You play Chess,you read Chess books about tactics, about how to calculate variations, about how to take decisions, about how to make plans, about dynamic strategy, and so on. Then you have to play in an OTB tournament or a CC one. So you prepare your first move as White. Then you decide what to play against your opponent’s 1. e4 and 1. d4. (You do not care about 1. c4 or 1. Nf3 because you can use the same defences as versus 1. d4. Or perhaps not. If my opponent plays 1. Nf3 I will play 1. Nf6 and if s/he plays 2. g3, then I will play 2. …, b5/- and then you imagine your opponent’s face…). In an OTB game this may constitute a big surprise forcing him or her to use his/her own head to continue the game. In a CC game the surprise factor disappears: your opponent will use an engine with updated opening information and everything will be as aseptic as ever. Damn it.
It is clear that positions that can be won and lost in OTB may have a different outcome in CC.You know why. OTB purists despise CC , and many CC players consider OTB Chess s a “game of chance”. But we all continue playing Chess.
(I am re-reading the book “Bobby Fischer Goes to War“, by David Edmonds and John Eidinow. Perhaps my next re-reading will be “Endgame”, by Frank Brady. Someone said that till the age of forty you read books, and afterwards you start to re-read them… My Zen-monk inner self tells me that anything can be true and untrue at the same time.)
When preparing for a tournament I always spend some time with musings of the type: “Well, I have two options: a) to play my all-chess-life opening repertoire , or b) to forget about well-trodden paths and play something new in all the games. Spassky used to change openings during the last part of his Chess career, as both White and Black. There was a time when he used 1…b6 in answer to 1. e4, for instance. Even Karpov has used the Scandinavian (!!!) in his last appearances . Yes, most of those games were fast-chess events with different time-formats but he scored well against world-class opponents. (And Karpov is one of those top-class players who has never played certain openings).
The opening is a sensible part of the game. Many players panic before the idea of leaving the path they have been following during all their Chess lives. Others tend to think that -in OTB- nearly everything can be playable because it is a matter of good moves not of good and bad opening systems. In the past, you could see players labelled as classical ones using hypermodern openings (like the Alekhine, the Nimzoindian, the Grünfeld, etc.), and players labelled as hypermodernists playing classical set-ups (like the Orthodox or the Tarrasch) And let me insist: the problem comes when it is CC. Correspondence Chess players know what I am referring to. In OTB Chess you depend on your memory (opening lines, home-made analysis, etc. You may forget some move, a line, the moves behind an analysis, etc and this may decide the outcome of the game ). In CC you have weapons other than your memory, get it?.
So, it is not the same to play (as Black) 1. d4, b5 in OTB Chess than the same sequence in CC. In OTB Chess your opponent may try to reach familiar middlegame positions while in CC it doesn’t matter: your opponent has many options to try without making mistakes…
(Perhaps you will have noticed that, from time to time, I stop writing regularly. The explanation is that I try to put a great effort in what I write. When I am tired or find it difficult to find the best way to express my thoghts, I simply stop writing.I could fill this blog of garbage on a daily basis. But I don’t feel like. Please let me beg your understanding)
This is from an obscure game Boucchechter-Spassky played in Tel-Aviv in 1964 (position from Black’s side). Can you spot the way Spassky finishes the game off?
And this is a mate in 4 by Agapov.
26…, Rxe3 27. Nxe3, Rxf2 28.Rxd3, Rxg2 29. Kxg2, Qg6/ 0-1
1. Qh6!! Nh5/ 2.Ke7, Nf6 /3.Qxg7, Kxg7 /4. f8Q mate
The discussion about OTB Chess and CC is alive and there and will continue forever due to the possibility of using engines in CC . During my own CC games I have the opportunity to exchange ideas with some of my opponents. In general there are several , say, “schools of thought” :
1.- Those who play CC or CC and OTB and don’t care about the matter.
2.-Those who play CC and OTB and have strong opinions about the matter.
3.- Those who only play CC and are somewhat “angry” at how it is played these days (with the use of engines and databases for instance…)
4.- And so on…
First of all, I base my ideas upon what I consider a fundamental fact:
Today’s CC and OTB are totally different ways of playing Chess.
Let’s see some of the differences:
1.- In OTB Chess the players cannot use written notes, books, databases, etc during games. In CC they can. (Some sites explicitly insist in forbidden the use of computers/databases, but…
2.- In OTB Chess the clock has a significant if not decisive role. It is not so in CC. Though in CC you can lose on time it is not the urgency the matter may reach in OTB Chess.
3.- In CC you can lose games by sending the wrong move through a server ( in its classical form with written postcards you could write down the wrong move too). In OTB Chess you cannot.
4.- In OTB Chess, normal tournament games last a few hours. In CC the games last days,weeks and months. Then in CC you have much more time to study the positions between moves.
5.- With the use of excellent Chess servers the possibility of arguments between CC opponents due to bad behaviour, not accomplishing with the rules, etc are practically nonexistent. In OTB Chess there are much more problems and the task of the controllers sometimes is an uphill task (to say the least).
Now, some players complain because the way CC is played now has turned our beloved game in a sort of absolutely accurate process requiring of lots of time to compare possible game continuations, mostly in balanced positions with several possible moves . Why?.- Because in CC computers can be used “defensively” (simply checking your move in search of immediate mistakes, or “aggressively”, using the computer as an aid to find,check and compare all sort of lines…And yes, it is very difficult to win games, the number of drawn games may be high, etc. But it is certain that games continue being won and lost, norms and titles continue being achieved, so, normal life.
In this matter I try to be as pragmatic as possible: progress is progress and what I try to do is to get adapted to the new advances as they appear and always within my possibilities.. You may say engines have taken the fun out of CC. I love Chess so much that I don’t mind. Moreover, there are no CC professional players, so I prefer thinking that when my fellow comrades begin to fume and rail against everything that moves is because they are very competitive ,like winning and cannot stand losing . (Well, to say the least again …)
This is a mate in 3 by Wurzburg for you to solve. (If there is any problem, click to enlarge, you know)
In a previous post I wrote about the clash between Queen vs. Rook+Rook and I even said that two pieces seemed stronger than one (depending on concrete details, of course). The great Bobby Fischer provoked in no less than five of his games the fight between his Q and his opponents’ R+R. BUT always a Pawn up for Bobby (even though sometimes he had doubled Pawns too , which apparently seemed a handicap.) This is a difficult struggle of heterogeneous forces and the key is to maintain the material advantage and the creation of threats one move after another without respite, with the advance of the Pawns on the one hand and the activity of the Queen on the other. This requires deep intuition and great calculation skills. Any mistake and the two Rooks would bounce back stopping the threats and creating deadly ones on their own because they are “two against one”. So the side with the Queen must handle the concept of “timing” with absolute dexterity. You can see how Fischer managed to do it. The games are wonderful.
The first position is from Fischer – Seidman, US.Ch. Ch. 1960
The game continued: 24. Re8, Qxe8 25. Bxe8, Rxe8 26. h3, b4 27. cxb4, Rxb/ 28. Qxf6, Kg8 29. Qg5, Kh8 30. Qf4, Ra4 31. Qf7, Rg8 32. Qc7, Ra2 33. Qe5, Rg7 34. g4, h6 35. Qb8, Rg8 36. c7! , 1-0
The following position was from Fischer – D. Byrne, Bay City Open, 1963. (Bobby has just played 24. Rhe1)
The game continued: 24…, Qxe1/ 25. Rxe1 Rxe1 26. Kb2, Rh1 27. Qf4 , Rf8 28. c4, f6/ 29. c5, Rh5 30.Qc7, Rxh6 31. Qxb7, Rh5 32. c6, Re5 33. c7, Re-e8 34.Kb3, g5 35. Ka4 ,Ra8 36. c4, h5 37. c5, h4 38. Kb5, Kh8 39. a4, Kg8 40. Kb6, f5 41. Qd5, Kg7 42. Kb7, Kg6 43. Qe6, Kg7 44. Qe7, Kg6 45. f4! , gxf4 46. Qh4, 1-0
Fischer had repeated the theme in the game he played vs. Bisguier in the Stockholm Interzonal, 1962, beating his opponent in 54 moves.
Bisguier-Fischer, Stockholm 1962:
24…Rxf2 25. Qxf2, Rxf2 26. Rxf2, g4 27. Bc1, Qb5 28. Bf4, Qd3 29. Rd2, Qg6 30. Ne1, h5 31. Ng2, Kh7 32. Re1, Nd8 33. Nh4, Qe8 34. h3, gh 35. Kh2, Nf7 36. Kh3, Bh6 37. Rc2, Qg8 38. Rf1, Qg4 39. Kh2, Ng5 40. Bg5, Bg5 41. Nf3, Be3 42. Re2, Bh6 43. Ref2, Kg8 44. Nh4, Qd4 45. Rf7, Qg4 46. R1f3, Qg5 47. R3f4, d4 48. Nf3, Qg6 49. Nh4, Qf7 50. Rf7, Kf7 51. Kg2, d3 52. Kf2, Bg7 53. Nf3, Kg6 54. Ke3, Kf5 / 0-1
The following position corresponds to the game Portisch- Fischer, Santa Monica (USA), 1966:
Fischer played: 11…., Qd7 12. Ba3, Re8 13. Bd3, f5/ 14. Qxa8, Nc6 15. Qxe8, Qxe8 16. 0-0, Na5 17. Rae1, Bxc4 18. Bxc4, Nxc4 19. Bc1, c5 20. dxc5, bxc5 21. Bf4, h6 22. Re2, g5 23.Be5?, Qd8 24. Rfe1, Kf7 25. h3, f4 26. Kh2, a6 27. Re4, Qd5 28. h4, Ne3 29. R1xe3 ,fxe3 30. Rxe3, Qxa2 31. Rf3, Ke8/ 32. Bg7, Qc4, 33. hxg5, hxg5 34. Rf8, Kd7 35. Ra8, Kc6 / 0-1
And the last example took place a year before the previous one, in the game Fischer- Bilek ,Havana 1965:
1. e4, e6 2. d4, d5 3. Nc3, Nf6 4. Bg5, dxe4 5. Nxe4, Nbd7 6. Nf3, Be7 7. Nxf6, Bxf6 8. h4, h6 9. Bxf6, Qxf6 10. Qd2, 0-0 11. 0-0-0, b6 12. Bb5, Qe7 13. Rh3, Bb7 14. Rg3, Kh8 15. Bd7, Bxf3 16. gxf3, Qxd7 17. Rdg1, f6 (D)
18. Rxg7, Qxg7 19. Rxg7, Kxg7 20. Qf4, Rac8 21. h5, ,c5 22. Qg4, Kf7 23. Qg6, Ke7 24. dxc5, Rxc5 25. Qxh6, Rg5 26. b3, e5 27. Kb2, Rf7 28. a4, Ke6 29. Qh8, Re7 30. h6, Kf7 31. Qh7, Kf8 32. Qd3, Kf7 33. h7, Rh5 34. Qd5, Re6 35. f4, f5 36. fxe5, Rxh7 37. Qd7, Re7 38. Qxf5, Ke8 39. f4, Kd8 40. e6 , 1-0 An impressive game.
In a previous post I spoke of the influence Alekhine exerted on Spassky. If you study both, you will really feel the connection, though sometimes it is very difficult to express it in words. Spassky always strived for positions full of tactical or combinative possibilities relying on his intuition and calculation skill. In most of his games the overall landscape seems unclear, blurred, lacking clear strategical indications. In other players’ games you can follow their tactical lines of thought. As Spassky blended it with an immense underground intuitive work, many of his games seems very complicated, nearly chaotic, until the ideas finally emerge . Sometimes you will need to play through his games twice or three times to fully appreciate the details. Do not miss the following game or dismiss it because of the result, for instance:
W.: B. Spassky
B.: R. Jolmov
1. d4, Nf6/ 2. c4, e6 / 3. Nc3, Bb4 / 4. Bg5, h6/ 5. Bh4, c5/ 6. d5, Bxc3/ 7. bxc3, e5/ 8. Qc2, d6/ 9. e3, Qe7/ 10. Nf3, Nbd7/ 11. Nd2, e4/ 12. 0-0-0, 0-0/ 13. g4, g5/ 14. Bg3, Ne5/ 15. h3, Ng6/ 16. Be2, Re8/ 17. Rdg1, Bd7/ 18. h4, Rab8/ 19. hxg5, hxg5 /20. Rh5 !!!?
(Typical Spassky’s kind of hammer-blow. What follows is a display of blows/counterblows which require precise calculation:)
20. …, Nxh5/ 21. gxh5, Nf8/ 22. Nxe4!!, Qxe4/ 23. Qxe4, Rxe4/ 24. Bxd6, Rbe8/ 25. Rxg5, Kh8/ 26. Bxc5, f6/ 27. Rg3, b6/ 28. Bd4, Nh7/ 29. Kd2, Rg8/ 30. Rg6, Be8/ 31. Bd3!? (Does the key of the game lie in this junction as Kasparov seems to hint at? Or at another point?) 31…, Bxg6/ 32. hxg6, Rxd4/ 33. cxd4, Nf8/ 34. c5, bxc5/ 35. dxc5, Nd7! 36. c6, Nb6 / 37 e4!!?, Kg7 /38. Ba6 (Kasparov suggests 38. a4!? but …) ,Kxg6/ 39. a4, Kf7/ 40. a5, Na8!/ 41. Bc4 Rd8. Draw agreed!.
I am still trying to understand the way Spassky understands “strategy”. Of course he has played many games where the strategical plans are more or less “clear”. But he has always been bordering the red line which separates the complicate from the chaotic. What I am going to write now may seem too strong, but it is what I think:
Boris Spassky has been one of the most injustly treated among the World Chess Champions of all times.
When I met him in 2007 he left a deep impression on me. I do not know if it was his personal charisma, the fondness with which he treated me or the traits of is character I could perceive, but this man is worth a clear and absolute vindication. And the problem is that you cannot mention Spassky without Fischer and the 1972 match cropping up immediately. But nobody seems to remember that Spassky was the leading figure of the 60′s, above Petrosian and Fischer. He had to play six gruelling Candidates’ matches and two World Championship ones to become Champion of the World, defeating Tal,Keres,Korchnoi,Geller ,Larsen,…and Petrosian. It is understandable that Fischer’s feat may overshadow any other achievement, but this does not mean justice to the man who also deserves it.
This is a mate in 3 composed by Pauly. (Click to enlarge if there is any problem.)
(Click on the diagram to enlarge it if necessary)
W.: Bogoljubow (0)
B.: Alekhine (1)
Hastings 1922 (Black to move upwards .- 29th move) .-
(Try to find the possible course of action. Solution at the end of the post.)
Alexander Alekhine was the most controversal genius Chess has had. In this moment many people may be also thinking of Bobby Fischer with his anti-Jew, anti-American, anti-everything rants. But there are some differences. When Bobby Fischer started to rail against his personal ghosts a long time had passed since he had abandoned the world of Chess competition. In the case of Alekhine he was still active when was accused of collaborating with the Nazi regime (because he -and many others- had played tournaments in Nazi Germany and because some obscure papers attributed to him appeared publicly He always denied the authorship. But it is the winner who decides how history took place. Be that as it may, the contribution Alekhine made to the game was immense. Here is a small homage in case you want to know his games in depth.
When I started to study Chess seriously (1978) and began to collect Chess books, I came across a wonderful edition of the Soviet player and writer P.A. Romanowsky. It deals with the matter of Chess combinations including a lot of historical data, classification of the different combinational motifs, examples galore (positions and games) and a superb theoretical chapter on “The Mental Activity of the Chessplayer During the Course of the Game”. I love browsing through those old books untouched for many years and see their contents under a new light. The position included above is from that book and I had completely forgotten about it.
Some of my CC opponents cannot understand why people use programs and only programs to play CC. The complaints are always of the same type: “What use is entering tournaments to put a machine to find and make moves for you???”. Etc.
Well, my answer is always the same: many people do not want to play CC. They want to win games, get high ELO ratings and get some sort of title so as to boast among relatives and friends. Perhaps most of them did not start to play CC with this aim especially if they began with the old method of postcards and stamps-, but they have changed their approach to Chess once the programs invaded our game. Others are not , simply, CC players. Another explanation would be that with today’s opening databases only true CC players study Chess. Most people follow the program opening lines and when the opening ends they have no idea of how to treat the position because they are not playing Chess: they are playing opening variations. Then, they have to rely upon the programs to be able to continue the game and one move made by the machine leads to another and so on. No study of the end-positions leading to by the different variations/subvariations, no study at all, the damned machine will choose for them the best option. After all, that machine has a damned high ELO, hasn’t it? Or at least so says the manufacturer…
But in any case, one of the most amazing things to be taken into account is that in spite of everybody using today’s absolutely strong programs, games keep on being won and lost. So there must be something more apart from brute force calculation. The problem is how to find that key and use it in our games. Perhaps strategy? But in this case a new approach to CC is needed. How to impose a strategical approach on computer-aided CC? If you use a database to play your openings , how can you impose a strategical/positional approach to your games and moreover if your opponent keeps on using his/her program to play the moves?. This is today’s wonderful -or not- challenge!
In the diagram above play continued as follows:
29. …, b4/ 30. Rxa8 , bxc3/ 31. Rxe8, c2! / 32. Rxf8, Kh7/ 33. Nf2, c1Q / 34. Nf1, Ne1/ 35. Rh2, Qxc4/ 36. Rb8, Bb5/ 37. Rxb5, Qxb5/ 38. g4, Nf3/ 39. Bxf3, exf3/ 40. gxf5, Qe2/ 41. d5, Kg8/ 42. h5, Kh7/ 43. e4, Nxe4/ 44. Nxe4, Qxe4/ 45. d6 cxd6 /46. f6, gxf6/ 47. Rd2, Qe2!!/ 48. Rxe2, fxe2/ 49. Kf2, exf1Q/ 50. Kxf1, Kg7/ 51. Kf2, Kf7/ 52. Ke3, Ke6/ 53. Ke4, d5! and White resigned. A wonderful combinative attack by a Chess genius.
The great attacking player Rudolf Spielmann wrote that he could play a combination like Alekhine , but he had never been able to get the positions the Russian managed to obtain in his games. And Boris Spassky , as a child, used to spend nights on end studying Alekhine’s games. This explains many of the characteristics in his games.
(This is an open post. There are no definite ideas, only hints and doubts)
From time to time some doubts assault me and I fall into deep periods of Chess crisis:
Phase 1: No matter what you do: you start losing CC games.
Phase 2: You need to rethink your approach to Chess and this means a change in your opening repertoire because for some reason, you have decided to torture yourself with CC.
Today’s CC has become a sort of “Star Wars”, with people glued to their computers + databases , aloof from the rest of the world, trying to destroy their unseen and unknown enemies using supertechnological devices. There is no strategy, no blunders due to wrong analysis, no human factors. Many games are decided by choosing one or another option in the opening. Once you or your opponent get an advantage, it is very difficult to lose the game due to a blunder. And it is very difficult to turn an inferior position into an advantageous one too…
What can be recommended for OTB Chess is not valid for CC. That’s all.
Then, what can be done , apart from nothing?. Sometimes I tend to thing that it would be better to forget everything about dynamic strategy and so on: that is for OTB, not for CC. Then?. Well one of my last ideas is to revert to the classics, concretely to players like Nimzowitsch and -why not?- Petrosian. But can it be done when we try to follow all the moves databases suggest so creating games of the type we all know today?. Or should we play bizarre openings/defences ? (If you do so, don’t use a program to check the positions…) The answer is that what we perhaps should do is not to play bizarre openings but some of the strategies suggested by Nimzowitsch: centralization, restraint and , above all, blockade. As how we can do it , well, the idea is still in its beginnings… I have been reassessing some games by Nimzowitsch and one of the ideas is that he was a superb strategist who based everything in a deep tactical insight. If you study the chapter devoted to blockade in his “Chess Praxis” you will see how he was able to carry out his strategical/positional ideas using tactical threats.
The question now is clear: could today’s super-programs be defeated by closely adhering to some of the ideas expressed by Nimzowitsch and only with this ideas?.-For in the rather tactical positions stemming from today’s openings, it is clear a computer will have the upper hand… And as for CC : could it be possible to use this or a similar method to defeat an opponent armed with “Deep ~” and a strong ,updated database? (If you think all this is not important, please could you tell me why if all CC players use the same devices there are still wins and losses???)
(One of the main problems in Chess is not to find the first move and the sequence in combinative positions but to find the best move in strategical or quiet ones with no imminent tactical threats. Have you ever trained this particular point?. Remember that before reaching a combinational moment -and in most cases it will occur after a blunder on your opponent’s part -many intermediate “quiet” positions have to be solved ,since in Chess you have to make moves…)
This position is from Nimzowitsch-Möller, Copenhagen 1923. How would you continue?
(Solution: 34. Rxe5!, Bc3 35. Rb2-b5, Bxe5 36. Rxe5, a4 37. Kf3,Bc2 38. e4, Bb3 39. Rb5 , Ke7 40. Rb7, Kd8 41. Rb8, Ke7 42. Kf4, Rxd7 43. Rb7!, Be6 44. cxd7, Bxd7 45. Ke5, Ke8 46. Kd6, Bxg4 47. Rxg7, h5 48. e5, a3 49. e6, Black resigns.)
If you are a CC player, the following may sound familiar. You start a tournament and , in general, only a few perfunctory words with the first move and that is all. Supposedly, “Amici Sumus” and so on, but the real scenery is that of a crude battle to beat you while you try not to be beaten and to beat them . From time to time one of your opponents respond continue sending messages and sometimes a good friendship starts. I have been discussing the matter of the odds White pieces/Black pieces and one thing is the (false) impression one gets and a different one the real fact. In my humble opinion the odds White/Black is 50/50. I would even concede a 52/48 to those who so strongly advocate the White side. This would lead us to a wider discussion under the heading “Why We Lose at Chess”. (By the way, one of the best explanations on this is in Abraham’s book ” The Chess Mind”). Many people prefer the white pieces -I don’t clearly know why, they will know…) perhaps because they can set the pace of the game by playing their favourite first move?. In my case, and perhaps due a strong influence on Nimzowitsch’s part, I consider the black pieces as strong as their white counterparts: my opponents may be glad to play 1. e4.Then I find it fascinating to play my Sicilian or some other defence I like. They may plan a closed game with 1.d4, but then I enjoy myself looking for new subvariations in the Nimzoindian, the Benoni the Orthodox or the Grünfeld. And if they play the English I find a lot of delight keeping them guessing after 1…Nf6 (Will I play a defence like the above mentioned making them play a Queen’s Gambit or will I torture them with 1…c5 and the myriad of symmetrical possibilities?)
So it is not a matter of being white or black but a matter of choosing the right opening, the right subvariation and analyse the lots of end-positions those subvariations lead to. Here is where we lose!: I am convinced that most losses are because we blindly follow theory and what is worse, statistical assessments given by chess programs. Then we see that a variation is assessed as advantageous to Black and we play it without analysing the end-position. Statistics are not the truth but a comparative truth : games are not won by themselves: you have to play moves, accept risks and take decisions, and it is in this process that your games are won and lost .If the opening line lead to a dead position or what is worse, to a position in which only your opponent can improve the it, then you are lost. No matter what statistics say. Moreover, bear in mind that a 99% of the lines included in databases appeared in OTB games,not in CC ones. Apply final-result statistics (without any analysis) to CC may be devastating. And yes, everybody does it, and I do it too…
Fischer became a deadly chessplayer when he realized the potentiality of the Black pieces (of course among other factors), and Tal said that when theory said Black was equal, that meant Black was already better. So I advocate a change in our mental state too: stop thinking that “with black you have to defend and stop white’s attack first” and that kind of rubbish: prepare your openings, play well and white will not have any attack except that coming from the black side.
Yes, I know some player may be considered a sort of “white-piece player” and you have heard that over-repeated statement of “win as white and draw as black” etc. But we are talking of super-professional chessplayers playing in superprofessional round-robin events. They know that winning with White + drawing with Black with some victory -as black -too was enough to win a 99% of the events they had to play in. OTB Chess ideas do not work in today’s CC official tournaments (today all CC official events show a high number of draws due to the way of playing by using chess programs). In today’s CC events you cannot say “I’m going to win all my games as white and draw all my games as black”. Why?.- Because we are not playing OTB Chess, things do not work that way and this is 21st century CC…
Take for instance KARPOV: in Chess many things are written, many people read ithem , many people believe them and many people start repeating them becoming a sort of clichè statement repeated and repeated as if it were an absolute truth… But are they true by merely repeating them “ad nauseam“?. No. Karpov have won hundreds of games as Black. You can see how he won with the Sicilian -Paulsen/Taimanov, the Spanish as Black, the Caro-Kann, etc. But many people associate him with the “win-as white-draw-as-black-approach”. This is not true. Don’t believe everything you read. Find the facts, analyse them and make your own opinion, but always based upon facts.
Now perhaps you would like to find a mate in three in the following composition by Zigman (if it shrinks, click to enlarge. Position in Forsyth notation too.)
(8 – 6P – 8 – 1K6 – 1P6 – kN6 – prp5 – 2B5 )