Chessvine.com

Chess Psychology PHENOMENAL Way to Turn Your Thinking Around & WIN

nospam@example.com (ColonelCrockett) — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:23:02 -0400

The video above is an amateur's analysis of one of his own favorite games. He ignores some of the opening inaccuracies on both sides and presents no alternative moves for some glaring errors. However, in spite of the downsides to this video the presenter possesses and enthusiasm that is refreshing to me. This video is a great introduction to the Ideas of Jeremy Silman (as well as the uncredited ideas brought to chess education by GM Alexander Kotov, my personal favorite among chess thinkers). I recommend this to all viewers concerned with either learning the fundamentals of chess thinking or to those of higher level that are looking for good methods of presenting chess material to others.

Chess - Think Different

nospam@example.com (ColonelCrockett) — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 13:12:20 -0400

WhyChess - In The Spotlight

nospam@example.com (ColonelCrockett) — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:31:28 -0400

I wanted to bring to the attention of the chess community at large a site I recently came across. A new and exciting looking website that is still growing. It is called simply WhyChess. They offer everything form free news and articles of chess interest to chess teaching and soon playing services. I'm not certain who is the mastermind(s) behind this website but they're thinking big and that's something I'm prepared to get behind and lend my support without being asked.

Truthfully, the site has not given me any kind of remuneration for this article. I've not even spoken with any of its representatives. I just happened to find it and I'm passing it on to you to look around and explore its features. Check it out!

The State of My Personal Chess

nospam@example.com (ColonelCrockett) — Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:33:26 -0400

The following correspondence game was played by me against an unidentified opponent and I thought that for my own benefit I'd go through it and give some commentary:

E33: Nimzo-Indian: Classical: 4...Nc6
White: Online Opponent
Black: Me

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 Nc6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. e3 d5 7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. bxc3

After this move the game enters a very dynamic but normally drawn character. I choose the most active move (albeit perhaps a little too ambitious).

8. ...Re8 9. cxd5

some people may criticize white here for releasing the central tension. However, they are overlooking the dominant position of White's two Bishops. White is trading one advantage for another -the central tension for an open field for his Bishop pair. Owever, Black is happy with this change because he gains a half open file for his rook.

9. … exd5 10. Be2 Bg4

Black appreciates a lead in development but can't really exploit it so the position her is roughly equal. White's plan will be to activate his drak-square bishop and black's will be to activate his rooks and try to trade off one of the enemy Bishop's to break up the pair.

11. O-O a6

in hindsight this may have been a mistake. The threat of Bb5 only trades off my least active minor piece for one of the demon bishops.

12. h3 Bh5 13. Bd1

This was a good chance for White to put in c4. He neglects to do so and Black has a chance to improve himself ...

13. … b6?

… but fails to do so. I mistakenly want to edge for a c5 break. I need to keep the game closed … not play for breaks.

14. Nd2 Bg6?

Simply trading bishops gives Black a powerful attack. I'm not certain what was thinking. Gain a tempo? Captures do that anyway (as the tempo gets passed back to you after a recapture).

15. Qb2 Bd3 16. Re1 Na5 17. Be2 Bxe2 18. Rxe2

I'm going to ignore the justification for the last few moves. Neither player has done very well but at least Black has a plan involving the c4 square. What is white's plan? At any rate Black is back on track. He is set up now so that white has an undefended rook, a trade on c4 will now result in white becoming passive and my remaining knight would dominate the terribly bad bishop.

18. … c5

well, I got the break I wanted !?

19. a4 Qc7 20. Rb1 Rab8 21. Qa2 b5 22. Nf3 Rb7 23. Ne5 Reb8 24. Reb2 Ne4 25. Bd2 f6??

after some inventive play I missed the best move. The worst part is that I looked at the move but considered the knight kick-out better.

26. Qxd5+ Kh8 27. Qxe4 fxe5 28. Qxe5

This turns out to be the decisive mistake. Fritz (yes, I said Fritz) gives the continuation 28. axb5 Nc4 29. b6 Qd6 30. dxe5 Nxe5 with White just better.

28. … Qxe5 29. dxe5 Nc4 30. Ra2 bxa4 31. Rxb7 Rxb7 32. Be1 a3

I think some players may be tempted to play 32. … Nxe5? When 33.
Rxa4 Kg8 34. Kf1 and again white is just better and on his way to fixing his biggest problems with an extra pawn.

33. Kf1 Rb2 34. Ra1 a2 35. Rd1 Kg8 0-1

White resigned with no way of stopping the coming queen without big sacrifice. I would describe this game as a muddle with the occasional spark of inspiration. I had poor plans in many positions but the thing I can honestly say is that I DID have a plan. A poor plan is always better than no plan. Sadly, this was a correspondence game so it just goes to show my skills have waxed old over the past couple of years. I need to get back into tournament play where the opposition is better prepared and I can start my analyzing engine (my brain) back up once more.

Open Letter From Hank Anzis

nospam@example.com (ColonelCrockett) — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 13:32:46 -0400

Hank has had difficulty in adding this as a comment to my previous post so I'm posting it here on his behalf:

Hello Colonel Crockett (and ChessVine readers),

I’m very sorry you took the comments in my blog post of July 24th as negative criticism. I did not intend my comments to be critical in either a constructive or negative way. They were just observations based on what I observed from your blog and noting what blogs did well in last year’s CJA awards. From what I saw of ChessVine’s posts, I consider it was an excellent blog or chess portal (take your pick) and I did like the Fisher book review (although I didn’t care for the book as much as you).

I try to write with a good humor and not take myself especially seriously. I’ve written on and off about my experiences with the CJA over the past 2 years, including my CJA entry last year that garnered the absolute lowest score (1 out of 12 possible points) of all 100+ entries and the entry I submitted in 2006 where I asked the judge of my section in person the day after the awards had been made public what he thought of my entry only to have him tell me he had never heard of it! I never thought my quirky blog would win (or even be seriously considered) and writing about the entire process was a lot of fun to share with my readers. Looking at the post in question with a different perspective, I probably made too much of my chances in order to contrast it to the stories of sure things not coming through that I followed it up with. I have posted my thoughts on winning the award on August 16th, but chessvines would have been a worthy winner.

Again, I think highly of your blog and I am very sorry for your disappointment at my post. I think congratulations are in order for both of us for being willing to risk rejection and submit our creative efforts to the judge’s scrutiny.

Regards,
Hank Anzis (http://brokenpawn1.blogspot.com)

CJA Awards 2011 - Best Chess Blog ...Broken Pawn

nospam@example.com (ColonelCrockett) — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:25:00 -0400

The Chess Journalists of America awards have been announced and I'm once again a FAAAR second banana to a very good blog. Why aren't these brilliant bloggers competing against one another? I can only stand in “wonder-ment”.

This year my competition was a blogger by the name of “Broken Pawn”. To tell the truth I didn't have the time to analyze the competition for the Best Chess Blog Award but I felt like I had a decent chance with the articles I submitted. Broken Pawn submitted his blog after I did mine and in his own words:

“I reviewed the competition and see that there have been only 13 posts on their site all year (and most of those posts are merely links to other chess sites - no original content) and just 3 of those since May 1st (It was much more active last year). It’s inconceivable to me that I could finish second to this particular blog, but I’ve seen stranger things happen.” - Broken Pawn (HankAnzis)

I think this illustrates the negative side of competition. It has never been my purpose in the chess community to outdo anyone. I am at my heart a chess promoter … not exactly a journalist. I derive more pleasure from pointing people in the direction of useful information than in the simple retelling. I was very disappointed in Broken Pawn for his comments. I would have preferred that he made his criticism constructive so that others (myself included) might learn from their mistakes.

What mistakes have I made in my blog over the past year?

1) First and foremost it is a sign of disaster to allow your blog posting to drop in frequency. Set a pace that you can maintain. Over the past year my life has made such dramatic changes I don't even know where to begin. In the past I made a point to make at least one post per day. That was unrealistic. Don't make the same mistake.

2) I've never been a very prolific writer. I have a personal issue with those who do write verbosely, “A fool is known in multitude of words”. So in my opinion there must be a happy medium. Original content IS important in blogging and is sorely lacking on Chessvine these days. Quite simply I had nothing to say that someone else hadn't already said. At least that is the excuse I'm sticking with.

Bottom line: Don't say too little and don't say too much. Think of Goldy Locks, keep it JUST RIGHT with original content.

Don't make the same mistakes that I've made here on Chessvine. We all need to lift one another up and support all efforts to spread chess throughout the world. At times that does include constructive criticism. Get out there and blog, promote chess, and all the things that make the sport great. Most importantly … keep moving those pieces around!

Chess Cheating and Delaying Online Game Broadcasts

nospam@example.com (ColonelCrockett) — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:38:03 -0400

For several years (probably since Kasparov vs. Deep Blue or maybe the X3D broadcast) a debate has been brewing on the ethics of real-time online chess game broadcast in international competition. I personally have no opinion to share on the issue because frankly it doesn't effect me.

Recently an article appeared by chessbase extending their views on the subject (fifteen minute delay in broadcast).

"Suspicion is rife in the chess world, and this can be very damaging to the game. Not just that more and more players may be tempted to use – and indeed may already be using – illegal computer assistance (those who are caught and admit to their wrongdoing inevitably say 'doesn't everyone do it?'). Even graver is the fact that not just the cheaters but everyone else is affected: soon nobody will believe a brilliant game. Recently we had the following conversation with a top GM: 'Did you see the 2570 performance by the 13-year-old Indonesian girl?' we asked (WFM Medina Warda Aulia, rated 2035, had just scored 5.0/7 at the Telin Chess International Tournament in Jakarta). Our GM friend's reply: 'So have you figured out which engine she was using?'"

To get a clear view of the changes chessbase has proposed take a look at the official proposal submitted to FIDE (PDF).

As I said this anti-cheating proposal hooplah came about long before now but it really came to a head earlier this year when the FFE (French Chess Federation) accused its own players of cheating and a massive backlash ensued. If you didn't know anything about that the chessbase link above has convenient links to those former articles as well.

Why do I consider this an issue of "chess tech"? Because of devices like the one featured in This Article. I think it is best to assume that EVERYONE cheats in international competition and then come to a fair conclusion as to how to detect the used devices and eliminate the non-cheaters from the list of suspects for the round. I'm certain FIDE will take its time deciding on this one and so nothing will be done in the near future except perhaps what chessbase calls "token measures" ... which happen so frequently.

Annual CJA Awards Program Announced

nospam@example.com (ColonelCrockett) — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 13:57:40 -0400

Here is the announcement from the Chess Journalists of America (CJA):

Ramon A. Hernandez, Chairman of the CJA Awards Committee and Chief Judge, has announced the annual call for entries to the 2011 Annual CJA Chess Journalism Awards. The CJA awards honor the best in all facets of chess journalism. From journalism in print to those written and published online, the most excellent in chess articles, columns, photojournalism, infographics, layout and online are honored within their respective categories. Winners will be recognized in Chess Life and The Chess Journalist and will receive certificates."

[for full schedule click here or download the instructions in PDF format 2011 Awards Program Instructions. The entry for can be downloaded here.]

There is only three days left to submit an entry but if you're running around like mad trying to get an entry together you're not alone. It completely slipped my mind! aaargh!

Pogonina's Facts About Kramnik (Humor)

nospam@example.com (ColonelCrockett) — Fri, 13 May 2011 10:09:42 -0400

Thanks to Natalia Pogonina:

1) Joanne Rowling is working on a sequel to "Harry Potter" called "Vladimir Kramnik".

2) Vladimir's Kramnik's glasses is an artefact that increases one's FIDE raing by 500 points.

3) One of the journalists asked Kramnik if he will start playing weaker without his glasses (see #2). Kramnik replied calmly: "What will happen if you subtract a constant from infinity?".

4) While Kramnik's classmates were busy proving the Pythagor theorem, little Vova proved that chess is a draw.

5) Vladimir Kramnik is not interested in all the chess positions, but all chess positions are interested in Vladimir Kramnik.

6) Candid Camera asked a cute blonde to approach Kramnik, ask for knight odds, while being secretly assisted by Rybka. Kramnik, being a true gentleman, decided not to win and made a draw.

7) Kramnik finds poker dull as his starting hand is always two kings.

8 ) Yet another eminent grandmaster has been delivered to the asylum. He claimed he can beat Kramnik.

9) Vladimir Kramnik doesn't wait for his opponents to make a move. Instead, he takes a walk and sends them the move using telekinesis when necessary.

10) There is just one player whom Vladimir Kramnik agrees to draw on move one - Peter Leko.

11) When Kramnik is playing in tournaments, book-makers don't offer odds for the winner.

12) In 1990 Kramnik was surprised to learn that the Berlin Wall has fallen, and promised he will "fix it soon".

13) After all, Botvinnik did create an artificial intelligence that plays chess. His name is Vladimir Kramnik.

14) Some openings are called after eminent masters. Chess is sometimes called "the game of Kramnik".

15) Vladimir Kramnik uses chess engines only to find out why annotators keep making mistakes when analyzing his games.

16) The Drawmaster character of the ChessMaster series is a pitiful attempt to imitate Kramnik's play.

17) Few people know that Deep Blue self-destructed after losing a chess match to Kramnik's tennis racket.

18) One day Kramnik was invited to the world chess puzzle solving contest. After he handed in answers to all the FIDE albums ahead of time, he doesn't visit these events anymore.

19) The statement "e4 is winning, d6 doesn't lose" is not against the laws of logic since it works only for Vladimir Kramnik.

20) The aliens who visited Ilyumzhinov have captured all the other planets of the Universe after defeating their best chess players. Unfortunately for them, Kirsan had Kramnik's phone number...

21) Kramnik solved checkers while being in the maternity home.

22) Kramnik says his wife plays chess on amateur level. Indeed, she still enjoys beating Rybka over and over again.

23) Kramnik was named the best painter of all times since no one can match his drawing technique.

24) Few people know that the Pepsi machine from the famous commercial that delivered a knock-out punch to Kasparov was just Kramnik wearing a special uniform.

25) Kasparov, Karpov and Fischer all failed to make it past round 1 of the "Who wants to be a millionaire" show since the question was "Who is the greatest chess player ever?" and the options - a) Kasparov b) Karpov c) Fischer d) Kramnik

Nigel Davies Analyzes Bronstein - Istratescu, Rishon Le Zion 1991

nospam@example.com (ColonelCrockett) — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 10:45:38 -0400

National Survey Citation

nospam@example.com (ColonelCrockett) — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 10:12:17 -0400

The National Survey statistics that I mentioned in my previous article are from the following:

The survey was conducted online with a random sample of 576 men and women who have a child under the age of 18 who plays chess or is learning to play chess.

The Impulse Research proprietary online panel has been carefully selected to closely match US population demographics and the respondents are representative of American men and women who have a child under the age of 18.

Research was conducted in March 2011

As I said in that previous article use the available information for promotional purposes. Our ultimate goal should always be to get more people playing and enjoying chess!

National Survey Statistics on Chess

nospam@example.com (ColonelCrockett) — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 13:56:28 -0400

Okay guys, it's been a while but I'm back with some interesting statistics for you. I got these stats from the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of Saint Louis. I'm also including my commentary in Italics:

According to a recent national survey–

Of parents who noticed a change in their child’s grades since the child began playing chess, 93 percent said they’ve seen a positive improvement! Anyone who is interested in chess for any length of time knows this one to be true. I remember having little trouble in school or college ... I owe a lot to chess.

Parents whose children had improved learning skills since taking an interest in chess saw the most significant improvement in math, science and reading. Sixty-six percent reported improved math grades, 46 percent saw improvements in science grades, and 41 percent saw improvements in reading grades. I'd like to know what the differences between scores in Algebra and Geometry. That could constitute a significant understanding in how the brain functions in chess calculation.

Over half (55%) of children who play chess began playing between the ages of 6 and 8. Ninety-five percent of children began before the age of 12. The younger the better!

Go forth my friends and use these stats in your chess promotions ... I'll be looking into this survey and getting you the citations. Keep watching!

Natalia Pogonina - 2 minute interview (Russian)

nospam@example.com (ColonelCrockett) — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 11:59:53 -0400

I need this video that was uploaded to youtube by Eugene Potemkin translated from Russian into English:

Lipstick Checkmate: Play Like A Girl (Trailer)

nospam@example.com (ColonelCrockett) — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:50:54 -0500

Review: "Endgame" by Frank Brady

nospam@example.com (ColonelCrockett) — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 12:10:17 -0500

When I was first asked to review Frank Brady's new book my first thought was that it would be yet another biography of Bobby Fischer and interchangeable with any of the others. It's difficult to write a review for a book that's a poor carbon copy of a hundred others. This book brought me into its realistic world of novelized history very quickly. And it doesn't let up its interest grabbing until Bobby's final act.

In general the chess community collectively knows quite a bit about Fischer - his madness, his genius - but men like Frank Brady were given unique opportunities to socialize with the man behind the sensationalized media hype and for him to share the experience and research with a variety of readers is a gift that I have come to appreciate more than I expected I could.

It's a common thing for biographers to jump from the novelized history to a poorer form of chronological history: “this happened, then this, then this, ...” However, moving from one scene in Brady's new book to the next is the most seamless effort I've ever read in biographies in general.

Mr. Brady writes the Championship Match between Fischer and Borris Spassky in a somewhat different manner than the rest of the book showing a greater depth of focus by the author. The change is understandable in the context and the greater focus acknowledges the event as Bobby Fischer's magnum opus. However, unlike the kid glove handling(s) of the championship I've read in the past there is a more honest approach. A view of both sides as being in high tension. Not just Bobby giving unrelenting demands but the soviet chess machine's reactions to the interference by Dr. Max Euwe (then FIDE President) and other such unique circumstances. It is also noteworthy that Borris Spassky shines as a sportsman by not objecting to the match continuing after Bobby's strange behavior.

A reader becomes intimately familiar with a number of the "players" as well as with Fischer himself through this work. If you like Bobby as a chess genius this book is a must read. If you think him completely insane this book is a must read. Likewise, if you enjoy biographies or usually pass them up this is still a book you must read. If you know nothing about chess and have never played before in your life this book will still hold your interest (with my personal proviso that some of Bobby's seemingly strange behavior is excusable in the chess community in general). Get your hands on a copy of this book. I highly recommend it. I was pleasantly surprised and impressed.

New York Times Review
Salon.com Review
Wired Review