The Chess Mind BlogThe Chess Mind Bloghttp://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2010-03-10T07:36:20ZSquarespaceThis Week's ChessBase Show: Avant-Garde Chess, Part 1: Karpov-Miles, Bogojno 1978http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2010/3/10/this-weeks-chessbase-show-avant-garde-chess-part-1-karpov-mi.htmlDennis Monokroussos2010-03-10T07:25:21Z2010-03-10T07:25:21ZThe late Tony Miles was not only a very strong player, but a very creative one too. Some of his opening ideas were really out there, and not just by the standards of the day but even by our own! This week and next, we'll take a look at how they fared against his greatest peer, the former world champion Anatoly Karpov.

Karpov, as you'd expect from a world champion, got the better of their battles overall, but Miles did get his shots in. Even when Karpov won, it wasn't necessarily because he refuted Miles' experiments, either. Their styles made for an interesting clash: Miles as fire, Karpov as ice. This week, we'll see the Englishman trot out one of his provocative openings, only to have Karpov's "water on board" approach slowly carry the day. In the next show, it will go the other way around: Miles engages in the ultimate provocation and takes down his illustrious opponent.

To watch, whether this week or next (or both, naturally), tune in tonight - Wednesday night at 9 p.m. (that's Thursday morning at 3 a.m. CET) on the Playchess server. Go to the Broadcast room and find Karpov-Miles under the Games tab, double-click and watch. Hope to see you there!

]]>Tactics Time: Be Clever - and then some... The Solutionhttp://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2010/3/9/tactics-time-be-clever-and-then-some-the-solution.htmlDennis Monokroussos2010-03-09T21:35:27Z2010-03-09T21:35:27ZHere once again is the position to solve (originally posted here); it's White to move and win:

Here's a hint (avert your eyes if you don't want one!): seeing the right idea is only half, or even a third of the battle. The solution is here.

]]>Quotation Time: The Answer is...http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2010/3/9/quotation-time-the-answer-is.htmlDennis Monokroussos2010-03-09T21:34:02Z2010-03-09T21:34:02ZJacob Aagaard, from part 2/book 2 of his Attacking Manual. (I'm referring to this post.)

]]>Zero Tolerance, Revisitedhttp://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2010/3/9/zero-tolerance-revisited.htmlDennis Monokroussos2010-03-09T21:27:48Z2010-03-09T21:27:48ZIn part to save my readers' retinas from getting blinded by the Sokolov book cover, it's time for a new post. The topic is the utterly idiotic decision by FIDE last year to forfeit players who arrive at the board even one second after the round starts (unless the organizers explicitly address and refuse the rule in the tournament regulations). There's a petition going around the European Championships to amend the rule to give up to 30 minutes' leeway before a forfeit is declared. As of this writing, there were 110 signatories to the petition, but the organizers passed the buck to ECU President Boris Kutin. We'll see what happens.

More info here and here.

HT: supy

]]>What's Wrong With This Picture?http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2010/3/8/whats-wrong-with-this-picture.htmlDennis Monokroussos2010-03-08T23:23:55Z2010-03-08T23:23:55ZThere are multiple right answers!

 

]]>Tactics Time: Be Clever - and then somehttp://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2010/3/8/tactics-time-be-clever-and-then-some.htmlDennis Monokroussos2010-03-08T23:17:28Z2010-03-08T23:17:28ZHere it is:

White to move and win.

I'll present the solution tomorrow. (Please do not try to post your thoughts about the position.)

]]>A Look in at the European Championshipshttp://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2010/3/8/a-look-in-at-the-european-championships.htmlDennis Monokroussos2010-03-08T23:09:53Z2010-03-08T23:09:53ZAfter 3 rounds in Rijeka, 12 players lead with perfect scores. (Full list here.) More interesting than table-watching is looking at the games, and I've singled out three for you.

One is a win for the attack: Nisipeanu's impressive win over Reinderman in a game that might have serious theoretical significance in the Alekhine. The second is a success for the defense: Navara seems to have the numbers in his favor, going after Pelletier's king, but the latter refuted the attack with computer-like accuracy. Finally, IM Ken Regan wrote me about a slightly quirky moment in the rook ending between Saric and Vallejo Pons.

To see and replay them, with Regan's comment to the third and my (heavy) comments to the first two, click here.

]]>Kasparov-Caruana?!http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2010/3/8/kasparov-caruana.htmlDennis Monokroussos2010-03-08T22:02:17Z2010-03-08T22:02:17ZIt might happen in October. More here; original (in Italian) here.

If this keeps up, Carlsen might return Kasparov's promise ring.

 

HT: Brian Karen

]]>A Diaz Cartoon on the Kasparov/Carlsen Semi-Split: The "Elovator" is Closedhttp://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2010/3/8/a-diaz-cartoon-on-the-kasparovcarlsen-semi-split-the-elovato.htmlDennis Monokroussos2010-03-08T22:00:38Z2010-03-08T22:00:38ZThe master cartoonist strikes again.

HT: Brian Karen

]]>Quotation Time: Two Quotes from One Bookhttp://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2010/3/8/quotation-time-two-quotes-from-one-book.htmlDennis Monokroussos2010-03-08T16:35:05Z2010-03-08T16:35:05ZThey're very different, but both of the following quotations are excellent in their own way:

(1) One of the heroes of this book is the Israeli tornado Emil Sutovsky, whose creativity and determination is second to none in the chess world. These attributes have helped him to create some fabulous masterpieces, as well as possibly being a restraining force in his career. He can pull a rabbit out of a hat and annihilate world-class grandmasters with illuminating sacrifices, but at the same time he can lose close to dead endings and other positions where dynamics are not very relevant.

(2) My first chess trainer ... [DM: I won't give his name here, as it will make the puzzle even easier to solve, but I'll give the man his due credit in the combox, once the answer has been given.] was of the opinion that you only had a winning position if you knew how to win it. If it required Karpov-like technique, the position was winning for Karpov, but only advantageous for me.

Technically this is probably a bit dubious, but practically it does make a lot of sense. I can get quite depressed by thinking about the amount of times I have seen friends complain about having had a winning position, but then missed something Fritz found, but they would never ever find. Why shred your own self-confidence just because there are machines that can play certain positions faultlessly? I would instead recommend reserving your self-criticism to the moments when you actually know better, and leave the 'shoulds' at the door...

And the author (and book) is?

]]>