Zorg

We are now looking at the improvement of the improvement . True your 3...Kd7! is very clever and frankly, even after having rechecked my variations I had not anticipated it. And this is a real blunder as in a position with so reduced material, such a king move is a natural candidate ?! I begin the analysis right from the start to avoid errors. 1.a7, Ra1 ; 2.e8=Q, Kxe8 ;3.Kg4, Kd7! (your "new" move) . And now mine : 4.Rh1! With the following possibilities : 4...Rxa7, 5.Rh7+ Skewer 4...Ra2, 5.Rh8, Rg2+ ; 6.Kh3 winning 4...Ra3,a5 or a6 ; 5.Rh8 winning By the way this solution seems to clinch whatsoever you play as your 4th black move : 4...Ke7 or d7 or f7. In each case, 5.Rh1 looks like a killer. But may be you will come with a refutation, now I am no more sure of anything

Hi Javier, I think I have got the solution of the study that time. What makes me think so is that almost all of the moves founded are forcing ones. 1.a7, Ra1 ; 2.e8=Q, Kxe8 ; 3.Kg4, Rg1+ (forced, only mean to stop the skewer, but...) ; 4.Kh3! (may be !!), Ra1 ; 5.Kg2 (threatening the skewer again) , 5... Ra2+ (loses but what else ?) 6.Kg3 and wins. When we will have grasped the solution, please, can you tell us the author's name if that is a study ? Or respectively the players's names if it's a practical game, of which I doubt. Thanks

Effectively, it's OK, Thanks Javier

Hi Javier, Sorry but I can't download the four losses. When I click on, I obtained the error message systematically.... Where am I wrong ? Thank you ! Zorg

Hi Lazker, You are right, I completely missed Rd8, without chess set or diagram in front of me ??!. Therefore, back to the study.... Zorg

Hi Lazker, I also followed Javier's lesson of yesterday and found the final postion for study very entertaining. The solution I found was : 1.e8=Q Kxe8 ; 2.Kg6! (to allow a white rook check skewer on the h file . You say 2.a7 "looks winning". May be it looks, but it does not win after 2...Ra1 followed by Rxa7 or a8 because the winning skewer check is hindered by the Kh5.) 2...Ra1 (2...Rg1+ doesn't change anything after 3.Kf6 Rg8 ; 4.Rd2+- no skewer this time but I don't see any saving move for Black) 3.a7+- and now the skewer will function. I hope all that is correct, because I'm writing blindly without seeing the initial position, just after having read your post Oh ! I just realise that your post is just below my reply ?!! Gens una sumus, Zorg

Hi, Javier, I found very enlightining your comment about the last Elo World Scale. I have 2 questions : 1.What makes you tell that V. Ivanchuk is actually playing the best chess of the planet ?(It would be a dream for me -and also many other chess players I suppose- to be able to distinguish in what a game or a player shows originality when compared to others.) 2.You are surprised the way Carlsen lost against Kramnik. Would you mean that it was without a fight ? It resembles more a simultaneous game with a reigning world champion taking it easy against a 1800-2000, than a confrontation between two 2700+. I don't understand Carlsen's games. He gives me the impression of treating chess like a computer do : he is a monster of calculation, creates enormous complications, in which most of his opponents lose the thread and finish to succumb to a fierce tactic. But when facing a Kramnik, I mean a player with a very profound understanding of chess and a heavy positional style, things can for him and very quickly go the wrong way ?! If Carlsen doesn't rethink his approach to chess, may be the positionaly oriented players at 2700+ will be his nemesis. (In passing, I remember a comment by Kasparov about Carlsen : "He is tactically very strong, but at that level of play, everybody is..." That comment clearly indicates that other qualities are required to be a world class contender at least in the idea of Kasparov ! Naturally, that are only feelings like everybody could improve. I don't have the level to give a judgment about such top world players able to play simultaneouly hundred or so guys like me. By the way, in reading the list, I was surprised to find Karjakin so "low". I thought he has crossed the 2700 line since many months.

I don't know if you had forgotten somebody, but with the collections recommended, I have study for month and month to come . (True, you have not mentioned neither Botvinnik nor Geller. The former essentially has written many books). I like very much Spassky's games and I think it's a pity that such a player was "too lazzy" (his own words) to write about himself. Such unobjective attitude you righly describe about Karpov and Kasparov give many regrets. If guys of that caliber had produced good and honest comments of their numerous masterpieces it would have been great ....Alas..Karpov takes no harm to explain his thoughts,(may be chess is very easy for him and things seem evident ?!) and Kasparov is always better ?! By the way, some years ago, the following joke was in vogue in a french chess bookstore (but probably also around the world) : "When Kasparov loses a game, he writes a book to explain how he should have drawn, and when he draws he rewrites the book to show how that he was winning ?!!" I have always been amazed by Petrosian's genius and I own all the books available in english, german and french. These books without exception have been written by other authors. The only book signed "Petrosian" (I possess) is "Petrosian Legacy" and as you know it's not really a book but different lectures he gave and which were assembled in a booklet after his death with the accord of his widow. In Shektman's two volumes we can find some games annotated by Petrosian himself. Once again, thank you Javier, for this rapid answer to my post.

Hi, Javier, Thank you for your numerous and generous pieces of advices on this site. My question is : "In your opinion, which champion collection of games is the most worthy of study for anyone (in that case myself !) rated 2100. It doesn't matter for me, if it's a to day player or a chess legend of the past. Just important that the book is not out of print if I doesn't already own it ?! Not important also, if it is written in french, italian, russian, german or spanish Probably good to avoid such authors as Nunn, Hübner, and Speelman . These 3 authors give us analysis of analysis of analysis...and after 5 pages of such treatment, you (or more exactly I ) don't remember what the initial problem was ??? May be, I exaggerate a little, but so little ?! I wait impatiently your lesson on playchess to morrow. Unfortunately I will not stay at home the next two weeks and I regret it because the topics treated are very interesting Many thanks

Hi everybody, First I share Lazker's opiniion and others about Javier's chess lessons of this last week-end. Please, How can we download these games at playchess.com to study and restudy them afterwards ? When I follow a tournament the games played are found in my "Internet kibitzing" but nothing appear after the chess lesson. In a preceding post Javier has said that he will give the references of the games studied, but it's very interesting to have the one's where arrows and colored critical squares appear. By the way, does somebody have an opinion about Grivas's last book "Modern Chess Planning". I have bought his 3 books "Chess College" and was very disappointed ?! Many thanks !