Perpetual Chess

I've recently started listening to a high-quality podcast, Perpetual Chess, which has chess improvement as one of its central themes. It's US-based and features both professional and amateur US players - including past US champions such as GM Gata Kamsky and IM Nazi Paikidze - but also has a number of international guests on it at the GM/IM level, including notables such as GM Jonathan Rowson, GM Jacob Aagaard, IM Tania Sachdev, and many more.

What drew me most to it, though, are the "Adult Improver" episodes featuring people who have been making significant progress as adults, at both the Master and Class level. Of course there are a number of other very interesting and relevant interviews at the professional level, and the episode notes give a detailed preview of the topics, which I find very helpful. There should be something useful for any chess enthusiast in the interview list.

Video completed - Pro Analysis With Alexandra & Danya: Time In The Opening

I recently completed the first in a new video series on Chess.com from WFM Alexandra Botez and GM Daniel Naroditsky, "Pro Analysis With Alexandra & Danya: Time In The Opening". Like other ones that are good for finishing in one sitting, it is around 15 minutes in length and focuses on a main theme, with a few key game examples.

In this video, there are three different late opening / early middlegame positions looked at from the White perspective - one each from 1.e4, 1.d4 and Reti openings. Botez in each case starts with a summary of what she sees in the position at the Expert level, including positional characteristics and some specific plausible candidate moves. Naroditsky then validates the positional elements and goes deeper into the keys to the position, in terms of both general considerations and specific tactics.

This type of live thinking process discussion, which looks at general principles, positional characteristics and tactical possibilities, I find particularly instructive. It illustrates how one needs to think beyond surface-level possibilities to really find the positional and tactical keys to a position and develop a suitable plan. The first example, taken from a Smyslov game, was particularly illustrative of this process. He (as White) enjoyed a lead in development and his opponent's king was in the center, which brings up the general principle of doing whatever is possible to take advantage of that before the king can castle. The actual breakthrough, however, only came by identifying a non-obvious weakness on the queenside and exploiting it using what appears to be a quiet queen move, which sets up some sacrificial tactics.

Botez and Naroditsky have good pace and clarity in their discussion, which makes it easy to follow and absorb, and the technical quality is high. I look forward to additional videos as they come out in the series. 

FT: Tom Morton-Smith on dramatising the ‘chess match of the century’

The Financial Times periodically covers chess topics in a thoughtful way and just put out an article on a new theatre production in London, entitled Ravens: Spassky vs Fischer, that centers on the 1972 Fischer-Spassky world championship match. All of the actual games are reportedly included in some fashion, so it sounds like a more serious effort than many pop culture depictions of chess.

Link to the FT article

Chess imagery in popular culture

From Captain America: Civil War

In a short detour from the usual topics, I'd like to take a moment to explore (and deplore) the often annoying and occasionally truly awful depictions of chess in pop culture - including movies, TV productions, advertisements, and the like. Chess has an intellectual and often-times sophisticated image associated with it, although of course this is not always the case in real life. It's when things just appear wrong that it becomes annoying (or sometimes funny) to any chessplayer with a true love of the game.

The most frequent error - based on a lifetime amount of (unscientific) observation - is setting up the board wrong. It seems that the vast majority of the time I've seen a chess board on screen, it's not correct - something which should take a production assistant maybe a few seconds to verify, especially in the smartphone era. The two most common problems are the initial position of the pieces - often the King and Queen are switched - or when the board is turned 90 degrees, with colors reversed (the lower right square being dark rather than light).

Here's one of the top Shutterstock chess images, which demonstrates the first sin, reversing the king and queen:



An example of the latter sin, wrong board orientation/colors, can be seen in the lead pic of this post, taken from the blockbuster-budgeted Captain America: Civil War. At least the wood board and set are very aesthetic-looking and high end, with the pieces set up in correct order. It's a relatively subtle error, but I suppose it still doesn't bode well for Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and her allies that they can't set up their chessboard right.

Another cringeworthy (and more blatant) example of this is in the TED-Ed "A brief history of chess" video, which is intended to educate its audience about chess:

It's also relatively common to see random positions that could never happen in a real game, are illegal, or impossible things like multiple same-color bishops or pawns on your first rank. Those of us who recognize these gaffes may inadvertently laugh out loud, causing our non-chessplaying companions to wonder what is going on. This can be slightly embarrassing in, say, a business meeting, but it's really not our fault, is it?

Business presentations are in fact an egregiously common example of chess-related blunders. I suppose consultants and others want to make dramatic and smart-looking statements, but they often just look silly. For example:

Like knocking over your opponent's king with your rook?

The above at least might show a real position, although it's not entirely clear from the visual. The below is worse, as the source article (from a chess-related domain, in fact) is about chess and business analysis, but it illustrates the idea with a randomly thrown-together board. This doesn't exactly convey an image of competence and deep understanding:

From https://www.ichess.net/blog/chess-and-business-analysis/

Some relief from the awfulness

To provide at least some contrast, my favorite chess depiction (if not completely accurate), far and away, is the opening scene in the Bond movie From Russia With Love (1963). It shows a slightly modified position from Spassky-Bronstein, 1960. (You can tell it's from the 1960s by the ticking chess clocks and the fact you can smoke at the board.)


The Chess.com article on it is very thorough and one of the comments points out that the extended analysis based on the movie's game position has a flaw. Oh well.

Two other movies that get the feeling and most (if not all) of the details right:

• The Luzhin Defense (2000), based on the Vladimir Nabokov novel. There is one major game inaccuracy depicted, according to the linked article, although the finale's combination sequence is correct.

• 2001: A Space Odyssey (Dave plays White; based on the position shown, he is not really very good, and of course loses to Hal 9000.)

Annotated Game #229: Maneuvering in a (White) Hedgehog

This final-round tournament game was a little wobbly, but I managed to pull myself together after the downward trend in the previous two games and hold the draw in the endgame. I wasn't in the mood for an active, attacking game and the opening (an English) was a little quieter than normal. I end up in a Hedgehog formation, with pawns on the third rank and a slightly cramped and passive position, but one that is difficult to break. This sort of game requires plans based on piece maneuvering and it is instructive to see how my choices almost got me in serious trouble, as my opponent did a better job of following the needs of the position. However, he eventually lets me off the hook on the d-file with some exchanges and the endgame is fully equal after that. I was fine with this and happy to complete the tournament. My final performance was a little below the 1800 mark, but this wasn't enough to drag my rating down below Class A, which meant that I had passed (barely) my first test of holding onto my new Class level.

[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "ChessAdmin"] [Black "Class B"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "A13"] [Annotator "ChessAdmin/Komodo 11.2"] [PlyCount "77"] {A13: English Opening: 1...e6} 1. c4 e6 2. Nf3 d5 3. b3 Nf6 4. Bb2 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Be2 b6 7. O-O Bb7 8. d3 (8. cxd5 $5 {here or earlier is a different way to play, reducing the central tension.}) 8... c5 9. Nbd2 {with this formation, White plays more of a waiting game in the center, while the Nd2 is flexible.} Nc6 10. cxd5 (10. a3 {is by far the most often played in the database. This takes the b4 square away from the knight and continues the waiting game.}) (10. Ne5 $5 {is an interesting idea, welcoming an exchange of Black's well-placed Nc6.}) 10... Nxd5 11. a3 {White now has a Hedgehog formation, which is often what is aimed for with the d3/Nbd2 and Bb2 development. Black has more space, but the Hedgehog is hard to crack.} Bf6 12. Qc2 {giving White a tempo to get his queen off the first rank, thereby connecting the rooks, and to occupy the long diagonal if Black exchanges on b2.} Bxb2 13. Qxb2 Qf6 14. Qxf6 { essentially forced} Nxf6 {the position now looks rather drawish, but it is important not to become complacent. White's rooks need to get into the action now.} 15. Nc4 $146 (15. Rfc1 {is most played here. For example} Rfd8 16. Nc4 Kf8 17. Nfe5 Nxe5 18. Nxe5 Nd7 19. Nxd7+ Rxd7 20. b4 cxb4 21. axb4 Rc8 22. Re1 Bd5 23. d4 Rc2 24. Bd3 {1/2-1/2 (24) Kaenel,H (2452)-Gurieli,N (2373) Bern 2000 }) 15... Rfd8 16. Rfd1 Rac8 17. Rac1 Nd5 {Black does not have much more that he can do at this point. Here, however, I start some ill-advised maneuvers.} 18. Ncd2 {one of the problems with this is that it interferes with the protection of the d-pawn by the Rd1, as Black immediately notes.} (18. Nfe5 { is a much more active choice, reducing Black's piece presence in the center and therefore threats.} Nxe5 19. Nxe5 $11) 18... Ba6 19. Ne4 {I've spent two moves putting the knight here, where it is not any better posted than on c4 and is probably worse, since from there it helped control e5.} e5 (19... f5 20. Nc3 Nxc3 21. Rxc3 e5 $15 {is an improved version of the idea for Black.}) 20. Nc3 $6 {now Black gets in the knight exchange without having to play ...f5 first.} (20. g4 {preventing f7-f5} f6 $11) 20... Nxc3 $15 21. Rxc3 {Black is doing a good job of making my position more awkward and under pressure, but as of yet there are still no real threats. His next move increases the pressure, however.} e4 {unfortunately I can't simply take the pawn, due to the hanging Be2.} 22. Ng5 (22. Ne1 {ugly but a good defensive move, reinforcing d3.}) 22... exd3 $11 {this lets me off the hook in the center.} (22... f5 $5 $15 {would keep the tension.}) 23. Bxd3 Bxd3 24. Rcxd3 Rxd3 25. Rxd3 {at this point I was confident I could hold the draw. Black has a slight advantage with the 3-2 queenside majority, but my pieces can restrain it.} Rd8 {this simplifies the task for me.} 26. Rxd8+ Nxd8 {A knight endgame occured, comments Komodo via the Fritz interface. The draw is much more clear now, as long as I activate my king.} 27. Ne4 Ne6 28. a4 {this is unnecessary.} (28. Kf1 {best to just get on with centralizing my king.}) 28... a6 29. Nc3 {this active knight combines well with the a-pawn to restrain Black's b5 advance.} Nc7 30. Kf1 Kf8 31. Ke2 Ke7 32. Kd3 b5 33. Ne4 Ne6 (33... c4+ $6 34. bxc4 bxa4 35. Kc3 $14) 34. f4 (34. f3 {is more solid.}) 34... f5 35. Nc3 Nc7 36. e4 g6 37. e5 {now I felt completely fine with the endgame, as Black can't just concentrate on the queenside, but will have to guard the territory in front of the protected, passed e-pawn.} Ke6 38. g3 Ke7 39. Ke3 {essentially a draw offer, waiting for Black to see that there was no way to make progress.} 1/2-1/2