have to spend four times the effort he required on the normal group. In business world we come across the term ROI (return on investment). The is the amount of remuneration or profit in relation to the amount of work or risk that we put in. For our chess trainer, the ROI is just not worth it with reference to the advanced group,
But most crucial of all, the problem is that our local trainers just do not have the ability to produce star students. For normal students, let us assume a beginner. The trainer starts with the the pieces movement and value, castling etc etc. Then move on to basic openings and the principles. Then simple tactics and evolve into advanced tactics. Somewhere in between the trainer introduces basic endings - pawn endings and rook endings and the like. Very simple stuff, he probably already have all the material in his library.
After a year, his students may already progressing well, most have reached the limits of their potential. Week after week the trainer gives lessons with variations on the same theme. New tactical positions, slightly different type of endings. His more promising students are unable to make any more breakthroughs. This is due to the limitations of their trainer. The trainer just cannot give what he does not possess. Some of the students might have the initiative to start working on their chess alone. Some might seek new coaches. But without proper guidance , planning and strategising, it is a hit and miss affair.
Is it any wondor that our juniors do not seem to progress after a certain age or level? Why do you think that our players cannot keep up with other countries (and I am just talking about the Asian region) after a certain point?
We do not have the knowledge to take a strong junior to the IM level let alone produce a Le Quang Liem or Wesley So. Vietnam's success today is because years ago they started importing Russian trainers.
As for us our chess federation officials are still sleeping. After all they have achieved their own KPI which is to get re-elected.And now we even beat Singapore. Wow! What an achievement!.
Truly we reap what we sow.
But most crucial of all, the problem is that our local trainers just do not have the ability to produce star students. For normal students, let us assume a beginner. The trainer starts with the the pieces movement and value, castling etc etc. Then move on to basic openings and the principles. Then simple tactics and evolve into advanced tactics. Somewhere in between the trainer introduces basic endings - pawn endings and rook endings and the like. Very simple stuff, he probably already have all the material in his library.
After a year, his students may already progressing well, most have reached the limits of their potential. Week after week the trainer gives lessons with variations on the same theme. New tactical positions, slightly different type of endings. His more promising students are unable to make any more breakthroughs. This is due to the limitations of their trainer. The trainer just cannot give what he does not possess. Some of the students might have the initiative to start working on their chess alone. Some might seek new coaches. But without proper guidance , planning and strategising, it is a hit and miss affair.
Is it any wondor that our juniors do not seem to progress after a certain age or level? Why do you think that our players cannot keep up with other countries (and I am just talking about the Asian region) after a certain point?
We do not have the knowledge to take a strong junior to the IM level let alone produce a Le Quang Liem or Wesley So. Vietnam's success today is because years ago they started importing Russian trainers.
As for us our chess federation officials are still sleeping. After all they have achieved their own KPI which is to get re-elected.And now we even beat Singapore. Wow! What an achievement!.
Truly we reap what we sow.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Thoughts on chess development - Part One
I have a secret dream but it will not be secret anymore after this. My dream is that Malaysia will produce a chess player of the quality of Vietnam's Le Quang Liem , China's Wang Yue and Wang Hao or Philippines Wesley So.
Forget about our IMs Mas , Mok and Yee Weng. They can only be strong IMs and I doubt any of them is capable of GM level. I said before we have to look at our juniors for a future grandmaster.
In 2010, those juniors that impressed me most are Yeoh Li Tian, Mohd Nabil , Sumant Subramaniam, Tan Jun Feng , Low Jun Jian and Fong Yit San. And I almost forgot Mark Siew who nearly won the National Junior that year. These kids have great love and enthusiasm for the game. I wondor who if any will be our Le or So?. Will we even get some IMs or GMs from any of them?
There are some observations that our young chess talents show great promise until the age of twelve - or thirteen or fourteen , it's just a number. So the question is why this happens and I think I can offer a explanation.
I think a lot depends on the coach that we have. Now there will be some confusion because locally we have chess teacher, coach and trainer. Some might call themselves trainers when in reality they are merely teachers. It seems the terms can be used interchangeably although I believe there is difference between the last two. Anyway for this blog post purpose I assume both fulfils the same role so I will make reference to just trainer.
I'll discuss this subject over several posts to make it easier to read and digest.
Firstly I will talk about our local chess trainers. Now a trainer (or teacher) makes a living from teaching chess , the more students he/she have the more the income. The majority of these students will be average players , I refer to these group a normal. A small percentage will have some potential and maybe one will be a future star. Let's refer to this as the advanced group.
The average chess trainer makes his livelihood from the average students. You see, it is the numbers that count. The trainer might be able to charge a little more from the advanced but the group that pays him collectively the most will not come from this small group. And the effort and time needed is not proportional to the returns. A trainer can prepare a lesson for a group of say twenty normal students in a few hours. He spends two hours a week. If he charges RM80 per student he is collecting RM1600 for sixteen hours (including preparatory work) of work a month. If he has several of such classes he is already doing much better than most salaried office workers.
To be continued...
Forget about our IMs Mas , Mok and Yee Weng. They can only be strong IMs and I doubt any of them is capable of GM level. I said before we have to look at our juniors for a future grandmaster.
In 2010, those juniors that impressed me most are Yeoh Li Tian, Mohd Nabil , Sumant Subramaniam, Tan Jun Feng , Low Jun Jian and Fong Yit San. And I almost forgot Mark Siew who nearly won the National Junior that year. These kids have great love and enthusiasm for the game. I wondor who if any will be our Le or So?. Will we even get some IMs or GMs from any of them?
There are some observations that our young chess talents show great promise until the age of twelve - or thirteen or fourteen , it's just a number. So the question is why this happens and I think I can offer a explanation.
I think a lot depends on the coach that we have. Now there will be some confusion because locally we have chess teacher, coach and trainer. Some might call themselves trainers when in reality they are merely teachers. It seems the terms can be used interchangeably although I believe there is difference between the last two. Anyway for this blog post purpose I assume both fulfils the same role so I will make reference to just trainer.
I'll discuss this subject over several posts to make it easier to read and digest.
Firstly I will talk about our local chess trainers. Now a trainer (or teacher) makes a living from teaching chess , the more students he/she have the more the income. The majority of these students will be average players , I refer to these group a normal. A small percentage will have some potential and maybe one will be a future star. Let's refer to this as the advanced group.
The average chess trainer makes his livelihood from the average students. You see, it is the numbers that count. The trainer might be able to charge a little more from the advanced but the group that pays him collectively the most will not come from this small group. And the effort and time needed is not proportional to the returns. A trainer can prepare a lesson for a group of say twenty normal students in a few hours. He spends two hours a week. If he charges RM80 per student he is collecting RM1600 for sixteen hours (including preparatory work) of work a month. If he has several of such classes he is already doing much better than most salaried office workers.
To be continued...
DATCC Activities 1st Quarter 2011
DATCC under new management of Najib Wahab appears to have lots of activies lined up for the next three months. Below is the calendar provided by Najib
Monday, January 3, 2011
Test online game
I found that the way I show online games on my blog causes some problems with browsers specifically Internet Explorer.
Currently I am testing out various ways to display an online board for playing through games. You might experience some problems during this phase.
Currently I am testing out various ways to display an online board for playing through games. You might experience some problems during this phase.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Improve your chess
How does one train to improve our chess? Thirty years ago, knowledge was scarce and chess books hard to come by and anyway I could not afford them. I had to make up my own training methods.
Many years ago I used to keep a journal of all my tournament games. This was way before the appearance of chess databases like ChessBase. I meticulously wrote down by hand my thoughts and analysis over the board, which I then combined with post game analysis. This method helped me to improve my calculation abilities. Later I read Kotov's book "Think Like a Grandmaster" where he also suggests the same method.
I still have some seven or eight notebooks of my games and analysis with games dating from 1975 to 1990. Browsing through these notebooks can bring back a lot of memories.
Below is one such game with my notes written right after the tournament. Guy West is a fierce competitor who plays every game to win. He later attained the IM title and disappeared from the chess scene in favour of a more stable profession. Lately he is making a comeback, winning the 2009 Melbourne Chess Club championship by a point.
Future Indonesian top grandmaster Utut Adianto appeared for the first time in this tournament. We drew an interesting ending. Incidently, this was the tournament where I met my wife but that is another story :).
[Event "Laoag City Zonal"]
[Site "Laoag City Zonal"]
[Date "1985.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "West, Guy"]
[Black "Liew, J."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C11"]
1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3
This is a pet variation of the Australian master. If black now pushes 3...d4 white can start pressuring the d4 pawn after 4 Ne2 c5 5 c3
3...Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.d4 c5 6.dxc5 Nc6 7.Bf4
White has transposed to a position more commonly reached via the
move order: 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 Nf3 c5 6 dxc5 Bxc5
7 Bd3. White is aiming for rapid king-side development and he is
willing to relinquish his centre for this.
7...Bxc5 8.Bd3 f6 9.exf6 Qxf6 10.Bg5 Qf7 11.Bh4
Temporarily preventing black from castling (11...0-0?? 12
Bxh7 +-). However the move has the drawback of handing over the e5
square to black. Neither is 11 Qe2 satisfactory as black has the
advantage after 11... Nd4 12 Nxd4 Bxd4
11...Nde5 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Be2 O-O 14.O-O Bd7 15.Bg3 Ng6 16.Bd3
White could have made things more difficult for black with the move 16 Bh5 pinning the knight and threatening 17 Bxg6 Qxg6 18 Nxd5 winning a pawn
16...Nf4 17.Qd2 Bc6 18.Rae1 Rae8 19.a3 a6 20.b4 Bb6 21.a4 Bd7 22.a5 Bc7 23.Ne2 Nxd3 24.cxd3 e5 25.d4 Bb5 26.dxe5 Bxe5 27.Bxe5 Rxe5 28.Nd4
White has cleverly emerged with a good knight versus bad bishop ending. Black has to defend very carefully.
28...Rxe1 29.Rxe1 Re8 30.Rxe8+
White declines to double black's queen-side pawns with 30 Nxb5. Perhaps he
figured his chances were better if he kept the knight
30...Qxe8 31.f3 Bc4 32.Kf2 h6 33.Qe3
Qa4
Black must avoid at all cost a queen exchange as any N v B ending would be hopeless for him
34.Qe1
Not 34 Qe7 Qd1 35 Ne6 Qe2 36 Kg3 Qe5 37 Kg4 Bd3 when the white king is in
trouble
34...Qa2+ 35.Kg3 Qb2
Now white cannot defend both d4 and b4 so he is forced into an offensive against the black king
36.Qe8+ Kh7 37.Nf5 Qxb4 38.Ne7 d4 39.Qg6+ Kh8 40.Qe8+ Kh7 41.Qg6+ Kh8 42.Nf5
Declining a draw by perpetual check. However the exchange of pawns has freed the black bishop and black's chances in this position is as good as white's if not better
42...Qf8 43.Nxd4 Qb8+ 44.f4 Qd8 45.Nf5 Qd3+ 46.Kh4 Qd8+ 47.Kh3 Qd7 48.g4 Bd3 49.Qd6 Bxf5 50.Qf8+ Kh7
It appears that 51 Qxf5 would lose to 51. .Qxf5 52 gxf5 Kg8 53 Kg4 Kf7
54 Kf3 Ke7 55 Ke4 Kd6 since black can create an outside passed pawn,
but White missed an excellent opportunity to force a draw here, 54 Kh5! Kf6 55 h4 Kxf5 draws by stalemate
51.gxf5 Qd3+ 52.Kh4 Qd2 53.Kg3 Qxa5 54.Qf7 Qc3+ 55.Kg4 Qc6 56.f6 Qg2+ 57.Kf5 Qc2+ 58.Ke5
Or 58 Kg4 Qg6+ forces the exchange of queens
58...Qc3+ 59.Ke6 Qxf6+ 60.Qxf6 gxf6 61.Kxf6 b5 62.f5 b4 63.Ke6 b3 64.f6 b2 65.f7 b1=Q 66.f8=Q Qg6+
If black had queened the a-pawn instead this check would not be available and the endinq is most likely drawn. Now whatever square the white king goes, black can exchange queens for a winning pawn ending
67.Kd5
This is the best chance, forcing the black king further away and moving to capture the a-pawn. Still it fails by a single move.
Qg8+ 68.Qxg8+ Kxg8 69.Kc5 Kf7 70.Kb6 Kf6 71.Kxa6 Kf5 72.Kb5 Kg4 73.Kc4 Kh3 74.Kd3 Kxh2 75.Ke2 Kg2 0-1
Many years ago I used to keep a journal of all my tournament games. This was way before the appearance of chess databases like ChessBase. I meticulously wrote down by hand my thoughts and analysis over the board, which I then combined with post game analysis. This method helped me to improve my calculation abilities. Later I read Kotov's book "Think Like a Grandmaster" where he also suggests the same method.
I still have some seven or eight notebooks of my games and analysis with games dating from 1975 to 1990. Browsing through these notebooks can bring back a lot of memories.
Below is one such game with my notes written right after the tournament. Guy West is a fierce competitor who plays every game to win. He later attained the IM title and disappeared from the chess scene in favour of a more stable profession. Lately he is making a comeback, winning the 2009 Melbourne Chess Club championship by a point.
Future Indonesian top grandmaster Utut Adianto appeared for the first time in this tournament. We drew an interesting ending. Incidently, this was the tournament where I met my wife but that is another story :).
[Event "Laoag City Zonal"]
[Site "Laoag City Zonal"]
[Date "1985.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "West, Guy"]
[Black "Liew, J."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C11"]
1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3
This is a pet variation of the Australian master. If black now pushes 3...d4 white can start pressuring the d4 pawn after 4 Ne2 c5 5 c3
3...Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.d4 c5 6.dxc5 Nc6 7.Bf4
White has transposed to a position more commonly reached via the
move order: 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 Nf3 c5 6 dxc5 Bxc5
7 Bd3. White is aiming for rapid king-side development and he is
willing to relinquish his centre for this.
7...Bxc5 8.Bd3 f6 9.exf6 Qxf6 10.Bg5 Qf7 11.Bh4
Temporarily preventing black from castling (11...0-0?? 12
Bxh7 +-). However the move has the drawback of handing over the e5
square to black. Neither is 11 Qe2 satisfactory as black has the
advantage after 11... Nd4 12 Nxd4 Bxd4
11...Nde5 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Be2 O-O 14.O-O Bd7 15.Bg3 Ng6 16.Bd3
White could have made things more difficult for black with the move 16 Bh5 pinning the knight and threatening 17 Bxg6 Qxg6 18 Nxd5 winning a pawn
16...Nf4 17.Qd2 Bc6 18.Rae1 Rae8 19.a3 a6 20.b4 Bb6 21.a4 Bd7 22.a5 Bc7 23.Ne2 Nxd3 24.cxd3 e5 25.d4 Bb5 26.dxe5 Bxe5 27.Bxe5 Rxe5 28.Nd4
White has cleverly emerged with a good knight versus bad bishop ending. Black has to defend very carefully.
28...Rxe1 29.Rxe1 Re8 30.Rxe8+
White declines to double black's queen-side pawns with 30 Nxb5. Perhaps he
figured his chances were better if he kept the knight
30...Qxe8 31.f3 Bc4 32.Kf2 h6 33.Qe3
Qa4
Black must avoid at all cost a queen exchange as any N v B ending would be hopeless for him
34.Qe1
Not 34 Qe7 Qd1 35 Ne6 Qe2 36 Kg3 Qe5 37 Kg4 Bd3 when the white king is in
trouble
34...Qa2+ 35.Kg3 Qb2
Now white cannot defend both d4 and b4 so he is forced into an offensive against the black king
36.Qe8+ Kh7 37.Nf5 Qxb4 38.Ne7 d4 39.Qg6+ Kh8 40.Qe8+ Kh7 41.Qg6+ Kh8 42.Nf5
Declining a draw by perpetual check. However the exchange of pawns has freed the black bishop and black's chances in this position is as good as white's if not better
42...Qf8 43.Nxd4 Qb8+ 44.f4 Qd8 45.Nf5 Qd3+ 46.Kh4 Qd8+ 47.Kh3 Qd7 48.g4 Bd3 49.Qd6 Bxf5 50.Qf8+ Kh7
It appears that 51 Qxf5 would lose to 51. .Qxf5 52 gxf5 Kg8 53 Kg4 Kf7
54 Kf3 Ke7 55 Ke4 Kd6 since black can create an outside passed pawn,
but White missed an excellent opportunity to force a draw here, 54 Kh5! Kf6 55 h4 Kxf5 draws by stalemate
51.gxf5 Qd3+ 52.Kh4 Qd2 53.Kg3 Qxa5 54.Qf7 Qc3+ 55.Kg4 Qc6 56.f6 Qg2+ 57.Kf5 Qc2+ 58.Ke5
Or 58 Kg4 Qg6+ forces the exchange of queens
58...Qc3+ 59.Ke6 Qxf6+ 60.Qxf6 gxf6 61.Kxf6 b5 62.f5 b4 63.Ke6 b3 64.f6 b2 65.f7 b1=Q 66.f8=Q Qg6+
If black had queened the a-pawn instead this check would not be available and the endinq is most likely drawn. Now whatever square the white king goes, black can exchange queens for a winning pawn ending
67.Kd5
This is the best chance, forcing the black king further away and moving to capture the a-pawn. Still it fails by a single move.
Qg8+ 68.Qxg8+ Kxg8 69.Kc5 Kf7 70.Kb6 Kf6 71.Kxa6 Kf5 72.Kb5 Kg4 73.Kc4 Kh3 74.Kd3 Kxh2 75.Ke2 Kg2 0-1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
