Many significant chess treatises, beginning with the earliest works, have included some analysis of the endgame. Lucena's book (c. 1497) concluded with 150 examples of endgames and chess problems. The second edition (1777) of Philidor's Analyse du jeu des Échecs devoted 75 pages of analysis to various endgames. These included a number of theoretically important endings, such as rook and bishop versus rook, queen versus rook, queen versus rook and pawn, and rook and pawn versus rook. Certain positions in the endings of rook and bishop versus rook, rook and pawn versus rook, and queen versus rook have all become known as Philidor's position. Philidor concluded his book with two pages of (in the English translation), "Observations on the ends of parties", in which he set forth certain general principles about endings, such as that: "Two knights alone cannot mate.", the ending with a bishop and rook pawn whose queening square is on the opposite color from the bishop is drawn, and a queen beats a bishop and knight. Staunton's The Chess-Player's Handbook, originally published in 1847, included almost 100 pages of analysis of endgames. In 1941 Reuben Fine published his monumental 573-page treatise Basic Chess Endings, the first attempt at a comprehensive treatise on the endgame. A new edition, revised by Pal Benko, was published in 2003. Soviet writers published an important series of books on specific endings: Rook Endings by Grigory Levenfish and Vasily Smyslov, Pawn Endings by Yuri Averbakh and I. Maizelis, Queen and Pawn Endings by Averbakh, Bishop Endings by Averbakh, Knight Endings by Averbakh and Vitaly Chekhover, Bishop v. Knight Endings by Yuri Averbakh, Rook v. Minor Piece Endings by Averbakh,and Queen v. Rook/Minor Piece Endings by Averbakh, Chekhover, and V. Henkin. These books by Averbakh and others were collected into the five-volume Comprehensive Chess Endings in English.
In recent years, computer-generated endgame tablebases have revolutionized endgame theory, conclusively showing best play in many complicated endgames that had vexed human analysts for over a century, such as queen and pawn versus queen. They have also overturned human theoreticians' verdicts on a number of endgames, such as by proving that the two bishops versus knight ending, which had been thought drawn for over a century, is normally a win for the bishops (see Pawnless chess endgames#Minor pieces only and Chess endgame#Effect of tablebases on endgame theory). Several important works on the endgame have been published in recent years, among them Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual,Fundamental Chess Endings by Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht,Basic Endgames: 888 Theoretical Positions by Yuri Balashov and Eduard Prandstetter,hess Endgame Lessons by Benko, and Secrets of Rook Endingsand Secrets of Pawnless Endings by John Nunn.Some of these have been aided by analysis from endgame tablebases.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Endgame theory
Middlegame theory
Middlegame theory is considerably less developed than either opening theory or endgame theory. Watson writes, "Players wishing to study this area of the game have a limited and rather unsatisfactory range of resources from which to choose." Leading player and theorist Aron Nimzowitsch'sinfluential books My System (1925), Die Blockade (1925) (in German), and Chess Praxis (1936) were, and remain, among the most important works on the middlegame. In 1952, Fine published the 442-page The Middle Game in Chess, perhaps the most comprehensive treatment of the subject up until that time. The mid-20th century also saw the publication of The Middle Game, volumes 1 and 2, by former World Champion Max Euwe and Hans Kramer,and a series of books by the Czechoslovak-German grandmaster Luděk Pachman: three volumes of Complete Chess Strategy, Modern Chess Strategy, Modern Chess Tactics, and Attack and Defense in Modern Chess Tactics.In 1999, Watson's Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances Since Nimzowitsch was published, in which Watson discusses the revolution in middlegame theory that has occurred since Nimzowitsch's time.There are also many books on specific aspects of the middlegame, such as The Art of Attack in Chess by Vladimir Vuković,[The Art of Sacrifice in Chess by Rudolf Spielmann,[The Art of the Checkmate by Georges Renaud and Victor Kahn, The Basis of Combination in Chess by J. du Mont, and The Art of Defense in Chess by Andrew Soltis.
Opening theory
The English master Howard Staunton, perhaps the world's strongest player from 1843 to 1851,included over 300 pages of analysis of the openings in his 1847 treatise The Chess Player's Handbook.That work immediately became the standard reference work in English-speaking countries,and was reprinted 21 times by 1935. However, "as time passed a demand arose for more up-to-date works in English".Wilhelm Steinitz, the first World Champion, widely considered the "father of modern chess,"extensively analyzed various double king-pawn openings (beginning 1.e4 e5) in his book The Modern Chess Instructor, published in 1889 and 1895. Also in 1889, E. Freeborough and the Reverend C.E. Ranken published the first edition of Chess Openings Ancient and Modern; later editions were published in 1893, 1896, and 1910.In 1911, R.C. Griffith and J.H. White published the first edition of Modern Chess Openings. It is now the longest-published opening treatise in history; the fifteenth edition (commonly called MCO-15), by Grandmaster Nick de Firmian, was published in April 2008.
According to Hooper and Whyld, the various editions of Modern Chess Openings, the last edition of the Handbuch, and the fourth edition of Ludvig Collijn's Larobok (in Swedish) "were the popular reference sources for strong players between the two world wars."In 1937-39 former World Champion Max Euwe published a twelve-volume opening treatise, De theorie der schaakopeningen, in Dutch. It was later translated into other languages. In the late 1930s to early 1950s Reuben Fine, one of the world's strongest players,also become one of its leading theoreticians, publishing important works on the opening, middlegame, and endgame. These began with his revision of Modern Chess Openings, which was published in 1939.In 1943, he published Ideas Behind the Chess Openings, which sought to explain the principles underlying the openings.In 1948, he published his own opening treatise, Practical Chess Openings, a competitor to MCO.In 1964, International Master I.A. Horowitz published the 789-page tome Chess Openings: Theory and Practice, which in addition to opening analysis included a large number of illustrative games. In 1966, the first volume of Chess Informant was published in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, containing 466 annotated games from the leading chess tournaments and matches of the day. The hugely influential Chess Informant series has revolutionized opening theory. Its great innovation was that it expressed games in languageless figurine algebraic notation and annotated them using no words, but rather seventeen symbols, whose meanings were explained at the beginning of the book in six different languages. This enabled readers around the world to read the same games and annotations, thus greatly accelerating the dissemination of chess ideas and the development of opening theory. The editors of Chess Informant later introduced other publications using the same principle, such as the five-volume Encyclopedia of Chess Openings and Encyclopedia of Chess Endings treatises. Chess Informant was originally published twice a year, and since 1991 has been published thrice annually. Volume 100 was published in 2007.It now uses 57 symbols, explained in 10 languages, to annotate games (see punctuation (chess)), and is available in both print and electronic formats. In 2005, former World Champion Garry Kasparov wrote, "We are all Children of the Informant
In the 1990s and thereafter, the development of opening theory has been further accelerated by such innovations as extremely strong chess engines such as Fritz and Rybka, software such as ChessBase, and the sale of multi-million-game databases such as ChessBase's Mega 2008 database, with 3.8 million games.Today, the most important openings have been analyzed over 20 moves deep,sometimes well into the endgame,and it is not unusual for leading players to introduce theoretical novelties on move 25 or even later.
Thousands of books have been written on chess openings. These include both comprehensive openings encyclopedias such as the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings and Modern Chess Openings; general treatises on how to play the opening such as Mastering the Chess Openings (in three volumes), by International Master John L. Watson;and myriad books on specific openings, such as Understanding the Grünfeldand Chess Explained: The Classical Sicilian."Books and monographs on openings are popular, and as they are thought to become out of date quickly there is a steady supply of new titles
Chess theory
In 1913, preeminent chess historian H.J.R. Murray wrote in his 900-page magnum opus A History of Chess that, "The game possesses a literature which in contents probably exceeds that of all other games combined." He estimated that at that time the "total number of books on chess, chess magazines, and newspapers devoting space regularly to the game probably exceeds 5,000". In 1949, B.H. Wood opined that the number had increased to about 20,000. David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld wrote in 1992 that, "Since then there has been a steady increase year by year of the number of new chess publications. No one knows how many have been printed..." The world's largest chess library, the John G. White Collection at the Cleveland Public Library, contains over 32,000 chess books and serials, including over 6,000 bound volumes of chess periodicals. Chessplayers today also avail themselves of computer-based sources of information unimagined by Murray.As a result, today there is a vast body of theory concerning the opening and endgame phases of the game, and to a lesser extent the middlegame. Those who write about chess theory, who are often but not necessarily also eminent players, are referred to as "theorists" or "theoreticians"
Influence on chess
Staunton proposed and was the principal organizer of the first international chess tournament which proved that such events were possible, and which produced a clear consensus on who was the world's strongest player - Adolf Anderssen. All subsequent international tournaments took place in Great Britain until Paris 1867 Contemporaries, including Steinitz and Morphy, regarded Staunton's writings on chess openings as among the best of their time. Chess historians agree that his Chess-Player's Handbook (1847) immediately became the leading English-language chess text-book, and it went through twenty-one reprints by 1935. Around 1888 Staunton's Chess: Theory and Practice, published posthumously in 1876, was regarded as modern in most respects, but there was a growing need for more up-to-date analysis of openings. His obituary in The City of London Chess Magazine said, "... his literary labours are the basis upon which English Chess Society ... stands".
His play, however, had little influence on other players of the day. William Hartston explains that, "... his chess understanding was so far ahead of his time. A deep strategist living in an era when shallow tactics were still the rule, Staunton's conceptions could not be assimilated by his contemporaries." Staunton's style and the openings that accompanied it were eclipsed by the more directly aggressive styles of Anderssen and Morphy, which dominated chess from 1851 until Steinitz unveiled his positional approach in 1873. There is little evidence that Staunton had much direct influence on modern chess. Although he introduced the English Opening, it has been called "really a twentieth century invention" that only became fully respectable after future World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik began playing it in the 1930s. Similarly, although he was an early champion of the Sicilian Defense, which is today the most popular opening, and the most successful response to 1.e4, he seems to have had little influence on how the Sicilian is played today: he regarded it as a safe defensive line, while it is now treated as a vigorous but slightly risky counter-attack. On the other hand, Raymond Keene wrote that "Taimanov revived some old, forgotten ideas of Staunton ..." in the Sicilian. Staunton and modern GMs agree that Black gets a good game after 1.d4 f5 2.h3 Nf6 3.g4 d5! Staunton introduced the Staunton Gambit against the Dutch Defense (1.d4 f5 2.e4!?). Although it was once a feared attacking line it has been out of favor since the mid-1920s and is thought to "offer White equality at best”.Staunton also introduced a different gambit approach to the Dutch, 2.h3 followed by g4. In 1979 Viktor Korchnoi, one of the world's leading players, successfully introduced this line into top-class competition, but later authorities concluded, as Staunton had, that Black gets a good game with 2...Nf6 3.g4 d5!Staunton also advocated the Ponziani Opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3, which was often called "Staunton's Opening".It is rarely played today because it allows Black to choose between a sharp counter-attack and a safe line that usually leads to a draw.
Personality
Staunton's virtues and vices were both on a large scale. Former World Champion Kasparov commented that Staunton "founded and edited the magazine Chess Player's Chronicle ... wrote a chess column (1845-1874), studied opening theory ... published four remarkable books ... endorsed the famous 'Staunton pieces' ... organized the first international chess tournament in history ..." However British International Master William Hartston wrote that Staunton's many achievements were done "with the full weight of an arrogant and pompous nature which has scarcely been matched in the history of the game." Even contemporaries sympathetic to Staunton admitted that he could be spiteful in response to unexpected defeats, and to proposals or arguments that he considered ill-founded or malicious. Staunton had a highly volatile relationship with George Walker, the founder of the London Chess Club, a dedicated popularizer of chess and one of Staunton's earliest supporters.[
Staunton's enemies gave as good as they got. Chess journalism could be a bruising business in those days, even when Staunton was not involved. However it does seem that Staunton was involved in more than his fair share of chess disputes. H.J.R. Murray suggested that these frequent wars of words may have originated from leading players' and commentators' jealousy over Staunton's unexpected rise to the top in the early 1840s, and from snobbish disdain about his humble and possibly illegitimate birth. Saidy and Lessing wrote that, "He can hardly be blamed if the struggles and privations of his youth warped his character so that he became a jealous, suspicious, and vitriolic man." On the other hand Staunton's often-criticized description of Anderssen as Germany's second best player, after Anderssen had won the 1851 London International tournament, may have been reasonable on the basis of what is now known about von der Lasa's skill. Staunton was sometimes an objective chess commentator: a large percentage of his 1860 book Chess Praxis was devoted to Morphy's games, which he praised highly; and in The Chess-Player's Companion (1849) Staunton sometimes criticized his own play, and presented a few of his losses. Staunton showed excellent management skills in building the team to organize the London International tournament of 1851, and determination and resourcefulness in overcoming the difficulties of getting enough competitors.He also maintained good working relationships with important players and enthusiasts, for example: Popert and Cochrane helped him to prepare for his second match against Saint-Amant; Captain Evans agreed to be one of his seconds in that match and later helped Staunton to organize the 1845 telegraphic match; the Calcutta Chess Club contributed £100 to help finance the London International Tournament in 1851, and in addition its principal officers Cochrane and T.C. Morton made two of the four largest personal contributions; Staunton corresponded with von der Lasa for over 30 years, although they only met once; Staunton's last letter to von der Lasa, November 1873, expressed his sorrow at the deaths of various masters and enthusiasts, including Saint-Amant. In conversation Staunton was charming and witty. Despite the disappointing way in which his playing career ended, Staunton continued to write with enthusiasm about the progress of new technologies, players and developments in chess theory. At the time of his death his last book, Chess: Theory and Practice, was sufficiently complete to be published posthumously in 1876, and it was described as up-to-date fourteen years after his death.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Playing strength and style
There is a famous story that Paul Morphy described Staunton as the author of "some devilish bad games". Chess historian Edward Winter traced this back to a book published in 1902, whose author said he had seen a copy of Staunton's The Chess Tournament in which Morphy had written "some devilish bad games" on the title page; Winter was unable to trace the copy. Around the time of Staunton's death Morphy is said to have commented that Staunton may have been the strongest player of his time, had great analytical ability and judgement of positions but lacked the imagination required to deliberately create opportunities for combinations.
Twentieth-century opinions of Staunton's play varied enormously. Reinfeld, Horowitz and Fine all condemned it. On the other hand Kasparov considered Staunton "by the early 1840s ... superior to all his rivals"and Bobby Fischer wrote, "Staunton was the most profound opening analyst of all time. He was more theorist than player, but nonetheless he was the strongest player of his day... In addition, he understood all of the positional concepts which modern players hold dear, and thus - with Steinitz - must be considered the first modern player."
The website Chessmetrics ranks Staunton as world number one from May 1843 to August 1849, in the top ten from July 1851 to May 1853, and in the top five from June 1853 to January 1856.
From the early 1840s to 1851 Staunton could successfully give odds to almost any UK-based player, including eventually Cochrane; the exceptions were Buckle, to whom Staunton gave pawn and move in 1843 and lost their match (six losses, no draws, one win), and Elijah Williams in 1851, against whom Staunton won more games but lost the match because he had given Williams a three-game start. According to match records collected by Jeremy P. Spinrad, the only players who were successful against Staunton without receiving odds from 1840 to 1852 were: Saint-Amant, who won their first match in London in 1843 and lost their second, longer match in Paris the same year; Anderssen, who eliminated Staunton from the 1851 London International tournament; and Williams, who beat Staunton in the play-off for third place in the same tournament. Before 1840 Staunton was still a relative beginner, and after 1851 his health was too fragile for serious competition. In the late 1840s some UK commentators wrote that Buckle was stronger, and von der Lasa was regarded by some as the world's best. Staunton did not play von der Lasa until 1853, and was forced by ill-health to abandon the match.
In his own time Staunton was regarded as belonging to the "closed" category of chess players (along with for example Philidor and József Szén) rather than to the "heroic" category (which included La Bourdonnais, Morphy and Anderssen) - instead of seeking immediate combat, Staunton deferred it until he was ready. The closed English Opening got its name from Staunton's frequent use of it, especially against Saint-Amant in 1843. However he was noted for the accuracy and incisiveness of his combinations.
The Staunton-Morphy controversy
Chess historians Edward Winter and G.D.H. Diggle trace much of the 20th-century animosity against Staunton to books by Philip W. Sergeant (1872-1952) about Paul Morphy. Sergeant in turn made use of a book by Frederick Edge, who accompanied Morphy to Europe in 1858 as his secretary and personal assistant, but returned to the USA in January 1859, a few months before Morphy. Opinions of Edge's value as a historical source vary widely: · A review of his book in the USA commented, "Mr. Morphy expressly disclaims any connection with it in any way or manner. ... will afford the reader a half-hour's entertainment"Chess historians H.J.R. Murray, David Hooper and Ken Whyld described Edge as unreliable and having an extreme bias against Staunton. · Sergeant's books and David Lawson's Paul Morphy The Pride and Sorrow of Chess (New York, 1976) make extensive use of Edge's book, but note Edge's strong anti-Staunton bias. Lawson also suggests that Morphy had seen the manuscript of Edge's book, disliked its treatment of the Staunton affair so much that he disavowed it, and objected to Edge's treatment of other matters. Edge's letters to American chess journalist Daniel Fiske show that Edge regarded Morphy as lazy and rather helpless, and himself as the one who would make Morphy's name immortal, and that Morphy wanted to keep the negotiations with Staunton discreet while Edge insisted on making them as public as possible. H.J.R. Murray wrote that Staunton's response to Morphy's initial challenge and his article about the same in the Illustrated London News should have been interpreted as a courteous refusal of the offer, but that Morphy interpreted them differently, and one of the main reasons for his visit to Europe in 1858 was the hope of playing a match with Staunton. Murray also commented on the whole affair, "In all this there is but little in which we can reproach Staunton, beyond the fact that he kept open the possibility of a match for so long, and even here there is a good deal that could be urged in justification of the course followed by Staunton" but also noted that both sides were playing tactical games with each other in front of the public, and that comments made by both players or their respective supporters were acrimonious. In response to Morphy's complaints Lord Lyttelton, then president of the British Chess Association, said that it was reasonable for Staunton to decline the match, but that in his opinion Staunton should have done so plainly in his first letter to America, but had instead often given the impression that he would soon be ready to start the match. von der Lasa later wrote, although not specifically about this affair, that he thought there was no chance of Staunton's health being good enough for a serious contest from 1853 onwards. Staunton's obituary in the City of London Chess Magazine said, "... nor were his innuendoes concerning Morphy otherwise than an utterly unworthy means of getting out of an engagement, which he could have either declined with a good grace at first, or afterwards have honourably asked to be released from. Nevertheless, all said and done, Staunton was, as we have often heard a distinguished enemy of his say, emphatically a MAN. There was nothing weak about him, and he had a backbone that never curved with fear of any one." Some 20th-century commentators have been more critical of Staunton. However some well-known chess writers, including Fred Reinfeld, Israel "Al" Horowitz and Reuben Fine, have been criticized by chess historians for their lack of accuracy, both in general and specifically where Staunton is concerned. Edward Winter writes, "It is unwise for the ‘non-playing’ historian to publish his own analysis, although he may be a useful compiler. Similarly, players who are unversed in, and indifferent to, chess history should not touch it." William Hartston wrote of Staunton's non-match with Morphy, "Sadly, this blemish on Staunton the man also did considerable harm to the reputation among later generations of Staunton the chess player." G.H. Diggle wrote in the British Chess Magazine, "That [Staunton] excused himself ... from playing a match against the greatest player of the century, then at the zenith of his youth and fame, was no tragedy for chess. The contest would have been a fiasco. But it would have been happier, both for the young champion and the old, had the latter never said he would play at all."
Later life
Staunton continued writing the chess column in Illustrated London News until his death in 1874, greeting new developments with enthusiasm. In 1860 he published Chess Praxis, a supplement to his 1847 work The Chess Player's Handbook. The new book devoted 168 pages to presenting many of Morphy's games and praised the American's play. Five years later Staunton published Great Schools of England (1865), whose main subject was the history of major English public schools but which also presented some progressive ideas: learning can only take place successfully if the active interest of the student is engaged; corporal punishment is to be avoided and fagging should be abolished. But most of his later life was occupied in writing about Shakespeare, including: a photolithographic reproduction of the 1600 Quarto of Much Ado about Nothing in 1864 and of the First Folio of Shakespeare in 1866; and papers on Unsuspected Corruptions of Shakespeare's Text, published from 1872 to his death. All these works were highly regarded at the time. When he died suddenly of heart disease, on June 22, 1874, he was at his desk writing one of these papers. At the same time he was also working on his last chess book, Chess: Theory and Practice, which was published posthumously in 1876. A memorial plaque now hangs at his old residence of 117 Lansdowne Road, London W11. In 1997 a memorial stone bearing an engraving of a chess knight was raised over his grave at Kensal Green Cemetery in London, which had previously been unmarked and neglected
1852-1860, Final stages of playing career and Shakespeare publication
Immediately after the London International tournament Staunton challenged Anderssen to a match of twenty-one games, for £100. Anderssen accepted the challenge but the match could not be arranged: Staunton was physically unfit for an immediate contest, and Anderssen had to return to work.Carl Jaenisch had arrived too late for the tournament; Staunton convincingly won a match with him soon after (seven wins, one draw, and two losses). Later in 1851 Staunton played a match against his former pupil Elijah Williams, who had won their play-off for third place in the London International tournament. Staunton won more games (six wins, three draws, and four losses) but lost the match because he had given Williams a three-game start.In 1853, while trying to arrange a match against Anderssen, Staunton met von der Lasa in Brussels. The two began a match, but had to abandon it in the middle of the thirteenth game, with von der Lasa leading (five wins, four losses, and three draws). Staunton was unfit to continue because of heart palpitations, which had affected him in the second match against Saint-Amant in 1843. In von der Lasa's opinion there was no chance that Staunton's health would be good enough for a serious contest from 1853 onwards In the mid-1850s Staunton obtained a contract with the publishers Routledge to edit the text of Shakespeare. This edition appeared in parts from 1857 to 1860, and Staunton's work was praised by experts While Staunton was busy with the Shakespeare edition, he received a courteous letter from the New Orleans Chess Club, inviting him to that city to play Paul Morphy, who had won the recent First American Chess Congress. Staunton replied, thanking the New Orleans Chess Club and Morphy "for the honor implied in your selection of me as the opponent of such a champion" and pointing out that he had not competed for several years and was working six days a week (on editing Shakespeare), and that he could not possibly travel across the Atlantic for a match. He also wrote in the Illustrated London News that he had "been compelled, by laborious literary occupation, to abandon the practice of chess, beyond the indulgence of an occasional game... If Mr. Morphy - for whose skill we entertain the liveliest admiration - be desirous to win his spurs among the chess chivalry of Europe, he must take advantage of his purposed visit next year; he will then meet in this country, in France, in Germany and in Russia, many champions ... ready to test and do honor to his prowess."[38] Chess historian H.J.R. Murray wrote that Staunton's letter and article should have been interpreted as a courteous refusal of the offer, but that Morphy interpreted them differently, and one of the main reasons for his visit to Europe in 1858 was the hope of playing a match with Staunton.[1][39] Some other chess historians disagree with Murray's interpretation of Staunton's response.[40] Staunton did offer to play Morphy by electric telegraph, a technology whose progress and uses for chess he reported enthusiastically. However this offer arrived after Morphy had left for Europe - which perhaps was fortunate, as the newly-laid cable broke down after a month and was not replaced until 1866.[41]
Upon arriving in England in June 1858, Morphy promptly challenged Staunton to a match. At first, Staunton declined Morphy's offer saying that the challenge came too late. Morphy did not give up negotiations and urging Staunton to play. In early July Staunton agreed provided he was given time to get back into practise on openings and endgames,[43] and provided that he could manage all this without breaking the publication contract for his Shakespearean work. In early August, Morphy wrote asking Staunton when the match could occur,[44][45] and Staunton asked again for a delay of some weeks.[46] Staunton competed in a tournament that started in on 22 August in Birmingham, but this was a knock-out tournament and he was eliminated in the second round by Johann Löwenthal, after playing a total of four games.[35][45] This was to be Staunton's last public chess competition. H.J.R. Murray wrote that Staunton had overexerted himself and damaged his health by trying both to get ahead of schedule on the Shakespeare project and to play some competitive chess.[1] Just before Staunton left London for Birmingham, his old enemy George Walker published an article accusing him of trying to delay the match indefinitely, and Staunton received another letter from Morphy pressing him to name a date for the match. Staunton and Morphy met socially in Birmingham and, after a tense discussion, Staunton agreed to play in early November.[47][48] Just after the tournament a letter signed by "Anti-book" appeared in Staunton's column in the Illustrated London News, alleging that Morphy did not actually have the money for his share of the stakes. This letter is widely thought to have been written by Staunton himself; if so, he must have written it immediately after reading Walker's article and Morphy's letter and immediately before leaving for Birmingham.[49] Around this time Morphy wrote to friends in the USA asking them to obtain the stake money for the Staunton match. Morphy's family refused to contribute as they "should not allow him to play a money match either with his own money or anyone else's", but the New Orleans Chess Club sent £500.[50] Meanwhile Morphy went to Paris to play against continental masters. In September the Illustrated London News printed both a complimentary full-page article about Morphy and a complimentary mention of him in its chess column.[51][52] On October 6, 1885, while in Paris Morphy wrote Staunton an open letter which was also circulated to several publications, in which Morphy complained about Staunton's conduct.[53] Staunton replied on October 9, re-stating the difficulties he faced, but now giving them as reasons to cancel the match.[50][1][54] On 23 October, Staunton published his entire reply along with a partial copy of Morphy's open letter, omitting the reference to the "Anti-book" letter. Various chess columns then printed anonymous and acrimonious letters. Morphy took no part in any of this, but wrote to Lord Lyttelton, the president of the British Chess Association, explaining his own efforts to bring about the match, accusing Staunton of avoiding the match by all means short of admitting he did not wish to play, complaining about Staunton's representation of the facts in the Illustrated London News, and demanding "that you shall declare to the world it is through no fault of mine that this match has not taken place." Lyttelton replied that it was reasonable for Staunton to decline the match, but that in his opinion Staunton should have done so plainly in his first letter to America, but had instead often given the impression that he would soon be ready to start the match.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
1851, London International Tournament
Staunton proposed and then took the lead in organizing the first ever international tournament, as he thought the Great Exhibition of 1851 presented a unique opportunity, because the difficulties that obstructed international participation would be greatly reduced. He may also have been motivated by reports that a few years earlier Ludwig Bledow had proposed to organize an international tournament in Germany, whose winner was to be recognized as the world champion. Staunton and his colleagues had ambitious objectives for this tournament, including convening a "Chess Parliament" to complete the standardization of various rules and procedures for competitive chess and for writing about chess. Staunton also proposed the production of a compendium showing what was known about chess openings, preferably as a table. Before the tournament started Captain Kennedy and the Liberty Weekly Tribune in Missouri wrote that the winner should be regarded as "the World’s Chess Champion".
The organizers obtained financial contributions from Europe, the USA and Asia, enabling the committee to set up a prize fund of £500, equivalent to about £359,000 in 2006's money. Despite the generally enthusiatic response, several major players were unable to participate, including von der Lasa, Saint-Amant and Cochrane. Adolf Anderssen was at first deterred by the travel costs, but accepted his invitation when Staunton offered to pay Anderssen's travel expenses out of his own pocket if necessary. The committee had also organized a "London Provincial Tournament" for other British players, and "promoted" some of the entrants to play in the International Tournament in order to obtain the right number of players for a knock-out tournament.
The tournament was a success, but disapointing for Staunton personally; in the second round he was knocked out by Anderssen, who won the tournament convincingly; and in the play-off for 3rd place Staunton was narrowly beaten by his former pupil Elijah Williams. Staunton's defeat by Williams suggests that Staunton had over-stretched himself by acting as both a competitor and the Secretary of the organizing committee.
The London Chess Club, which had fallen out with Staunton and his colleagues, organized a tournament that was played a month later and had a multi-national set of players (many of whom had competed in Staunton's tournament), and the result was the same - Anderssen won.
In 1852 Staunton published his book The Chess Tournament, which recounted in detail the efforts required to make the London International Tournament happen and presented all the games with his comments on the play. Unfortunately some of Staunton's comments in the book and in the Illustrated London News were intemperate, because he was disappointed with the placing he achieved.
1849, Marriage and design of a chess set
On July 23, 1849 Staunton married Frances Carpenter Nethersole, who had had eight children by a previous marriage.
In 1849 Nathaniel Cook registered a chess set design, and Jaques of London obtained the manufacturing rights. Staunton advertised the new set in his chess Illustrated London News column, pointing out that the pieces were easily identifiable, very stable, and good-looking. Each box was signed by Staunton, and Staunton received a royalty on each set sold. The design became popular, and has been the standard for both professional and amateur chess players ever since. Anthony Saidy and Norman Lessing wrote that, "if a vote was taken among chess-players as to which pieces they most enjoyed playing with, ... the Staunton chessmen would win by an overwhelming margin.
1845-1848, Chess writer and promoter
In 1847 Staunton published his most famous work, The Chess-Player's Handbook, which is still in print. It contained over 300 pages of opening analysis, and almost 100 pages of endgame analysis. Staunton's Handbook was based on Bilguer and von der Lasa's Handbuch des Schachspiels (first published in 1843), but enhanced by many variations and analyses of Staunton's own. His book The Chess-Player's Companion followed in 1849.
He still found time for two matches in 1846, comfortably beating the professionals Bernhard Horwitz (fourteen wins, three draws, and seven losses) and Daniel Harrwitz. The match against Harrwitz was set up in a very unusual way: seven games in which Staunton gave Harrwitz odds of pawn and two moves (Staunton won four and lost three), seven games where he gave pawn and move (Staunton lost six and won one), and seven at no odds (Staunton won all seven).
1843, Competitive peak
A little later that year he narrowly lost a short match (2½-3½) in London against the visiting French player Saint-Amant, who was generally regarded as the world's strongest player.Staunton challenged Saint-Amant to a longer match to be played in Paris for a stake of £100, equivalent to about £73,000 in 2006's money. Then he prepared new opening lines, especially those beginning 1.c4, which became known as the English Opening after this match. He also took Thomas Worrall and Harry Wilson to Paris as his assistants; this is the first known case where seconds were used in a match. Staunton gained a seven-game lead but then struggled to keep it before winning the match 13-8 (eleven wins, four draws, and six losses) in December 1843 Saint-Amant wanted a third match, but Staunton was initially unwilling as he had developed heart trouble during the second match. Von der Lasa later suggested this was why Staunton faded in the second match.However after a long, difficult negotiation, which he reported in the Chess Player's Chronicle,Staunton went to Paris intending to start their third match in October 1844, but he caught pneumonia while traveling and almost died; the match was postponed and never took place.
Several modern commentators regard Staunton as de facto World Champion after his match victory over Saint-Amant, although that title did not yet formally exist. After Saint-Amant's defeat, no other Frenchmen arose to continue the French supremacy in chess established by Philidor, Deschapelles, La Bourdonnais and Saint-Amant.Some contemporary English commentators, mainly in Staunton's Chess Player's Chronicle, and some later writers hailed Staunton as the world champion.The response was less enthusiastic elsewhere in Europe. Even in England some writers suggested other players, notably Buckle or von der Lasa, were stronger
1836-1842, First steps in chess
In 1836 Staunton came to London, where he took out a subscription for William Greenwood Walker's Games at Chess, actually played in London, by the late Alexander McDonnell Esq. Staunton was apparently twenty-six when he took a serious interest in chess. He said that at that time the strongest players he saw in London, Saint-Amant and George Walker, could easily have given him rook odds In 1838 he played many games with Captain Evans, inventor of the Evans Gambit, and also lost a match against the German chess writer Aaron Alexandre. He had improved sufficiently by 1840 to win a match against the German master H.W. Popert,[3] a slow, cautious player with great defensive skill.
From May to December 1840 Staunton edited a chess column for the New Court Gazette. He then became chess editor of the magazine British Miscellany, and his chess column developed into a separate magazine, Chess Player's Chronicle, which Staunton owned and edited until the early 1850s.
Life
Most information about Staunton's early life is ultimately based on claims he made. His registration of birth has never been found. The chess historian H.J.R. Murray summarized the information that he "gleaned" from various sources: Staunton was born in 1810, reputedly the natural son of Frederick Howard, fifth Earl of Carlisle; he was neglected in youth, receiving little or no education; although he spent some time in Oxford, he was never a member of the University; when he came of age he inherited a few thousand pounds, which he soon squandered; in later life Staunton often used to tell how he had once played Lorenzo in the Merchant of Venice, with the famous English actor Edmund Kean playing Shylock.
Howard Staunton
Howard Staunton (1810 - June 22, 1874) was an English chess master who is regarded as the world's strongest player from 1843 to 1851, largely as a result of his 1843 victory over Saint-Amant. He promoted a chess set that is still the standard. He was the principal organizer of the first international chess tournament in 1851, which made England the world's leading chess center and caused Anderssen to be recognised as the world's strongest player.
From 1840 onwards he became a leading chess commentator, and won matches against top players of the 1840s. In 1847 he entered a parallel career as a Shakespearean scholar. Ill health and his two writing careers led him to give up competitive chess after 1851. In 1858 attempts were made to organise a match between Staunton and Morphy, but they failed. It is often alleged that Staunton deliberately misled Morphy while trying to avoid the match, but it is also possible Staunton over-estimated his chances of getting physically fit and of making time available for a match.
Although not an all-out attacking player, Staunton was known for accurate attacks when his preparations were complete. His chess articles and books were widely read and encouraged the development of chess in the United Kingdom, and his Chess-Player's Handbook (1847) was a reference for decades. The chess openings the English Opening and Staunton Gambit were named for his advocacy of them. Staunton has been a controversial figure since his own time, and his chess writings could be spiteful. On the other hand he maintained good working relationships with several strong players and influential chess enthusiasts, and showed excellent management skills.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Chess Opening
Game development Favorable game development is achieved through good chess opening. When a chess piece is moved from its position, its mobility generally increases. The move also increases the mobility of pieces blocked by the moved piece, thus developing the game. Typically, in the starting position, only the pawns and the knights can be moved. All other pieces are blocked. If you advance your pawn by one of two squares, mobility of bishop increases. Control over centre The centre portion of the chess board is where the major action happens. The player who acquires better control over the centre through his chess opening game plan, is at an advantage. He controls more squares on the board and thus can restrict the development of the opponent?s game. King safety Castling is a typical chess opening move to safely position the king on the board. Castling also results in rook development as castling unlocks the rook. Many good players decide on the time of castling in their chess opening game to get greater advantage.
CHESS OLYMPIAD
Although chess Olympiad has coverage in most sports sections of newspapers around the world, it is not a recognized Olympic sport. However there is a possibility of it becoming an Olympic event in the future as the FIDE is presently a member of the International Olympic Committee and keeps to its rules. On the contrary, some knowledgeable observers feel that the chess Olympiad will not become an Olympic event.
Before the start of the chess Olympiad, there was a world team competition of chess that took place in Paris in 1924, along with the Olympic Games. This competition brought 54 players from 18 countries to the competition where Czechoslovakia was the country that won the Gold Medal. Hungary got the Silver medal, and Switzerland, the Bronze. Herman Mattison of Latvia was the winner of the individual gold medal. There was another world team competition in 1926 in Budapest where only 4 teams showed up. Hungary had won the event then. The first chess Olympiad of 1927 was held in London where 16 teams participated and Hungary won the gold medal. However women did not participate in a chess Olympiad till 1957 while the official title of Chess Olympiad did not occur till 1952. It was Alekhine who first scored 100% out of 9 games while the second person to accomplish the feat was by Robert Gwaze of Zimbabwe in 2002. There was an attempt to hold a chess Olympiad in Munich in 1936 so that it coincided with the Olympic Games. However as Germany was not a member of the FIDE, it was an unofficial chess Olympiad. The first woman to play in the Chess Olympiad was Chaude de Silans in the year 1950 when she was a member of the then French team. An interesting fact of the Havana chess Olympiad of 1966 was that Tal, one of the players of the tournament, was hit on the head with a bottle in a bar as he was flirting with the wife of another player. This was why he had missed the first five rounds of the chess Olympiad. In the year 1970, Andrew Sherman participated in the chess Olympiad as a representative of the Virgin Islands. He was only 11 then. Ion Gudju of Romania participated in the 1984 chess Olympiad that was held in Thessaloniki Greece when he was 87 years old. He is probably the oldest player to participate in a chess Olympiad and also takes pride in having played in the first chess Olympiad of 1924, in Paris. The next chess Olympiad is slotted to be held in Dresden, Germany after it had successfully beat the other bidder for the spot, Tallinn.
ELO CHESS RATING
On the other hand, the ELO chess rating system engages a purely statistical model that considers the actual game or tournament results to underlying variables that are intended to reflect the actual abilities of a particular chess player. Of course, competitors can still contend that the ELO chess rating scheme still rewards success and failure in a particular situation; however, many experts in the field of chess rating believe that this system more accurately evaluates and reflects the actual abilities of a chess player. The contention is that the ELO chess rating system is a much more reliable chess rating scheme than anything else that has come before or anything else that might be available for utilization today.In developing the ELO chess rating system, ELO operated on the basic premise that the performance of each and every chess player in any particular game is what technically is known as a “normally distributed random variable.” At the heart of the normally distributed random variable is the conclusion that while a chess players performance will vary from one game to the next, sometimes even significantly, the mean or median “value” of a particular chess player’s performance over time in fact would change only slowly.
CHESS RATING
PLAY CHESS ONLINE
Chess is the game of strategies and tactics. If one has an opportunity to play chess with different opponents with varied skill levels, chances of learning are much higher. However, such opportunities are not always feasible but chess online makes this possible.
Advantages of chess onlineChess online has suddenly opened up a new avenue for growth for chess lovers by giving them international exposure. Sitting at home, a chess enthusiast can play chess with anyone in the world.Online forums offer immense opportunities to discuss strategy with great players and share opinions for mutual benefit. Many chess online websites also have databases of chess games. These databases are continuously updated and provide an understanding of the game. Like your own chess board, chess online is available to you 24 hours a day and seven days a week. Choose your convenient time and day to play chess on chess online. Websites to play chess onlineMany websites are now in the offing and it becomes tough to decide on registering with a particular site to play chess. This is particularly difficult when sites charges for membership. Following points may help one select the best site:
www.chessboss.com is a website that is worthy of your choice to play chess as it satisfies many of the parameters outlined above. Immense resources on chess amply supported by state of the art technology in terms of the hardware and software, makes this the number one chess online website. Selecting a suitable website to play chess online on a continuous basis is a crucial decision if you are serious about the game. An ideal option would be to look for a chess online site that offers various avenues to strengthen your game. It should be remembered that once you outgrow a website, one should move in to a higher league of chess online, in order to grow continuously.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
3 D CHESS
People learning chess find a 3D chess game a very useful tool in learning the game of chess. This is because tips and highlighted points of both possible and impossible moves are supplied during the course of the game. The moves of a 3D chess game are made possible using an original chess algorithm. There is a huge game archive to help adjust and decide on the right tactics and moves to use to get the best move. There are also additional features in the 3D game where you can not only make the game much more complicated and set a specific time limit per move played in the game, but you can also establish a limit for the whole chess game. In addition to this, 3D chess games also have a provision for changing the game skin if required, keep a tally on the exact game notation and also visualize the consequences of individual pieces being removed from the game. Different gaming companies have come up with different and innovative games for 3D chess. All of these 3D chess games are compatible with an Intel or AMD based computer process, which has a 200MHz processor. With the help of a 3D graphic card, it is possible to make the 3D chess game get an additional advantage with the latest DirectXtechnologies that it offers like lighting, realistic shading and anti-analyzing graphics. The latest 3D chess games offer high resolution graphics that are up to 1600x 1200 at 32-bit color with a 4x anti-aliasing for sharp and smooth images. The resulting breathtaking 3D graphics can be viewed and zoomed from any angle. So it can be seen that playing a 3D chess game is a must for all chess enthusiasts. It offers a splendid experience for players where the game is designed solely for players who are masters in both chess ambiance and chess combination.
CHESS CLOCK
CHESS PUZZLES
Generally speaking, there are three different variations on the theme of chess puzzles today: -- Orthodox and Tactical Chess Puzzles -- Heterodox Chess Puzzles -- Chess Miner Chess Puzzles Orthodox and tactical chess puzzles are intended to closely mimic an actual traditional chess game and on many levels are best designed to develop a person’s abilities with traditional chess play. Heterodox chess puzzles invoke conditions that are not possible in traditional chess play. For example, with these types of chess puzzles a player could have multiple kings on his or her side of the board. Finally, with chess miner chess puzzles a person is left to determine where missing chess pieces are located based on information provided pertaining to chess pieces that actually are visibly present and the location of those chess pieces. There are other chess puzzles and derivatives of this type of intricate gaming. However, overall these three different versions of chess puzzles remain the most widely used and played variants today.
CHESS SETS
CHESS TITLES
Chess and Celebrities
Madonna
The singer and actress Madonna actually can be seen playing chess in a couple of her music videos. What most people do now know is that Madonna and her husband, British director Guy Ritchie, are regular chess players.In fact, Madonna is so incredibly serious about the game of chess (as is her husband) that she and Ritchie actually have taken chess lessons from Scottish chess champion Alan Norris. In fact, many observers and social commentators actually credit Madonna with making chess cool … again.
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Actor and current Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger is a big chess fan. He regularly plays a game of chess with fellow body building buddy Franco Columbo. The two buff players have been hard at the game for years. When it comes to chess and celebrities, the Governor is at the top of the list.In fact, the Governor is such a fan of the game that there actually is an official Arnold Schwarzenegger chessboard made of lead weighted rosewood and hard rock maple. An autographed version of the chessboard sells for almost $600.
Bono
U2 front man and international humanitarian Bono has long been a fan of the game of chess. Indeed, according to Bono when he was twelve years old he studied the chess grandmasters. He tells fans and friends that he has been hooked on the game ever since. In considering chess celebrities, Bono has been one of the longet-playing members of the chess and celebrities set.
Will Smith
Will Smith, the actor and rapper, is nothing less than a chess fanatic when it comes to chess celebrities. In fact, he is so serious about the game that he was even asked to write the forward to a recent book on chess success. Indeed, Smith is so tremendously hooked on the game of chess that on Valentine’s Day one year his wife, actress Jada Pinkett Smith, gave to Smith private chess lessons from a pro. Truly, when it comes to chess and celebrities, to chess celebrities, the Smiths and their devotion to the game is unparalleled.
Sting
Musician and singer Sting is a grand fan of the game of chess. He has even taken on chess pros for a match here and there. In 2000, Sting played a match for charity with internationally renowned chess champion Garry Kasparov. Sting, alas, lost … but the experience did not dim his interested or participation in the game. He continues to be one of the most engaged chess celebrities in the celebrities and chess universe today.
Jude Law
Rising star Jude Law, who is gaining credits in Hollywood, has long been a player of chess, a long time member of the celebrities and chess set. He has been an avid fan of the game of chess since he was a primary school student and continues to play frequently to this very day. He oftentimes will play a game of chess when talking a break during the shooting of a film.
Monday, July 7, 2008
HISTORY OF CHESS
CHESS CHAMPIONS OF TODAY
CHESS CHAMPIONS OF THE PAST
Steinitz lost to Lasker in 1894, who kept the title for a long period of 27 years, possible only because he was an impulsive player, one who could brilliantly strategize his game to hassle his opponent into defeat. In 1914, the Tsar of Russia changed the name of the chess world championship, to that of Grandmaster of Chess. Hence, this name was bestowed upon Lasker, Capablanca (an excellent Cuban chess champion), followed by Alekhine, Tarrasch and Marshall. All these people held the title of Grandmaster of Chess.Capablanca was recognized as the most brilliant chess champion of all times. From 1921 to 1927 he was literally untouchable, and then was defeated by Alekhine; Alekhine lost his title to Euwe, a Dutch amateur chess player and Math Professor. After long battles, Alekhine regained his title from Euwe n 1937 and managed to defend it well till 1946, when he died. From 1948 to 1972 enters the dominance of Russia in the world of chess and a new era of chess champions begins.
Chess Boss Games
HISTORY OF CHESS
In 1921 Jose Casablanca who is considered one of the best ever chess players in the world, took the title form Emanuel. Two other share the honor if being know as the best ever players, i.e. Bobby Fischer and Morphy. Fischer became a world champion at the tender age of only 14! He was the first American to claim the title. Excellent players from Russia dominated the 19th century period. Anatoli Karpov and Gary Kasparov became world champions at the same time by a peculiar quirk of fate. The mantle was recently passed over to Vishv Anand, an Indian national. This is a very brief outline of the history of chess, just sufficient to follow the thread from the beginning to the present. However, the game and its evolution taken in depth can fill up volumes.
Correspondence Chess
Japanese Chess - Shogi
Japanese form of Chess, the history of which is also obscure (nebulous). Traditionally it is thought to have originated in India and to have been transmitted to Japan via China and Korea. Shogi like traditional Chess is played on a squared board with pieces of varying powers, and the object is checkmate (++CM) of the opposisng King. It is played on a square board of 9 x 9 or, 81 cells with pieces of differing powers. Two distinctive features, however, differentiate Shogi from European Chess: 01 Captured pieces are not dead but may be pointed in the opposite direction and replayed as part of your own or your opponent’s forces. 02 The minor pieces (JPs - Japanese Pawns) capture one cell straight ahead. Both players have twenty pieces each at the beginning of the game (ISP). Each player has 20 pieces, which oppose each other on a board composed of 9 horizontal and 9 vertical rows. There are 9 minor pieces (Fu), a RO (Hisha), a BS (Kaku), one King (Osho), 2 Gold Generals (JGs, Kinsho), 2 Silver Generals JSs (Ginsho), 2 JKs (Keima), and 2 Lance (Kyosha, JL).