25 February 2017

Chess.com's GM Blitz Battle

I ended the previous post, Rare Birds 2015-16, with an action:-
2016-10-27: Carlsen Beats Nakamura To Win GM Blitz Battle Championship (chess.com) • 'Just like the quarterfinals and the semifinals, all three time disciplines opened with a chess960 game' • That last event merits a deeper look.

Skipping ahead, a chart from the event's final report gives an overview of the entire tournament.

The event was announced in January 2016:-

  • 2016-01-19: The $40,000 GM Blitz Battle Championship (chess.com; ditto for all links given below) • 'Here are the details of the event:
    All matches, starting from the quarterfinal rounds through the finals will follow this format:
    - Three hours of blitz and bullet chess
    - First time control: 5|2 for 90 minutes, then 3|2 for 60 minutes, then 1|1 for the final 30 minutes
    - First game of each time control will be Chess960
    - Total match score will determine who moves onto the next round'

Seven of the eight players were all members of the world's chess elte. A preliminary, qualifying event selected the eighth player.

The individual match reports were all written by three of Chess.com's best journalists: Sam Copeland, Peter Doggers, and Mike Klein. Here are the reports on the four quarterfinal matches:-

And here are the reports on the two semifinal matches:-

And here are two reports on the final match:-

Some highlights from the final match:-

'Today GM Magnus Carlsen [...] defeated GM Hikaru Nakamura in the finals by an overall score of 14.5-10.5.' • 'On the whole, Carlsen played faster early and his consistent time advantage helped him open with a 5.5-3.5 win in the five-minute portion.' • 'The world champion then extended his lead to five games by taking the three-minute by the larger margin of 5.0-2.0.' • 'Nakamura attempted a comeback in the bullet, but the lead proved insurmountable. He mostly traded wins in the one-minute, winning the segment by a single game, 5.0-4.0.'

'Nakamura won easily in chess960. Just like the quarterfinals and the semifinals, all three time disciplines opened with a chess960 game, but for the finals, a twist. The players did not get advance notice of the starting positions.' • 'Nakamura would go on to take 2.5/3 in the three iterations of chess960, one of the few bright spots for him on the day.'

Seven matches times three chess960 games per match gives 21 chess960 games played by the world's top grandmasters. I didn't see an easy way to collect those games, but a little perseverance should pay off.

18 February 2017

Rare Birds 2015-16

On this blog 'Rare Birds' are crossboard (OTB) chess960 tournaments, as in Rare Birds 2014 (August 2014). In this post I'll add three that are definitely worth a mention, although there are undoubtedly more. I might come back to one or more of these in a future post.

The Chess960 Jungle reported on another significant event from 2015.

When chess960 is played by the elite, it usually has little more than exhibition status in a traditional (SP518) chess event.

That last event merits a deeper look.

28 January 2017

Fischer and Deep Blue

After reopening this chess960 blog in last week's post, 'Everyone I Know Plays Chess960', I'd like to continue with another long quote. This one popped up a few weeks ago while I was researching Hans Berliner (1929-2017) on my main blog. It's from an April 1999 thread in rec.games.chess (RGC), Fischer interviews -- does he say anything relevant?
I've listened (unfortunately, at least in what I have heard) to a couple of the Fischer [radio] interviews. I was wondering if he has anything relevant to say? If so, I would appreciate knowing which interview, since I haven't heard it yet! Does he talk about chess? His legacy to the game? (Which these interviews, I would imagine, aren't helping him any.) Does he say anything positive?

A list of all(?) Fischer interviews can be found at Bobby Fischer Live Radio Interviews (tripod.com). Many of them exhibit Fischer at his worst and I didn't listen to any of them while preparing this current post. The RGC question received a long answer. It started,

Fifth interview concerns Botvinnik and Deep Blue:

• His rating adjusted for inflation would be "at least 2900" according to a Spanish magazine article in about 1992. He got his rating honestly and has "never even prearranged a draw". And concerning Kasparov's rating... he achieved it by prearranging games with Karpov and Russian Jew players...

• "Botvinnik, he spent years developing a chess computer. But he never made this chess computer public, he never played any games with it. I believe what he was really developing was a computerized system of prearranging games, of inventing games. You can prearrange games now at unbelievably fast speeds. It used to be a very tedious hard process to prearrange a realistic looking game. Now you can prearrange a game I think in a matter of minutes. They can prearrange a whole tournament I think in a few hours or days now with this hightech computer technology."

In response to a question, 'How do you look at Deep Blue then?', Fischer replied,

Deep Blue... it plays very well. I think that match that Kasparov played Deep Blue was a genuine match. What did everybody say about Kasparov's play? Ask anybody about his play. Read all the stories. Everybody said Kasparov was unrecognizable. Why was he unrecognizable? Because it was a real match. His moves were not prearranged. That's why he was unrecognizable. The Kasparov that you think you know, you don't know. The Kasparov you think you know is the Kasparov who's played all his prearranged moves in these prearranged games.

'If you were there to play with that computer would you do it?'

I would play Fischerandom chess. If there was a good offer, I would play Fischerandom chess, sure.

'Against Deep Blue?' • 'Yeah, yeah.' • 'Really. And you're not afraid about that?' • 'No, I'm not afraid, no. Why should I be afraid? The worst that could happen is you lose.' • 'But you can play against the machine. You know, quicker in response than a human being.'

Now here's the bit that's especially relevant to chess960 (aka Fischerandom, aka FischerRandom).

Yeah, but I think with Fischerandom chess the strategy is much more complex... The great strength, one of the great strengths, I won't say the only great strength but one of the very great strengths of the computers are to have an enormous opening library. And they can get a really good opening generally speaking. And the opening is the hardest part of the game. But they can get a good opening because they're drawing on millions and billions of hours of human manpower that has developed these openings over a couple of centuries, you see. They gain the benefit of intensive study by millions of chessplayers all over the world for 200 years. Now you take that all away from the computer, put the computer on its own in the openings I think the computer will probably just... The computer's great strength is calculation but there's not really very much to calculate the first few moves of the game, it's a very high level of strategy, you know.

And this... Maybe the computer's up to it, but I'm not sure it's up to it at all yet. This is really artificial intelligence, the early part of the game. Once you get out of the opening and the pieces start to make some kind of contact that is, threats and defence, then the game starts to play itself and then the computer's tremendous... It can calculate unbelievably well but in those early moves of the game where it's really high-level, intelligence is involved where there's no immediate threat, so you have to combine [what] you perceive maybe threats in the distant future with your early positional moves. You're combining tactics and positional chess. It really takes a lot of thinking and a lot of intelligence, I believe, I don't think it's so cut and dried as the old chess.

I believe if I were to play Deep Blue with Fischerandom chess, I'd get very good openings. And once I get a good opening, I'm pretty tough. The computer will find that out. On the other hand, on the other hand, Pablo, computers are getting better every day and they're getting more intelligent and they're getting programmed so I don't guarantee anything but I believe I could take it. I believe I could take Deep Blue based on what I saw of its play in its last match with Kasparov. Maybe they've improved it a lot, I don't know. I can take it in Fischerandom chess if it plays at the level it played against Kasparov."

The author of the RGC post summarized, 'He is absolutely finished with the old chess. "I don't play chess anymore... I'm through with chess." [...] "Prearrangement is just totally dominating chess now."'

Then the author made the connection with Hans Berliner: 'The comments on Botvinnik explain everything for Berliner. If he'd just waited until now, he wouldn't have had to publish in ICCA Journal.' This remark deserves an explanation, but goes beyond the objective of this chess960 post.

One last point in the RGC post is worth highlighting: 'The interviewer was **brilliant** to insert the comment about Deep Blue right at that point. Even though he sounds rather sleepy. But I suppose even though many people would like to see a Fischer - Deep Blue Fischerandom match, it will be like Kasparov - Shirov, everyone wants to see it but circumstances prevent it from happening.'

This met with an objection in another RGC comment: 'Here's the rub: Deep Blue's chess program was hardcoded into the chips -- there is absolutely no possibility of it playing Fischer at FischerRandom! Bobby undoubtedly knew this when making the above comments. So it was more hot air -- enough to fill a balloon.'

That last comment also goes beyond the objective of today's chess960 post. Maybe I'll continue it on my main blog.

21 January 2017

'Everyone I Know Plays Chess960'

After an 18-month absence from chess960 blogging, I'm going to return to the subject with a couple of posts every month. While developing a new list of topics to tackle, I came across some recent remarks from GM Peter Svidler that nicely summarize the current situation (see Svidler on Carlsen - Karjakin, Computers & More, chess24.com):-
Q: People have long talked about the computer death of chess, about everything having been analysed. One of the cures for that is so-called Fischer chess, or chess960, where the starting position is determined by a drawing of lots. Incidentally, you’re a three-time World Champion in that format.

A: Four-time. Unfortunately when Hans-Walter Schmitt stepped down from organisational activity as a promoter of that game, chess960 went into decline. He organised tournaments in Frankfurt am Main and believed it was an important format which would help chess remain vibrant and young, but at some point his main sponsors left and the tournaments disappeared, and now there’s almost nowhere to play. It’s a great pity, because everyone I know plays chess960 with great pleasure.

Q: I’ve heard it said that leading players regret the huge amount of opening work that would prove useless in chess960.

A: No, that’s not the issue. If suddenly there was no other chess then that work would have been in vain, but there’s never been any serious talk about replacing classical chess with chess960. The main discussion now in terms of the future of chess is what to do with the time control.

Was Svidler three-time World Chess960 Champion or four? In No Place for Chess960 (February 2011), I counted three times, but I'm not going to quibble with the genial GM.

So it wasn't Adieu! (June 2015) after all...

27 June 2015

Whispering a Fond Adieu!

They say, 'a watched pot never boils'. It seems the chess960 pot is in a constant simmer, but its boiling point remains as elusive as ever. My first blog post on the subject was Shall We Play Fischerandom Chess? (August 2008), and this post will be my last, at least for the foreseeable future. It's time to turn my attention elsewhere.

Google image search on 'chess960'

Heartfelt thanks to the many visitors to this blog for taking an interest in chess960. Special thanks to the two serial commentators -- GeneM and HarryO (in alphabetical order) -- who kept me honest because I knew each new blog post would get at least two hits.

A few months ago I received an email from GeneM, aka Gene Milener, aka the author of 'Play Stronger Chess by Examining Chess960'. He wrote,

In January 2006 I published a book about chess960. This year I will publish another chess book. Even though this new book is not about chess960, I am adding a section in its appendix to discuss or update the state of chess960 now that a decade has passed. Inasmuch as you have become the preeminent voice about chess960, I wondered whether you might be interested in contributing an essay for your own attributed subsection -- on your thoughts about the current state of chess960?

I first thought of this appendix chapter as an 'Epilogue' about chess960, but that sounded too final, like chess960 did not make it and died. I rather think that changes on this scale take time as measured by generations. So instead the chapter will be presented as something like the 'Current State of Chess960 in 2015'.

For years in your blog you have put spotlight and microscope on a broad variety of specific topics within the chess960 realm. Having read your chess960 blog every weekend now for years, I am curious to see what your assessment will be when you step back to consider how the overall picture has evolved, where it stands in 2015, and where it might be headed a generation or two from now.

My essay can be found at Fischer Chess in the Year 2015. I also told Gene,

If I were writing this for the web, I would link to my post debunking certain myths: Top 10 Myths About Chess960. I consider it my top contribution to understanding chess960.

When Gene's book eventually hits the web, I'll mention it on my main blog 'Chess for All Ages' (see the link in the right navigation bar), the same place where I'll post any new reports related to chess960. I agree with Gene that the acceptance of chess960 will 'take time as measured by generations' and I will continue to play for as long as there are opponents interested in Fischer's greatest invention.

Bye for now! - Mark

21 June 2015

Updated Database of SPs (2015-06)

I don't particularly like blog maintenance chores, but there have been so many recent posts dealing with specific positions that my database -- last seen in Updated Database of SPs (2014-10) -- needed a refresh. Of the dozen-or-so posts that were included, SP864 - BBQRKRNN won the popularity prize with three separate posts. I nominate it for the title of 'Most Difficult SP for Black'.

13 June 2015

Being Outplayed

The last of my five lost games from On a Losing Streak was the toughest. As start position, my opponent and I were given SP953 RKRBBNNQ. Once again, as in the other four losses, I had the Black pieces.

All chess960 start positions present their own special challenges and this one has two striking features. The first is the RKR bunched in the corner and the second is the Queen in the opposite corner. The minor pieces are placed between them in one of four possible arrangements.

I use the castling options as a guide to early play and decided to keep those options for as long as possible. While castling O-O-O looks to be the most likely choice, the Rook on the c-file has to move before this is possible. Before that happens, castling O-O might also be possible.

The first moves were 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 Nf6 4.N1d2 Ng6 5.e3 Qf8, reaching the position shown in the top diagram. The two players have chosen different paths to develop the Knights. For my next moves I intended to move the diagonal pieces off the back rank, then castle O-O.

Before I could execute that plan, the position became very tactical. After the moves 6.c4 c5 7.Qf1 a6 8.a4 cxd4 9.Nxd4 Bd7 10.g4 Bb6, we reached the position in the bottom diagram.

My opponent played 11.Bg3, threatening discovered check, and I replied 11...Qb4, ignoring the threat while attacking the Knight on d2. After the further 12.f5+ Ka7, my castling strategy was in tatters. The next moves were 13.Nb5+ Bxb5 14.axb5 Qxd2 15.fxg6 a5, after which I let my opponent's advanced Pawn settle on h7, which proved to be enough to win the game 30 moves later.

Somewhere in the moves between the two diagrams I made a mistake. Even after looking at the game a second time while preparing this post, I still can't pinpoint it. Sometimes you lose simply because your opponent plays better than you do. It's called being 'outplayed'.