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.
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
2023-01-06
2022-12-29
Fwd: HUGE CARLSEN NEWS!
My previous email might be wrong.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Bill
From: Bill
The comments say, "Today is Dia de los Santos inocentes in Spain. The Spanish equivalent of April fools day. Whole thing is satire."
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: John Coffey <john2001plus@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2022 at 03:39:28 PM EST
Subject: HUGE CARLSEN NEWS!
Apparently, Magnus Carlsen is taking a year-long break from playing in Over The Board tournaments.
He mentions hating having to travel so much.
2022-12-28
HUGE CARLSEN NEWS!
Apparently, Magnus Carlsen is taking a year-long break from playing in Over The Board tournaments.
He mentions hating having to travel so much.
My Goal: Reaching a 1000 Rating! #chess #shorts
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tW_VpMw3llw
I shouldn't talk since I am an Expert, but this is the kind of combo that takes me a couple of seconds to see.
I believe that it is fairly easy to get to 1300. A person just needs to be able to see most 2-move combos. There might be a few unusual 2-move combos that a 1300 would not see, but being able to see most 2-move combos would make a person 1200 to 1300. I think that being able to see most 3 move combos would make a person 1400 to 1500.
A couple of weeks ago I was proud of myself for seeing a six-move combo in a speed game, but I made the same mistake that many players make where I didn't calculate the next move. After winning my opponent's rook I realized that he could trap my queen. My lower-rated opponent didn't see it, but he could have been winning.
I shouldn't talk since I am an Expert, but this is the kind of combo that takes me a couple of seconds to see.
I believe that it is fairly easy to get to 1300. A person just needs to be able to see most 2-move combos. There might be a few unusual 2-move combos that a 1300 would not see, but being able to see most 2-move combos would make a person 1200 to 1300. I think that being able to see most 3 move combos would make a person 1400 to 1500.
A couple of weeks ago I was proud of myself for seeing a six-move combo in a speed game, but I made the same mistake that many players make where I didn't calculate the next move. After winning my opponent's rook I realized that he could trap my queen. My lower-rated opponent didn't see it, but he could have been winning.
2022-12-20
Stockfish 15.1 - Stockfish
The Stockfish chess engine has switched to a new evaluation method similar to what Alpha Zero or Lela Chess uses. It is no longer about material but winning chances, which is dependent upon an AI that can train itself. This method allowed the program Alpha Go to beat the best Go players, which was previously thought to be impossible.
"New evaluation
This release also introduces a new convention for the evaluation that is reported by search. An evaluation of +1 is now no longer tied to the value of one pawn, but to the likelihood of winning the game. With a +1 evaluation, Stockfish has now a 50% chance of winning the game against an equally strong opponent. This convention scales down evaluations a bit compared to Stockfish 15 and allows for consistent evaluations in the future."
https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2022/stockfish-15-1/
This release also introduces a new convention for the evaluation that is reported by search. An evaluation of +1 is now no longer tied to the value of one pawn, but to the likelihood of winning the game. With a +1 evaluation, Stockfish has now a 50% chance of winning the game against an equally strong opponent. This convention scales down evaluations a bit compared to Stockfish 15 and allows for consistent evaluations in the future."
https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2022/stockfish-15-1/
2022-12-18
Chess player
2022-12-17
Introduction to the Catalan
Presented for your consideration.
The Catalan is a popular opening at the Grandmaster level. Magnus Carlsen scores very well with it. The problem for amateurs is that it involves a great deal of theory. The following playlist has 12 videos that go into the Catalan in great detail. This is at least at the Master level, but if a person wants to become a chess master, like me, this might be worth studying.
I have already expended a great deal of effort trying to learn the opening from these videos. My plan is to learn everything, but this might take months to fully accomplish. I also think that it will take a great deal of practice, preferably at the club level, to understand the ideas behind this opening.
2022-12-10
Bughouse chess - Wikipedia
It seems to me that the rules can vary from place to place. For example, it was common to now allow a dropped piece to deliver checkmate.
I don't like Bughouse much, but it can be a fun diversion...
Controversy[edit]
Bughouse chess is controversial among chess teachers. While some instructors find beneficial learning outcomes for bughouse, most do not consider it to have a positive effect, especially for novice chess players.[54] According to Susan Polgar, "If your children want to play bughouse for fun, it is OK. But just remember that it is not chess and it has no positive value for chess. In fact, I absolutely recommend no bughouse during a tournament."[55] Arguments supporting a negative view of bughouse include that it distorts typical chess pattern recognition[56] and that it too heavily emphasizes tactical play at the expense of positional strategy.[57] For example, in bughouse, one can just drop a pawn to compensate for a weakness created by moving one, unlike normal chess. It also lacks endgame play due to pieces being recycled, thereby reducing the need for precise moves. In addition, the lack of control over teammates' boards introduces randomness that is not encountered in normal chess. Further, many claim that since there is no set order of moves between the two boards, normal calculation ability is diminished. It also shares criticisms with speed chess in general, potentially encouraging a habit of moving too fast or playing unsoundly with the expectation that one's opponent will be moving quickly.[36]
2022-11-28
2022-11-11
How to ACTUALLY Improve your Chess Tactics
0 seconds ago
I've been advocating the same method for the last 25 years on my chess lesson website.
2022-11-04
"A Viewer Sent Me An Insane Puzzle!"
I was able to solve this chess puzzle without too much difficulty.
SPOILERS...
First I looked at having the King run, and there are no safe squares where he can shield from rook checks. Then I explored the idea of giving up some or all of the pawns. I realized that giving up some pawns allows the King to hide temporarily, zig-zagging around the pawns, but this doesn't solve the problem. So I got thinking that the rook on H3 must be in the puzzle for some reason, and if we can liberate it then it could be the mating piece on a3.
2022-10-31
Interesting combo
In this position, I realized that I could win material.
2022-10-25
Can You Solve This Crazy Puzzle?
0 seconds ago
I thought the first mate-in-25 moves problem would be too deep for Stockfish 15 to find, but it finds it immediately. I am somewhat familiar with chess-playing algorithms, and I assumed that the search tree would grow exponentially toward infinity, but it helps that all the wrong choices get White mated quickly.
2022-10-23
2022-10-22
Chess Puzzle
I really like this chess problem. I was stumped, but it is simple enough that I should have been able to figure it out.
2022-10-21
2022-10-17
Loss to Novag Super Constellation level 1
Back in 1984, the Novag Super Constellation chess-playing computer was one of my favorite possessions. I doubt that many of these machines would still be working because the model is almost 40 years old and old capacitors tend to go bad given enough use.
In 1984 the USCF gave the Novag Super Constellation a rating of 2018 which has been somewhat controversial. Most online sites today claim that its actual strength is in the 1700s, which I don't believe. I remember it being much better than me and I was rated in the 1700s at the time.
There was a golden age of chess-playing computers that went from about 1982 to 1995 before most people owned a PC and the only way to play chess against a computer was to buy one of these devices. Once people bought computers, the market for chess-playing computers almost completely disappeared, although recently there has been a bit of a resurgence of chess-playing computers. Also, playing chess on mobile devices has become very popular.
Since I am curious about everything, I have wondered for years how I would fair against the Novag Super Constellation today because I am now rated much higher. I even considered trying to buy an old chess-playing computer on eBay, although not necessarily this model because there are much better ones that came out later.
Recently I found a way to play the Novag Super Constellation using emulation on my computer. Although I did beat level 1 once, I have lost a few games too. I'm not quite comfortable playing the simulated chess machine because graphically it is not as nice as playing a modern chess program, plus you have to move the computer pieces as if you were playing the real chess computer which is slightly distracting.
The computer proves that it does not miss tactics on level 1 where it averages 5 seconds per move, which is speed chess. I think that it would crush most Class A players at speed chess. This is impressive for an 8-bit 6502 processor running at just 4 MHZ. It shows that you don't need much computing power to see 3 moves ahead, which is maybe enough to outplay or equal average tournament players even at tournament time controls.
I have set up positions to test the device, and I found that its playing strength only improves marginally as you give it more time. The Novag Super Constellation seems to be optimized for 5 seconds per move and it plays pretty strong at that level. One reason is that it has a very good opening book allowing it to reach strong positions out of the opening.
In this game, Stockfish analysis agrees with my opening moves up to move 12. By move 20 it thinks that I am positionally crushing it, but it is not clear to me at all why it thinks that I am 4 pawns ahead. I need to do more analysis. On move 21, I blundered, unfortunately. If I can avoid making these kinds of obvious tactical mistakes then I likely would beat the machine on level 1. Once I fell behind, the computer showed no mercy and proceeded to crush me.
[Event "CB-Emu"]
[Site "?"][Date "2022.10.16"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Coffey, John"]
[Black "Novag Super-Constellation Lv1"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E18"]
[WhiteElo "2016"]
[BlackElo "2018"]
[Annotator "Stockfish 14.1"]
[PlyCount "62"]
[EventDate "2022.10.16"]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 e6 3. c4 b6 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Bb4+ 6. Bd2 Be7 7. O-O O-O 8.
Nc3 d5 9. cxd5 exd5 10. Bf4 c5 11. Rc1 Nc6 12. dxc5 {
Stockfish agrees with all my opening moves.} Bxc5 13. Bg5 ({Better is}
13. a3 {and White has a winning advantage.}) 13... d4 14. Ne4 Qe7 15.
Nxf6+ ({Better is} 15. Nh4) 15... gxf6 16. Bh6 ({Better is} 16. Bh4)
16... Rfe8 17. Re1 ({Stockfish 14.1:} 17. Nh4 {Now not} Qxe2 18. b4
Nxb4 (18... Bxb4 19. Bxc6) 19. Bxb7) ({Not} 17. b4 Nxb4) 17... Rac8 ({
Black can do much better with} 17... Rad8) 18. a3 Qd7 19. b4 Bf8 20. Qd2
Ne5 21. Nxd4?? {Here I blunder away a winning game. The antique
chess computer has no problem seeing shallow tactics even on level 1. To my
defense, I'm not quite comfortable visually playing on the simulated chess
computer.} ({Stockfish 14.1:} 21. Nxe5 Rxe5 22. Bf4 {And White is winning.})
21... Bxh6 22. Qxh6 Bxg2 23. Red1? ({Stockfish likes} 23. Qxf6 Qxd4 (
23... Bb7 {loses to} 24. Nf5) 24. Kxg2) 23... Ng4 24. Qf4 Rxc1 25. Rxc1 Re4 {
The computer proves how tactically strong it is. I am sure it would beat most
A players at speed chess.} 26. Qb8+ Kg7 27. Rc8 Nh6 {
Shutting down any hope for White.} 28. e3? ({White can do better with}
28. Rd8 Qh3 29. Qc8 Qxc8 30. Rxc8) 28... Qh3? {
Stockfish thinks this is a blunder and prefers Bh3, but it hardly matters.}
29. Qb7? {A blunder.} ({Stockfish prefers} 29. Nf5+ Qxf5 30. Kxg2) 29... Rxd4
30. Qxg2 Rd1+ 31. Qf1 Rxf1# 0-1
2022-10-16
2022-10-15
2022-10-05
2022-10-03
2022-10-01
Don't mess with my DUCK
Duck Chess is an exciting and absorbing new chess variant invented in early 2016 by Dr Tim Paulden, the president of Exeter Chess Club (Devon, England).
The basic principle of the game is very simple: in addition to the usual pieces, the two players have joint control of a small rubber duck which acts as a "blocker" (i.e. nothing can move onto or through it), and which must be moved to a new square after every turn. The goal is to successfully capture the opponent's king.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsUd20OEoNQ
The basic principle of the game is very simple: in addition to the usual pieces, the two players have joint control of a small rubber duck which acts as a "blocker" (i.e. nothing can move onto or through it), and which must be moved to a new square after every turn. The goal is to successfully capture the opponent's king.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsUd20OEoNQ
2022-09-30
Pinkamena (1535) vs V. Khoroshun (1703). Chess Fight Night.
I always love it when little kids can play chess well. At first, I thought that she played the opening a little inaccurately, but when she won the knight on e4 I was thinking, "Holy Crap!". Her opponent paused because he realized that he was getting his butt kicked by a little girl, and then she proceeded to play very well afterward. Good for her!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y-6QmL05lw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y-6QmL05lw
Ilya Smirin: Chess commentator sacked for sexist comments during match - BBC News
All chess players - men and women - can become grandmasters, which is the highest title a chess player can attain, if they have a rating of 2,500 and above.* The very top female chess players have this title.
The woman grandmaster title is only for women and requires a lower rating of 2,300.
The commentators were discussing whether Zhu Jiner could become grandmaster, when Mr Smirin said: "She's a woman grandmaster or what?... Why she wants to be like men grandmaster in this case?"
Mr Smirin went on to appear to admit that he had privately said "chess is maybe not for women".
Fellow commentator Fiona Steil-Antoni said to him: "You're saying, you know, 'chess is maybe not for women'," and Mr Smirin replied: "I didn't say it openly... in private, private conversation."
And he also seemed to admit saying another female player - Grandmaster Aleksandra Goryachkin - had been "playing like a man".
"That's true," said Mr Smirin, when questioned about his apparent comments. "She played in Russia super final. Small minus she made, but it was very strong tournament. She also had like 2,600 plus rating."
Challenging him again, Ms Steil-Antoni asked: "What does that have to do with playing like a man, only men can play well?"
"No, no," Mr Smirin responded. "But she's playing in style, positional style... But OK, I'm always curious, why can women play among men but men cannot play with women in women tournaments? Interesting question."
The woman grandmaster title is only for women and requires a lower rating of 2,300.
The commentators were discussing whether Zhu Jiner could become grandmaster, when Mr Smirin said: "She's a woman grandmaster or what?... Why she wants to be like men grandmaster in this case?"
Mr Smirin went on to appear to admit that he had privately said "chess is maybe not for women".
Fellow commentator Fiona Steil-Antoni said to him: "You're saying, you know, 'chess is maybe not for women'," and Mr Smirin replied: "I didn't say it openly... in private, private conversation."
And he also seemed to admit saying another female player - Grandmaster Aleksandra Goryachkin - had been "playing like a man".
"That's true," said Mr Smirin, when questioned about his apparent comments. "She played in Russia super final. Small minus she made, but it was very strong tournament. She also had like 2,600 plus rating."
Challenging him again, Ms Steil-Antoni asked: "What does that have to do with playing like a man, only men can play well?"
"No, no," Mr Smirin responded. "But she's playing in style, positional style... But OK, I'm always curious, why can women play among men but men cannot play with women in women tournaments? Interesting question."
* Reaching a rating of 2500 is not the only requirement for becoming a Grandmaster.
Chess is dominated by men, maybe because it is a highly competitive (and egotistical) game. Men tend to prefer competition whereas women tend to prefer cooperation.
2022-09-29
The most incriminating evidence against Hans Niemann
I understood what she was saying, but her French accent made it difficult. Closed captioning is helpful, but it is done by a computer and often yields incorrect words in the speech recognition.
The bottom line is that not even the top players, playing at their best, perform at the same level as the top chess computer engines. An average Grandmasters would match computers roughly 50% of the time, which is how Hans Nieman plays most of the time. However, he has several games that are 100%, which is unheard of, and a few others that were in the 90s.
I was on Hans Nieman's side, viewing him as an up-and-coming 19-year-old. He is either occasionally playing like a genius or is occasionally cheating. It would make sense that he would not cheat all the time because that would be too obvious.
I hope that this is not true.
It is possible to play a perfect game if your opponent plays a bad game because it makes the choices more obvious. Against really terrible opponents I played perfect games according to the computer, but I didn't have to think very hard.
Yesterday, I studied one of Han's better games because it is very instructive. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCJ0uIAlreA) The youtube chess personality stated that he didn't think that Hans was cheating, because the moves were the kind that a good player could find. This may be true, but if a player has too many aberrant results then it looks suspicious.
In this long video, Hikaru Nakamura gave his opinion on the first video, comparing the results to his own games:
This is a shorter video doing an analysis that is worth watching:
2022-09-26
MAGNUS CARLSEN: "I Believe Hans Niemann CHEATED"
Good video.
I don't believe that Hans cheated. There is very little evidence for it. Hans is a rising star and had the best game of his career and Magnus didn't. If I can lose to players rated 200 (or in my case 500) points below me then so can Magnus.
Shit happens. Twenty years ago I got a draw against Grandmaster Igor Ivanov. About the same time, I watched a B player friend of mine beat Grandmaster Susan Polgar in a speed tournament.
The story about Hans claiming ahead of time that he was going to win a tournament is interesting. Over 20 years ago I was running a Utah championship tournament when a teenager told me that he was going to beat everybody to prove that he was the best player. I thought that this was a very cocky statement to make, but to my surprise, this is exactly what he did.
2022-09-20
My Chess Tactics
https://www.entertainmentjourney.com/1w.htm
The one-move chess problems on my website were constructed deliberately to be the "vocabulary" of chess tactics. I have long felt that learning chess is a bit like learning a new language. In these problems, you can find every motif like pins, forks, skewers, removing the defender, and mates.
I attribute the 1, 2, and 3 move problems by themselves to raising my rating from 1800 to 1900. Since I played a great deal of speed chess, my goal was to be able to see the tactical motifs as quickly as possible. Because I did these problems repeatedly, I got some criticism from one of my friends who said that I wasn't doing tactical problems, but I was memorizing them. This was partly true. My counter was that I could not memorize all the problems, but I could memorize the tactical themes. When I do the problem now, the tactical themes become quickly apparent. Likewise, I see tactics quickly in speed chess games.
A bit of history...
When I moved to Utah in 1993, I was around a 2000-rated player.
However, at that time the ratings seemed to work differently in Utah. Salt Lake City and the Wasatch mountain range are hundreds of miles from the nearest major metropolitan areas. It felt like the pool of rated chess players was isolated from other players by distance. When I started playing in tournaments in Utah, I saw my rating decline to 1800. Also, those players who would go to out-of-state tournaments, such as in Vegas, reported doing very well against similarly rated players from California.
I think that whatever difference there may have been balanced out some over time. There was nationwide rating inflation that happened in the 80s which my rating benefited from. This was due to the USCF tinkering with the rating system in the 80s and then reversing course in the 90s causing a noticeable rating deflation.
I constructed my online tactical problems around 1995 to 1998.
I don't remember exactly when I started studying the following materials:
Sharpen Your Tactics
Chess Pocket Training Book: 300 most important positions
Practical Chess Exercises
The 1000 problems on the Shredder iPhone app.
I spent 10 minutes every night for a year without fail studying the Chess Pocket Training Book, and then afterward had one of my greatest chess tournament results ever. This was 20 years ago.
So I attribute these materials to raising my rating from 1900 to 2000. Once again, I did a great deal of repetition. The goal has always been to make hard things intuitive. For me, this feels like learning a language.
INSANE Chess Cheating Scandal Update
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YktWQrnjPwU
Alana
5 hours ago (edited)
At this point I'm going for the "should you believe your spouse if they're convicted of murder" ethical dilemma and choosing to believe Hans is innocent. Just because if he really did cheat, then he's getting what he deserves, but if he didn't then this is absolutely horrible for him. I'd rather give a guilty man clemency then an innocent man a death sentence.
John Coffey
0 seconds ago
I think that it is a really big stretch to say that Hans was cheating. It is too hard to pull off and not get caught.
If I can lose to players rated 200 points below me then why can't Magnus? What is the point of playing if you are not allowed to win?
Computer analysis shows that Magnus did not play a perfect game. Neither did Hans Neimann. As long as there are mistakes on the board then in theory either side can win.
Computer analysis shows that Magnus did not play a perfect game. Neither did Hans Neimann. As long as there are mistakes on the board then in theory either side can win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)