Two Brains

Today we played "Two Brains". Two brains is a game of non-conventional chess. I know two more games of non-conventional chess but they are not held in much regard by chess players. That is because these games do not train one in chess, they rather untrain one. But "Two Brains" is an interesting chess training. It is as if you have to solve a chess problem in each move.

There is one chessboard, 4 players and two teams. One team (2 players) take the black and the other the white. Each team player has to play every second move of the team without co-operation among them. That means that if your partner plays a weird move you have to figure out why he played it and what plan he has, so that you wont spoil it.

This game is very interesting among players of same strength. The bad thing about playing with the same people all the time (like in our club) is that you slowly learn the openings and the style your friends play and you can face them more easily.

The Chess Style I like

I like closed positions. I like to hold my pieces back. I always must block the center. I adore the ideas of Nimzowitch and openings such as the Alekhine one are intriguing! I prefer to take the black and play in an almost passive way. I like to slowly prepare my attack which is going to be flawless. I want to control the center with my pieces and not with my pawns.

"Give power to a man and he will destroy himself".

In this manner I give the initiative to the opponent and he uses it until he makes a mistake, thats when I like to strike. I like to have a solid defence that will make my enemy impatient. Have you seen the way a cat attacks its prey? It stands completely stil for a moment, hidden and withdrawn, then it attacks in a most precise and quick way. Thats the chess style I like!

Of course, sometimes it works and other times it doesnt. I have noticed that I play better with strong players. I loose more quickly to people who dont play conventional chess and dont follow the rules. With time I am learning to deal with them too though. One of my chess trainers say that I play very passively, he says I should take my pieces out much quicker and not wait. He also brings me in a very difficult position each time I play the Aliekhine defence against him. I think I have to learn the Sicilian as a reply to e4. I wonder what I am doing wrong, or what he is doing right in the Alekhine.

Men better at chess than women

Inspired by a link I found in this chess blog http://boylston-chess-club.blogspot.com/ I decided to search google about the female psychology in chess. I know that men are better in chess than women. I see it around me all the time. I often wonder why I go into all this trouble and study chess but the truth is that I really enjoy it. Maybe the very fact that chess is so difficult makes it attractive for me but its also addictive.

Anyway I found this article http://www.psychologytoday.com/rss/pto-20050614-000002.html which is worth reading. It is about the Polgar sisters and the way they were brought up. They were actually conceived to become an experiment in creating geniouses. No wonder they became the first women chess players to reach such great level in the men category.

Summary of the article: The queen is the most powerful piece on the chessboard. Yet in the ultra-elite ranks of chess, a woman who can hold her own is the rarest of creatures. How, then, did one family produce three of the most successful female chess champions ever?

The Chess Camel-Queen

Today few people from our chess club had a meeting in a cafe and played a swiss blitz tournament. I have played very few blitz games, actually I have just started. I won only one game because my opponent had no more time left, but I also had only 1 second left! In another game I lost although I had one more rook due to time again. And in the last one I did such a horrible mistake. Lost in calculating some movements sequences I placed my queen in the range of the enemy's knight. I did not see it!

Loosing a queen this way, is as if I am looking at a camel and I am unable to tell whether she is a camel or a dog. Or a desert's optical illusion. She is not even there!

Frustrating.

An aeon of chess and chess code of conduct!

I hate it when people ask for take backs (undo move). It is my principle never to request any and thus I never accept any. This guy was taking almost 10 minutes for each of his moves and asked a take back once. Not resigning when the game is clearly over is also a sign of disrespect, I believe. Shortly before mate he asked the game to be "saved", I mean come on... Thats one of the drawbacks in yahoo chess that one plays with all the different, weird and often disrespectful people. Some of them even swear or start pushing you to play faster. The only way to play is to ignore them. But I meet also nice people VERY rarely. This guy yesterday... we were playing and chating and I hmm lost my rook. He is the first person to tell me thanks for that. :))

Anyway, here is the game, I ll return to comment on it because there were some amazing combinations and I would like to examine where they would have led the white and the black. The game lasted about 2 hours! An aeon!

Title: Yahoo! Chess Game
White: x-opponent
Black: viruswitch
Date: Sat Mar 25 11:21:07 GMT 2006

1. e2-e4 g8-f6
2. b1-c3 d7-d6
3. f1-c4 c8-g4
4. f2-f3 g4-h5
5. d2-d4 b8-d7
6. g1-h3 c7-c6
7. h3-g5 h7-h6
8. g5-h3 e7-e5
9. d4xe5 d7xe5
10. c4-b3 d8-b6
11. h3-f4 e5-d7
12. g2-g4 h5-g6
13. h2-h4 o-o-o
14. f4xg6 f7xg6
15. b3-e6 d8-e8
16. e6xd7+ f6xd7
17. g4-g5 f8-e7
18. g5xh6 g7xh6
19. d1-e2 g6-g5
20. h4xg5 h6xg5
21. h1-f1 d7-e5
22. a1-b1 e8-g8
23. c1-e3 c6-c5
24. c3-d5 b6-a5+
25. b2-b4 a5xa2
26. e2-d1 e7-d8
27. b4xc5 d6xc5
28. e3xc5 a7-a6
29. c5-b6 g8-g7
30. f1-f2 g5-g4
31. b6-d4 h8-h1+
32. f2-f1 d8-h4+
33. d4-f2 e5xf3+
34. e1-e2 a2-c4+
35. d1-d3 c4xd3+
36. e2xd3 h1xf1
37. b1xf1 h4xf2
38. f1xf2 g4-g3
39. f2xf3 g3-g2
40. d5-b6+ c8-b8
41. f3-f8+ b8-c7
42. b6-d5+ c7-d7
43. d5-b6+ d7-e7
44. f8-f2 g2-g1
45. b6-d5+ e7-e6
46. d5-f4+ e6-d7
47. d3-e2 g1-g4+
48. e2-e3 a6-a5
49. f2-d2+ d7-c8
50. d2-g2 g4xg2
51. f4xg2 g7xg2
52. c2-c4 a5-a4
53. e4-e5 a4-a3
54. e5-e6 c8-d8
55. e3-e4 a3-a2
56. e4-f3 g2-c2
57. c4-c5 c2xc5
58. e6-e7+ d8xe7
59. f3-g4 a2-a1
60. g4-h3 a1-a4
61. h3-g2 c5-c3
62. g2-f1 a4-a2 0-1

Is there a "Counter-Check"?

I have always wondered whether there is such a thing like a counter-check. I guess you all know the typical joke of desperation when you are in check(mate).. "can't I counter check you?"... Unfortunately you can't. And yet I was watching that film the other day "The President's Man". In one scene they were playing chess and immediately after a check the opponent checkmated the other one. I thought that the movie director must have had no idea of chess BUT! There IS counter-check and I just had one in a chess game! With the difference that the king of course, does not remain in check but a single move can cover up the king and check the opponent. I am still in the middle of a very interesting game (the one with the counter check I think!) and I will post it as soon as it ends.

The Middle Game of Chess

In the middle game of chess tensions start to arise. Most important now is to come up with a good plan and put pressure on the opponent. This can happen in many ways. Either you threat the obvious unprotected pieces and pawns or you start looking for interesting combinations that will expose the opponents weaknesses. Some times one miscalculation of the opponent in many exchanges can gift you with a pawn and a pawn can be precious (a potential queen) in the endgame. So I would say that the goal of the middle game is to win material!

Of course this is not always that easy, especially if your opponent is a strong and better player than you. In that case you might have to focus on building a nice complex defence and "weaving" your pieces in a protected area. He might try too hard to break through your defence and get disappointed. Disappointment will make him angry and impatient. Impatience will make him make small mistakes which you can take slowly advantage of. So patience and cool thinking can also be a way of winning.

Its also good not to let the opponent too much free space. Confining him in his own territory could be the first step towards winning. This will prevent him from attacking your own army and the more you confine him and put pressure on him, the more his psychological state will drop and help you win!

Basic Principles of the Chess Opening for Beginners

A chess game consists of 3 parts:

1. The opening
2. The middle game
3. The endgame or finale

There are many interesting theories about playing each part of chess but in this posting I will focus on the opening.

As a beginner I was taught that the most important thing in the opening is to place the pieces in better positions. This procedure is called in greek the "development". I am not sure this term is also used in the english chess terminology. One is supposed to bring all pieces out, move them from their initial position in places that they will have better control of the board (for example near the center) and prepare for an attack. When I am saying pieces I generally do not mean the pawns, although some pawn have got to be moved to pave the way for the rest pieces. Usually the knights and bishops come out first and many people advise not to move one piece or one pawn twice during the opening. The opening lasts about 10 moves and then we enter the middle game. You will have to have completed the preparations of your army and secured the king by castling in about 10 moves. Of course this is all relative and if a piece is threatend of course you will move it away again! Common sense is what chess is about and not following rules blindly without apreciating the position. We generally avoid moving the rooks and the queen in the opening. These pieces are far too precious and can be threatend very easily from less important pieces and pawns.

Another important element of the opening is the control of the center. Of course there are different theories about it as well, but not recommended for beginners. Beginners should start learning to control the center with pawns and e4 is an ideal way to begin a game.

Tactics vs Strategy in Chess and Positional Play

I have often heard people talking about tactics and strategy when analyzing games. These two terms seem to be used in an opposite context even if I am not really sure one can define them in an absolute way. As far as I understand a tactical move is one that serves a spesific purpose in a spesific position and might not express the general principles of chess. On the other hand a strategical move would be one that has no immediate threat coming out of it but is generally considered to be good. For example the positioning of ones pieces in better places during the opening or the capturing of the pawns towards the center. If this definition is correct, then positional play should originate from the combination of strategy and tactics in an almost invisible way. This is so obvious in games of great chess champions. Sometimes they play moves that one cannot comprehend no matter what.

Am I Tal?

You're Mikhail Tal! 8th World Champion at the age

of 23, your extraordinary, pyrotechnic play

was often intuitive and got you into trouble

as often as not. Yet your genius for

unexpected sacrifices and complicated attacks

made you a tactical master to be feared and

respected. Sadly your lifelong ill-health

eventually robbed the chess world of a great

hero.


Which Chess World Champion Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Email Chess

Here is a game I played with my friend Indeterminacy via email! I am publishing it here because I promised to let him into some chess secrets he might have not heard before.



1. d4 Nf6

So far so good. The responce of the black is a very popular one and could turn into a number of known openings such as the Nimzoindian, the King's Indian or the Bogo-Indian Defence.

2. c4 Nc6

While c4 is part of the theory, I have not yet studied any opening with 2.. Nc6. I cant really say if its good or not, it might as well be a part of an opening unknown to me. It improves the position of the knight and threatens the pawn at d4, so it cant be bad.

3. e3 d5

I could have played d5 and threaten his knight but this would remind me of the Alekhine Opening which I do not like to play as white. I believe the white would loose the control of the center by further pushing the pawns and its very easy to break through them if the black plays e6.

e3 supports the threated pawn at d4 and at the same time makes room for the white bishop at f1 to come out and support the pawn at c4.


4. Nc3 d:c4

Of course I would not have captured the pawn at d5, I never do it in similar situations because that would weaken my control of the center. On the contrary I wait until the opponent is tempted to capture my pawn at c4 so that I can capture back with my bishop and thus improve its position at the same time. And in this game the opponent indeed captured the pawn.

5. B:c4 Bg4

By playing 5... Bg4 the black threatens the white queen.


6. Qb3! Na5?

But the queen has other plans rather than being threatened. It escapes and threatens the black pawn at b7. 6.... Na5 threatens the queen and supports the pawn at b7 at the same time.

7. Qb5+ Nc6

The check of the queen also threatens the knight but by returning back to c6 he looses control of the b7 square allowing the white to capture it. There is probably no other option for the black but to loose one pawn otherwise he will loose a knight.

8. Q:b7 Nb8??

8... Nb8 obviously blocks the support of the queen to the rook. To save the knight one could have supported it with the bishop at d7.

9. Q:a8 Nd7

With a lost rook the game is as good as over for the black. Most of the times it suffices to loose one pawn to loose a game, imagine what the loss of a rook means. The value of a rook is that of 5 pawns. The value of the knight is 3 pawns (to some 2,75). The bishop is generally worth 3 pawns and the queen 9. The king is priceless!

Unless of course one is a great chess champion and can go around sacrificing pieces by getting as a reward extremely great strategic benefits that might win a game, it is not advisable to sacrifice pieces.

10. Q:a7 Qb8

One more pawn for the white and 10....Qb8 is also an unexpected gift to the white! Why? Because there is a chess principle that says "When we have more material/pieces than our opponent we try to exchange our pieces and win easily at the endgame." When you already have few powers to protect yourself you do not hand them over because the opponent will still have powers to attack you, while you will have none to defend yourself. The less pieces one has, the more difficult it is to set up a decent attack. So whenever we have less pieces than the opponent we do not exchange them.

Of course this is a general rule and rules are there to be broken when the position of a game demands it in a tactical and strategical way. One should use common sense but generally it s safer to go by the basic principles.

11. Q:b8+ N:b8

Here I think I should have played another move and wait until the opponent captured my queen.

12. Nge2 Nc6

Here the white is trying to develope its pieces into better positions. The attack on the black did not allow the white to spend time on developing the pieces into better positions.

13. Bd2 e6

White's play is rather passive, I was hoping to castle but my bishop is not good at that position. Its closed up. e6 wants to pave the way for the black bishop I guess.

14. Bb5 Kd7

The pin on the knight forces the black king to come out and protect it, thus exposing himself more. Unfortunately for the black the pin still is there and can be taken advantage of.

15. Na4 Ne4

The knight to a4 in order to free the c file for the rook. The black knight at e4 aims at my bishop and I do not like the idea of exchanging bishops for knights. Especially not in the endgame. But this should not be a problem since the material advantage compensates for it.

16. Rc1 Bb4?

The white army now has 2 forces attacking the black knight at c6. But the black only supports it with one force (the king). This means that this piece is going to be captured. Actually a good technique to avoid calculating and thinking about whether a piece is going to be captured or not, is to just count how many forces attack it and how many support it. Thats very useful in more complex positions where many pieces are involved and there is no time to visualize in the mind the sequence of possible captures.

Bb4 of course is the bishops suicide since the knight at c6 is pinned and cannot support him.

17. B:b4 Kd8

The game is as good as over now, when the king abandons all his pieces and there is no possibility of an attack for what is left of the black army. Usually we do quit (resign) in such positions but in casual chess one can play until checkmate. ;)

18. B:c6 Re8
19. B:e8 Nf6
20. Bb5 Nd5
21. Ba5 g5
22. f3 Bh5
23. Kd2 Kc8
24. Rc5 Bg6
25. Nb6+ Kb7
26. N:d5 e:d5
27. Rc7+ Kb8
28. Rhc1 Bf5
29. R:f7 Bc8
30. Rf8 Kb7
31. Rc:c8 h5
32. Rce8 g4
33. Rf7 ++

The Winner's Psychology Part 1

Win and loss are both parts of chess. It is often said that loosing does not matter, chess is a game and one is supposed to have fun while playing, not while boasting over one's victory! Only a fool would run around shouting: "I won!" At least that is how I used to think. The fun of chess after all, is to try and solve complicated problems that arise from certain chess positions. The kick here is mental. It is a game of the mind. But the cruel truth is that when it comes to solving a problem, just like in mathematics, there are only two states:

either

1. you solve the problem ...

or

2. you mess the problem ...

And what fun can you have when you realise that you have failed in your own mental game. This type of disappointment does not arise from competition against the opponent, it arises from the wish to play good chess. You may call it your "personal chess-ambition". Your opponent in the end is yourself.

So winning does matter even it serves only as a proof of dedication or "certificate" of knowledge in this sport.

I recently came to a point asking myself the following questions: "Why can't I play good chess?" or even better "Why can't I play better chess?". "Why, despite of all my training and reading for the past month, do I so often mess things in the endgame?"

What makes one a good chess player after all?

Actually, these questions were not meant so desperate as they might sound here. I am well aware (or not so well aware) of what it takes to be good at this game. It takes a lot of practice and we are talking here about years of intense daily practice. In the end, my chess life does not consist more that four years, and that was when I was in high school. Can you create a mirracle in just a few months? Well maybe, if Kasparov is training you!

So what is beyond practice? Is it reading?

Reading can take you only up to one point. Especially if you are not a strong player. Knowing a few basic openings can save you time and give you a better insight into the way things can but not necessarily have to develope. Reading also trains the mind into learning by heart what the board looks like, which the positions of the pieces on the specific squares are etc. Chess works through mental visualization and whatever trains that faculty of the mind is good. I suppose even doing mathematical calculations without the use of a paper can train this faculty. Learning a hundred variations by hearth though, without really understanding them is quite useless. Reading slowly allows you to "see" more things on the present and future state of the chessboard.

But what about talent?

Thats it. Talent is what makes everything possible. Talent in my opinion is not an inherent easiness in doing something. It is an inherent love of doing something. Love implies dedication, dedication impies hard training. But talent also implies self-confidence. This is the last but not least most important ingredient of a winner.

To be continued ...