Modern Chess2007-08-28 Among many boardgames we have today, nothing parallels chess in popularity and allure. I was introduced to chess as a child many years ago, and just recently visited it. One factor that made me go back is the presence of the computer--you can play any time without any need for another warm body. Before, you needed to buy several books on the subject, but now the game is documented in all places. As with life, we are now in the age of modern chess.  The moves: 1. e4 c5 2. c3? The pawn push cramps the knight; not a good move to prepare for a possible d4. 2. ... Nf6 3. d3? Nc6 4. Bg5 h6 5. Bxf6 exf6 Black captured the pawn from center to the side; I often heard that it's best to capture from the side to the center (e.i., gxf6). 6. Nf3 d5 7. h3 dxe4 8. dxe4 Qxd1+ 9. Kxd1 Bd7 10. Kc2 Be7 11. Nbd2 Rd8 12. Rd1 O-O 13. Bb5? Black's Nb4+ will cost White a good position. 13. ... Nb4+ 14. cxb4 Bxb5 15. bxc5 Bxc5 16. Nb1 Ba4+ 17. b3 Bc6 18. Rhf1 Bxe4+ 19. Kb2 Rxd1 20. Rxd1 Bxf2 21. Nc3 f5 22. Rd2 Bg3 23. Re2 Re8 24. Nd2 Bc6 25. Rxe8+ Bxe8 26. a4 Bc6 27. Nf3 g5 28. Nd1 g4 29. hxg4 fxg4 0-1 White resigns; this demonstrates the better outcome with 2 bishops as against 2 knights in the end game. It's the opposite in the middle game where the knight's unusual move dominates. [Date: 2007-03-15; White: Human; Black: Crafty 18.10] Robert James Fischer, 1943-20082008-01-19 The great legend, Grandmaster Bobby Fischer passed away yesterday, sending shock waves all over the chess world. He was 64 years old, symbolically representing all the 64 squares of the chessboard. He might have been a controversial figure, but that should not take away his legacy of brilliant chess play. I don't judge the man--I'm not worthy. Let history do that; it's not my job. Requiescat in pace, Bobby... A game was taken from a large database of games, played in 1955 between Bobby Fischer who was only 12 years old and Ames (see diagram). Although it ended in a draw, it showcased the brilliant mind of this boy. His 5. Bxf7+ was a good way of getting the pawn back and at the same time destroying his opponent's position. Black has the slight advantage (bishop pair) but perhaps out of respect (or fear) for the future grandmaster, draw was agreed. More Squares Than 642008-01-22 It's common knowledge that there are 64 squares in a chessboard. There are actually 204 squares. If the smallest square's side measures 1 unit, then there are 8² or 64 1x1 squares. Continuing the math, there are 7² 2x2 squares, 6² 3x3 squares, 5² 4x4 squares, 4² 5x5 squares, 3² 6x6 squares, 2² 7x7 squares, and 1² 8x8 square. So 8² + 7² + 6² + 5² + 4² + 3² + 2² + 1² = 204. Think unconventional. First Move Statistics2008-02-02 Sometimes I come across people who ask about the best openings in chess. The following 2 tables are taken from a large database of games (5,025,077 total). There are 20 different first moves as seen in the first column. Table 1 is sorted as to frequency, the most common go first, and so on. The most common first move is e4, then d4, Nf3, c4, g3, f4, and so on. e4 is used 50.3% of the time, and d4 is very far at 31.8%. The least common is Na3. Table 2 might be more interesting, sorted to outcome or scores. 100% score means White always wins, while 0% means Black always wins. A score of 50% demonstrates equal chances. Not surprisingly, White has more wins (53.9%). Not counting the unusual openings (because Na3 scores 65%), Nf3 gives the best outcome for White, followed by d4, c4, g3, e4, Nc3, etc. In summary, while e4 is the most common first move, Nf3 gives the best chances for White. Table 1 - Sorted by Frequency:
Table 2 - Sorted by Score:
Rational Chess2008-09-08
The game is the Open Game: Patzer/Parnham Opening (C20), which is otherwise known as the Terrorist Attack. I knew about this opening but I was left totally surprised! I had the position where I can be checkmated in one move! But the greater surprise is the fact that my opponent didn't do it! The rest of the game is not that significant, although the randomness of the game is obvious, similar to watching an average football (soccer) game where there's a lot of kicking but no points. What is the lesson? Well... if you want stupid moves, try Lightning or any fast chess. Chess is the philosophers' game, and not the idiots'. The standard game is the way to go. Of course it depends on each person--to each his own (no offense to lightning players). But for me I have to maintain the rational in chess. Rational Chess 22009-02-17 I few months ago I posted a lightning chess game in which I lost, and then proceeded to write about the irrationality of lightning chess (see previous blog post). Well, some people agreed but some didn't, and so this post. There has to be another side to this thing. I got some insights from Sarah (at Chess.com), and I'm putting a piece of her mind here (with her permission):
"So successful blitz/lightning players have well rehearsed opening repertoirs. They also often use pet lines that are more complex than they are sound. They know their traps, but don't waste time on material since endgames are rare and usually flawed. And they learn to attack, to pose problems and to offer choices (to make their opponent waste time, of course). "Time is your friend and your enemy. The best players keep on its friendly side. "The point is, that it's not really chess. Chess requires a great investment of time, energy and ego. It's just a frivolous, fun thing. You can lose 10 in a row in 30 min. or an hour and shrug it off. "The only ways to get good at lightning or blitz is to either have a natural talent, a la Morphy, or play thousands of games at those speeds. "On the other side of the coin, someone once asked Botvinnik if he ever played blitz. He said he played it once, on a train ride, and didn't like it." I changed my mind since then. I don't think I can say more... thanks Sarah! This blitz game I played more than a year ago (see diagram); at least I won this one. |
|
|
LinksSatellite Image          |
Magne's World >
Chess
Subpages (1):
PGN
|
More than 2 weeks ago, I tried a Live Chess game against a member of 
"...Basically, it's doing what you already know, but by instinct and without deep analysis. I think to believe that even lightning is just mindless moving of pieces is shaky ground. Of course, it can be, but doesn't have to be. Many great players were great blitz and/or lightning players--Tal, Fischer, Fine, Petrosian, Korchnoi, Bronstein, Spassky, Taimanov, Dzindzichashvili, Tal's uncle Nezhmetdinov, Svidler and, of course, Chepukaitis. None of these players made many random moves. But time is an important factor, maybe the most important one, everything else being equal, since the clock ends the game for sure.