Javier

Magnus Carlsen is already a 2700 rated player and among his most recent successes is his second place at Morelia-Linares. Definitely a very hard to repeat achievement. Yet, some of his recent losses make me wonder about the depth of his positional understanding... The following game against Kramnik is a good example of this: But you can also download the following file with 4 more of his recent losses. It's not the fact that he loses, it's HOW he loses those games... Carlsenslosses.cbv

Well, Ivanchuk's performance at Aerosvit was utterly impressive. In round 1, he chose the Dragon (not many top 10 play the Dragon nowadays!) against Karjakin, and had no problems whatsoever in the opening (Karjakin's 12.Kb1, although playable, has never had a very good reputation). In round 2 he beat Nisipeanu showing good preparation against a difficult line and determination (24.f5!?) and finished it in good technique. Round 3, no problems as black in a Benoni against Sasikiran. (again, not many GMs play the Benoni nowadays) Round 4, ok, he tried a risky line in the Catalan but his opponent was well prepared and equalized easily. It's nice to see how he likes to experiment and create problems for his opponents. Round 5, no trouble equalizing against Javovenko on the black side of a Pelikan. (I wish Shirov could say the same when he plays it!) Round 6, no trouble against Van Wely's English opening. Round 7 a very, very impressive victory against Eljanov's Queen's Indian by using the 7.d5!? gambit (this guy does try risky lines against the Queen's Indian!). His victory over Rublevsky's Sozin on round 8 is just jaw dropping! In round 9, on move 28 he sacrificed his Queen against Dominguez, and fought for a win till the very end (although it was a draw) Round 10, Shirov took risks, but Ivanchuck won very convincingly after 26... Nxd4!! And round 11 was a formality, but in general I had the feeling that he was gutsy, well prepared and imaginative. You don't see that everyday. For example, I find Anand's openings rather boring as he takes no risks and just plays the main lines in all of his games. And yes, Carlsen's loss against Kramnik in the Catalan made him look like a player with serious strategical weaknesses. But his match against Aronian didn't cause a good impression either, not to mention that famous 2 losses against Anand at Linares. He just seemed to be in a different league. (see the new thread I've opened with the games)

Nice work, Lazker, but in line B2, are you sure you haven't found a tougher defence for black? As for Zorg's suggestion, yes, it doesn't quite work, although 3...Rg1+! is a clear improvement because white's King is forced to walk into the h-file, blocking his own pawn. For example 4.Kh5 Ra1, and eventhough a7 can still be protected by playing 5.Kg4 (so that if 5...Rxa7?? 6.Rh7), black can simply go 5...Kd6!, 6.Rh7 b5! when it's white who is fighting for a draw!

Very briefly I'll highlight some of the most noticeable changes: Ivanchuck is number 4 only 30 points below Anand, and the way Vassily is playing lately, I think he's playing the best chess in the whole planet. Amazing talent Jakovenko is already in the top 10, and Shirov is also equal 10th with 2735, his highest rating since January 2004. Carlsen is over 2700 for the first time in his life. It probably wont be his last, although his loss to Kramnik the other day and the way he lost, makes me doubt. Adams has fallen to 25th in the world, dropping 44 rating points. (I can't recall when was the last time Adams was below 2700!). It won't be easy for him to reach top 10 again... 1 Anand, Viswanathan g IND 2792 4 1969 2 Kramnik, Vladimir g RUS 2769 1 1975 3 Topalov, Veselin g BUL 2768 10 1975 4 Ivanchuk, Vassily g UKR 2762 22 1969 5 Morozevich, Alexander g RUS 2758 18 1977 6 Mamedyarov, Shakhriyar g AZE 2755 14 1985 7 Leko, Peter g HUN 2751 9 1979 8 Aronian, Levon g ARM 2750 15 1982 9 Radjabov, Teimour g AZE 2746 7 1987 10 Jakovenko, Dmitry g RUS 2735 29 1983 11 Shirov, Alexei g ESP 2735 28 1972 12 Svidler, Peter g RUS 2735 6 1976 13 Gelfand, Boris g ISR 2733 21 1968 14 Adams, Michael g ENG 2731 8 1971 15 Grischuk, Alexander g RUS 2726 18 1983 16 Kamsky, Gata g USA 2717 28 1974 17 Carlsen, Magnus g NOR 2710 19 1990 18 Akopian, Vladimir g ARM 2708 5 1971 19 Polgar, Judit g HUN 2707 10 1976 20 Ponomariov, Ruslan g UKR 2706 16 1983 21 Eljanov, Pavel g UKR 2701 24 1983 22 Wang, Yue g CHN 2696 25 1987 23 Bacrot, Etienne g FRA 2695 20 1983 24 Alekseev, Evgeny g RUS 2689 26 1985 25 Adams, Michael ENG 2687 10 1971 26 Bu, Xiangzhi g CHN 2685 27 1985 27 Kasimdzhanov, Rustam g UZB 2683 17 1979 28 Short, Nigel D g ENG 2683 10 1965 29 Nisipeanu, Liviu-Dieter g ROU 2682 33 1976 30 Almasi, Zoltan g HUN 2682 17 1976 31 Volokitin, Andrei g UKR 2681 30 1986 32 Ni, Hua g CHN 2681 24 1983 33 Dominguez Perez, Lenier g CUB 2680 9 1983 34 Rublevsky, Sergei g RUS 2679 29 1974 35 Van Wely, Loek g NED 2679 26 1972 36 Karjakin, Sergey g UKR 2678 19 1990 37 Malakhov, Vladimir g RUS 2676 24 1980 38 Milov, Vadim g SUI 2675 0 1972 39 Sasikiran, Krishnan g IND 2674 17 1981 40 Miroshnichenko, Evgenij g UKR 2671 50 1978 41 Landa, Konstantin g RUS 2669 51 1972 42 Movsesian, Sergei g SVK 2667 45 1978 43 Sargissian, Gabriel g ARM 2667 29 1983 44 Vallejo Pons, Francisco g ESP 2666 24 1982 45 Sokolov, Ivan g NED 2666 19 1968 46 Harikrishna, P. g IND 2664 17 1986 47 Georgiev, Kiril g BUL 2663 21 1965 48 Inarkiev, Ernesto g RUS 2663 7 1985 49 Krasenkow, Michal g POL 2660 26 1963 50 Socko, Bartosz g POL 2660 26 1978 51 Volkov, Sergey g RUS 2659 19 1974 52 Zvjaginsev, Vadim g RUS 2658 8 1976 53 Cheparinov, Ivan g BUL 2657 11 1986 54 Sutovsky, Emil g ISR 2656 28 1977 55 Navara, David g CZE 2656 26 1985 56 Tkachiev, Vladislav g FRA 2655 30 1973 57 Gashimov, Vugar g AZE 2655 29 1986 58 Tomashevsky, Evgeny g RUS 2654 18 1987 59 Lautier, Joel g FRA 2654 4 1973 60 Beliavsky, Alexander G g SLO 2653 22 1953 61 Bareev, Evgeny g RUS 2653 19 1966 62 Onischuk, Alexander g USA 2650 33 1975 63 Bologan, Viktor g MDA 2650 30 1971 64 Timofeev, Artyom g RUS 2650 30 1985 65 Smirin, Ilia g ISR 2649 10 1968 66 Zhang, Pengxiang g CHN 2649 9 1980 67 Baklan, Vladimir g UKR 2648 34 1978 68 Tiviakov, Sergei g NED 2648 33 1973 69 Motylev, Alexander g RUS 2648 26 1979 70 Miton, Kamil g POL 2648 19 1984 71 Nakamura, Hikaru g USA 2647 16 1987 72 Nikolic, Predrag g BIH 2646 17 1960 73 Fressinet, Laurent g FRA 2646 14 1981 74 Areshchenko, Alexander g UKR 2645 29 1986 75 Avrukh, Boris g ISR 2645 22 1978 76 Izoria, Zviad g GEO 2645 11 1984 77 Jobava, Baadur g GEO 2644 31 1983 78 Naiditsch, Arkadij g GER 2644 31 1985 79 Afromeev, Vladimir f RUS 2642 14 1954 80 Moiseenko, Alexander g UKR 2641 23 1980 81 Nielsen, Peter Heine g DEN 2638 31 1973 82 Shabalov, Alexander g USA 2638 23 1967 83 Wojtaszek, Radoslaw g POL 2637 28 1987 84 Smirnov, Pavel g RUS 2636 19 1982 85 Sadvakasov, Darmen g KAZ 2635 30 1979 86 Sakaev, Konstantin g RUS 2634 30 1974 87 Kobalia, Mikhail g RUS 2634 23 1978 88 Zhang, Zhong g CHN 2634 9 1978 89 Ehlvest, Jaan g USA 2633 41 1962 90 Gurevich, Mikhail g TUR 2633 19 1959 91 Lputian, Smbat G g ARM 2633 11 1958 92 Khalifman, Alexander g RUS 2632 18 1966 93 Ye, Jiangchuan g CHN 2632 0 1960 94 Stellwagen, Daniel g NED 2631 16 1987 95 Roiz, Michael g ISR 2630 28 1983 96 Istratescu, Andrei g ROU 2629 24 1975 97 Predojevic, Borki g BIH 2628 32 1987 98 Fridman, Daniel g GER 2628 18 1976 99 Vladimirov, Evgeny g KAZ 2627 0 1957 100 Bauer, Christian g FRA 2626 27 1977

I did mention Botvinnik! What you say about Spassky is true: it's a pity he never wrote a book on his games. But I like something he said once about Kasparov when Garry co-authored several books: "If you're the world champion, you write the book yourself, you don't ask someone to do the work and then you sign it". I think you're right about Petrosian. The book you mention (which is a small collection of some of his lectures) is outstanding, and I must have been thinking about that when I wrote the comment (The spanish version, which I read, is called "Ajedrez en la cumbre" which is a rather lame title ("Chess at the peak"). I don't think he wrote any book on his games, what a pity indeed!

Well, Fischer's "My 60 memorable games" is probably the most honest book ever written by a GM on his own games, and the games are amazing, so that should definitely be in your library. All of Thal's books (the ones written by him) are also superb, and he doesn't just deal with tactics. He's very funny also and tells lots of interesting anecdotes. He doesn't try to portray the image of an amazing mind, if he was lucky, he tells you, if he didn't feel like playing because there was a soccer game on TV which he wanted to watch, he tells you. If he made a move purely based on intuition, without having calculated a single variation, he tells you. And then there is Petrosian. All of the books which he authored are simply outstanding and put you in contact with a mind which the world will never see again. I don't like any of Karpov's books because I don't think he's honest about what he saw/didn't see and he doesn't make much of an effort at explaining things anyway (his coments are brief and rather "dry"). The same can probably be said of Botvinnik, although a lot of his games are incredibly instructive from a strategical standpoint... I don't like Kasparov's books either. In my opinion, he's not honest about what he saw and what he missed during the game. I don't put into question the quality of his (post mortem!) work though. I enjoyed Smyslov and Taimanov's games also, so it's hard to say. I would definitely reject all books written by authors who were not the players themselves. I'm probably forgetting some other great game collections though...

Thanks Zorg. When you're watching a game at playchess.com, I believe you can just choose the option "save as...". I´m aware that being able to download those games with the graphical annotations would be quite useful, but you have to understand that I already provide free annotated games and positions on the files section of my site. The on-line lessons are intended as that, "on-line". My students get all the files (Usually containing dozens of fully annotated games), but this is what I do for a job and the free lessons I do on-line are mainly introductions to the topics. Unfortunately, I do not know the books you mention by Grivas. Regards.

You're welcome!

I'm not sure Bxf7+ is such a good idea as black can then play Kd7, and Qxe4 Nxe4, Bd5 is not as good as before: the knight on c6 is now protected. Still, it's probably wiser to choose positions where there's only one good move, or create tests where more than one good move is worthy of a correct answer (currently possible with flash software, as all our LOCMAI tests). I think you're right about the other positions. These tests will be updated sometime this year as they are now outdated. Thanks for reporting this!

Hmm... that hasn't been working for a while. Those flash tests in particular were made for a diferent version of this forum software and unfortunately those tests were never updated. However, most of the other tests do work. I'll have to update the list of on-line tests soon. (sometime in July). Thanks for reporting this.

Unfortunately my on-line lessons have been programmed to invite people to attend those lessons live. Thus, I do not provide the database with the contents. However, people are welcome to save my lessons at playchess. If necessary, I will provide game references though.

Sure: The Ra6 lift was Oll - Romero, Groningen 1984. The sicilian was Eretova - Kluss, Halle 1975. Cheers!

Thanks Lasker. Yes, it is true that you have to pay attention how you use your pawns to attack the enemy King. Often, playing h4 will prevent a Rook lift to the h-file, but depending on the position h4 can be used to open lines after h5, or perhaps as a support to advance the g-pawn, etc. Each position is different I guess. Yes, that was a mistake, I really meant Saturday. Sorry about that. Regards.

Thanks for your kinds words, Lazker, I'll be there!

You're absolutely right Rob, I've fixed it for the next version. Thanks!

Since it has been clearly proven that it's extremely difficult to organize what is supposed to be the most important competition of the year in this country (Australia), perhaps we should ask New Zealand to organize it for us. Call it the "Championship of Australia and New Zealand" or something. What do you think? I trust New Zealanders when it comes to organizing national events... If they refuse, there's also Samoa Island, Papua New Guinea and other countries in the region. It would definitely give the event a tourist appeal, something which Australian Chess players seem to need when taking part in chess competitions nowadays, given the low numbers of people taking part in previous years. On more serious matters, here's an interesting endgame composition by Prokes. And I call it interesting because it's completely wrong! Your task is a double one: Find Proke's original composition (white to play and draw) and then find why it is wrong! (white's actually completely lost)

I've accepted the challenge.

Piece value is actually a complex subject which, unfortunately, has always been covered very superficially in modern chess literature. What you have to understand is that a piece's worth is not set in stone, it's completely dynamic, changing all the time with every single move. Having said that, I can assure you that, in general, a Knight is a little bit worse that a Bishop and 2.9 is probably quite an accurate measure for its true worth. I understand that most people (even masters!) will say that a knight's worth 3 and so is a bishop, but that's probably because of their upbringing and chess culture, yet they too know that a Bishop is normally worth a little bit more. So, yes, I take the responsibility, a knight's worth 2.9, a bishop's worth 3. Here's what I say in the book: "The value of the chess pieces is "relative". But what exactly do I mean by that? Well, it depends on the position really... How much is a bottle of water at your local supermarket, 1 or 2 dollars maybe? Ok, but what would happen if you actually needed a bottle of water when you were about to die of thirst in the middle of the dessert, how much would you be willing to pay for it then? See? it's relative... The same thing happens in chess, it depends on the circumstances, each situation is different, each position is different... in some positions a Pawn could be the most valuable piece if you can checkmate your opponent with it, or a single knight might be able to beat a whole army of pieces, or perhaps you'll get a position where it's actually better to promote a Pawn into a Rook rather than a Queen. The possibilities are endless..."

Found on the forum's menu above. contact form It makes communication a lot easier for people who are not registered at these forums. This is just one of several new features that I'm working on.

Ok, Shirov is out of the WC Cycle after drawing his last game against Aronian. It was a rather depressing game. I'm not sure if Shirov had any seconds during this match, but his opening choice was really quite a bad one (once again). I mean, just look at the position after black's 16th move. It doesn't matter whether it's book or not, it's just a really sad position for a player with such an imagination. Watch: Shirov,A (2699) - Aronian,L (2759) [C88] WCh Candidates Finals Elista RUS (6), 12.06.2007 [pgn] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.d3 d6 9.c3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.Nbd2 Nc6 12.Nf1 Re8 13.a3 h6 14.b4 Be6 15.Ng3 d5 16.exd5 Qxd5 17.Be3 Rac8 18.Nd2 Nb8 19.Nge4 Nbd7 20.Bb3 Qxd3 21.Bxe6 fxe6 22.Qf3 cxb4 23.axb4 Nxe4 24.Nxe4 Nf6 25.Nxf6+ Bxf6 26.Rxa6 Qxc3 27.Rb1 ½-½ [/pgn] I know it's still early, but I really want to forget this WC cycle already Some people drink alcohol when they wish to forget. There's an alternative, however: endgame studies! Ok, this is one which I saw the other day and I liked. White's position seems absolutely desperate. Not only is he the exchange down, he seems to be losing a Knight as well. Can white get a draw out of this? Well, if this is an endgame study, you're probaby thinking that he can. But what if this was one of those endgame studies with an error in it? Or am I saying all this to confuse you? Who cares! would you be able to save this ending or not, that's the question!

Over the next couple of months I'll be giving free on-line lessons at the playchess.com server. The lessons on Saturdays have to do with tactics and are mainly geared towards beginners. The lessons on Sundays have to do with strategy and are geared towards beginners and intermediate players. The lectures last between 35 and 55 minutes. Here's the schedule: Saturday 23rd of June, 4 p.m. GMT (London time) : "The Queen is an octopus!. Intro to the double attack." Sunday 24th of June, 6 p.m. GMT (London time) : "Strategy from scratch, lesson I, Rook lifts" Saturday 30th of June, 4 p.m. GMT (London time) : "Introduction to Skewers from scratch" Sunday 1st of July, 6 p.m. GMT (London time) : "Strategy from scratch, lesson II, Maneuvering" Saturday 7th of July, 4 p.m. GMT (London time) : "Deconstracting the discovered attack" Sunday 8th of July, 6 p.m. GMT (London time) : "Strategy from scratch, lesson III, Exploitation of a diagonal" Saturday 14th of July, 4 p.m. GMT (London time) : "Overloading explained" Sunday 15th of July, 6 p.m. GMT (London time) : "Strategy from scratch, lesson IV, Open files" Saturday 21st of July, 4 p.m. GMT (London time) : "Watch out, there's an intermediate move!" Sunday 22nd of July, 6 p.m. GMT (London time) : "Strategy from scratch, lesson V, Pawn storms"

At chessnia.com you can add your own games so that the game can be viewed (or downloaded) by other users. Although it can take a bit of practice, the way to do it is relatively easy. If you wish to add a game to your post, you need to use the following codes in your post: [pgn] game in .PGN format goes here [/pgn] And when your post is sent, users will be able to follow the game on a chess board embedded to the post. To make it easier, you can write the names of the players, opening codes, dates. etc before using the pgn codes. IMPORTANT: The game format MUST be pgn and MUST be in English. For example, if you wanted to add the 4 moves checkmate to a post, this is what you'd have to add: [pgn] 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Qh5 Nf6 4.Qxf7++ [/pgn] And this is what the game would look like: Where do we get the game in pgn format from? Well, given that pgn is basically text format, you could do it by hand, but admitedly it is very easy to make a mistake that way. There are many programs out there that would let you transcibe a game. For example, if you're using Chessbase 8, you could do it like this: You just open a game and then press "Control + C". The game is automatically copied into your pc's memory. Then, when you're writing your create a new post on our forums, you'd do this: [pgn] and now press "Control + V" (to paste the content of your pc's memory) [/pgn] It's that simple! You might need to cut and paste Players' and tournament details and put them outside the pgn codes, but that's about it... NEW: The easiest way is to use the codes on the "Quick Access menu" on the left of the editor when you post a message on this forum. Simply click on the "Display a chess game!" option and enter the game in the box. That's it.

I took this quiz today, and this is the disappointing result that I got. Now you know absolutely everything there is to know about my thinking style, so don't use it against me if we ever play each other, ok? Your Dominant Thinking Style: Modifying Super logical and rational, you consider every fact available to you. You don't make rash decisions and are rarely moved by emotion. You prefer what's known and proven - to the new and untested. You tend to ground those around you and add stability. What's Your Thinking Style? http://www.blogthings.com/whatsyourthinkingstylequiz/ And talking about thinking style, what if I told you that no matter what you think about the following position, "you're probably wrong!" Take a look and try to guess the result after some calculation. White to play and...

That opening system is, in one word, rubbish. You do have to avoid some tricks, but that's about it. It's one of those "Macdonalds openings" (fast food, fast openings to learn, but not very "healthy" for you at all!). If you follow the first 4 moves, white should now play 5. Bd2! Qxb2 6. Nc3! (6. Bc3 Bb4! 7. Qd2?? Bxc3 8. Qxc3? Qc1 mate is one of the traps). White has a clear advantage in all variations. Why play such crap if there s many other interesting and sound systems? Cheers!

Hi! It's very simple really: If you're a beginner and you have a chess question, please ask it here and I might be able to help you. - Try to post just one question at a time. If you have another question, simply open a new post. - Although not a requirement at present, I'm more likely to answer if you register at these forums first.