Chess thread

[smashedagain]

Is there much prize money or sponsorship in chess, seems excessive to have to play in Brazil then Spain.

You are forgetting something Jase. It's like poker - ALL Brazilian & Spanish players are totally crap. Apparently.

[Tal]

The last World Championship has a prize fund of $2.55m, which was split 60/40 between first and second.

The biggest comps will be >€100k prize pools between 6-10 players. The Bilbao/ sao Paolo comp will be much bigger, I expect.

The big money is in sponsorship. There are some big markets out there: Russia, India and China in particular.

[kinboshi]

Was not aware of this chap. Enthusiasm ftw, it seems.

I played my first league match of the season last night. As we have two teams in the division, we must face each other first game.

I knew who my opponent would be (all six players are ranked and your best plays their best etc) and that he likes to prepare openings if he knows what his opponent plays as white.

So, I spent 15 mins looking at an opening I have never played in competitive chess: the English opening. It starts 1.c4 (pawn to queen bishop 4). I had a few lines prepared by looking at some master games. I knew that there were no immediate dangers if I played solid, developing chess, and so it proved. I got into a normal game without getting into any prepared traps of his.

I went on to win the game.

I'm a believer of adjusting to your opponent. Not everyone is in chess tho.

Love the English. Added it to my arsenal, when my coach said I needed alternatives to d4 as white. Not sure it was exactly what he had in mind though

The thing about 1.c4 is that there are a few variations where you end up in positions that are very familiar to 1.d4 players. This can be advantageous, if you know your opponent won'tknow the black end very well (because he normally plats something else; perhaps something sharper). But it alternatively ruins the surprise if he is happy in that position.

1.e4 is typically much sharper but there's a fair bit of learning involved to feel comfortable playing it as white.

I'm someone who used to play 1.f4 as white.

I changed to 1.d4 and played that for about 8 years, pretty much exclusively.

Then I has a coach-induced change like you, but to 1.e4.

I now play 1.e4 or 1.d4 depending on the weather, how I'm feeling, the sort of game I want, my opponent, boxers or briefs...

1. f4...

Loved that too when I was being very mischievous and wanted to annoy my coach. Not many know how to play against it as black, but you have to really know it well as white to not get yourself into a pickle.

[Longy]

So how many people approximately worldwide are making a living out of purely playing chess?

[Tal]

So how many people approximately worldwide are making a living out of purely playing chess?

Tough question for an outsider to answer!

I believe that there are about 5 people in England making a professional living out of it. They would have travel and expenses covered, with a possible appearance fee to play in tournaments. Then they would get whatever they won on top.

Any Grandmaster or International Master would get a nice supplement to their regular income by coaching, books, DVDs, plus weekend local tournaments (expenses etc covered).

Most of the top 100 in the world will be professionals. Luke McShane is an anomoly as he works in the City.

Beyond that, it would be more varied.

[Tal]

Was not aware of this chap. Enthusiasm ftw, it seems.

I played my first league match of the season last night. As we have two teams in the division, we must face each other first game.

I knew who my opponent would be (all six players are ranked and your best plays their best etc) and that he likes to prepare openings if he knows what his opponent plays as white.

So, I spent 15 mins looking at an opening I have never played in competitive chess: the English opening. It starts 1.c4 (pawn to queen bishop 4). I had a few lines prepared by looking at some master games. I knew that there were no immediate dangers if I played solid, developing chess, and so it proved. I got into a normal game without getting into any prepared traps of his.

I went on to win the game.

I'm a believer of adjusting to your opponent. Not everyone is in chess tho.

Love the English. Added it to my arsenal, when my coach said I needed alternatives to d4 as white. Not sure it was exactly what he had in mind though

The thing about 1.c4 is that there are a few variations where you end up in positions that are very familiar to 1.d4 players. This can be advantageous, if you know your opponent won'tknow the black end very well (because he normally plats something else; perhaps something sharper). But it alternatively ruins the surprise if he is happy in that position.

1.e4 is typically much sharper but there's a fair bit of learning involved to feel comfortable playing it as white.

I'm someone who used to play 1.f4 as white.

I changed to 1.d4 and played that for about 8 years, pretty much exclusively.

Then I has a coach-induced change like you, but to 1.e4.

I now play 1.e4 or 1.d4 depending on the weather, how I'm feeling, the sort of game I want, my opponent, boxers or briefs...

1. f4...

Loved that too when I was being very mischievous and wanted to annoy my coach. Not many know how to play against it as black, but you have to really know it well as white to not get yourself into a pickle.

From's Gambit is a very sharp response (1.f4 e5) and you have to be boned up on it or else you'll find yourself in all kinds of bother.

It's not one I'd advise, as it's always better to start out with an opening that helps you master the basics.

[Tal]

If there were a Blonde forum for all the chess world champions over the years, the top poster on PHA would be Dr Max Euwe. Euwe isn’t a household name to many, but he was not only world champion but also a truly great theoretician.



Dr Euwe was born in 1901 near Amsterdam. He had a talent for mathematics and his studies led him into forging a career, obtaining a doctorate and going on to teach. He published a paper, proving that an infinite number of positions was possible in chess, using a principle I can’t get even close to getting my head around (feel free to explain this to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thue%E2%80%93Morse_sequence).

He won the Dutch Championship in 1921 and was world amateur champion in 1928. What was particularly interesting about Euwe’s chess career was that he played much less often than others, as he had a full time job and a family. He played the very best in the late 1920s and early 1930s in a series of matches – Alekhine and Capablanca included – and did well, if only to lose those matches narrowly.

If I can call it a moment, his big moment came in 1935, when, after two months of games around the Netherlands, Euwe defeated Alekhine 15.5-14.5 to become the fifth World Chess Champion. Like Tal, he only held onto the title for a single cycle, losing it to Alekhine – I say losing, he was hammered (unlike Alekhine, who had given up alcohol in preparation for the match) 15.5-9.5 again in the Netherlands.

Euwe became a professor of mathematics in 1964 and, although he was long past his best over the board, he remained an ambassador for the game. He was President of the international chess association (FIDE) in the 1970s and published an incredible number of books on chess, catering for all levels of ability and on the complete spectrum of topics in chess: opening theory, technical play in the middlegame, biographical accounts, the lot. He died in 1981.

Why would he be the PHA guy? Well, as you might have guessed by now, his style of play was defined by his other interests: he was a rigorously analytical. His opening knowledge was second to none and he would approach a game by systematic and meticulous preparation. He was never frightened of complicated positions. This might sound silly, as it’s never actually scary to play chess. But positions where both sides are attacking and there are a number of perfectly plausible ideas each player can pursue (with only one optimal strategy) often put off all but the elite, and even some of them!

He wasn’t a tactical whizzkid like Tal or Spassky. He wasn’t a quiet, positional player like Fischer or Rubenstein. His modus operandi was to create imbalance in a position and test the opponent’s ability to calculate. The very best players (such as Alekhine and Capablanca) were able on the whole to match him and overcome his imbalances, but so many others struggled.

It is controversial to say this but, in a way, Euwe was more mathematician than chess player; even his chess was played like a mathematician. Fischer was a chess player and, frankly, wasn’t going ever to be anything else.

Here is one of Euwe’s greatest games: against the Russian master Efim Geller, in the Candidates tournament of 1953:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1042835

Geller launches a huge attack at Euwe, essentially trying to smash him off the board. In response, Euwe hits back with a shocking rook sacrifice, which leads to a sensational counter attack. It is like a boxing match where one guy comes out throwing huge combinations and swinging arms, only to find himself clobbered by a brutal uppercut; knocked to the canvas to the raucous hollering of a baying crowd. Ish.

The final position leaves White without any checks (he can check with his queen but he’d lose it straight away) and with Black about to checkmate him – for example, with Qf2 and then, when the king moves to d1, with Bf3 or Rg1, either of which lead to mate.

Shortly before Euwe played Alekhine for the World title, a Dutch radio presenter (called Hollander, incredibly) recorded this clip with Dr Euwe – communicating of course in Dutch – and with Capablanca – speaking in English.  The video starts with Hollander playing a game against Euwe and thinking he is lost. Capablanca then pops in and shows him how he can actually win the position. They then discusses the upcoming World Championship match.

I promise you that you will find what Capablanca says interesting.

[tikay]

I LOVE these stories of the characters in Chess, keep them coming please.

[jgcblack]

chess is a scary prospect when approached with a serious and calculating head on.

I've got some game theory I've vids n books and was suprised to hear there are more different 'strategies' in chess than there are atoms in the universe... Try and get your head around that number.....

[smashedagain]

His game is 20% bluff, in chess. It's all above my head but really enjoy this thread.

[kinboshi]

If there were a Blonde forum for all the chess world champions over the years, the top poster on PHA would be Dr Max Euwe. Euwe isn’t a household name to many, but he was not only world champion but also a truly great theoretician.



Dr Euwe was born in 1901 near Amsterdam. He had a talent for mathematics and his studies led him into forging a career, obtaining a doctorate and going on to teach. He published a paper, proving that an infinite number of positions was possible in chess, using a principle I can’t get even close to getting my head around (feel free to explain this to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thue%E2%80%93Morse_sequence).

He won the Dutch Championship in 1921 and was world amateur champion in 1928. What was particularly interesting about Euwe’s chess career was that he played much less often than others, as he had a full time job and a family. He played the very best in the late 1920s and early 1930s in a series of matches – Alekhine and Capablanca included – and did well, if only to lose those matches narrowly.

If I can call it a moment, his big moment came in 1935, when, after two months of games around the Netherlands, Euwe defeated Alekhine 15.5-14.5 to become the fifth World Chess Champion. Like Tal, he only held onto the title for a single cycle, losing it to Alekhine – I say losing, he was hammered (unlike Alekhine, who had given up alcohol in preparation for the match) 15.5-9.5 again in the Netherlands.

Euwe became a professor of mathematics in 1964 and, although he was long past his best over the board, he remained an ambassador for the game. He was President of the international chess association (FIDE) in the 1970s and published an incredible number of books on chess, catering for all levels of ability and on the complete spectrum of topics in chess: opening theory, technical play in the middlegame, biographical accounts, the lot. He died in 1981.

Why would he be the PHA guy? Well, as you might have guessed by now, his style of play was defined by his other interests: he was a rigorously analytical. His opening knowledge was second to none and he would approach a game by systematic and meticulous preparation. He was never frightened of complicated positions. This might sound silly, as it’s never actually scary to play chess. But positions where both sides are attacking and there are a number of perfectly plausible ideas each player can pursue (with only one optimal strategy) often put off all but the elite, and even some of them!

He wasn’t a tactical whizzkid like Tal or Spassky. He wasn’t a quiet, positional player like Fischer or Rubenstein. His modus operandi was to create imbalance in a position and test the opponent’s ability to calculate. The very best players (such as Alekhine and Capablanca) were able on the whole to match him and overcome his imbalances, but so many others struggled.

It is controversial to say this but, in a way, Euwe was more mathematician than chess player; even his chess was played like a mathematician. Fischer was a chess player and, frankly, wasn’t going ever to be anything else.

Here is one of Euwe’s greatest games: against the Russian master Efim Geller, in the Candidates tournament of 1953:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1042835

Geller launches a huge attack at Euwe, essentially trying to smash him off the board. In response, Euwe hits back with a shocking rook sacrifice, which leads to a sensational counter attack. It is like a boxing match where one guy comes out throwing huge combinations and swinging arms, only to find himself clobbered by a brutal uppercut; knocked to the canvas to the raucous hollering of a baying crowd. Ish.

The final position leaves White without any checks (he can check with his queen but he’d lose it straight away) and with Black about to checkmate him – for example, with Qf2 and then, when the king moves to d1, with Bf3 or Rg1, either of which lead to mate.

Shortly before Euwe played Alekhine for the World title, a Dutch radio presenter (called Hollander, incredibly) recorded this clip with Dr Euwe – communicating of course in Dutch – and with Capablanca – speaking in English.  The video starts with Hollander playing a game against Euwe and thinking he is lost. Capablanca then pops in and shows him how he can actually win the position. They then discusses the upcoming World Championship match.

I promise you that you will find what Capablanca says interesting.

Infinite number of variations = yes
Infinite number of positions = no

[Tal]

You are of course right, Mr Boshi. World of difference.

It was late

[Tal]

His game is 20% bluff, in chess. It's all above my head but really enjoy this thread.

2 things to say about this: one general; one specific.

In general, say you and I are playing and you make a pawn move which attacks my Knight. We both know it's attacking my knight, so what happens if I move something else? Would you be suspicious of taking my knight now? Maybe I'm intending to do something filthy if you do...You can't see it, but you are confident I haven't just missed your threat, so you conclude I am up to something. You decide not to take my knight and move something else. I checkmate you with my knight.

A particular characteristic of Alekhine's games is that he would force weaknesses in his opponent's position (maybe a weak pawn; maybe a square near the king that he can't easily defend). He would then attack that weakness, knowing that the opponent had enough resources to cover it. His plan was to draw the opposing pieces over to that side of the board and then attack the unguarded other side of the board! If the opponent could hold that, he'd probably make a second weakness in the process, so the cycle would begin again, only with the hapless opponent in even worse shape.

Levelling can happen in chess, and so can bluffing.

[tikay]

Is poker style "speech play" allowed, or prevalent, in top level chess?

[Tal]

Is poker style "speech play" allowed, or prevalent, in top level chess?

No, in a word.

At the very top level, you could hear a dust mite pass wind.