Just another site

Chess Musings

leave a comment »


I have already mentioned what GM Kavalek said about the perils of analysts trying to explain what GMs have into their heads when they are playing. This is why analysing Chess games is so difficult (though many people does it…). When in the game  R. Byrne – Fischer USA Chess Championship 1963-64 Byrne abandoned, some of the players who were witnessing the game considered it a premature decision and some even believed White could be even better. The late GM Larsen wrote that he had always admired GM Donner for commenting Larsen’s game vs. Bronstein -Amsterdam Interzonal 1964- on two successive days because the first day Donner had completely missed the point. When the seventh game of the Karpov-Korchnoi 1978 World Championship match was adjourned, newspapers all over the world published that Karpov’s victory was unavoidable: the following session, after opening the envelope with the secret move, the game was declared a draw!. And in all these events “experts” and professional GMs were involved…

Sometimes , analysing is somewhat easier when we have the notes by the players involved. GM Nunn has published excellent books analysing his games. In other cases, the analyst carries out an excellent work because he puts a lot of effort in his task, checking and re-checking his analysis (I have several of these in my library, and one of them is Soltis’ book on Bobby Fischer. Another one well worn-out by use today is One of the first Karpov book analysing his best Chess games between 1969 and 1974, with an appendix written by Tal analysing Karpov’s style. I still consult it whenever I want to know how to play certain types of positions.) These deeply annotated games help you to understand many other games played by the same player or with the same opening variation.

In my conversations with professional players I could realize a few interesting ideas:

1.- Most GMs never say anything about their games, the move-finding process, etc. Let alone discuss opening variations (I say “most” because I once saw a GM discussing an opening variation in-depth and in public with a journalist , a former chessplayer too…)

2.- Many GMs mention the elusive term of “intuition” as something of paramount importance (we apparently know what it is, but they never explain what it is for them or how it can be developed and used)

3.- Instant notes to games for newspapers/magazines are not reliable, even those made by GMs.

4.- Public analysis of finished games showing opening possibilities, etc can be full of speculation (if you are looking on, it would be better for you not to believe they are showing possible novelties…)

5.- When books , even those by GMs are written for commercial/financial purposes alone, the notes in them tend to be superficial and may contain many holes.

6.- No GM will give away any of his/her secrets no matter the depth of the notes. This is why when we try to blindly imitate them we always perceive that odd feeling of “something-is-missing-here-and-I-don’t-know-what.” Or that of “This-or-that-GM-recommended-this-in-his/her-analysis-and-I-was-defeated-when-I-used-it-in-one-of-my-games”, etc.

You may say that with today’s programs mistakes and errors are ruled out. This is a mistake in itself. Computers evaluate positions by choosing several candidate moves and comparing them using several parameters. If everything concerning tactics may be OK, what about strategy?. A program may be giving an advantage to one of the sides and suddenly change its evaluation. In other cases they may be giving a big advantage to one of the sides because s/he is material up when in fact the position is a draw and cannot be forced. Chess is more than tactics and brute calculation of variations, and it is in these other fields where we can beat our computer assisted opponents who leave everything to the machine. (By the way, if this is not so, how is that people using strong Chess programs keep losing games???)

This is the position from the seventh game of the 1978 match Korchnoi – Karpov. Nor even GMs present there realized that after 42. Qh8+  (sealed) it is a draw.

W.: Bronstein (0)

B.: Larsen (1)

Amsterdam Itz 1964

1. d4  Nf6  2. c4  g6  3. Nc3  Bg7  4. e4  d6  5. Be2  0-0  6. Bg5  c5  7. d5  e6  8. Nf3  h6  9. Bf4  ed5  10. ed5  Re8  11. Nd2 Nh5  12. Bg3  Bg4  13. 0-0  Ng3:  14. hg3  Be2:  15. Ne2:  Bb2:  16. Rb1  Bg7  17. Rb7:  Nd7 18. Nf4  Nb6  19. Re1  Bc3  20. Ne4  Be1:  21. Ne6 Bf2:  22. Kf2:  fe6  23. Qg4  Rf8  24. Kg1  Rf6  25. Qh3  Qf8  26. Ng5  Rf1  27. Kh2  Rf5  28. Ne6:  Rh5  29. Qh5:  gh5  30. Nf8:  Rf8:  White resigned.

Before my last birthday I believed there were many fields in life where absolute truths did exist. You only have to take all the matters in your life to those “fields” and you would avoid all mistakes. Now I have fallen in a sort of  “absolute relativism” (no contradiction, you can believe it.) .So everything is relative . There are different people with different opinions on the same thing and all of them may have their share of truth. The same  thing can be observed from different points  of view. Some of them may be wrong and can be discarded , but now I think it is very difficult to formulate absolute truths in everything. The same can be applied to Chess, Chess against computer programs or Chess with the aid of programs. So don’t give up , don’t let other people discourage you with their ill-gotten, far-fetched “absolute truths”. You may lose your way a thousand times, you may defend against nonexistent threats (I myself am fighting against those “ghost threats”). Other people’s ideas may create a terrible state of mind in you. Work on your own, check everything by yourself, stand up if you fall, but never give up. At least as for  Chess is concerned…

W.: R. Byrne (0)

B.: R.J. Fischer (1)

US Chess Championship 1963-64

1. d4 Nf6  2. c4  g6 3. g3  c6  4. Bg2  d5 

(Against 1.d4 Fischer played mainly Indian defences. His favourite was the King’s Indian, but he also played the Grünfeld, and the Benoni. During some time he also used  Nimzoindian and Semi-Tarrasch/QGD systems . Here he plays the Neo-Grünfeld. )

5.  cd5  cd5 6. Nc3  Bg7  7. e3  0-0  8. Nge2  Nc6  9. 0-0  b6  10. b3  Ba6  11- Ba3  Re8  12. Qd2  e5!!  13. de5  Ne5:  14. Rfd1 ?! (Rad1) …, Nd3  15. Qc2  Nf2:!  16. Kf2: Ng4  17. Kg1  Ne3  18. Qd2  Ng2!!  19. Kg2:  d4!  20. Nd4:  Bb7  21. Kf1 Qd7!!  White resigned.

(Some of the Masters and GMs present could not believe it. Rossolimo stated that after 22. Qf2 White was even better. In fact it was not: if 22. Qf2 then …, Qh3/ 23. Kg1  Re1!!. And if 22. Ndb5 Qh3/23 Kg1  Bh6!! /)



Written by QChess

October 11, 2012 at 6:44 am

Posted in CHESS, Personal opinion, Studies

Tagged with

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

The Blog

The latest news on and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: