2025-12-07
Black Hangs On
2025-12-06
2025-12-05
Re: Improve Your Chess Tactics
White to Play
2025-11-27
2025-11-26
A nice little puzzle
2025-11-24
2025-11-21
GM Daniel Naroditsky
The night before Naroditsky died, he was playing a marathon session almost till morning. He may have been streaming his games at the time. Reportedly, some of his friends tried to intervene, saying that he was playing himself to exhaustion. He said that he was fine.
I looked at his history on chess.com. He lost his last 6 games, which is when he probably decided to stop playing. In his last game he hung a rook before resigning, which is rare for a Grandmaster. It probably shows that he was exhausted. Hanging a rook is an unfortunate way to end one's chess career.
Former world champion Vladimir Kramnik has shown paranoid levels of suspicion about online cheating. Although online cheating is a problem, Kramnik has accused way more people than what would be reasonable. He has accused some of the world's best players of cheating. In particular, he slandered Daniel Naroditsky for over a year in a way that was harmful and Naroditsky said caused him distress. Many people believed the former world champion.
Although we still don't know the cause of death for Daniel Naroditsky, the world chess federation (FIDE) is considering sanctions against Kramnik for what they perceive as improper behavior. They even tried to warn Kramnik that he was getting out of line.
--
Best wishes,
John Coffey
http://www.entertainmentjourney.com
2025-11-13
2025-11-08
Chess for Babies?
2025-11-06
2025-11-02
A World Champion designed this, white to move and win!
@john2001plus
0 seconds ago
It was obvious to me that this was a classic corresponding-squares problem. Starting from the left, the Black king must be on b6 when the White king is on c4. If the Black king is on a6 then he is too far left to prevent the White king from marching to h5. From this we obtain five more corresponding squares: the White squares d3, e3, f3, g3, and h4 correspond, respectively, to the Black squares c7, d7 e7, f6, and g6. If it is Black's turn when both kings occupy corresponding squares, Black is forced out of position.
2025-10-28
Rook and Pawn Ending
2025-10-26
2025-10-23
2025-10-20
2025-09-18
2025-09-14
2025-09-07
2025-09-04
2025-08-22
40% of chess players on chess.com are rated below 480???
2025-08-17
2025-08-13
2025-07-20
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.My USCF rating history graph
https://www.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=11080847
I first crossed the 1800 rating mark in 1985. However, I was frustrated by my lack of progress until 1988, when I moved near Purdue University. There, I started playing regularly with the Purdue players and running many tournaments, which helped me to improve.
Around 1990, I reached my peak rating of 2079.
After moving to Utah in 1993, my rating dropped back to 1800. Part of that decline was due to the stress of starting a new job. Additionally, in the 1990s, there was a perception that Utah players were underrated. This was largely due to the state's relative isolation—traveling to out-of-state tournaments required significant effort, which meant there was less mixing of rating points between regions. I used to drive 420 miles each year to play in the National Open in Las Vegas, which I attended for 12 or 13 consecutive years.
The 1990s also saw deliberate rating deflation by the USCF, following concerns about rating inflation during the 1980s. The USCF aimed to bring its ratings more in line with international ratings, which were generally lower. However, the deflation was so unpopular that the USCF eventually revised its rating system.
Around the year 2000, I set a goal to raise my rating—possibly to master level—by memorizing 200 opening lines. I originally planned to accomplish this in 200 days, but it ended up taking about 400. Then I played in a five-round state championship, and all of my games went out of book by move 5. As a result, I shifted my focus to tactics training. I put a great deal of effort into improving my tactical skills, and my rating began to rise.
I crossed back over 2000 shortly before moving back to Indiana in 2015. In the years leading up to that move, I had several notable tournament results, including winning or tying the Senior Championship four times, winning the state G/60 Championship, and claiming the Expert trophy in the Class Championship.
2025-07-04
2025-06-23
2025-06-17
Taliban Ban on Chess
"In short," Hassanzadeh said in a telephone interview, "this healthy and harmless entertainment was snatched away from us."
2025-06-09
2025-05-25
Update to my online chess lessons
2025-05-03
2025-04-25
2025-04-16
KRvKQ – Syzygy endgame tablebases
2025-01-22
The Future of Road to GM
0 seconds ago
Levy,
At 64, soon to be 65, I find that I have a different perspective on things.
I play chess for fun and to learn. I am always learning. If it ever felt like a job, I wouldn't find it worth playing. After all, jobs aren't supposed to be fun.
At my age, I deal with enough minor physical issues that attending tournaments feels like unnecessary work and a time-consuming burden. Unless I were to make significant progress, I have nothing to prove by going to a tournament. I could spend an entire day or weekend at a tournament, possibly gaining 8 rating points, or losing more than that. What would I really accomplish?
Tournaments used to be fun, but they're better suited for younger people with more energy to spare. I haven't given up on tournaments completely, but I'm waiting for the right time.
When I returned to my home state after 22 years, I noticed that many of the players I used to compete against were still playing in tournaments, and their ratings were exactly the same as when I left. My rating had fluctuated quite a bit, but ultimately ended up around the same level. It seemed like we were all chasing a higher rating for 22 years—and making no real progress. That's a lot of effort for no return.
People often go to tournaments thinking they're the key to increasing their rating. But what really matters is whether a person has the skill to reach their goal. Either they have the skill, or they don't. If someone is GM-level, the title will eventually come.
Chess is a game, and like any skill, it can be improved through practice. Some people become exceptional at video games after practicing for hundreds or even thousands of hours. So, I have a theory that I can improve by practicing against the computer and analyzing my games.
I'll let you know if it works.
Best wishes,
John Coffey
2025-01-18
Rod Serling's Greatest Obsession (William Windom)
The episode starred Wiliam Windom, a character actor who played supporting characters on many old shows.
He is maybe most famous for a Star Trek role...
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/William_Windom
"Windom was a tournament chess player... and a life member of the United States Chess Federation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Windom_(actor)
https://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12546262