Presented for your consideration.
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
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 rather 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.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.
2023-02-26
Are you TRULY PASSIONATE About Chess? ♟ #chess #ichess #chessplayer
https://youtube.com/shorts/w2WjRGQp_mg?feature=share
The voice is Steve Jobs, and he is talking about computer and software development, but it applies to chess equally well.
The voice is Steve Jobs, and he is talking about computer and software development, but it applies to chess equally well.
2023-02-17
2023-02-12
2023-02-09
Chess Game
No surprise here. I've done this trap maybe dozens of times.
[Event "Columbus Chess Club"]
[Site "Lewelyn Center"]
[Date "Feb 9, 2023"]
[Round "2"]
[White "John Coffey"]
[Black "John Tasca"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d6 4. d4 cxd4 5. cxd4 Bg4 6. d5 Ne5 7. Nxe5 Bxd1 8.
Bb5+ Qd7 9. Bxd7+ Kd8 10. Nxf7+ Kxd7 11. Kxd1 h6 12. Nxh8 Nf6 13. Nc3 g5 14.
Ng6 Bg7 15. e5 Ng4 16. e6+ Ke8 17. Ke2 Bd4 18. h3 Ne5 19. Nxe5 Bxe5 20. f4 gxf4
21. Rf1 Kd8 22. Bxf4 Bxf4 23. Rxf4 Kc7 24. Rf7 Re8 25. Rc1
1-0
Best wishes,
John Coffey
[Event "Columbus Chess Club"]
[Site "Lewelyn Center"]
[Date "Feb 9, 2023"]
[Round "2"]
[White "John Coffey"]
[Black "John Tasca"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 d6 4. d4 cxd4 5. cxd4 Bg4 6. d5 Ne5 7. Nxe5 Bxd1 8.
Bb5+ Qd7 9. Bxd7+ Kd8 10. Nxf7+ Kxd7 11. Kxd1 h6 12. Nxh8 Nf6 13. Nc3 g5 14.
Ng6 Bg7 15. e5 Ng4 16. e6+ Ke8 17. Ke2 Bd4 18. h3 Ne5 19. Nxe5 Bxe5 20. f4 gxf4
21. Rf1 Kd8 22. Bxf4 Bxf4 23. Rxf4 Kc7 24. Rf7 Re8 25. Rc1
1-0
Best wishes,
John Coffey
THE CHESSBOARD GAME!
This seems like a lot of trouble.
https://youtu.be/bR3LCNuOuHU
They get the board setup wrong every time.
Best wishes,
John Coffey
https://youtu.be/bR3LCNuOuHU
They get the board setup wrong every time.
Best wishes,
John Coffey
2023-02-04
Draw by resignation?
Draw by resignation: Under FIDE Laws, a game is drawn if a player resigns and no sequence of legal moves would allow the opponent to checkmate that player.
5.1.2 The game is lost by the player who declares he/she resigns (this immediately ends the game), unless the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player's king by any possible series of legal moves. In this case the result of the game is a draw.
Apparently, this is a new rule. Common practice would be that the player who resigns loses the game regardless.
This doesn't seem to be part of the U.S. Chess Federation rules, meaning that this rule would only apply to international tournaments.
2023-02-03
2023-01-28
Over The Board Mouse Slip?!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/u_zl4_i_N08
Levy Rozman is fond of saying that if you make this move then he will call you an idiot. But if Magnus Carlsen makes this move then it is brilliant.
The Woodpecker Method
https://zwischenzug.substack.com/p/the-woodpecker-method
Before Michael De La Maza published his book "Rapid Chess Improvement", he wrote an article by the same name. Before he published this article, he sent it to me to get my suggestions, because I had a website since around 1996 that advocated the same idea. I believed in doing a large number of tactical problems repeatedly to build pattern recognition. When I did this myself, I saw my rating go from 1800 to 2000.
I can't guarantee that this is the best way to improve one's chess tactics. For myself, my goal was to be able to see the vast majority of 1, 2, and even 3-move combinations instantly. However, doing new puzzles might also be good.
My website hasn't changed much since I first published it. It is dated. At that time, the Internet (World Wide Web) was relatively new, and most people didn't have access to it. Chess Life gave me an "award" for the website, but there weren't many chess websites at the time.
Before Michael De La Maza published his book "Rapid Chess Improvement", he wrote an article by the same name. Before he published this article, he sent it to me to get my suggestions, because I had a website since around 1996 that advocated the same idea. I believed in doing a large number of tactical problems repeatedly to build pattern recognition. When I did this myself, I saw my rating go from 1800 to 2000.
I can't guarantee that this is the best way to improve one's chess tactics. For myself, my goal was to be able to see the vast majority of 1, 2, and even 3-move combinations instantly. However, doing new puzzles might also be good.
My website hasn't changed much since I first published it. It is dated. At that time, the Internet (World Wide Web) was relatively new, and most people didn't have access to it. Chess Life gave me an "award" for the website, but there weren't many chess websites at the time.
Chess Game against Novag Super Constellation level 1.
This game is interesting because I don't normally beat level 1. Here I blew the endgame, but so did the computer. The 39-year-old chess computer can't see deep enough to play the endgame correctly.
[Event "CB-Emu"]
[Site "?"][Date "2023.01.05"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Coffey, John"]
[Black "Novag Super-Constellation lv1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A05"]
[WhiteElo "2016"]
[PlyCount "117"]
[EventDate "2023.01.05"]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 b5 3. Bg2 Bb7 4. O-O e6 5. d3 d5 6. c4 dxc4 7. dxc4 Qxd1 8.
Rxd1 bxc4 9. Ne5 Bxg2 10. Kxg2 Nbd7 11. Nxc4 Bc5 12. Nc3 O-O 13. Bf4 Nb6 14.
Na5 Nbd5 15. Nxd5 Nxd5 16. Rac1 Nxf4+ 17. gxf4 Bd6 18. e3 g6 19. Nc4 Rfb8 20.
b3 Rd8 21. Nxd6 Rxd6 22. Rxd6 cxd6 23. e4 f5 24. f3 Rf8 25. Kg3 Kg7 26. Rc7+
Rf7 27. Rxf7+ Kxf7 28. Kf2 Kg7 29. Ke3 Kf7 30. Kd4 Kf6 31. e5+ Ke7 32. exd6+
Kxd6 33. b4 h6 34. a4 g5 35. fxg5 hxg5 36. b5 e5+ 37. Kc4 g4 38. fxg4 fxg4 39.
a5 e4 40. Kd4 e3 41. Kxe3 Kc5 42. b6 {??} axb6 43. axb6 Kxb6 44. Kf4 Kc5 45.
Kxg4 Kd4 {???} 46. h4 Ke5 47. Kg5 Ke6 48. Kg6 Ke7 49. Kg7 Ke6 50. h5 Ke7 51. h6
Kd6 52. h7 Ke7 53. h8=Q Ke6 54. Qd8 Kf5 55. Qd4 Ke6 56. Kg6 Ke7 57. Qd5 Ke8 58.
Kf6 Kf8 59. Qd8# 1-0
Novag Super Constellation Level 1
[Event "CB-Emu"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2022.02.06"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Coffey, John"]
[Black "Novag Super-Constellation Level 1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E21"]
[WhiteElo "2016"]
[BlackElo "2018 (on level 7)"]
[PlyCount "124"]
[EventType "rapid"]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 b6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bxf6 Qxf6 7. e3 O-O 8. Be2
d5 9. O-O c5 10. cxd5 cxd4 11. Nxd4 Bxc3 12. bxc3 exd5 13. Bf3 Rd8 14. c4 Bb7
15. Rc1 Na6 16. cxd5 Bxd5 17. Bxd5 Rxd5 18. Qb3 Rdd8 19. Qb5 Nc5 20. Nb3 Nxb3
21. axb3 a6 22. Qc6 Qxc6 23. Rxc6 b5 24. Rfc1 Rd2 25. Kf1 a5 26. Rb6 a4 27.
bxa4 Rxa4?! {This barely favors White, whereas 27... bxa4 barely favors Black. Even the infinite level makes the wrong move here.} 28. Rxb5 Raa2 29. Rf5 g6 30. Rf4 Kg7 31. g3 g5 32. Rf3 g4 33. Rf4 {Diagram.} Kg6?? {The game was technically a draw up to this point. At first, it is hard to understand how the computer could drop a pawn when it is looking 4 plies ahead. The computer is afraid of 33... h5 34. Rc7, but Black draws by playing both rooks to the first rank with a mate threat. Then White has to go for a perpetual check with Rcxf7+. Even the infinite level takes 12 hours to see the draw with a 10 ply search after 33... h5 34. Rc7. To see that 33... h5 draws takes around 80 hours where the computer only reaches an 11 ply search depth!} 34. Rxg4+ Kh7 35. Rf4 Ra7 36. Rc6 Rb7 37. Rh4 Kg7 38. Rhxh6 Rbb2 39. Rhf6 Re2 40. Rf4 Rec2 41. Rxc2 Rxc2 42. h4 Kg6 43. g4 Kg7 44. Kg2 Kf8 45. g5 Kg7 46. Kg3 Rc1 47. Kg4 Rg1+ 48. Kf5 Rh1 49. e4 Rh3 50. e5 Rd3 51. h5 Rh3 52. h6+ Kf8 53. e6 Rh1 54. g6 {I thought that this was me trying to get too fancy, but Stockfish doesn't have a problem with it.} fxg6+ 55. Kxg6+ Ke7 56. Rf5 Kxe6 57. Rh5 Rg1+ 58. Rg5 Rd1 59. h7 Rd8 60. Kg7 Rd7+ 61. Kh6 Rxh7+ 62. Kxh7 Kf7 1-0
The Super Constellation fails at deep calculation. It sees shallow tactics very well, which is where its strength comes from, so it appears to be pretty strong at speed chess. It is not clear if the computer can calculate three-fold repetition or any repetition on a deep search because the 8-bit hardware limitations would make this check very inefficient. This might be the reason the computer fails in the above position. The computer would not normally search deep enough to see a three-fold repetition anyway.
Other than missing the draw, the Super Constellation played a very solid game. According to Stockfish, I made no mistakes in this game. This is what it takes because the computer will punish small errors.
2023-01-13
2023-01-12
2023-01-10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)