U.S. Chess Trust President, Jim Eade

The first book I studied seriously featured a number of Nimzo-Indians and French defenses.  That’s what I played in my earliest tournament games.  I noticed that the King’s Indian and Sicilian were far more popular choices, and it dawned on me that this was because, they were the openings that Bobby Fischer played.

Over the years, I met 1.d4 with a variety of responses including the Queen’s Gambit Declined and the Dutch.  Nowadays, I’m back to playing the Nimzo-Indian!

Nimzo-Indian

As always, we would love to hear what your answer will be for the ‘Question of the Month’.

Please feel free to send us your comments by posting them on our website.

Jim Eade
U.S. Chess Trust President

Bobby Fischer is back in the news, partly due to the September opening of the World Chess Hall of Fall in St. Louis, but mostly because of the new documentary “Bobby Fischer Against the World.”

This has rekindled some debate about where Fischer fits in among the all-time greatest chess players. Which brings me to the “Question of the Month.”

Where do you place Fischer on the list of greatest players ever?

1. Number 1
2. Somewhere in the top 5
3. Somewhere in the top 10

I had to go through this exercise once again when working on the 3rd edition of “Chess for Dummies.”

Just for my own amusement, I tried to think about which baseball pitcher I would pair with which player, and Nolan Ryan popped into my head as soon as I thought of Fischer. (I beg the indulgence of the readers who do not care about baseball.)

Ryan would often be dominating with a blazing fastball and a wicked curve. He pitched a large number of complete game 1-hitters and no-hitters.

It calls to mind Fischer’s 11-0 sweep in the US Championship or his 6-0 match wipe outs of Taimanov and Larsen.  The bane of both their existences, in a different sense of the word, was control.

I, personally, rate Karpov just a bit above Fischer. Karpov reminded me of Greg Maddux. Maddux finished with 355 wins, but never had what people would call over powering pitches. Players didn’t strike out against Maddox the way they did against Ryan, but at the end of the game they were 0-4. Karpov didn’t make you worry about ending up on the losing side of a diagram labeled White to play and win, but your chances of beating him were shockingly low. For years, any Karpov loss would reverberate around the chess world. He was that consistent and that good. Just like Maddux.

The player I consider number 1 all-time is Garry Kasparov, and I struggled to come up with a pitcher to pair with him. The best I could come up with was Roger Clemens, and it’s not because I consider Clemens to be the best pitcher of all-time. I don’t. It’s just that Clemens had the usual assortment of pitches coupled with a devastating fastball for much of his career. He became dominant (leaving aside the steroid issue) when he developed a split-finger fastball. It looked just like a fastball, but dove downwards at the last second. Batters couldn’t tell which pitch it was until it was too late. Kasparov’s games leave me with a similar impression. By the time you figured out what he was up to, it was too late. Kasparov wasn’t just intimidating, he was unreadable.

As always, we’d love to hear what your answer to the “Question of the Month” will be. I can’t speak for the other Trustees, of course, but I’d love to hear any of your analogies, as well.

Jim Eade

U.S. Chess Trust President

by Jim Eade, President of the U.S. Chess Trust
The following position occurred after the 14th move of the game Lasker-Bauer, Amsterdam, 1899.

Bauer almost certainly expected 15. Qxh5, when 15…f5 makes Black’s position quite solid.

We encourage you to send us your comments.

How to send your comments:

1. Post your comments/responses on our site by clicking on ‘Leave a Comment’.
2. Or, email them to info@uschesstrust.org

Changes in Chess – A little history…(1000-1850)

“The earliest evidence of a game like chess was found in the Sassanid Persia around 600, where the game came to be known as chatrang. Chatrang was taken up by the Muslim world after the Islamic conquest of Persia (633–644), where it was then named shatranj, with the pieces largely retaining their Persian names.” “Shatranj” was rendered as ajedrez in Spanish, in Portuguese as xadrez, and in Greek as zatrikion (which comes directly from the Persian chatrang), but in the rest of Europe it was replaced by versions of the Persian sh?h (“king”), which was familiar as an exclamation and became the English words “check” and “chess.”

Around 1200, the rules of shatranj started to be modified in southern Europe, and some time around 1475, several major changes made the game essentially as it is known today.

These modern rules for the basic moves had been adopted in Italy and Spain.

Pawns gained the option of advancing two squares on their first move, while bishops and queens acquired their modern abilities. The queen replaced the earlier vizier chess piece towards the end of the 10th century and by the 15th century had become the most powerful piece; consequently modern chess was referred to as “Queen’s Chess” or “Mad Queen Chess”.

These new rules quickly spread throughout western Europe. The rules about stalemate were finalized in the early 19th century. To distinguish it from its predecessors, this version of the rules is sometimes referred to as western chess or international chess.”

Now, although the rules of chess have remained unchanged since about the 16th century, that has not stopped people from expressing their desire for changes in the rules of the game.

Amongst them was former World Chess Champion, Bobby Fischer who once said, “A lot of people come up with other rules of chess-type games, with 10×8 boards, new pieces, and all kinds of things. I’m really not interested in that. I want to keep the old chess flavor. I want to keep the old chess game. But just making a change so the starting positions are mixed, so it’s not degenerated down to memorization and prearrangement like it is today.”

Below are a number of versions that have been proposed:

• hexagonal chess
• multiplayer versions
• random starting layouts
• Quantum Chess

If you had the power to change one thing in chess, what would you do?

We encourage you to send us your comments.

How to send your comments:

1. Post your comments/responses on our site by clicking on ‘Leave a Comment’.
2. Or, email them to info@uschesstrust.org

Do You Consider the Game of Chess To Be More of A Science or An Art?

Audience participation is encouraged and responses will be posted on our website and in our next newsletter!

2 Ways to Post Your Comments:

1. Post your comments/responses on our site by clicking the comments area on the top right corner of the blog post, type in your response and submit !  It’s that simple!
2. Or, email them to info@uschesstrust.org.

Interesting Related Reading:

• The Chess Player As An Artist: Marcel Duchamp
• Multiple Intelligences
• Sun Tzu’s – The Art of War
• Chess Playing Helps Reveal How Brain Works

Question of the Month: How Should We Settle Ties in Our National Championship? By Jim Eade

Here is an open letter outlining one player’s dissatisfaction with the current system.

The following letter was written by Irina Krush, it is in it’s original form and posted on the USCF website.

Remember, for ‘Question of the Month’ – Audience participation is encouraged and responses will be posted on our website and in our next newsletter!

Post your responses and comments on our site – Just click the comments area on the top right corner of the blog post, type in your response and submit! You can also send your comments to info@uschesstrust.org.

Note: Anna Zatonskih disagreed with the claims in Irina Krush’s letter and in an interview by Tom Braunlich she expressed her views. You can read this interview by clicking here – Anna Zatonskih Interview.

Open Letter from Irina Krush
By Irina Krush
May 30, 2008

Dear CLO,

I would like to explain what really happened in Tulsa, which has so far been obscured by the final tournament report that you published.

Anna and I were tied at 7.5/9 points at the end of the tournament. We started our G/15 +3 second increment playoffs approximately fifteen minutes after my six hour, 106 move game against Rohonyan ended. We split these rapid games with one win each, then went into the blitz stage of G/5 + 3 second increment, which we also split with one win each.

We then proceeded to the final Armageddon game, that was to be played without increment. As the defending champion, I was told by the organizers that I had to choose how the time would be divided, and Anna would choose the color she wanted to play. I decided that White would be given 6 minutes, Black 4:30. Anna chose to be Black with draw odds.

The relevant part of the game is not that I had the initiative throughout, and maintained a winning position until the end. The relevant part is, of course, the clock, since I was deemed to have “lost” the title of US Women’s Champion due to my time running out while Anna had 1 second left.

So, about the clock. Tom Braunlich, one of the organizers of the event, wrote in his report “At one point Anna had 2 seconds left compared to about 20 for Irina.” This is a plainly incorrect appraisal of the time situation. Then Tom, in an attempt to explain how my 20 seconds ran out before Anna’s 2, wrote that “Anna’s draw odds were a big advantage here – she could blitz out moves hardly thinking (just moving the piece nearest to the clock), while Irina actually had to do something with her moves since she had to win.” Unfortunately, this statement also has no basis in reality. Despite having a winning position, I didn’t need to “do something with my moves”- all I needed to do was move quickly and the person with much less time would flag first. And, in fact, that’s what I did. I moved instantly, as can be seen very clearly in the video you’ve posted of that game. I moved instantly, all the while having a significant time advantage until I got to 0 seconds while Anna had 1. How could this have happened?

First of all, let’s establish what the true clock situation was. Tom was certainly off in his estimate, but the essence of what he said was absolutely true: I had a large lead in time, let’s say 8 seconds to 3 at one point, or as Anna herself says in her interview, “I realized that I had two seconds. I was so shocked that I am going to lose right now. She has six (seconds). I played Rb8-e8 because it was so close to clock.” So let’s take 6 seconds to 2. Watching the video, seeing me move instantly, how could 6 seconds lose against 2?

And that’s the crux of the matter. My opponent, seeing herself on the verge of losing on time, began playing moves before I had completed mine. She made her moves before I hit my clock, and as soon as I pressed the clock, it was punched back at me. That is how my lead in time was chipped away at, and this process began during the advance of Anna’s c-pawn, quite a few moves before the game ended.

Obviously, making moves before your opponent completes theirs is illegal. Were it legal, White, having the “disadvantage” of the first move, would always lose on time to Black if the adversaries were to settle into the rhythm of Black using White’s time to move their pieces.

The sad thing is, no one stepped in as this was happening. No arbiter, no organizer, did anything to ensure that fair play was being observed in the final moments of the game. It was a free-for-all, where the person with the worse blitz habits “won.”

People have pointed out that I should have registered my protest during the game, or immediately after. Unfortunately, while I was certainly in disbelief as I watched my opponent complete 3 moves with her last remaining second and saw myself lose on time despite starting out with a large time lead, during the game and immediately after, I had no clear grasp of how she had accomplished this. It happened too quickly for me to understand, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen, and that it should be ignored.

An injustice that wasn’t brought to light at the moment it occurred is no less of an injustice. Moreover, in our particular situation, it is not an injustice that is difficult to redress. As no one in our tournament was in any way affected by our playoff, no games need to be replayed, no scores adjusted, no ratings recalculated- all that needs to be changed is the way the ending of this story is told.

It has been announced that Anna, by virtue of conserving 1 second on her clock, is the 2008 U.S. Women’s Champion.

I fervently dispute Anna’s claim to the sole possession of this title. I do not believe that a Champion emerges through one second they have managed to keep on their clock through illegal means.

In my view, a winner of a tournament is someone who at some point, perhaps in some minuscule and barely perceptible way, lifts themselves above their competitors. I would be interested to hear any view that holds that Anna, through legal techniques, did anything to earn the title of Champion over me.

I’d also like to address my reaction at the end of this game, when I knocked a piece off to the side of the board before walking out of the room. This may seem like poor behavior to some, but I believe that my reaction was nothing compared to the aggression leveled at me by my opponent during the end of this game. Knocking off a piece and storming away had no power or intention to take away anything my opponent had been working for during this tournament. When my opponent moved on my time, however innocuous that may appear to be, I believe that she was committing one of the worst transgressions possible: depriving me, through unfair means, of the just rewards of my labor. That is where the aggression lies in this situation, and not in my expression of frustration and anger over being wronged.

I am pained that this incident has raised doubts about my sportsmanship. I have never in my entire career been accused of showing poor sportsmanship. I have never displayed any outward sign of anger or aggression at the end of a game, within sight of my opponent or spectators, or anywhere in the vicinity of the playing area. I have never failed to shake my opponent’s hand at the end of a game. I lost two games to Anna in the playoff, and both times I offered my hand in resignation, even though this isn’t even required protocol in blitz chess. And I have never been accused of cheating or violating my opponent’s rights in any way. I want this point to be clear: my reaction at the end of the final game had nothing to do with “losing” and everything to do with the way it happened and my perception of something unfair having occurred. And although the following piece of information is not entirely necessary as I feel perfectly capable of defending my sportsmanship all on my own, it is rather funny. Guess what Frank Berry, the sponsor and organizer of the US Championship, stated I should get an award for during his closing ceremony comments: that’s right, “sportsmanship.” Thanks, Frank.

I had hoped to resolve this matter in a friendly way, without being forced to voice my indignation in public. Four days ago, I wrote a letter to Anna explaining my position, urging her to study the video of our final game, and if she agreed with my conclusions about what happened, to write a few sentences for uschess.org where she’d communicate her non-objection to sharing the title with me. In any case, I told her, I looked forward to hearing what she had to say. Unfortunately, I have not heard back from her, and since there is no guarantee that I ever will, I decided to go ahead and make my views known to the chess community.

What do I hope to accomplish through this letter? First and foremost, I want the truth to finally be relayed to the American chess public. As I’ve mentioned, the final tournament report that was offered to you was misleading, and I have yet to see a retraction of its false assertions. Secondly, I believe that to continue into the future, unthinkingly parroting that Anna Zatonskih is the 2008 U.S. Women’s Champion with no regard for how she “won” this title, is a travesty of truth and justice. I believe I have at least as much right to this title as she does, and I would like this right to be acknowledged. To this end, I am asking for responses to this letter from Frank Berry and Bill Goichberg, the President of the USCF. This event was held under their auspices, and I would like to know what they think of the results, given the evidence of what transpired.

I’d like to use this opportunity to say that despite the unsatisfactory ending of the Championship for me, this letter in no way expresses my feelings about the organization of the Championship as a whole. I had a wonderful time in Oklahoma, and wish to thank Frank and Jim Berry for their unwavering kindness and hospitality on all my visits to their home state, as well as to Tom Braunlich, who, in his capacity as organizer, was solicitous and helpful throughout the event.

To conclude, I will state that sharing the title would be an acceptable outcome for me, but I would certainly welcome any initiative to decide the title in over-the-board games, with real time controls that don’t degrade the participants into clock punching monkeys.

Sincerely,
Irina Krush

Let us know how you think ties in our National Championship should be settled !

Related Reading:

• Article Published right after the playoff.
• Tom Braunlich’s Report

Question of the Month is a New Feature Brought To You by Jim Eade

This month’s question is – WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN CHESS TODAY ?

This is a question many of us have often asked…FM Alex Dunne makes some very good points with his response…

“For over 100 years chess has had a rich tradition of a match champion — Lasker, Alekhine, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Kasparov, Tal, Fischer — the names were magic! Now we have a semi-yearly “champion” who wins one tournament that is not even the strongest event of the year and he is our new “World Champion. What a derogation of the title. We need to restore (reinvigorate?) the title of World (match) Champion.” FM, Alex Dunne

FM Alex Dunne is mostly known for this chess column in Chess Life Magazine about correspondence chess. He has written a number of interesting books, including “How to Become a Candidate Master” and “Chess Oddities”. Alex was a chess instructor in the Castle Chess Camp for almost 20 years.

The US Chess Trust appreciates his comments and would like to encourage other members of the chess community and/or chess friends to send their comments !

Note: Audience participation is encouraged and responses will be posted on our website and in our next newsletter!

To post your responses and comments on our site just click the comments area on the top right corner of the blog post, type in your response and submit ! You can also send them to info@uschesstrust.org.

Question of the Month is a New Feature Brought To You by Jim Eade

This month’s question is – WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN CHESS TODAY ?

This is a question many of us have often asked…

Audience participation is encouraged and responses will be posted on our website and in our next newsletter!

Post your responses and comments on our site just click the comments area on the top right corner of the blog post, type in your response and submit ! You can also send them to info@uschesstrust.org.