The Strongest Tournaments in Chess History

A short post, for once. This is a very interesting page about the strongest chess tournaments ever to be held, with the games from every tournament in zip format to boot. I urge you to have a look.

Opening calamities

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 Bg4 5. Nc3 a6? 6. Ba4?? b5 7. d5 Nd4 8. Bb3 Qf6 9. Qd3 Bxf3 10. gxf3 Nxf3 11. Ke2 Nd4+ 12. Kf1 c5? 13. dxc6 Qf3 14. Qxf3 Nxf3 15. Nd5 Rc8 16. c3 a5 17. a4 b4 18. Ke2! Nh4 19. cxb4 axb4 20. a5 Ne7 21. Nb6 Rc7 22. a6 Nc8 23. Nd5 Kd8 24. Nxc7 Kxc7 25. a7 Nxa7 26. Rxa7+ Kc8 27. Bxf7 Ng6 28. Be6+ 1-0

This is a game I played recently, against a significantly higher rated player, over 100 points above me. I bring it up not because I eventually emerged victorious in a game I should have lost, but because I’d like to talk a little about chess openings. The opening has, for as long as I can remember, been my true achilles heel in chess. To state it plainly, I have played openings haphazardly and without thought, often just making it into an objectively lost middlegame. Thankfully I’ve always had atleast reasonable tactical and strategical abilities, so often I’ve managed to turn the tables in the middlegame, to come out with about equal chances in the endgame. At one point in my “chess career” I was terrified of enemy knights, and had to exchange them off as soon as they crossed the fifth rank, afraid of forks and whatnot. My friend always used to completely crush me with his knights, yelling (yes, truly, he was yelling) “FORK!!!” and slamming the blasted knight down in the middle of all my most valued pieces.

Now the year is 2005, and my game has improved. With it, I have started playing stronger opponents. These two things combined, a better game and stronger opponents, has forced me to start studying openings systematically. For instance, I have absolutely no chance in the Sicilian defense. It is so theory ridden that one wrong move can quickly cost you the entire game. And we’re not talking about some great big blunder like leaving a rook en prise – no, we’re talking about some subtle pawn advance on the ninth move that will prevent a crushing attack six moves later. It’s horrid. Just the other day I got completely crushed playing black in the Sicilian, ending up the exchange down, with absolutely no piece activity. It is quickly becoming evident that either I have to study the Sicilian extensively, or I have to choose a different defense to 1.e4. That, on the other hand, is hard, since I’ve been playing 1…c5 since the time I first heard the name “The Sicilian Defense” – it undoubtedly sounds fantastic, reminding you of the mafia and mister Tony Montana himself. I’ve been dabbling a bit in the Caro Kann, a defense that suits me nicely – it does not seem to demand an attacking masterpiece from move four. Instead it gives me a chance to develop and think things through a little bit better. I’ve also run into the Bird defense in the Ruy Lopez a couple of times, it seems worthy of further study.

What I’m trying to say, this far, is that my opening repertoire is shabby, at best. It is mainly based around natural moves, which for the most time actually work pretty well. Just the other day I unknowingly played some kind of defense 12 book moves deep, without ever having studied it. So, mostly, natural moves work out fine. But, without being a fortune teller, I feel that it is in the cards that I need to pick up my openings in the future, as I hope to grow even stronger as a player. Maybe the term “natural moves” is a good label for the game I’d like to look into. Let’s start, and see where we end up. I am playing white, the game is a Ruy Lopez, basically my favourite as white.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 – this move, 3…d6 takes us into the Steinitz Defense in the Ruy Lopez. It is a move I would never play. It feels too rigid, shutting in the f8-bishop and generally seeming very “set in stone”. The modern 3…a6 is more to my liking. – 4.d4 – a logical followup to the rigid d6, immediately disputing the centre. – 4…Bg4 5. Nc3 – Here I considered d5, but ended up thinking Nc3 is stronger. If 5…exd5 there follows 6.Bxc6+ bxc6 7.Qxd4 – 5…a6? – this is a grave mistake. exd4 or perhaps Bxf3 is reasonable. White should immediately play Bxc6+, which threatens to win a pawn after bxc6 and dxe5.

The position after black's fifth move, 5...a6

Instead, white returns the favor in great style, affording black a great game with good winning chances already. – 6. Ba4?? – giving up a good position, in exchange for an extremely abysmal one. This is usually a natural move in the Ruy Lopez – on move 4! Now, in this position, it is a near suicide. This is where my “natural move”-approach fails – in situations that look like “natural move”-situations. I have played 4.Ba4 so many times it has nearly been worked into the wrist “…Bb5, yes there’s a6, okay, Ba4”. The funny thing is, I had worked out this variation beforehand, intent on taking on c6 the instant a6 reared it’s nasty head. And what do I do? I see a6, and without thinking flick my wrist and poof, the bishop is at a4. Two seconds later I realized what I had done and bent my head in shame.

There followed, of course: 6…b5 7. d5 - better than Bb3, in my opinion. But it is entirely a matter of taste, I believe, as Bb3 is just as playable, maybe even objectively better. – 7…Nd4 8. Bb3 – with the vain hope that black will go for the chance to double some pawns and grab the white bishop. Of course, no such thing happens. – 8…Qf6 – increasing the pressure, and proving that a pawn will soon be lost, no matter what kind of antics white might come up with. - 9.Qd3 - what better is there?

The position after white's ninth move, 9. Qd3

9...Bxf3 – a small inaccuracy by my assailant. Better is Nxf3+ , with the bishop taking up f3 as a nice post, keeping the king at bay and also laying siege to the rook at h8. – 10.gxf3 Nxf3+ 11.Ke2 Nd4+ 12.Kf1 – the king moves out of check and onto e2 with the idea that the black knight should go to d4 with check, and the king back to f1. I feel safer when knights aren’t so close, as I’ve said. – 12…c5 – a serious mistake, at once giving away all of blacks accumulated advantage. I imagine it might be a case of simply forgetting about the en passant rule. If not it was a leap of great faith, hoping white would not seize the chance to free himself. Continuing development, or perhaps playing Qh4 would be much better. The game will later show that black’s lack of development will be decisive. – 13.dxc6

The position after white's 13th move, 13. dxc6

13...Qf3? – another mistake, to back up the first one. It is very easy to whirl downwards on a spiral of bad moves when you have first started making them. In this game black has by his own hand upset the balance in white’s favor, and gets over anxious and eager to rid the board of queens. Rc8, or just Nxc6 is a lot better, keeping the game just about equal, with perhaps a slight advantage to white. The text exchanges off queens, and decentralizes the knight again. This time the knight does not scare me so, since there is no queen to back it up: 14. Qxf3 Nxf3 15.Nd5 Rc8 16.c3 – protecting d4 from the unruly black knight, and preparing a4 to break up black’s queenside. – 16…a5?? – simply helps white in his plan to upset the queenside pawns. – 17.a4 b4 18. Ke2 – an absolutely vital move, that was very hard for me to think of actually. If cxb4 immediately, Nd4 is very powerful for black, regaining a lot of space and time in one move. The text evicts the black knight for good, onto a square from whence it will do absolutely no good for the rest of the game.

The position after white's 18th move, 18. Ke2

18…Nh4 19. cxb4 axb4 – Rxc6 would perhaps have been a better try. The c6-pawn is starting to become a real bone in black’s throat now. – 20. a5 – keeps the c-pawn safe, eg. Rxc6 Ba4! pinning the rook to the king. There are now two passed pawns, one on the fifth and one on the sixth rank, and black is virtually undeveloped. – 20…Ne7 21. Nb6 – an inaccuracy. An immediate a6 would be better, eg. 21.a6 Nxc6 22.Ba4 Be7 23.a7. Still, the move played is powerful. It is interesting to see how difficult black’s game is due to the threat of Ba4 at every turn. – 21…Rc7 22.a6

The position after white's 22nd move, 22. a6

This time a6 works out a lot better for white. This position reminds me of Nimzovitsch's seventh rank absolutes. Even though the pawns aren't that far advanced yet, it is impossible to stop them without giving up material, which usually loses the game even if it stops the pawns from advancing to their final destiny - knight promotions! (hah...) 22...Nc8 – seems to make things worse. Perhaps Nxc6 would be better, but then there would follow (of course) Ba4. – 23.Nd5 – the knight takes up its powerful post once again, and keeps an eye on e7, should chances arise there. – 23…Kd8 – black abandons the rook, as there are bigger things at stake. – 24.Nxc7 Kxc7 25.a7

The position after white's 25th move, 25. a7

25...Nxa7 – Nb6 is slightly stronger, escaping the check at a7. – 26. Rxa7+ Kc8 27. Bxf7 – better is probably Be3, but this gives the white bishop the e6 square, a very powerful one. – 27…Ng6 28. Be6+ and black resigned.

The position after white's 28th move, 28. Be6+

A good game for me, especially after I picked up my game and started giving it my fullest attention. My best games are usually the ones where I have done something exceedingly stupid, and have to spend all my resources trying to get back into the game. Once the initial disappointment and outrage passes, I have great fun with these games.

Let this game be a reminder to us, that we never play mechanically or by the “flick of the wrist.” Every position needs thorough study, and when you have studied it, remember what you decided upon! It’s not quite good enough to find a good move, and then play another while thinking of something other than chess.

Max Lange attack

Max Lange attack - computer analysis and some thoughts to go with it


1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.O-O Bc5 6.e5 d5 7.exf6 dxc4
8.fxg7 Rg8 9.Bg5 f6?! 10.Bh6 (this variation, with f6 rather than Be7 was first looked into by the american Horowitz)

The position after 10.Bh6

We will start off with the analyst Horowitz himself speaking:

"A resume of the position here discloses various pluses and minuses for White and Black: White's king is secure, an important point; 2) the White Pawn at g7 is a belligerent threat: it must hurdle only one rank to reach the eighth; 3) Black's "King is insecrure; 4) Black dominates the greater portion of the center. Because Black commands the center and, too, because White's pawn at g7 is tenuous, White must exploit and capitlize his advantages before Black achieves security. Given sufficient time Black will drive the White Bishop from h6, pick off the g-pawn, and rake white on the open g-file. Black must therefore strive to develop his light-squared Bishop and Queen, clear his first rank for Queenside castling, check advances toward his king, and, finally, institute a counter-attack."

The usual way for black to play, and indeed the line that seems both safest and best on the way to equality is:

10 ...Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. Qe2+ Qe7! 13. Qxc4 0-0-0 14. Nbd2 Bf7 15. Qd3 Bg6 16. Qc4. This line will not be considered here, for the variation that is safest and best is not always the one that generates the most interest in us.

Black creates more difficulties for himself by playing 10...Qd5 instead of 10...Bg4. Play could continue (and indeed will, since it reaches the position we are interested in here):

11. Re1+ Ne7 12. Nxd4!

The line I'd like to investigate a little further here, or rather, to investigate with the "help" of a computer is this other line, 10...Qd5 (see following diagram). It seems that older engines evaluate the position very differently from newer ones, giving black a solid lead. This I haven't checked myself, but it is an interesting fact, if it is true. If it's not true, it's not a fact, and hence not interesting just at this moment.

The position after 10...Qd5

If we follow Horowitz, which seems very reasonable, with 11. Re1+ Ne7, we reach a very interesting position. Arguably there are better moves than Ne7 for black. Perhaps Be6 would be better, or maybe even Kf7. But, it is not the task at hand to find the better move just here, but rather to look into the way the computer handles the position arising after black plays 11...Ne7.

The position after 11...Ne7

Here Horowitz finds a very dynamic move, at once upsetting the position and creating further complications. 12. Nxd4! This isn’t exactly counter intuitive, but it is a very hard move to find. When we look at it a little closer, we find that 12...Bxd4 13. Nc3 Qc5 14. Ne4 Qe5 15. c3 Bb6 is very troublesome for black, with the fantastic 16. Ng3! to add to the sorrow. This is a line that is more or less forced (the only way to diverge may be the bishop sacrifice at f2 on move 13, which we'll talk a little more about later).

While looking at the position before Horowitz’ move Nxd4, I set Rybka (beta 13d) to analyze it. I left it over night, the analysis reaching a good 20 hours. In all this time it did not think that Nxd4 was the strongest continuation, but rather preferred Nc3. For quite a while during the start of the analysis it preferred Nh4, which also seems to be a good move. The move Nc3, which seems very easy to find for a human, is long considered to be less-than-optimal, before coming out on top after a while, after playing underdog to the likes of Nh5, Qd2 and b4. It seems that Nxd4 is hardly evaluated - and when looking at the evaluations while forcing the moves, it's no wonder.

When forcing Nxd4, it (atleast for a good while) concurs that Bxd4 is correct, followed by 13. Nc3 Qc5 14. Ne4 Qe5 15. c3 Bb6, and then finally 16. Ng3. While carefully studying the evaluations with each move, it is not before white's move Ng3 the engine seems to understand that white is very much better now. From about +1.50 for every move up to Ng3, to +2.50 after.

The position after 16.Ng3

The computer analysis of this position:

FEN: r1b1k1r1/ppp1n1Pp/1b3p1B/4q3/2p5/2P3N1/PP3PPP/R2QR1K1 b q - 2 16

Rybka v1.01 Beta 13d.w32:
3 00:00 80 81.920 +0,38 16. ... Qb5 17.Qf3 Kf7
4 00:00 136 139.264 +0,69 16. ... Qb5 17.Qf3 Kf7
4 00:00 368 376.832 +0,59 16. ... Qc5 17.Qf3 Kf7
5 00:00 672 40.478 +0,44 16. ... Qc5 17.Qf3 Kf7
6 00:00 1.688 36.010 +0,49 16. ... Qc5 17.Qf3 Kf7
7 00:00 6.360 29.602 +0,38 16. ... Qc5 17.Qf3 Kf7 18.Rad1 Qc6
8 00:01 35.848 31.294 +1,01 16. ... Qc5 17.b4 Qxf2+ 18.Kh1 Bf5 19.Re2
9 00:02 90.120 39.086 +2,28 16. ... Qc5 17.b4 Qxf2+
9 00:03 112.184 37.689 +1,36 16. ... Qb5 17.a4 Qc5 18.Ne4 Qf5 19.a5
10 00:05 175.064 36.069 +1,86 16. ... Qb5 17.a4 Qa5 18.Qe2 Qc5 19.a5 Qxf2+ 20.Qxf2 Bxf2+
11 00:08 294.712 37.865 +1,63 16. ... Qb5 17.a4 Qa5 18.Qe2 Qc5 19.a5 Qxf2+ 20.Qxf2 Bxf2+ 21.Kxf2 Kf7 22.Re4
12 00:25 929.392 37.876 +2,50 16. ... Qb5 17.a4 Bxf2+ 18.Kxf2 Qc5+ 19.Kf1 Kf7 20.b4 cxb3 21.Qxb3+ Nd5 22.Ne4 Qc6
13 01:02 2.273.112 37.570 +2,50 16. ... Qb5 17.a4 Qxb2 18.Qh5+ Kd8 19.Rad1+
14 03:39 8.953.976 41.783 +2,87 16. ... Qb5 17.a4 Qxb2 18.Qh5+ Kd8
14 05:17 14.347.440 46.321 +2,60 16. ... Bxf2+ 17.Kxf2 Qc5+ 18.Kf1 Kf7
15 07:24 19.971.432 45.974 +2,47 16. ... Bxf2+ 17.Kxf2 Qc5+ 18.Kf1 Kf7 19.Re4 Ng6
16 18:39 47.702.848 43.656 +2,54 16. ... Bxf2+ 17.Kxf2 Qc5+


There is also a suggestion that after 12...Bxd4 13. Nc3 black could play 13...Bxf2+ 14. Kxf2 Qxd1 15. Raxd1 Kf7 immediately. This is evaluated to +1.45. This seems the more sensible line of play, since after 16. Ng3 in the main variation we are looking at it suggests Bxf2+ anyway, but with a worse game.

Rybka's analysis for this line:

FEN: r1b1k1r1/ppp1n1Pp/5p1B/3q4/2p5/2N5/PPP2bPP/R2QR1K1 w q - 8 14

Rybka v1.01 Beta 13d.w32:
3 00:00 96 98.304 +1,73 14.Kxf2
4 00:00 184 11.083 +1,73 14.Kxf2
5 00:00 552 33.249 +1,73 14.Kxf2 Qxd1
6 00:00 1.256 38.974 +1,73 14.Kxf2 Qxd1 15.Raxd1 Kf7 16.Nb5 Bf5
7 00:00 2.832 60.416 +1,73 14.Kxf2 Qxd1 15.Raxd1 Kf7 16.Nb5 Bf5
8 00:00 6.120 65.967 +1,73 14.Kxf2 Qxd1 15.Raxd1 Kf7 16.Nb5 Bf5
9 00:00 12.688 68.743 +1,73 14.Kxf2 Qxd1 15.Raxd1 Kf7 16.Nb5 Bf5
10 00:00 26.720 72.769 +1,73 14.Kxf2 Qxd1 15.Raxd1 Kf7 16.Nb5 Bf5
11 00:00 55.648 74.294 +1,73 14.Kxf2 Qxd1 15.Raxd1 Kf7 16.Nb5 Bf5
12 00:01 116.736 72.800 +1,73 14.Kxf2 Qxd1 15.Raxd1 Kf7 16.Nb5 Bf5
13 00:03 239.160 70.903 +1,73 14.Kxf2 Qxd1 15.Raxd1 Kf7 16.Nb5 Bf5
14 00:07 532.152 69.187 +1,73 14.Kxf2 Qxd1 15.Raxd1 Kf7 16.Nb5 Bf5
15 00:16 1.078.016 68.255 +1,73 14.Kxf2 Qxd1 15.Raxd1 Kf7 16.Nb5 Bf5
16 00:38 2.569.936 67.583 +1,45 14.Kxf2 Qxd1 15.Raxd1 Kf7 16.Nb5 Bf5
17 01:44 6.541.728 63.881 +1,45 14.Kxf2 Qxd1 15.Raxd1 Kf7 16.Nb5 Bf5


The point of all this is the fact that the computer seems to use a very long time finding the best continuations in this murky landscape, while the human eye quickly - or at least quicker - finds the better moves. The true difficulty is finding Nxd4 which seems at least as strong as Nc3 (and of course, in human play, the psychological factor weighs heavy on the game to follow after such a sacrifice). As mentioned earlier, the computer didn't even consider Nxd4 as a top four candidate after 20 hours of brute-forcing it's way through the jungle of moves in this position. Very strange indeed.

The Max Lange attack is a very exciting opening with lots of opportunities and action on the board. I haven't really played it myself, but I might well give it a go, since I greatly enjoy complications and turmoil in a game.


For further reading I recommend:
Kenilworth Chessclub on the Horowitz variation
New Jersey State Chess Federation on the Max Lange attack

For games and a short bio on Max Lange, there is the always excellent Chessgames.com

Correspondence chess: Yakov Estrin - Hans Berliner 1965

Estrin,Y - Berliner,H [C57], corr-Wch5, 1965: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 Nd4 7.c3 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 Bg4 10.f3 e4 11.cxd4 Bd6 12.Bxb5+ Kd8 13.0-0 exf3 14.Rxf3 Rb8 15.Be2 Bxf3 16.Bxf3 Qxd4+ 17.Kh1 Bxg3 18.hxg3 Rb6 19.d3 Ne3 20.Bxe3 Qxe3 21.Bg4 h5 22.Bh3 g5 23.Nd2 g4 24.Nc4 Qxg3 25.Nxb6 gxh3 26.Qf3 hxg2+ 27.Qxg2 Qxg2+ 28.Kxg2 cxb6 29.Rf1 Ke7 30.Re1+ Kd6 31.Rf1 Rc8 32.Rxf7 Rc7 33.Rf2 Ke5 34.a4 Kd4 35.a5 Kxd3 36.Rf3+ Kc2 37.b4 b5 38.a6 Rc4 39.Rf7 Rxb4 40.Rb7 Rg4+ 41.Kf3 b4 42.Rxa7 b3 0-1


This game I first fell upon reading this interview with the 10th US CC champion Jon Edwards at Jon Knudsen's Correspondence Chess Place. It's a very interesting interview with some good insight into the CC players mind, and also some funny anecdotes. I can heartily recommend reading it. Now, to the game at hand. It is an absolute gem, with very sharp play and lots of chances to go wrong on both sides. I remember being absolutely stunned by black's aggressive handling of this opening, which could have evolved into a regular Two Knight's Defense, with theory that would seem to be exhausted, were it not for ingenious players like Berliner coming up with something entirely new.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5



The position after black's 5...b5

This move, 5...b5 introduces what is know as the Ulvestad (or the Fritz-Ulvestad) variation. A very appealing move, at once lighting up the board in a mystical and sharp light. This is the type of move that reminds one of romantic chess times,when daring sacrifices and bold, perhaps unsound play, was the most respected. Personally, I can't help but play such a move as this if given the opportunity.

Accepting the pawn by 6. Bxb5 leads to 6...Qxd5, threatening the g2-square. Also, 6. xc6 xc4 is good for black, as the white c6-pawn can hardly be held on to. Neither can the black c4-pawn, I would think, but it is perhaps easier to defend than white's.

6. Bf1 is sensible, protecting the g2-square, and preparing Nc3 on Qxd5. 6...Nd4! 7. c3 Nxd5! 8.Ne4 Qh4 9.Ng3 (if xd4 Qxd4+ is nice for black) ... Bg4



The position after black's ninth move, Bg4.

The battle has intensified even further, with even the slightest misstep meaning certain death - probably on both sides! The beauty of it is that the attack seems to flow so effortlessly when we play through it now, making move after move, maybe glancing at the board for 10-15 seconds, a little bewildered and perhaps puzzled - but imagine the strenous process both Estrin and Berliner were going through, researching move after move, deeper and deeper, never being 100% certain that their assessments were correct. It is just this polarity I love in chess: the finished product - the game - always seems so easy and without trouble, while we all know that it is a painful process from the first move to the last, with intense research and mental activity, almost to the point where we'd rather fling the pieces off the board and go to sleep than make the next, uncertain move.

10. f3 e4! This surprise was Berliner's secret, his creation for this game, and for his opponent Estrin, known to be an expert in the Two Knights Defense.

11. cxd4 Bd6 - this move by black might be my favourite in the whole game. It is seemingly quiet, and at the surface it doesn't seem to do very much for black's attack. But this is a move that shows the depth of Berliner's calculations, his insight into what he had created on the board. A very beautiful and noteworthy move that should be studied carefully.

12. Bxb5+ Kd8 13. O-O exf6 14. Rxf3



The position after white's 14. Rxf3

14...Rb8 - a very nice and attractive way to activate the a8-rook. 15. Be2 Bxf3 16. Bxf3 Qxd4+ 17. Kh1 Bxg3 - another good move, weakening white's king side even further. 18. hxg3 Rb6 - threatening the simple Rh6, loosing the game for white. Estrin must at all cost find ways to protect against the rook coming to h6 19. d3 Ne3 20. Bxe3 Qxe3 21. Bg4 - getting the bishop ready to go to h3, blocking the black rook, since h6 isn't protected anymore. 21...h5! - immediately attacking the bishop, gaining more space and momentum for the attack. 22. Bh3 g5 23. Nd2 g4



The position after black's 23...g4

Not minding the fork at c4, Berliner keeps up the immense pressure and plays 23...g4! An admirable move, giving me a feeling that just this development has been in the mind of Berliner all along. 24. Nc4 Qxg3 25. Nxb6 gxh3 26. Qf3 hxg2+ 27. Qxg2 Qxg2 28. Kxg2 cxb6 - connecting the pawns once again and leading white straight into a lost endgame. This is where one has to know how to win a won position ("from this point it is simply a matter of technique"), and Berliner demonstrates very well. Especially the activity of the black king to come is admirable. 29. Rf1 Ke7 30. Re1+ Kd6 31. Rf1 Rc8 32. Rxf7 Rc7 33. Rf2 Ke5 34. a4 Kd4 35. a5



The position after white's 35. a5

35...Kxd3 - the black king is now the most powerful piece on the board. One can feel its dominance, picturing the white pawns just falling off the board. The white rook bleakens in its presence, controlling the whole of white's queen side. 36. Rf3+ Kc2 37. b4 b5 38. a6 Rc4 39. Rf7 Rxb4 40. Rb7 Rg4+ 41. Kf3 b4 42. Rxa7 b3



The position after black's final move, 42...b3

White resigned here, as black's b pawn can no longer be stopped in any sensible way. A very instructive ending, of a type I very much appreciate. It is great seeing the king become such an aggressor, influencing the whole way the game is played.

This is the type of game that can not be marred by computer analysts screaming up: "I have found improvements! White can save the game here, Black has obviously over-estimated his attack!" This was a grandiose battle between two human minds. Probably both of them failed in choosing the "objectively correct" path during the game, but this fact is what makes chess such an intriguing game for humans. As a further comment on this I would like to quote a user named "nasmichael" on Chessgames.com, kibitzing about this game:

The "passion" of the players in this game far outweighs the analysis of the fritz-calculators. The essence of the game is far more than their move choices. It is exciting to watch. It was surely exciting to play. This correspondence game (please put yourself in the players' shoes) was a tough fight. Imagine getting the response to one of these moves in the mail, going to your board, studying the possibilities, weighing your options. Imagine sleeping on a move, placing the stamp on the letter, making sure you have not made some typographical error, making sure your analysis is sound, that you have not made some simple blunder in judgement or observation. Error or no, this game is an example of two top CC players doing their best to win. It feels like a fearless match. You as player can choose to enjoy it, or play through another. We as chess players and fans have too many games to choose from to argue one move over another; we are fortunate to have so many examples of good games. I have to say I have not seen a game like this, but thanks to those players who have offered up examples of such fighting passion, and quest for chess truth.

For further analysis and comment, a quick google search for "Berliner Estrin 1965" or something similar will be sufficient. There are also a lot of interesting comments on this game at Chessgames.com. This is a game that can be studied and appreciated for hours upon hours. I have not gone to great lenghts in my analysis, and there is a simple reason behind this: this is a game I find so mystical and beautiful I'd rather not know the "better" moves or the gruelling mistakes. There are not many games of chess I would rather leave alone than to start looking into, but this is one such example. I hope everyone has one or two or five of these games that they simply love for their sheer artistry.

Raison d'etre

Hopefully, I will manage to make this blog an interesting read for the chess enthusiast. I am by no means a grandmaster, but I am passionately devoted to chess, and I love it with all my heart. Recently I've become quite interested in computer chess (both the chess part and the engineering part) - so I expect this blog will have a fair share of computer chess related articles or musings. But first and foremost it is going to be my own little chess playground, somewhere I can share my thoughts and ideas on the game.

About me as a chessplayer, there is very little to say. I am reasonably good over the board, but my frequency of wrong moves is alarmingly high. I prefer postal chess/e-mail chess, where I have plenty of time to think and analyze. I'm a nervous man, and over the board situation tends to play havoc with me.

That's a short introduction. Who knows, maybe I'll write a little more about myself later, if someone wants to know. To the chess, Robin!