2024-11-18
Testing old chess computers through emulation
In the days before everyone had computers, if you wanted to play chess, your only option was to play with another person. In the late 1970's Fidelity introduced a series of electronic computer chess games. These early models played poorly, but I knew people who bought them just to be able to play and practice whenever they wanted. I managed to borrow a few of these so that I could get a feel for how well they played.
Although the early machines did not play well, things started to improve in the 1980s. There was a golden age of dedicated chess computers that went from 1983 to about 1993. In 1984, I purchased the Novag Super Constellation electronic chess game for what I think was $200, which was quite a bit of money in 1984. The U.S. Chess Federation had given it a rating of 2018, which is better than at least 90% of all adult tournament players. Any rating between 2000 and 2199 is considered to be the skill level of "Expert" and a higher rating of 2200 is considered to be "Master."
Although I am currently rated 2016, at the time I bought the
Novag Super Constellation I was rated just a little over 1700. In a few months, I would reach a rating of 1800 which is considered to be "Class A." Nevertheless, what I remember about the Novag Super Constellation is that it played better than me, which is surprising since it only contains an 8-bit processor running at just 4 MHZ. That is not very fast compared to modern 64-bit processors with multiple cores running at gigahertz speeds.
Over time, I bought a couple of better chess-playing computers and I have fond memories of practicing with all of them. I sold all these machines when I got a desktop computer in the mid-'90s, but I kind of regret it because they all were fun to play with it.
This became an issue when I was researching these old chess-playing computers where I saw many online claims that these computers were not as good as the ratings that had been assigned to them. For example, I saw the claim that the Novag Super Constellation was only about 1750 strength, and two other computers that I owned rated 2100 and 2265 were also claimed to be weaker than their advertised ratings. None of these claims match my experience, since all of the computers played better than I did.
I was so curious about this that I wanted to get my hands on one of the old chess computers, assuming that one can be found, however unlikely, and see how it compares to my current chess ability. Fortunately, I found software that allows me to emulate dozens of old chess computers on my Windows PC.
In my first game against the emulated Novag Super Constellation on level 1, the lowest level, I was able to win by only the slimmest of margins. I tried the same thing on the Fidelity Designer 2100, a slightly better machine, and I lost. I have no doubt that the other computer I owned, the stronger Fidelity Designer 2265, would stomp me like it used to when I played it 30 years ago. I will confirm this eventually.
So I tested a variety of chess computers with a somewhat difficult chess problem..
Based upon my testing, this is how long various chess computers take to solve this chess problem...
| # | Model | Year | Processor | Speed | ROM | Time | Depth | Nodes/S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
It is noteworthy that the Super Constellation solved the problem in roughly 2 minutes, which is within tournament time controls. I am disappointed in Chessmaster on the Super Nintendo because it failed to achieve this. It is running on a similar processor, and it is a port of Chessmaster 2000 written by Dave Kittinger, who also wrote the Super Constellation program!
* The second version of the Constellation 3.6 solves this problem on its top two tournament levels, but the first version moves too quickly to see the answer. It can only solve the problem on its infinite level, even though it takes about the same amount of time to see the solution. The second ROM set is based upon the Novag Expert program.
Super Constellation game #1.
2024-11-15
Magnus - I am not a Perfectionist
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gChcUAJ62HI
I am guilty of spending too much time on positions looking for the perfect move
2024-11-11
2024-11-04
2024-10-26
Thoughts on Getting Better at Chess
Players need to work on tactical pattern recognition and calculation. These are two sides of the same coin. We can't calculate very well unless we can also recognize the patterns on the chessboard.
My personal goal is to be able to either recognize or calculate 3 move tactics while playing speed chess. I think that there is a difference from 1500 to 2000 where the players go from calculating tactics to recognizing more of them instantly. Starting in the mid-1990s, I spent a great deal of time studying tactics and this took me from 1800 to 2000.
Many people claim that speed chess is bad, but I don't agree. It builds pattern recognition and teaches quick calculation, although it depends upon the person. Speed chess can create bad habits and some people just need more time to calculate.
There is this idea called "The Woodpecker Method" and a book by the same name. The method is to study the same set of a thousand tactical problems repeatedly. Each time you do them you will get faster at doing the entire set. Another author, Michael de La Maza, had the same idea in a book called "Rapid Chess Improvement". Before he wrote his book, he first published it as an article, but first, he sent the article to me to ask what I thought of it because I had already created a website advocating a similar idea.
I inadvertently discovered this method when I created my chess lesson website around 1996. The Internet was still very young and there wasn't much chess content so Chess Life magazine gave me an "award" for my site. After I spent months creating the 1, 2, and 3 move problems on my site, I challenged myself to see how long it would take me to go through each set of the white-to-move and black-to-move problems. It took a long time. However, the second and every subsequent pass was faster. I think that a 2000-level player should be able to get through each set of 1, 2, and 3 move problems in 30 minutes, but only after much practice. I have achieved this many times, but now I fall short so I intend to study the problems more.
I've been accused of just memorizing the answers to all my problems and not doing any actual tactical calculation. This is half right. For some problems, I remember the answers, but for others, I just remember the pattern involved and a few I don't remember at all. Even if the accusation were 100% correct, this would not be a bad thing. Chess skill relies on remembering what we have seen before and recognizing those patterns over the board.
Some people improve just by playing a ton of games, and this can work, but I think that it is less effective than studying tactics. Although most people play a great deal, I don't play many games and prefer to spend my time studying chess.
I also have thoughts on what it takes to become a chess master...
In the late 1970s, I studied basic King and Pawn endgames and became proficient at them. In the mid-1990s I studied more complex king and pawn endgames, all of which were from my games, and became skilled at those. I didn't have to memorize these endgames because I understood why the moves were correct. It is easier to retain information if you understand it, but this is harder to apply to other areas of the game like openings. I think that endgames are easy to learn, except the more difficult ones like the bishop and knight mate or the queen versus rook ending.
I have a full course covering King and Pawn Endings on my website.
My point is that I think that it is possible to take one small area of the game and master it. I have done this with King and Pawn Endgames. Chess is not just one skill, but many, so I think that a person could master chess by just focusing on one aspect of the game until they master it, and then move on to studying a different aspect of the game. For example, I think that it is possible to learn a particular opening as well as a master, although this would require much effort.
Online ratings mean very little to me. I can't control how well the anonymous person on the Internet plays or if they are cheating, which many of them do. What matters to me is how well I play. Likewise, losing games at the chess club doesn't phase me. I see losses as an opportunity to learn something. My goal is to always keep learning. Losing a game doesn't mean that I am a bad player, and I have confidence in my chess skill. I have no problem playing and losing to stronger players because my goal is to play the best that I am able regardless of the result.
2024-10-18
Chess Level 02: Black to Play
I think that this is interesting.
2024-10-14
Magnus explained why Chess is popular
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/aGc5lYv3cvI
Chess is too complicated for humans to completely master, but Magnus Carlsen has come closer than anyone.
KQ vs. KR Endgame
Recently, I have put much effort into learning the endgame KQ vs. KR. This is probably the most difficult chess endgame to study. Many moves are counterintuitive compared to other endgames where you crowd the enemy king until you get forced checkmate.
It tempting in many positions to check horizontally or vertically. This is often wrong, and the correct procedure is to check once or twice along a diagonal before checking horizontally or vertically. In some positions, the best move is to not check but attack the squares around the opponent's king. To win, you have to be able to calculate well.
Against a good defense, there is a desired position that you must reach to separate the King and Rook. I note this position on the web page below.
This is also the kind of ending that you might only see twice in a lifetime. Because of the difficulty, studying it might not be time well spent. You cannot learn it overnight or just through general principles.
However, I want to be prepared for it.
I have created 33 study positions on the webpage below. These start with the easiest and progress gradually to the more difficult. Most problems build upon the ones that came before them.
If you are interested, scroll down until you see "KQ vs. KR" on the right side.
This is not yet complete. I plan to add more positions regarding the "3rd rank defense" and how to push the enemy king to the corner.
2024-10-02
Trying out the NEW Internet Chess Club
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73oJD5nf3Ok
The different speeds of playing chess from the fastest to the slowest are called: Bullet, Blitz or Speed Chess, Rapid or Quick Chess, Action Chess (Antiquated. Between 30 and 59 minutes per player.), Standard, and finally Correspondence or Postal Chess, also known online as Daily.
@john2001plus
9 minutes ago (edited)
As far as I know, ICC was the first place on the Internet to play chess.
I joined ICC back around 1995. I didn't even have the World Wide Web at that point. I had used a text-only version of the Internet called "Usenet" for about five years. Within a few months, I downloaded Netscape and accessed the World Wide Web for the first time. It was slow and I had no idea what to do with it. There was hardly any content.
So back then to play chess on ICC you had to download a program that would act as a graphical user interface. It communicated with the server using text but displayed the board on the screen. The most popular program was called "Ziics", but it would be later replaced by a program called Blitzn which was the standard until recently.
BTW, back in the mid-90s, I was having an online chat with the owner of ICC, who told me that he was inventing a new time control, which was less than 3 minutes for the whole game. He wanted to know if I had any ideas for a name for the new time control. I tried to come up with something, but he suddenly had an inspiration and called it "bullet". I told him that this was a terrible name because what do guns have to do with chess? However, he stuck to his guns, sort of speak.
The different speeds of playing chess from the fastest to the slowest are called: Bullet, Blitz or Speed Chess, Rapid or Quick Chess, Action Chess (Antiquated. Between 30 and 59 minutes per player.), Standard, and finally Correspondence or Postal Chess, also known online as Daily.
@john2001plus
9 minutes ago (edited)
As far as I know, ICC was the first place on the Internet to play chess.
I joined ICC back around 1995. I didn't even have the World Wide Web at that point. I had used a text-only version of the Internet called "Usenet" for about five years. Within a few months, I downloaded Netscape and accessed the World Wide Web for the first time. It was slow and I had no idea what to do with it. There was hardly any content.
So back then to play chess on ICC you had to download a program that would act as a graphical user interface. It communicated with the server using text but displayed the board on the screen. The most popular program was called "Ziics", but it would be later replaced by a program called Blitzn which was the standard until recently.
BTW, back in the mid-90s, I was having an online chat with the owner of ICC, who told me that he was inventing a new time control, which was less than 3 minutes for the whole game. He wanted to know if I had any ideas for a name for the new time control. I tried to come up with something, but he suddenly had an inspiration and called it "bullet". I told him that this was a terrible name because what do guns have to do with chess? However, he stuck to his guns, sort of speak.
2024-09-24
Hitler vs Lenin | Chess Game in 1909
https://youtu.be/GYUQYsLWlMI?si=uvwAv7afS2WIOh6E
There is an old story about Hitler and Lenin playing a chess game and there is even a drawing depicting this, but many historians think that it is a myth.
Many famous people played chess. Albert Einstein played Robert Oppenheimer. Mike Tyson played Muhammad Ali. Humphrey Bogart and John Lennon were both officially Experts. Many movie stars would play chess on movie sets while waiting for their scenes, such as John Wayne, Lauren Bacall, and Tony Randall.
Benjamin Franklin was an avid player and met the French master Philidor.
There is an old story about Hitler and Lenin playing a chess game and there is even a drawing depicting this, but many historians think that it is a myth.
Many famous people played chess. Albert Einstein played Robert Oppenheimer. Mike Tyson played Muhammad Ali. Humphrey Bogart and John Lennon were both officially Experts. Many movie stars would play chess on movie sets while waiting for their scenes, such as John Wayne, Lauren Bacall, and Tony Randall.
Benjamin Franklin was an avid player and met the French master Philidor.
2024-09-16
2024-09-08
2024-08-30
2024-08-15
2024-08-14
Magnus on Generational Shifts
This is interesting. Magnus Carlsen relies a great deal on intuition. In an interview from about a dozen years ago, he said that he usually sees the best move right away, but still has to calculate to ensure that intuition is correct. His pattern recognition is the best in the world. He seems to know more about chess than anyone else.
Kasparov and Fischer were better at chess calculation than anyone in their generation. As a result, they tended to play aggressively. Karpov had a completely different style, where he was a strategic player who relied on being able to outmaneuver his opponents. Magnus Carlsen can do both, making him a nearly perfect chess player.
However, in recent years, we have seen the rise of many young players, especially from India and Asia, who could someday become World Champion.
2024-08-09
2024-08-03
2024-07-27
Symmetrical English Opening
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: John Coffey <john2001plus@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 6:57 PM
Subject: Symmetrical English Opening
To: Jay, John, Craig
This is the last game I want to share from our group coaching session.
It is most likely the best ten-minute game I have ever played.
https://onethousandpositionstochessmastery.blogspot.com/2024/07/symmetrical-english-opening.html
I am in the process of updating both of my chess lesson websites, which mirror each other. I plan to drop my web-hosted site next year and stop paying for it because the free blog page is good enough.
On the blog page, I have ordered the games chronologically, which is meant to show the advancement of my playing style over the last 50 years.
I have a detailed endgame lesson I could give some time. It would take maybe 1.5 to 2.5 hours.
P.S. Although I have added a bunch of games, both sites contain a bunch of unnecessary posts that I am going to remove.
--
Best wishes,
John Coffey
http://www.entertainmentjourney.com
From: John Coffey <john2001plus@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 6:57 PM
Subject: Symmetrical English Opening
To: Jay, John, Craig
This is the last game I want to share from our group coaching session.
It is most likely the best ten-minute game I have ever played.
https://onethousandpositionstochessmastery.blogspot.com/2024/07/symmetrical-english-opening.html
I am in the process of updating both of my chess lesson websites, which mirror each other. I plan to drop my web-hosted site next year and stop paying for it because the free blog page is good enough.
On the blog page, I have ordered the games chronologically, which is meant to show the advancement of my playing style over the last 50 years.
I have a detailed endgame lesson I could give some time. It would take maybe 1.5 to 2.5 hours.
P.S. Although I have added a bunch of games, both sites contain a bunch of unnecessary posts that I am going to remove.
--
Best wishes,
John Coffey
http://www.entertainmentjourney.com
Slav Defense
I hadn't looked at this game for a very long time, but it is interesting enough that I want to share it.
It is maybe more complicated than most games I share.
2024-07-21
Utah Senior Championship, June 2010
I spent some time analyzing an old game which I think is instructive...
2024-07-18
2024-07-15
Fwd: French Advance Variation
FYI.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: John Coffey <john2001plus@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 12:21 PM
Subject: French Advance Variation
To:
From: John Coffey <john2001plus@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 12:21 PM
Subject: French Advance Variation
To:
I would have shown this game if we had more time, but our session was long as it was.
2024-07-04
2024-06-27
Chess Game as best as I can remember
[Event "Columbus Chess Club"]
[Site "Lewellen Chapel"]
[Date "Jun 27, 2024"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Omar"]
[Black "John Coffey"]
[Result "0-1"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. g3 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. e4 d6 5. exd6 Bxd6 6. Nc3 O-O 7. f3 Nxh2 8.
Bf4 Bxf4 9. gxf4 Qh4+ 10. Ke2 Qxf4 11. Qd2 Qxd2+ 12. Kxd2 Nxf1+ 13. Rxf1 Nc6
14. Nd5 Be6 15. Ne2 Rad8 16. c4 Ne5 17. Kc3 g6 (17… Nxc4?? 18. Ne7+ Kh8 19. Rxh7+!) 18. Nef4 Bxd5 19. cxd5 Kg7
0-1 eventually
[Site "Lewellen Chapel"]
[Date "Jun 27, 2024"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Omar"]
[Black "John Coffey"]
[Result "0-1"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. g3 e5 3. dxe5 Ng4 4. e4 d6 5. exd6 Bxd6 6. Nc3 O-O 7. f3 Nxh2 8.
Bf4 Bxf4 9. gxf4 Qh4+ 10. Ke2 Qxf4 11. Qd2 Qxd2+ 12. Kxd2 Nxf1+ 13. Rxf1 Nc6
14. Nd5 Be6 15. Ne2 Rad8 16. c4 Ne5 17. Kc3 g6 (17… Nxc4?? 18. Ne7+ Kh8 19. Rxh7+!) 18. Nef4 Bxd5 19. cxd5 Kg7
0-1 eventually
2024-06-26
2024-06-02
Familiar Endgame
I have reached this king and pawn endgame a couple of times, once online and once in a tournament, so I studied it. I show this endgame in my chess lessons.
The rise of American Hikaru Nakamura
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7hhB7Oko2A&t=1126s
We are also seeing the rise of Indian players.
I watched Nakamura play in a speed chess tournament at the National Open in Vegas when he was 10 to 12 years old. He beat a Grandmaster.
2024-06-01
2024-05-06
2024-05-04
2024-04-30
2024-04-23
2024-04-21
2024-04-19
Re: KPPPP vs. KPPPP
The first time I did this problem, I was impulsive and got it wrong. It is not that difficult.
https://www.chess.com/puzzles/problem/588620/practice
2024-04-11
2024-03-18
Chess Puzzles
I've done this problem a few times. I go back over the problems that I have done before.
This problem has given me some difficulty. I suppose that it is a relatively simple king chase, but my brain doesn't like to calculate that far ahead.
2024-02-17
2024-02-14
Chess IS IN DANGER...
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6Qw5D8DZMOI
I have no opinion about this whatsoever. I like chess.com so I am willing to pay for it. I am also willing to play some on lichess.
2024-01-26
Push to 3000 on chess.com puzzle rating
The puzzle ratings on chess.com don't correspond in any way to USCF ratings. I complained about this to chess.com, but they responded that their puzzle ratings are where they want to them to be. (BTW, the upper limit on puzzle ratings is ridiculously high at around 32768. Some people have actually reached this limit. For computer nerds like me, this matches the upper limit on a 16-bit signed number. This tells me that they are using 16 bits to store ratings in their database.)
I wanted to see if I could push my Chess.com puzzle rating up to 3000. I've been there before, but it is a hard rating to maintain.
My puzzle rating averaged around 2935. At this level, I am almost as likely to fail to solve a puzzle as I am to succeed.
I had a theory that if I did enough puzzles I could reach 3000 through a "random walk". The idea was that if I bounced up and down enough I would eventually hit 3000 through random variation. This wouldn't mean that I deserve to be at 3000, but got lucky.
It appears to me that chess.com will present puzzles with a sizeable range of difficulty. This is where luck plays a factor. However, every time my rating would creep up, I would face problems that seemed too difficult. This definitely took me out of my comfort zone.
It took me about 2.5 hours to reach 3000. However, to get there I had to analyze at a deeper level than I am used to. Whereas the simple chess problems on my website are designed to build pattern recognition, it seems to me that the puzzles on chess.com are more of a measure of how well a person can analyze. However, pattern recognition is still a factor.
2024-01-20
2024-01-11
White to play and mate in 2 moves
Composed chess problems often involve zugzwang, which essentially means that after our move every possible move of the opponent leads to a loss.
2024-01-10
HIKARU vs LEVY: EPIC CHESS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJCHzQpCjSA
I found this very instructive, more than the recap videos. I would like to see more like this.
@john2001plus
0 seconds agoI found this very instructive, more than the recap videos. I would like to see more like this.
2023-12-24
2023-12-21
2023-12-01
NEW Hans Niemann Chess Cheating Accusations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJcYMCqCJ2A
Either Hans Nieman is cheating or he soon will become a world top 10 player.
Human beings can be sociopathic, and humans also have a great capacity for delusional thinking. I have met many narcissistic chess players, and these people can be extremely annoying. I am pretty sure that narcissism is more common among chess players because competition appeals to people's egos.
This describes Nieman whose egotistical statements have turned opinions against him. Someone like him might feel entitled to win regardless of ability. In this case, a person could justify cheating because they think they are not getting the recognition they deserve. He could be motivated by a desire for acclaim.
I hope Nieman is the next great chess talent, but I don't know if this is true.
If I have time, I will analyze his games from this tournament.
Fwd: Chess Game
Not a perfect game, but I found it interesting. Around move 29 I chose to play on the kingside and this plan worked how I intended.
[Event "Columbus Chess Club G/10"]
[Site "Llewellyn Center"]
[Date "2023.11.30"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Coffey, John"]
[Black "Salo, Steve"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2016"]
[PlyCount "73"]
1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nd4 4. Nxd4 cxd4 5. Ne4 e5 6. d3 Nf6 7. Nxf6+ Qxf6
8. g3 b6 9. Bg2 Rb8 10. O-O Bb7 11. e3 Bxg2 12. Kxg2 h5 13. exd4 exd4 14. Re1+
Be7 15. Bf4 Rc8 16. h4 Qc6+ 17. Qf3 Kf8 18. Re4 f6 19. Rxd4 Qxf3+ 20. Kxf3 g5
21. hxg5 fxg5 22. Be5 Rg8 23. Rxd7 Ke8 24. Rxa7 Rf8+ 25. Kg2 Rf7 26. b3 Bc5 27.
Rxf7 Kxf7 28. d4 Be7 29. Rh1 Kg6 30. f4 gxf4 31. gxf4 Rd8 32. Kf3 Rf8 33. Ke4
Bb4 34. Rg1+ Kh7 35. Rg7+ Kh6 36. Rb7 Ba5 37. Bg7+ 1-0
[Site "Llewellyn Center"]
[Date "2023.11.30"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Coffey, John"]
[Black "Salo, Steve"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2016"]
[PlyCount "73"]
1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nd4 4. Nxd4 cxd4 5. Ne4 e5 6. d3 Nf6 7. Nxf6+ Qxf6
8. g3 b6 9. Bg2 Rb8 10. O-O Bb7 11. e3 Bxg2 12. Kxg2 h5 13. exd4 exd4 14. Re1+
Be7 15. Bf4 Rc8 16. h4 Qc6+ 17. Qf3 Kf8 18. Re4 f6 19. Rxd4 Qxf3+ 20. Kxf3 g5
21. hxg5 fxg5 22. Be5 Rg8 23. Rxd7 Ke8 24. Rxa7 Rf8+ 25. Kg2 Rf7 26. b3 Bc5 27.
Rxf7 Kxf7 28. d4 Be7 29. Rh1 Kg6 30. f4 gxf4 31. gxf4 Rd8 32. Kf3 Rf8 33. Ke4
Bb4 34. Rg1+ Kh7 35. Rg7+ Kh6 36. Rb7 Ba5 37. Bg7+ 1-0
--
2023-11-24
2023-11-20
2023-11-15
How to Stop Blundering and Start Improving Your Chess Game: Advice from a GM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4Gcl0YK034
Apparently, GM Ben Finegold believes the same things I do.
His comments at the end are funny.
2023-11-14
One of my best chess tactics
I consider this to be one of my better chess tactics. Of course, we have seen Grandmasters like Bobby Fischer make similar moves, so chess masters probably consider this to be pretty routine.
The Reason People Don't Get Better At Chess According to Ben Finegold
As a chess YouTuber, Ben Finegold is not my favorite. His presentation is just not as interesting. He seems rather casual, less informative, and cocky.
However, I like the point he makes here, which is that people suck at chess because they blunder and don't learn from their mistakes.
He is only partially correct. People try to learn from their mistakes, but they do so by just playing. It is repeated trial and error. People don't retain information this way, although if a person played a great deal then they would make progress up to a point, which I think would be around the 1700-1800 level. It is difficult to get better than this without some serious study.
So the way I learn from my mistakes is that I analyze as many of my games as I have time for, and I have a system for reviewing my past mistakes. This takes much time, and maybe some people would feel that the time would be better spent just playing.
I strongly believe that studying tactics is critical. There were specific tactics that I studied that took me from 1800 to 1900, and then a different group of tactics that took me from 1900 to 2000. I studied tactics 30 minutes a day almost without fail, which meant that I spent hundreds of hours studying tactics. However, this is something I haven't had time for lately, so my most recent goal is to study tactics for 20 minutes per day.
2023-11-05
Some of my chess lesson material
FYI.
The theme of today's lesson is that a person can often get a winning advantage right out of the opening.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: John Coffey <john2001plus@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM
Subject: Chess Games from face to face chess lesson plus bonus material
To: John T
From: John Coffey <john2001plus@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM
Subject: Chess Games from face to face chess lesson plus bonus material
To: John T
This is the first game that I suggest learning by rote:
This game is about weaknesses:
Another game to study:
We talked about this opening:
We talked about how Queenside bishop moves are bad for Black in Queen Pawn openings:
Another game that I showed to illustrate this idea:
[Event "Columbus Chess Club"]
[Site "Lewellen Center"]
[Date "Nov 2, 2023"]
[Round "3"]
[White "John Coffey"]
[Black "NN"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 Bf5 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. Qb3 b6 7. Ne5 e6 8. Bg5
Be7 9. e4 dxe4 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. Bb5+ Ke7 12. Qb4+ Qd6 13. Qxd6+ Kxd6 14. Nxf7+
Ke7 15. Nxh8 Bxd4 16. O-O a6 17. Ba4 b5 18. Bc2 Nc6 19. Bxe4 Bxe4 20. Nxe4 Rf8
21. Rac1 Rc8 22. Rfd1 Bxb2 23. Rc2 Bf6 24. Nd6
1-0
[Site "Lewellen Center"]
[Date "Nov 2, 2023"]
[Round "3"]
[White "John Coffey"]
[Black "NN"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 Bf5 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. Qb3 b6 7. Ne5 e6 8. Bg5
Be7 9. e4 dxe4 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. Bb5+ Ke7 12. Qb4+ Qd6 13. Qxd6+ Kxd6 14. Nxf7+
Ke7 15. Nxh8 Bxd4 16. O-O a6 17. Ba4 b5 18. Bc2 Nc6 19. Bxe4 Bxe4 20. Nxe4 Rf8
21. Rac1 Rc8 22. Rfd1 Bxb2 23. Rc2 Bf6 24. Nd6
1-0
This is an opening trap that everyone should know, even if it wasn't part of our lessons.
In addition to this, in the Queen's gambit accepted, if Black tries to accept the gambit and hold onto the pawn, it is always bad:
This is a speed game I lost in Utah in the 1990s.
2023-10-30
The Making of an Expert
true expertise is mainly the product of years of intense practice and dedicated coaching. Ordinary practice is not enough: To reach elite levels of performance, you need to constantly push yourself beyond your abilities and comfort level.
2023-10-29
Fwd: Legal Trap
Begin forwarded message:
From: Albert
I can think of 2 reasons why this YouTube short has over 41,000 views. lol
2023-10-28
2023-10-15
2023-10-08
2023-09-30
2023-09-17
2023-09-06
2023-08-23
2023-08-10
The Value of Chess Pieces
https://youtu.be/HfnMTl_09SQ?t=521
@john2001plus
1 second ago
Bobby Fischer considered the knight to be worth 3 pawns and the bishop to be worth 3.25. I independently came to the same conclusion, after first valuing the bishop as 3.5. As evidence for this, a bishop and knight trade for a rook and a pawn is considered a bad deal. Likewise, in most endings, two bishops are technically winning against two knights, although there are exceptions where the reverse could be true. So the value of the pieces is very much position dependent.
My friend Al made a video about how valuable the knight can be in practical play between human players.
@john2001plus
1 second ago
Bobby Fischer considered the knight to be worth 3 pawns and the bishop to be worth 3.25. I independently came to the same conclusion, after first valuing the bishop as 3.5. As evidence for this, a bishop and knight trade for a rook and a pawn is considered a bad deal. Likewise, in most endings, two bishops are technically winning against two knights, although there are exceptions where the reverse could be true. So the value of the pieces is very much position dependent.
My friend Al made a video about how valuable the knight can be in practical play between human players.
2023-07-28
2023-07-04
2023-07-02
Chess Level 08: White to play
This is a simple attack and my opponent allowed a mate in 1. However, the computer line is complex and I think pretty interesting.
2023-06-17
2023-06-10
2023-06-09
2023-06-07
2023-06-04
2023-05-31
2023-05-27
2023-05-25
2023-05-21
Carlsen: Haven’t Studied Chess Recently; It Showed.
Paul Morphy was considerably better than his contemporaries. So was Bobby Fischer. Neither benefited from computers, databases, or modern opening theory. For this reason, it is harder to compare the skill level of their play with the level of the top current players.
Gary Kasparov was only a bit better than his contemporaries but remained World Champion for 15 years.
Magnus Carlsen is the closest thing to a perfect human chess player. He knows more about chess than anyone ever. He definitely would lose to a computer, but that would be like a math contest against a scientific calculator, or a boxing match with a brick wall. Computers really are perfect, or at least close enough that we can't tell the difference, whereas all humans make mistakes, including Magnus.
As good as Magnus is, he is only a bit better than his contemporaries. There are a number of players who are not far behind.
Bobby Fischer reportedly had an IQ of 180. He was incredibly brilliant. I have heard that Magnus Carlsen has an IQ of 190. He is also incredibly brilliant. I don't know how one quantifies the difference between 180 and 190, especially half a century apart.
Magnus Carlsen once admitted that he had to drink less to play chess well. I have seen him play speed chess online while apparently drunk but he still won because he can play intuitively almost perfect chess. I've seen Russian Grandmasters also win while drunk. So, therefore, I've been wondering if Magnus Carsen is an alcoholic.
In this interview, he looks more disheveled than usual. It is also a bit odd that he decided not to participate in the World Chess Championship, giving up the World Chess Champion title that he has held for ten years.
2023-05-17
2023-05-09
Magnus Carlsen - Wikiquote
"I think in general the future of classical chess as it is now is a little bit dubious. I would love to see more Fischer [Random] Chess being played over-the-board in a classical format. That would be very interesting to me, because I feel that that particular format is pretty well suited to classical chess as basically you need a lot of time in order to be able to play the game even remotely decently. And you can see that in the way that Fischer [Random] Chess is being played now when it is played in a rapid format. The quality of the games isn't very high because we make such fundamental mistakes in the opening. We don't understand it nearly enough and I think that would increase a lot if we were given a classical time control there. So I would definitely hope for that." — November 2020 [1]
"I'm certainly somebody who hopes for more 960 in classical format because I feel like 960 is not that suited to rapid and blitz because you're just gonna play too poorly. You're just gonna have absolutely no clue, but if you actually have time to sit down and think for half an hour on your first five moves, then maybe you can get some more understanding of the game."— in a stream with Eric Hansen, April 2021 [2] 53:29 - 54:36 [3]
"I'm certainly somebody who hopes for more 960 in classical format because I feel like 960 is not that suited to rapid and blitz because you're just gonna play too poorly. You're just gonna have absolutely no clue, but if you actually have time to sit down and think for half an hour on your first five moves, then maybe you can get some more understanding of the game."— in a stream with Eric Hansen, April 2021 [2] 53:29 - 54:36 [3]
Quotes about Carlsen
You could say that both Fischer and Carlsen had or have the ability to let chess look simple. – Viswanathan Anand
Chessdom - Anand about Chess Classics and his games with Carlsen
In six months of working with Magnus I have seen in him many of the qualities of the great champions. – Garry Kasparov
ChessBase.com - Breaking news Carlsen and Kasparov join forces, 7 September 2009
ChessBase.com - Breaking news Carlsen and Kasparov join forces, 7 September 2009
2023-05-08
2023-05-06
2023-05-05
2023-05-03
2023-04-30
2023-04-28
Chess Game
[Event "Casual G/10"]
[Site "Columbus Indiana Chess Club"]
[Date "2023.04.27"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Makita, Omar"]
[Black "Coffey, John"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A20"]
[BlackElo "2016"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[EventType "blitz"]
1. c4 e5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 c6 4. Nc3 d5 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. d4 exd4 7. Qxd4 Nc6 8.
Qa4 Be7 9. Nf3 O-O 10. O-O Be6 11. Rd1 Qb6 12. Ng5 Rfd8 13. b3 Ng4 14. Nxd5
Bxd5 (14... Qxf2+ 15. Kh1 Bxd5 16. e4 Bxe4 17. Rxd8+ Rxd8 18. Qxe4 Rd1+) 15.
Qxg4 Bxg2 16. Rxd8+ Rxd8 17. Kxg2 Qd4 18. Qxd4 Nxd4 19. Ne4 Nc2 20. Rb1 Rd1 21.
Nc3 Rd7 22. e3 Ne1+ 23. Kf1 Nf3 24. Kg2 Ne1+ 25. Kh3 Nd3 26. Ne4 f5 27. Nd2
Nxc1 28. Rxc1 Rxd2 29. Rc8+ Kf7 30. Rc7 Rxa2 31. Kg2 b5 32. Rb7 b4 0-1
[Site "Columbus Indiana Chess Club"]
[Date "2023.04.27"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Makita, Omar"]
[Black "Coffey, John"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A20"]
[BlackElo "2016"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[EventType "blitz"]
1. c4 e5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 c6 4. Nc3 d5 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. d4 exd4 7. Qxd4 Nc6 8.
Qa4 Be7 9. Nf3 O-O 10. O-O Be6 11. Rd1 Qb6 12. Ng5 Rfd8 13. b3 Ng4 14. Nxd5
Bxd5 (14... Qxf2+ 15. Kh1 Bxd5 16. e4 Bxe4 17. Rxd8+ Rxd8 18. Qxe4 Rd1+) 15.
Qxg4 Bxg2 16. Rxd8+ Rxd8 17. Kxg2 Qd4 18. Qxd4 Nxd4 19. Ne4 Nc2 20. Rb1 Rd1 21.
Nc3 Rd7 22. e3 Ne1+ 23. Kf1 Nf3 24. Kg2 Ne1+ 25. Kh3 Nd3 26. Ne4 f5 27. Nd2
Nxc1 28. Rxc1 Rxd2 29. Rc8+ Kf7 30. Rc7 Rxa2 31. Kg2 b5 32. Rb7 b4 0-1
Omar is a new player at the Columbus Chess Club who I think plays close to my level.
2023-04-26
World Chess Championship cutting to the chase
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2h7EnDkL_c&t=1095s
"The match is best of 14 games; a score of at least 7½ would win the world championship. If the score is equal after 14 games, tiebreak games with faster time controls will be played:[36]
A match consisting of 4 rapid games with 25 minutes per side and a 10-second increment starting with move 1 will be played. If a player scores 2½ points or more, he would win the championship.
If the score is equal after the rapid portion, a mini-match of two blitz games will be played, with a time control of 5 minutes per side and a 3-second increment starting with move 1. If a player scores 1½ points or more, he would win the championship. If the blitz mini-match is tied, another mini-match with the same conditions will be played to decide the winner of the championship.
If both blitz mini-matches are tied, a single game with a time control of 3 minutes per side and a 2-second increment starting with move 1 will be played, and the winner would win the championship. A drawing of lots shall decide which player plays with the white pieces. If this game is drawn, another blitz game with reversed colours will be played with the same time control, and the winner would win the championship. This process will be repeated until either player wins a game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2023
One has to wonder if Magnus Carlsen would have made the same mistakes. I doubt it. He tends to be cool under pressure and more consistent overall.
If the match ends in a tie, there is a playoff day this Sunday using rapid time controls. The games are played at 3 PM Kazakhstan time, which is 5 AM Indiana time. I could see myself getting up early to watch the playoff.
"The match is best of 14 games; a score of at least 7½ would win the world championship. If the score is equal after 14 games, tiebreak games with faster time controls will be played:[36]
A match consisting of 4 rapid games with 25 minutes per side and a 10-second increment starting with move 1 will be played. If a player scores 2½ points or more, he would win the championship.
If the score is equal after the rapid portion, a mini-match of two blitz games will be played, with a time control of 5 minutes per side and a 3-second increment starting with move 1. If a player scores 1½ points or more, he would win the championship. If the blitz mini-match is tied, another mini-match with the same conditions will be played to decide the winner of the championship.
If both blitz mini-matches are tied, a single game with a time control of 3 minutes per side and a 2-second increment starting with move 1 will be played, and the winner would win the championship. A drawing of lots shall decide which player plays with the white pieces. If this game is drawn, another blitz game with reversed colours will be played with the same time control, and the winner would win the championship. This process will be repeated until either player wins a game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_2023
2023-04-21
Chronos Chess Clock Repair/LCD Repair
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zw3upjm18o&t=32s
Much to my amazement, this method fixed the display problem on one of my Chronos chess timers. I used my mother's hair dryer. I heated the ribbon cable to the point that it was almost too hot to touch. Then I rubbed my finger across it to make the cable stick better. No more display problems.
I've thrown away at least 3 Chronos clocks in Salt Lake City because they had stopped working. I kept the clocks in the trunk of my car year-round which seemed to ruin them. They are sensitive to heat, cold, and moisture. It is possible that my old clocks were fixable.
These clocks were considered top-of-the-line, were pretty expensive compared to other game timers, and are now collector items because they are not made anymore.
Much to my amazement, this method fixed the display problem on one of my Chronos chess timers. I used my mother's hair dryer. I heated the ribbon cable to the point that it was almost too hot to touch. Then I rubbed my finger across it to make the cable stick better. No more display problems.
I've thrown away at least 3 Chronos clocks in Salt Lake City because they had stopped working. I kept the clocks in the trunk of my car year-round which seemed to ruin them. They are sensitive to heat, cold, and moisture. It is possible that my old clocks were fixable.
These clocks were considered top-of-the-line, were pretty expensive compared to other game timers, and are now collector items because they are not made anymore.
2023-04-18
THIS IS INSANE................ World Chess Championship
Cutting to the chase on the World Chess Championship...
2023-03-31
2023-03-26
Re: Chess Puzzle - Magnus Carlsen
I usually have a knack for solving mate in 2 chess problems, some of which can be very difficult. I have a technique that I use to find the answer more quickly.
This problem seemed pretty hard. I kept looking at everything that didn't work.
I got it in 6 minutes.
When I first started solving composed puzzles, there were some that took me half an hour to figure out, but I got better at it with practice.
On Mar 26, 2023, at 6:10 PM, Albert wrote:
Best wishes,
John Coffey
On Mar 26, 2023, at 6:10 PM, Albert wrote:
Just for fun. Magnus solved it in less than 2 minutes.
2023-03-21
2023-03-18
2023-03-10
Mistakes Chess Players Make: White to play
Presented for your consideration...
2023-03-02
Interesting Chess Game #2
I tried making an aggressive sacrifice in the opening.
[Event "Columbus Chess Club"]
[Site "Lewelyn Center"]
[Date "Mar 2, 2023"]
[Round "3"]
[White "John Coffey"]
[Black "James Behmke"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 d5 4. fxe5 Nxe4 5. d3 Nxc3 6. bxc3 c5 7. Nf3 Bg4 8.
Be2 Nc6 9. O-O Be7 10. Ng5 Bxe2 11. Qxe2 Bxg5 12. Qh5 O-O 13. Bxg5 Qd7 14. Bf6
gxf6 15. exf6 Kh8 16. Rf4 Rg8 17. Rh4
1-0
[Event "Columbus Chess Club"]
[Site "Lewelyn Center"]
[Date "Mar 2, 2023"]
[Round "3"]
[White "John Coffey"]
[Black "James Behmke"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 d5 4. fxe5 Nxe4 5. d3 Nxc3 6. bxc3 c5 7. Nf3 Bg4 8.
Be2 Nc6 9. O-O Be7 10. Ng5 Bxe2 11. Qxe2 Bxg5 12. Qh5 O-O 13. Bxg5 Qd7 14. Bf6
gxf6 15. exf6 Kh8 16. Rf4 Rg8 17. Rh4
1-0
Interesting Chess Game
I decided to give up the exchange for some passed pawns. It might not
have been technically accurate at first, but it turned into a winning
game.
[Event "Columbus Chess Club"]
[Site "Lewelyn Center"]
[Date "Mar 2, 2023"]
[Round "2"]
[White "James Behmke"]
[Black "John Coffey"]
[Result "0-1"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6 3. f4 d5 4. Nf3 d4 5. Ne2 Nf6 6. d3 Nc6 7. Ng3 Be7 8. Be2
O-O 9. O-O Ng4 10. e5 f5 11. h3 Ne3 12. Bxe3 dxe3 13. c3 g5 14. fxg5 Bxg5 15.
Nxg5 Qxg5 16. Nh5 f4 17. Nf6+ Rxf6 18. exf6 Qxf6 19. Bh5 e5 20. Bg4 Bxg4 21.
Qxg4+ Kh8 22. g3 Rg8 23. Qf3 Qg6 24. Kh2 Qxg3+ 25. Qxg3 Rxg3 26. Rg1 Rf3 27.
Rgf1 e4 28. dxe4 Ne5 29. Rxf3 Nxf3+ 30. Kg2 Nh4+
0-1
have been technically accurate at first, but it turned into a winning
game.
[Event "Columbus Chess Club"]
[Site "Lewelyn Center"]
[Date "Mar 2, 2023"]
[Round "2"]
[White "James Behmke"]
[Black "John Coffey"]
[Result "0-1"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6 3. f4 d5 4. Nf3 d4 5. Ne2 Nf6 6. d3 Nc6 7. Ng3 Be7 8. Be2
O-O 9. O-O Ng4 10. e5 f5 11. h3 Ne3 12. Bxe3 dxe3 13. c3 g5 14. fxg5 Bxg5 15.
Nxg5 Qxg5 16. Nh5 f4 17. Nf6+ Rxf6 18. exf6 Qxf6 19. Bh5 e5 20. Bg4 Bxg4 21.
Qxg4+ Kh8 22. g3 Rg8 23. Qf3 Qg6 24. Kh2 Qxg3+ 25. Qxg3 Rxg3 26. Rg1 Rf3 27.
Rgf1 e4 28. dxe4 Ne5 29. Rxf3 Nxf3+ 30. Kg2 Nh4+
0-1
2023-02-28
Chat GPT
Talk about Paul Morphy.
Paul Morphy (1837-1884) was an American chess player who is widely regarded as one of the greatest chess players of all time. He was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, and began playing chess at a very young age, learning the game from his father and uncle. Morphy showed an early talent for chess and quickly developed his skills.
In 1857, Morphy traveled to New York to compete in the first American Chess Congress. He won the tournament, defeating several of the best players in the country, including Alexander Beaufort Meek and Louis Paulsen. Following his success in New York, Morphy traveled to Europe to compete against the best chess players in the world.
In Europe, Morphy quickly established himself as a dominant force in chess. He defeated many of the top players of the time, including Adolf Anderssen, the winner of the 1851 London Chess Tournament, and Howard Staunton, the leading English player. Morphy's style of play was aggressive and attacking, and he was known for his brilliant combinations and sacrifices.
Despite his success, Morphy's career was relatively short-lived. He retired from competitive chess at the age of 21 and returned to his law studies in Louisiana. Morphy's retirement from chess was a great loss to the game, and many chess historians speculate about what he might have achieved had he continued to play.
Despite his brief career, Morphy's contributions to chess have been significant. He was one of the first players to emphasize the importance of developing the pieces in the opening, and he introduced several new attacking ideas that are still used by chess players today. Morphy's games continue to be studied and admired by chess players around the world, and he remains one of the most celebrated figures in the history of the game.
Talk about Paul Morphy in the style of Jordan Peterson
Well, Paul Morphy was a fascinating figure, and his story speaks to many of the fundamental aspects of human nature that I often discuss in my work.
Morphy was a brilliant chess player, and his success can be attributed in part to his extraordinary talent and dedication. But I believe that there were deeper psychological factors at play that contributed to his greatness.
Morphy was deeply curious and passionate about the game of chess, and he devoted himself to mastering its intricacies and strategies. He was also a natural risk-taker, unafraid to take bold moves and make sacrifices in pursuit of victory.
But I think what really sets Morphy apart is his ability to channel his emotions and intuition into his play. He was known for his aggressive style, which often involved sacrificing pieces in order to gain an advantage. This kind of bold, intuitive play requires a deep understanding of oneself and one's emotions, as well as the ability to channel those emotions into productive action.
Morphy's story also illustrates the importance of pursuing one's passions, even in the face of opposition or criticism. Morphy's family did not always support his interest in chess, and he faced significant challenges and setbacks throughout his career. But he remained committed to his love of the game, and ultimately achieved great success as a result.
In conclusion, Paul Morphy's life and career exemplify many of the themes that I often explore in my work - the importance of pursuing one's passions, the power of intuition and emotion, and the role of risk-taking and determination in achieving greatness. He was a remarkable figure who continues to inspire and fascinate people to this day.
Was Paul Morphy crazy?
There is no evidence to suggest that Paul Morphy was clinically insane or suffering from any kind of mental illness. While he did exhibit some eccentricities in his behavior, such as his tendency to pace and mutter to himself during games, these are not necessarily indicators of mental illness.
Some historians have suggested that Morphy may have suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), based on his reported need to touch each chess piece before making a move. However, this is purely speculative and there is no way to know for sure.
It's worth noting that Morphy lived in a time when mental illness was not well understood, and people with mental health issues were often stigmatized or marginalized. As a result, it's possible that Morphy's behavior may have been misinterpreted or unfairly judged by his contemporaries.
In any case, while Morphy was certainly a unique and sometimes eccentric figure, there is no reason to believe that he was insane or suffering from any kind of mental illness. Instead, he was a brilliant and passionate chess player who dedicated his life to mastering the game that he loved.
Was Bobby Fischer crazy?
Bobby Fischer was a legendary American chess player who achieved international fame for his historic victory over Boris Spassky in the 1972 World Chess Championship. Fischer's behavior in his later years was often erratic and controversial, leading some people to speculate that he may have been mentally ill.
It's difficult to say for certain whether or not Fischer was clinically insane or suffered from a mental illness, as he was never formally diagnosed. However, he did exhibit many symptoms of mental illness, including paranoia, delusions, and extreme mood swings.
Fischer's behavior became increasingly erratic in the years following his victory over Spassky, and he became known for his controversial public statements and bizarre behavior. He also became increasingly reclusive and isolated, cutting off contact with many of his friends and family members.
Some experts have suggested that Fischer may have suffered from a form of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, which could explain his erratic behavior and extreme moods. However, this is purely speculative, and without a formal diagnosis, it's impossible to know for sure.
In any case, it's clear that Fischer's later years were marked by significant mental and emotional turmoil. While his contributions to the game of chess remain significant, it's important to remember that he was a complex and troubled individual who struggled with a range of personal and psychological challenges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)