A Knight's Tale - Part II
by Alex Cherniack

Adamson-Cherniack Foxwoods 2008

I’m writing a sequel to my April post on this Knight ending with Robby Adamson for three reasons:

1. Paul MacIntyre complimented me on the effort I put into the original article, but complained that I didn’t come to any definitive conclusion. My own human brain with the help of one chess engine (Fritz) surmised that while theoretically it is possible to hold this ending, practically it’s very difficult. If you want to see how I arrived at this conclusion, click here.

2. Jason Rihel asked me in the comments section what would happen if I let Fritz play against one of the other chess engines, and let them play it out 1000 times in quick games overnight.

3. I have chess software tools loaded on my laptop, but almost never use them. I wanted to see what these little used purchases could do, and let them do the heavy lifting.

TO RECAP MY IMPRESSIONS FROM PART I: White wins if the c pawn reaches the 5th rank (no matter where Black places the a pawn), while keeping back the other pawn no farther than a3. Then White has less distance to defend the squares around the advanced c pawn and attack Black’s a pawn simultaneously, and can use the threat of knight forks to ram the extra pawn down to the last rank.

If, however, Black can keep the c pawn on the 4th rank (which is MUCH easier said than done), then White will eventually be forced to advance his a pawn farther and farther up the board to avoid three-fold repetition claims. Then you’ll reach an ending where White’s a and c pawns are so close together that both can be attacked at once, leading one to be captured and obtaining a draw.

For more on this evaluation, see below. First I will tabulate the evaluated game positions of three chess engines in ChessBase; then each engine will play itself; then the engines will play each other in a round robin; and then I will extrapolate the results.

I used Fritz 10, Rybka 2.3.2a, Shredder 11, and ChessBase 9.0 for this exercise. And I mentioned this in part I, but it bears repeating here: the Nalimov tablebases cannot be applied to the Adamson-Cherniack position because they deal with endings with 6 pieces or fewer; this ending had 7.

Kibitzer Evaluations Inside ChessBase

This table came from loading the chess engines in ChessBase 9 by using the 'Add Kibitzer' (Control K) function, and then replaying the ending. Although evaluations from chess engines can change by waiting 5-500 seconds, for practical purposes the longest I waited for a move’s evaluation was 20 seconds.

Move	Adamson	Cherniack	Fritz (+)	Rybka (+)	Shredder (+)
53		Ke5	.88	.62	.70
54	Nb5		.73	.50	.49
		Nc6	.74	.70	.61
55	c3		.64	.48	.28
		Kd5	.65	.47	.30
56	Na3		.56	.46	.21
		Kc5	.64	.47	.40
57	Kc2		.59	.46	.34
		Ne5	.65	.46	.34
58	Nb1		.46	.46	.28
		Nd7	.66	.47	.39
59	Nd2		.66	.47	.39
		Nb6	.90	.74	.62
60	Kb3		.87	.64	.62
		Nd5	.95	.77	.75
61	Ne4+		.91	.79	.74
		Kc6	.92	.79	.74
62	Kc4		.92	.72	.74
		Nc7	.94	.79	.79
63	Ng3		.92	.79	.79
		a6	.95	.85	.89
64	Nf5		.96	.85	.89
		Kb6	.99	1.02	.96
65	Ne7		.93	.79	.71
		Nb5	.93	.79	.63
66	Ng6		.72	.53	.50
		Kc6	1.02	.80	.89
67	Nf4		.93	.79	.54
		Kb6	.99	.89	.80
68	Kb3		.72	.56	.63
		Nc7	1.14	1.19	1.16
69	Nd3		.94	1.02	.91
		Nb5	.94	1.14	.91
70	c4		.94	1.14	.91
		Nd4+	.94	1.14	.91
71	Kc3		.94	.89	.71
		Nc6	1.14	1.02	.94
72	Nc1		1.03	.41	.80
		Kc5	1.00	1.19	.97
73	Nb3+		.97	.83	.80
		Kd6	.97	.83	1.12
74	Nd4		.97	.79	.80
		Nd8	1.01	1.85	.88
75	Kb4		1.01	1.84	.88
		Nb7	1.05	2.38	1.97
76	Nb3		1.05	2.21	1.82
		Kc6	1.55	4.09	1.82
77	Kc3		1.00	1.01	.84
		Nd6	1.04	1.02	.96
78	Nd4+		1.04	1.12	.99
		Kc5	1.04	1.12	1.01
79	Ne6+		1.04	1.12	.99
		Kc6	1.04	1.12	.99
80	Kb4		.97	.80	.80
		Nb7	2.47	3.31	3.50
81	Kc3		0.00	0.00	.89
		Kd6	1.02	1.20	.95
82	Nd4		0.00	0.00	.80
		Nc5	.97	1.23	.80
83	Nc2		.90	.73	.79
		Kc6	1.13	1.14	1.14
84	Nb4+		1.13	1.14	1.14
		Kd6	1.13	1.34	1.31
85	Nd3		1.13	1.64	1.31
		Nb7	1.47	2.25	2.08
86	Kb4		.97	1.20	.98
		Kc6	.96	1.20	.98
87	a3		.93	1.24	.94
		Kd6	1.04	1.73	1.54
88	Nc1		.96	.80	.75
		Kc6	1.18	1.30	1.18
89	Nb3		1.16	1.30	1.18
		Kd6	1.64	2.52	2.08
90	Kc3		.97	1.14	.80
		Nd8	1.04	1.19	.80
91	Na5		.94	.79	.77
		Kc5	.94	.80	.80
92	Kd3		.94	.80	.75
		Kd6	.94	.80	.80
93	Nb3		.94	.80	.75
		Kc6	.97	.89	.79
94	Kd4		.94	.82	.75
		Ne6+	.94	.80	.79
95	Kc3		.94	.80	.73
		Nd8	.97	1.20	.79
96	Nd2		.93	.80	.72
		Kc5	.96	.81	.80
97	Ne4+		.94	.81	.75
		Kc6	.94	.81	.75
98	Ng5		.92	.80	.75
		Kc5	.92	.80	.75
99	Kd3		.93	.80	.58
		Nb7	1.41	1.28	1.26
100	Ne4+		1.28	1.37	1.05
		Kc6	1.18	1.37	.97
101	Kd4		1.18	1.36	.97
		Kb6	1.30	1.75	1.54
102	Kc3		.94	.80	.80
		Kc6	.97	.83	1.16
103	Kb4		.97	.83	.80
		Kb6	.97	.83	.80
104	Nd2		.97	.83	.80
		Nc5	.97	1.20	.90
105	Nb3		1.04	1.20	.90
		Nb7	2.29	2.85	2.24
106	a4		2.27	2.13	2.43
		Kc6	7.46	5.09	7.09
107	Na5+		+ -	+ -	+ -
		Nxa5	+ -	+ -	+ -
108	Kxa5		+ -	+ -	+ -
		Kc5	+ -	+ -	+ -
109	Kxa6		+ -	+ -	+ -
		Kc6	+ -	+ -	+ -
110	a5		+ -	+ -	+ -
		Kc7	+ -	+ -	+ -
111	Kb5		+ -	+ -	+ -
		Kb7	+ -	+ -	+ -
112	c5		+ -	+ -	+ -
		Kc7	+ -	+ -	+ -
113	c6		+ -	+ -	+ -
		Kc8	+ -	+ -	+ -
114	Kc5		+ -	+ -	+ -
		Kc7	+ -	+ -	+ -
115	Kd5	1-0	+ -	+ -	+ -

Obviously Fritz, Rybka, and Shredder all gave White an advantage because of the extra pawn, but the three engines disagreed on the extent of White’s advantage. Fritz was the most gung-ho in giving White a winning advantage, Shredder gave Black the most optimistic drawing chances, and Rybka was somewhere in between.

Also, Rybka and Fritz both believed that the position after White’s 81st and 82nd moves is dead equal. I went back and left the engines on those moves for an hour with the same result. For the life of me I cannot see any threefold repetition there. If anyone knows why the algorithms in these engines would declare the ending drawn at those moves, please let me know!

Shootout Mode - Fritz vs. Fritz, Rybka vs. Rybka, Shredder vs. Shredder

Fritz 10 has a feature called 'Shoot Out Mode,' where a chess engine plays against itself (not against another chess engine). To set up these matches I had to do the following:

In ChessBase 9:

1. Delete the first 53 moves and last 62 moves in the Adamson-Cherniack game
2. Save the truncated game as new database

In Fritz 10:

3. Select File > Open > Database to open the Adamson-Cherniack ending at move 53
4. Select Tools > Analysis > Shootout…

The following window displayed:



I ran Shoot Out Mode in several different ways, experimenting with the quantity of games, type of game, move limit, and ply depth fields. The part of me who wanted to recreate exactly the playing conditions of the original tournament game clashed with the part of me who wanted to extract the maximum possible data from the shootout matches.

Various fast speed controls (5 minute, 10 minute, and 30 minute) were erratic, because at some point each of the engines tried the inexplicable continuation 53…Ke5 54.Kc3 Nd5+ 55.Kd3? (not forced: 55.Kc4 Nb6+ 56.Kd3) which gave Black a certain draw after 55…Nb4+ and 56…Nxa2. In the end I decided to heck with it, and chose one game for each engine with 60 minutes for each side, the same conditions that Adamson and I had during the ending.

Shoot out:
----- Time = 60'/100+0'/0+0'0 -----
Fritz 10 ½-½
Rybka 2.3.2a 32-bit ½-½
Shredder 11 UCI ½-½

Score White: 50%, 3 Games
Done

[Event "Shootout (Fritz1, 60'/100) "]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2008.03.23"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Robby Adamson"]
[Black "Alex Cherniack"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/p3n3/4Nk2/8/3p4/8/PKP5/8 w - - 0 53"]
[PlyCount "31"]
[SourceDate "2005.09.04"]

53. Nxd4 {[.85,21] [0:00:56]} Ke5 {[.88,21] [0:00:40]} 54.c3 {[.89,21] [0:01:07]} Kd5 {[.89,21] [0:00:47]} 55. Kb3 {[.89,21] [0:00:46]} Ng6 {(Kc5) [.81,21] [0:01:05]} 56. Kb4{[.81,21] [0:00:50]} Ne5 {[.77,21] [0:01:32]} 57. Nf5 {(Ne2) [.79,19] [0:00:41]} a6 {(Nd3+) [.74,19] [0:00:52]} 58. Ne3+ {[.73,20] [0:00:45]} Ke4 {[.77,21] [0:00:47]} 59. Nd1 {[.79,21] [0:01:07]} Kd3 {[.79,21] [0:01:41]} 60. Nf2+ {(Nb2+) [.19,21] [0:03:00]} Ke3 {[.50,20] [0:00:46]} 61. Nh3 {[.45,20] [0:00:34]} Kd2 {[.16,20] [0:00:47]} 62. Ng5 {[.16,20] [0:01:01]} Kd3 {[.15,21] [0:01:18]} 63. Ne6 {(Kb3) [.11,21] [0:00:37]} Nc6+ {[.11,21] [0:00:50]} 64. Kc5 {[.13,22] [0:00:50]} Ne5 {[.7,22] [0:01:22]} 65. c4 {[.7,22] [0:01:21]} Nxc4 {[.4,22] [0:02:01]} 66. Nf4+ {[.0,22] [0:01:07]} Ke4 {[.0,23] [0:00:33]} 67. Ng6 {(Nd5) [.0,23] [0:00:40]} Kd3 {[.0,24] [0:00:42]} 68. Ne7 {(Nf4+) [.0,24] [0:00:51]} 1/2-1/2

[Event "Shootout (Rybka232a32-bit, 60'/100) "]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2008.03.23"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Robby Adamson"]
[Black "Alex Cherniack"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/p3n3/4Nk2/8/3p4/8/PKP5/8 w - - 0 53"]
[PlyCount "183"]
[SourceDate "2005.09.04"]

53. Nxd4 {[.68,24] [0:00:26]} Ke5 {[.56,25] [0:01:18]} 54. Nb5 {(Kc3) [.53,26] [0:01:31]} Kd5 {[.53,26] [0:01:09]} 55. Kc3 {[.53,27] [0:00:37]} Kc5 {[.53,27] [0:00:34]} 56. Nc7 {[.53,27] [0:00:29]} Nc6 {[.53,28] [0:02:01]} 57. Ne6+ {[.52,28] [0:00:51]} Kd5 {[.52,29] [0:00:58]} 58. Ng5 {[.52,29] [0:01:24]} Ne5 {[.52,29] [0:02:00]} 59. Nh3 {[.52,29] [0:01:33]} Nc6 {[.52,29] [0:02:15]} 60. Nf2 {[.51,29] [0:02:34]} Kc5 {[.52,29] [0:01:39]} 61. Nd3+ {[.52,30] [0:01:17]} Kb5 {[.52,31] [0:00:38]} 62. Nb2 {[.45,31] [0:09:32]} Kc5 {[.45,31] [0:03:52]} 63. Nd1 {[.45,31] [0:01:55]} Nd4 {[.45,31] [0:02:55]} 64. Kd3 {[.45,31] [0:01:28]} Nc6 {[.45,31] [0:03:15]} 65. c3 {[.45,31] [0:01:22]} Ne5+ {[.45,31] [0:01:16]} 66. Kc2 {[.45,32] [0:01:40]} Kc4 {[.45,32] [0:02:16]} 67. Ne3+ {[.45,32] [0:00:58]} Kc5 {[.45,33] [0:01:15]} 68. Kd2 {[.45,33] [0:01:51]} Kb5 {[.45,33] [0:02:05]} 69. Nc2 {[.45,33] [0:01:54]} Kc4 {[.45,33] [0:02:04]} 70. Nd4 {[.45,33] [0:01:28]} a6 {[.45,33] [0:02:14]} 71. Kc2 {[.45,33] [0:02:07]} Kd5 {[.45,33] [0:02:03]} 72. Nb3 {[.45,33] [0:01:53]} Nc4 {[.45,33] [0:02:10]} 73. Nd2 {[.45,33] [0:01:12]} Ne5 {[.45,33] [0:01:46]} 74. Kb2 {[.45,33] [0:05:12]} Kc5 {[.45,33] [0:02:45]} 75. Ne4+ {[.45,33] [0:01:23]} Kd5 {[.45,34] [0:02:07]} 76. Nf2 {[.45,34] [0:02:38]} Kc5 {[.45,34] [0:03:35]} 77. Kb3 {[.45,34] [0:02:04]} Kd5 {[.45,34] [0:02:41]} 78. Kc2 {[.45,34] [0:02:23]} Kc4 {[.46,33] [0:02:09]} 79. Nd1 {[.46,33] [0:01:56]} Kd5 {[.46,33] [0:01:37]} 80. Nb2 {[.46,33] [0:01:27]} Ke4 {[.46,32] [0:00:07]} 81. Kd2 {
[.46,32] [0:01:05]} Nf3+ {[.46,22] [0:00:02]} 82. Kd1 {[.46,24] [0:00:02]} Ng1 {[.46,25] [0:00:13]} 83. Kc2 {[.46,25] [0:00:04]} Ne2 {[.46,25] [0:00:04]} 84. Nc4 {[.46,25] [0:00:07]} Kd5 {[.46,25] [0:00:07]} 85. Ne3+ {[.46,25] [0:00:09]} Kc5 {(Ke4) [.46,26] [0:00:27]} 86. Kd2 {[.46,26] [0:00:05]} Nf4 {[.46,26] [0:00:05]} 87. Nd1 {[.46,26] [0:00:07]} a5 {[.46,26] [0:00:08]} 88. Kc2 {[.46,26] [0:00:06]} Kd5 {[.46,26] [0:00:08]} 89. Ne3+ {[.46,26] [0:00:06]} Kc5 {[.46,27] [0:00:46]} 90. Kb3 {[.47,27] [0:00:11]} Nd3 {[.46,27] [0:00:05]} 91. Ka4 {[.47,27] [0:00:04]} Nc1 {[.46,27] [0:00:02]} 92. a3 {[.47,27] [0:00:02]} Ne2 {[.46,27] [0:00:03]} 93. Nd1 {[.46,27] [0:00:03]} Kb6 {[.46,27] [0:00:03]} 94. Kb3 {[.37,27] [0:00:21]} Kc5 {[.37,27] [0:00:04]} 95. Nb2 {[.37,27] [0:00:08]} Kd5 {[.37,27] [0:00:04]} 96. Nd3 {[.37,27] [0:00:05]} Ng3 {[.37,27] [0:00:05]} 97. Kc2 {[.37,27] [0:00:07]} Ne4 {[.37,27] [0:00:06]} 98. Nb2 {[.36,27] [0:00:10]} Kc5 {[.34,27] [0:00:14]} 99. Kd3 {[.34,27] [0:00:04]} Nf2+ {[.33,27] [0:00:16]} 100. Kd2 {(Ke3) [.33,24] [0:00:02]} Ne4+ {[.33,25] [0:00:03]} 101.Kc2 {[.33,26] [0:00:02]} Nd6 {[.33,26] [0:00:11]} 102. Kd3{[.12,26] [0:00:10]} Nb5 {[.12,26] [0:00:02]} 103. a4 {[.10,26] [0:00:07]} Nd6 {[.09,26] [0:00:08]} 104. Nd1 {[.09,26] [0:00:03]} Nc4 {[.10,26] [0:00:03]} 105. Kc2 {[.09,26] [0:00:05]} Kd5 {[.09,26] [0:00:01]} 106. Nb2 {[.09,26] [0:00:02]} Nd6 {[.09,26] [0:00:02]} 107. Kb3 {[.09,26] [0:00:02]} Ne4 {[.09,26] [0:00:02]} 108. Nd3 {[.09,26] [0:00:02]} Nd2+ {[.09,26] [0:00:03]} 109. Kb2 {[.09,27] [0:00:03]} Ne4 {[.09,27] [0:00:03]} 110. Kc2 {[.09,27] [0:00:05]} Kc4 {[.09,27] [0:00:02]} 111. Nb2+ {[.09,27] [0:00:02]} Kd5 {[.02,28] [0:00:13]} 112. Nd1 {[.09,28] [0:00:07]} Nc5 {[.09,28] [0:00:07]} 113. Ne3+ {[.09,28] [0:00:05]} Kc6 {[.04,29] [0:00:10]} 114. Nc4 {[.04,29] [0:00:04]} Nxa4 {[.04,29] [0:00:04]} 115. Nxa5+ {[.04,29] [0:00:05]} Kb5 {[.04,30] [0:00:07]} 116. Nb3 {[.04,30] [0:00:06]} Kc4 {[.3,29] [0:00:05]} 117. Nd2+ {[.3,29] [0:00:05]} Kb5 {[.3,29] [0:00:09]} 118. Nf3 {(Kd3) [.05,27] [0:00:02]} Kc4 {[.05,27] [0:00:04]} 119. Ne5+ {[.05,27] [0:00:03]} Kd5 {[.05,28] [0:00:03]} 120. Nd3 {[.05,28] [0:00:02]} Ke4 {[.05,27] [0:00:02]} 121. Nb2 {[.05,27] [0:00:02]} Nc5 {[.05,26] [0:00:01]} 122. Nc4 {[.05,26] [0:00:01]} Kd5 {[.05,25] [0:00:02]} 123. Na5 {[.05,23] [0:00:00]} Ne4 {[.05,24] [0:00:01]} 124. Kb3 {[.05,24] [0:00:01]} Kc5 {[.05,24] [0:00:01]} 125. Nc4 {[.05,24] [0:00:01]} Kb5 {[.05,23] [0:00:03]} 126. Ne5 {(Nb2) [.7,16] [0:00:00]} Nc5+ {[.8,18] [0:00:00]} 127. Kc2{[.8,19] [0:00:00]} Na4 {[.09,21] [0:00:01]} 128. Kd3 {[.09,21] [0:00:01]} Kc5 {[.09,21] [0:00:00]} 129. Nd7+ {[.09,21] [0:00:01]} Kd6 {[.09,22] [0:00:01]} 130. Nf6 {[.09,22] [0:00:01]} Ke6 {(Ke5) [.09,21] [0:00:00]} 131. Ne4 {[.09,21] [0:00:00]} Ke5 {[.09,21] [0:00:00]} 132. Nd2 {[.09,21] [0:00:00]} Nb2+ {[.10,21] [0:00:03]} 133. Kc2 {[.10,22] [0:00:00]} Na4 {[.10,22] [0:00:00]} 134. Kb3 {[.10,22] [0:00:00]} Nc5+ {[.10,22] [0:00:01]} 135. Kc4 {[.10,23] [0:00:01]} Ne6 {[.10,23] [0:00:01]} 136. Kb5 {[.10,23] [0:00:01]} Kd6 {[.10,23] [0:00:02]} 137. c4 {[.10,23] [0:00:01]} Nc5 {[.11,22] [0:00:02]} 138. Nb1 {[.11,22] [0:00:00]} Ne6 {[.11,22] [0:00:00]} 139. Kb6 {[.11,22] [0:00:00]} Nc5 {[.11,22] [0:00:00]} 140. Nc3 {[.11,22] [0:00:00]} Nd3 {[.11,22] [0:00:00]} 141. Kb5 {[.11,22] [0:00:01]} Nc5 {[.11,22] [0:00:00]} 142. Na4 {[.11,22] [0:00:00]} Ne4 {[.11,22] [0:00:00]} 143. c5+ {[.11,22] [0:00:00]} Nxc5 {[.11,23] [0:00:00]} 144. Nxc5 {[.11,23] [0:00:00]} 1/2-1/2

[Event "Shootout (Shredder11UCI, 60'/100) "]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2008.03.23"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Robby Adamson"]
[Black "Alex Cherniack"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/p3n3/4Nk2/8/3p4/8/PKP5/8 w - - 0 53"]
[PlyCount "133"]
[SourceDate "2005.09.04"]

53. Nxd4 {[.69,23] [0:00:12]} Ke5 {[.75,27] [0:01:11]} 54. c3 {[.75,27] [0:01:04]} Kd5 {[.75,27] [0:01:54]} 55. Kb3 {[.60,26] [0:00:44]} Kc5 {[.61,27] [0:00:58]} 56. Ne6+ {[.61,27] [0:00:53]} Kd5 {[.61,28] [0:01:48]} 57. Nd8 {[.72,27] [0:00:56]} Kc5 {(Nf5) [.72,27] [0:00:57]} 58. c4 {[.72,27] [0:00:56]} Nf5 {[.72,26] [0:01:43]} 59. Kc3 {[.80,26] [0:00:57]} Ne3 {[.80,26] [0:01:44]} 60. Nb7+ {[.77,26] [0:01:27]} Kb6 {[.77,27] [0:00:45]} 61. Nd6 {[.77,27] [0:00:48]} a6 {[.77,27] [0:01:35]} 62. Ne4 {[.77,25] [0:02:09]} Nf5 {[.78,25] [0:01:03]} 63. Kb3 {(Nd2) [.79,25] [0:01:21]} Nd4+ {[.78,26] [0:01:01]} 64. Kb4{[.78,27] [0:01:10]} Kc6 {[.82,27] [0:00:58]} 65. Ka5 {[.82,27] [0:00:46]} Nf3 {[.73,27] [0:00:52]} 66. Kb4 {(a3) [.78,24] [0:00:35]} Kb6 {(Ne5) [.77,26] [0:00:33]} 67.Kc3 {[.77,26] [0:00:50]} Ne5 {[.84,26] [0:00:33]} 68. Nd2 {[.84,26] [0:00:34]} Nc6 {[.80,26] [0:00:52]} 69. Ne4 {(Nb3) [.80,25] [0:00:21]} Ka5 {[.80,25] [0:00:32]} 70. Nc5 {[.80,25] [0:00:44]} Ne5 {[.80,26] [0:00:44]} 71. a3 {[.80,27] [0:01:49]} Nc6 {(Nf3) [.68,27] [0:00:42]} 72. Kd3{[.59,27] [0:01:16]} Ne5+ {[.54,28] [0:01:14]} 73. Kc3 {(Kd4) [.54,27] [0:00:11]} Nc6 {[.54,28] [0:00:42]} 74. Nd3{[.54,27] [0:00:52]} Ka4 {[.59,27] [0:00:43]} 75. Kb2 {[.74,28] [0:00:50]} Ka5 {[.74,29] [0:01:12]} 76. Nc5 {(Kb3) [.59,26] [0:01:06]} Ne5 {[.75,27] [0:00:47]} 77. Kb3
{[.75,27] [0:00:21]} Kb6 {(Nf3) [.74,27] [0:00:57]} 78. Ne4{[.74,28] [0:01:19]} Ka5 {[.74,28] [0:00:45]} 79. Nd2 {[.74,28] [0:01:07]} Nc6 {[.74,27] [0:00:37]} 80. Nf3 {[.74,28] [0:01:07]} Kb6 {[.75,27] [0:00:08]} 81. Kc3 {[.75,28] [0:01:05]} Ne7 {[.75,27] [0:01:03]} 82. Ne1 {[.76,26] [0:00:37]} Nf5 {(Nc6) [.76,24] [0:00:12]} 83. Nc2 {[.76,25] [0:00:31]} Ne7 {[.76,26] [0:00:44]} 84. Na1 {(Kb4) [.81,25] [0:00:44]} Kc5 {(Ka5) [.76,27] [0:01:09]} 85. Nb3+ {[.76,27] [0:00:34]} Kd6 {[.76,28] [0:00:57]} 86. Nd4 {[.77,26] [0:00:57]} Ng6 {[.77,27] [0:00:55]} 87. Nf3 {[.77,26] [0:00:43]} Nf4 {(Ne7) [.80,24] [0:00:34]} 88. Nd2{[.79,25] [0:00:37]} Kc5 {(Ne6) [.79,24] [0:00:08]} 89. Nb3+ {[.71,24] [0:00:41]} Kc6 {[.73,25] [0:00:25]} 90. Kd4{[.73,25] [0:00:36]} Ne6+ {[.78,25] [0:00:39]} 91. Kd3 {[.78,26] [0:01:08]} Kd6 {(Nf4+) [.75,26] [0:00:26]} 92. Kc3{[.75,26] [0:00:22]} Ng5 {[.73,26] [0:00:42]} 93. Kb4 {[.73,26] [0:00:24]} Ne4 {[.72,26] [0:00:22]} 94. Ka5 {[.72,27] [0:00:53]} Nc5 {[.57,27] [0:00:32]} 95. Nd4 {[.57,27] [0:01:09]} Nd7 {[.57,27] [0:00:48]} 96. Kb4 {[.60,26] [0:00:18]} Nc5 {[.60,26] [0:00:18]} 97. Nb3 {(Ne2) [.60,26] [0:00:23]} Ne4 {[.60,27] [0:00:45]} 98. Ka5{(a4) [.23,24] [0:09:37]} Nc5 {[.23,24] [0:00:06]} 99. Nc1{[.23,25] [0:00:33]} Kc6 {[.04,27] [0:00:18]} 100. Kb4 {[.04,28] [0:00:17]} Ne4 {[.56,29] [0:03:04]} 101. Nd3 {[.56,30] [0:00:26]} Kd6 {[.56,27] [0:00:21]} 102. Nf4 {(a4) [.52,24] [0:00:13]} Kc6 {[.55,25] [0:00:30]} 103. Nd3 {(a4) [.55,25] [0:00:49]} Nd2 {[.55,26] [0:00:35]} 104. Ne5+ {[.55,26] [0:00:19]} Kd6 {[.55,27] [0:00:20]} 105. Nd3 {(Nf7+) [.58,24] [0:00:16]} Kc6 {[.55,27] [0:00:22]} 106. Ne5+ {(a4) [.55,27] [0:00:12]} Kd6 {[.58,23] [0:00:04]} 107. Nf7+ {[.58,24] [0:00:05]} Ke7 {[.55,27] [0:00:40]} 108. Ng5 {(Nh6) [.55,26] [0:00:12]} Kf6 {[.38,26] [0:00:20]} 109. Nh3 {[.38,24] [0:00:05]} Ke5 {[.38,26] [0:00:40]} 110. Ng1 {(a4) [.13,24] [0:00:57]} a5+ {(Kf6) [.33,25] [0:00:21]} 111. Kb5 {[.33,26] [0:00:09]} Nb1 {[.33,26] [0:00:16]} 112. a4 {(Nf3+) [.33,24] [0:00:10]} Na3+ {(Kd6) [.7,25] [0:00:19]} 113. Kxa5 {[.09,26] [0:00:05]} Kd4 {[.02,27] [0:00:24]} 114. Nf3+ {[.0,27] [0:00:13]} Kxc4 {[.0,29] [0:00:17]} 115. Kb6 {(Nd2+) [.0,27] [0:00:03]} Kb4 {[.0,29] [0:00:16]} 116. a5 {(Ne1) [.0,29] [0:00:10]} Nc4+ {[.0,30] [0:00:15]} 117. Kc6 {(Kc7) [.0,31] [0:00:05]} Kxa5 {(Nxa5+) [.0,30] [0:00:04]} 118. Kc5 {(Ne5) [.0,30] [0:00:06]} Ka4 {(Nd6) [.0,31] [0:00:09]} 119. Kxc4 {[.0,31] [0:00:09]} 1/2-1/2

Considering the initial evaluations of the ending (Fritz .88, Rybka .62, and Shredder .70), I wasn’t that surprised at the results. My firsthand experience with computers’ deadly defensive accuracy was confirmed - all the position evaluations in the games never tipped above 1.00.

Engine-Engine Match: Fritz vs. Rybka, Fritz vs. Shredder, Rybka vs. Shredder

Fritz 10 has another feature called 'Engine Match,' where a chess engine can be pitted against another chess engine. To set up these matches I had to do the following:

In ChessBase 9:

1. Delete the first 53 moves and last 62 moves in the Adamson-Cherniack game
2. Save the truncated game as a new database

In Fritz 10:

3. Select File > New > Engine Match… which always displayed the starting position and the following window:



4. Click the Define buttons in this window to select the engines in the match
5. Click the Openings DB button in this window to select the database with the Adamson-Cherniack ending, in order to determine the starting position of the match.

I spent 2-3 weeks casting about in trying to find the ideal time setting for Engine vs. Engine matches. After establishing that the games in a 4 game match between two competing engines was not an exact duplicate of a two game match, the biggest challenge was finding the ideal balance between quantity (cf. Jason Rihel: “Hey Alex, What happens if you let Fritz play against one of the other chess engines, and let them play it out 1000 times in quick games overnight?”) vs. quality (does an engine with sixty five minutes play better chess than with sixty minutes?).

With high hopes, I set up a 100 game match with one hour for both Fritz and Rybka, and let the computer run for an entire weekend. The results of this match left much to be desired:
a). All the games were drawn
b). At the same time control settings, the same narrow range of themes was repeated 50 times over.

I settled upon staggering different time controls between all the chess engines: 10 games at one hour, 4 games at one hour thirty minutes, and 2 games at two hours.

I am fully aware that this game set is inherently limited – I actually obtained a decisive result in Fritz vs. Shredder, but that was only because I mistakenly entered ‘60’ in the hours field, and created a 4 day game that went as follows:

YOUR-A65B2E40F5, 3600'/150+0'/0+0'0 YOUR-A65B2E40F5 (1), 08.11.2008
[0.76;0.67]
Mobile AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3700+ 2387 MHzW=26.7 ply; 2,078kN/sB=32.4 ply; 1,223kN/s 53.Nxd4 Both last book move 53...Ke5 0.67/29 19:48 54.c3 0.76/24 23:02 Kd5 0.40/33 43:46 55.Kb3 0.76/25 36:20 a5 0.26/36 2:11:19 56.Nb5 0.74/25 23:45 Kc6 (Kc5) 1.20/36 10:01:55 57.Kc4 (Ka4) 1.32/26 31:47 57...Kb6 1.50/34 43:30 58.Nd4 1.26/26 59:44 Nc8 1.34/35 46:00 59.a3 1.26/24 26:21 Nd6+ 1.42/35 37:50 60.Kd5 1.28/26 22:24 Nc8 1.67/35 2:22:12 61.c4 1.29/25 17:10 Ne7+ 1.70/35 30:02 62.Ke4 1.34/26 19:08 Ng6 1.95/34 3:01:22 63.Ne6 1.32/26 23:37 Kc6 1.95/34 1:27:19 64.Kd4 1.32/25 21:12 Nh4 (Ne7) 1.90/32 13:00 65.Kc3 (Kd3) 1.32/25 29:42 65...Ng2 2.20/34 42:01 66.Nd4+ 1.51/25 20:27 Kb6 2.22/36 1:02:50 67.Nb3 1.55/26 28:51 Ne3 (a4) 2.22/35 37:53 68.Kd3 1.89/25 24:13 Nd1 2.59/36 2:17:29 69.Kd4 2.52/26 40:56 Ka6 2.59/35 20:30:04 70.Nd2 (Nc5+) 2.28/26 39:25 70...Kb6 3.19/33 13:05 71.c5+ (Ne4) 2.66/26 29:53 71...Kb5 3.62/34 24:36 72.Nf3 (Nc4) 2.57/26 21:27 72...a4 3.93/29 34:25 73.Ne5 3.13/27 28:50 Ka5 3.93/28 21:37 74.Kd5 3.10/25 16:40 Nc3+ 3.32/28 9:39 75.Kc6 3.39/26 10:19 Ne4 4.27/28 1:49:20 76.Nc4+ 3.67/26 9:11 Ka6 4.27/10 0 77.Nd6 (Kd5) 3.67/26 10:57 77...Nf2 (Nf6) 4.27/29 5:15:59 78.Kc7 (Kd5) 3.86/26 12:57 78...Nd3 5.58/25 12:59 79.Ne4 3.77/27 10:59 Ne5 5.58/25 6:58 80.Nc3 3.77/26 6:29 Ka5 (Nc4) 5.58/23 5:16 81.Kb7 (c6) 4.82/25 5:05 81...Nc4 7.14/26 2:48 82.c6 5.23/25 14:01 Nd6+ (Nxa3) 7.14/27 5:01 83.Kc7 (Kb8) 8.23/23 6:28 83...Ne8+ 7.27/28 1:34:50 84.Kd7 8.93/24 2:10 1–0

By the way, Black’s 56th move in this game makes no sense – why not 56…Kc5 preventing 57.Kc4?

I was not going to experiment with games of this duration - let’s face it, this isn’t a reenactment of Remembrances of Things Past. For those of you with multiprocessor versions of these chess engines, knock yourselves out.

Extrapolating the Results

The most obvious result was that all the games were drawn, so (unless a supercomputer proves otherwise) Black always has a draw with best play.

All the match games were automatically saved as databases in the default folder C:\My Documents\ChessBase\CompBaseChessBase. I used two nifty tools in ChessBase 9 to filter the games:

• Filter (Control F) by position with white/black pieces occupying a specific square



• Filter (Control F) by manoeuvres to pinpoint a piece moving from one specific square to another



and moved the pieces around the board until the same patterns repeated themselves. The following game themes arose during the various time settings:

Fritz vs. Rybka

Time Control	Fritz-Rybka	Rybka-Fritz
G/60	Rybka as Black kept a stranglehold on the c4 square. The c pawn was blockaded on the third rank. The best Fritz could do was play its King to b5. Rybka played a6+, Fritz took the a pawn, and Rybka won the c pawn with a draw.	Rybka as White exchanged Knights with Fritz, but left its King on a4 and the c pawn on the second rank. Fritz, having captured Rybka’s Knight on d4, played Kc3 and obtained a drawn pawn ending.
G/90	Rybka maintained a blockade on the c4 square. Fritz won the a pawn and was actually two pawns up. However White’s Knight was tied down to the defence of the c pawn, and could not advance the a pawn. Fritz had to give up one of the pawns with a draw.	Rybka as White could not advance its King beyond the third rank. Eventually Rybka’s King was able to reach e4, but Fritz with its King on a4 was able to wipe out all of Rybka’s pawns.
G/120	Rybka as Black kept a stranglehold on the c4 square. The c pawn was blockaded on the third rank. The best Fritz could do was play its King to b5. Rybka played a6+, Fritz took the a pawn, and Rybka won the c pawn with a draw.	Rybka was able to push the c pawn to the fifth rank, but at the concession of playing the a pawn to the fourth. Fritz’s Knight picked off the a pawn with a draw.

Fritz vs. Shredder

Time Control	Fritz-Shredder	Shredder-Fritz
G/60	Fritz as White did not move any pawns and kept the King on b2. Shredder placed the Knight on e5 to control the c4 square, played the King to d3, advanced the a pawn past the fourth rank to divert Fritz’s King, and won the c pawn with a draw.	Shredder won Fritz’s a pawn, but was boxed in as follows: WKa6, a4, c4, BKc6, BNd3. Shredder had to give up one of the pawns so that the King could escape, and give Fritz a draw.
G/90	Shredder as Black kept a stranglehold on the c4 square. The c pawn was blockaded on the third rank. The best Fritz could do was play its King to b5. Rybka played a6+, Fritz took the a pawn, and Shredder won the c pawn with a draw.	Fritz allowed Shredder to advance the c pawn to the sixth rank, but was able to counterattack the a pawn with the King. Shredder gave up the Knight defending the a pawn and advanced the King to d7, but Fritz’s Knight held the draw.
G/120	Shredder maintained a blockade on the c4 square. Fritz won the a pawn and was actually two pawns up. However White’s Knight was tied down to the defence of the c pawn, and could not advance the a pawn. Fritz had to give up one of the pawns with a draw.	Shredder as White was able to advance the c pawn to the fifth rank, but could make no progress in the following position: WKb4, WNd3, c5, a3, BKc6, BNd2, a6. Shredder had to jettison the c pawn with a draw.

Rybka vs. Shredder

Time Control	Rybka -Shredder	Shredder -Rybka
G/60	Rybka as White exchanged Knights with Shredder, but left its King on a4 and the c pawn on the second rank. Shredder, having captured Rybka’s Knight on d4, played Kc3 and obtained a drawn pawn ending.	Rybka as Black kept a stranglehold on the c4 square. The c pawn was blockaded on the third rank. The best Shredder could do was play its King to b5. Rybka played a6+. Unlike Fritz, Shredder did not take the a pawn. However Shredder eventually played its a pawn up to the fourth rank, where Fritz blocked it with a5, and later picked it off with a draw.
G/90	Shredder maintained a blockade on c4. Rybka went after Shredder’s pawn on a5, giving up the c pawn with a draw.	Rybka as Black maintained a blockade on c4. Shredder’s King went after Rybka’s pawn on a7, giving up both of its remaining pawns with a draw.
G/120	Shredder as Black maintained a blockade on c4. Rybka went after Shredder’s pawn on a5, giving up the c pawn with a draw.	Rybka exchanged Knights with Fritz, but left its King on d7 and the c pawn on the second rank. Fritz, having captured Rybka’s Knight on d4, played Kc3 and obtained a drawn pawn ending.

From these games I can give Paul MacIntyre a more definitive assessment of the ending. The new knowledge from analyzing the computer match games is in red.

TO RECAP MY IMPRESSIONS FROM PART I:

(This ending is always a draw with best play on both sides.)

White wins if the c pawn reaches the 5th rank (no matter where Black places the a pawn), while keeping back the other pawn no farther than a3.

(In the actual Adamson-Cherniack game, Adamson won with a Knight exchange having played his pawn to a4. If the Knights are exchanged and Black goes for the c pawn, the crucial factor is how many moves White needs to win the Black’s a pawn without allowing the King to be boxed in. If the Knights are not exchanged, White’s a pawn if advanced will give Black better defensive chances, because once captured by the Knight that piece is closer to White’s remaining pawn, and once that remaining pawn is captured, the game is a draw.)

Then White has less distance to defend the squares around the advanced c pawn and attack Black’s a pawn simultaneously, and can use the threat of knight forks to ram the extra pawn down to the last rank.

(More accurately, White wins if he(she,it) can advance the c pawn to the fifth rank and control the c6, b5, and d5 squares around it. Then the advanced pawn is in no danger of being captured, and the above mentioned threats of knight-exchange forks will yield won pawn endgames and force the c pawn down to promotion.)

(In short, to win with the pawn on the fifth rank, White must first have a stable fourth rank.)

If, however, Black can keep the c pawn on the 4th rank (which is MUCH easier said than done), then White will eventually be forced to advance his a pawn farther and farther up the board to avoid three-fold repetition claims.

(The easiest way for Black to draw is to win one of White’s extra pawns – then, barring the remaining pawn promoting, that pawn will be captured with a draw. The next easiest way for Black to draw is to grab the c4 square and never let it go, as shown in multiple computer match games; White is then forced to lead the King into left field to win Black’s a pawn, which proved to be a draw many times over (Fritz-Rybka G/60, Fritz-Shredder G/90, and Rybka-Shredder G/120 among others) even if Black didn’t immediately win back the c pawn.)

(Even if the c pawn reaches the 5th rank, all is not lost. In the Shredder-Fritz G/120 game the following position arose:



White here does not have the tempi to play the King to c4, check the Black King away from c6, and support the advance of the c5 pawn. If White goes after Black’s a pawn, Black picks off the advanced c pawn with a drawn pawn ending. If White can play the King to d5 and then play c6, then I believe saving the game is no longer possible.)

Then you’ll reach an ending where White’s a and c pawns are so close together that both can be attacked at once, leading one to be captured and obtaining a draw.

(True.)

There, I've scratched the itch. I won’t be analyzing this ending any more.

Remember to Look Down in Amman

Recently I sat down for a dual interview with rival New York blogger, Elizabeth Vicary. After she interviewed me about blogging for the US Chess League, I interviewed her. Here is our conversation.

JR: I understand you have a job teaching chess. Really? How do you get paid? Are you a regular teacher on salary or like a tutor?

EV: I’m a regular teacher; I work for the NYC Board of Education. I’ve been teaching at IS 318, a public junior high school in Brooklyn for ten years now. When I started there I was working for Chess in the Schools, but after a while it became clear to me that if I wanted to teach chess as a career, it made sense to get my teaching license and work directly for the school system. Much better pay, fantastic benefits, plus the administration at 318 shares my vision for its chess program much more closely than CIS did. So that was a very positive development in my life a year and a bit ago.

JR: To those of us outside of New York City, IS 318 (and the public school system, for that matter) is a bit confusing. Does that mean a specific school?

EV: Yes, IS = Intermediate school, i.e. 6-8. JHS = junior high school = grades 7-9. CES = community elementary school = k-5, PS = elementary, k-5 or k-6 I think. There are so many public schools in NY that they get identified by prefix, number, and borough. For example, there is quite possibly an IS 318 in Manhattan and the Bronx and Queens etc. Each school is also officially named after someone, so my school is subtitled the Eugenio Maria de Hostos school. I think this guy was a revolutionary Chilean poet, maybe I’m just thinking about Victor Frias, who I actually think I had this conversation with. But de Hostos is never mentioned at school, I think probably he’s a little too far left for their taste.

JR: Do you have tenure? That is a big topic right now. On the “National Scene” as it were.

EV: In NYC you get tenure after 3 years of positive reviews. This is my second year
But I don't have any worries about job security I think. How are they going to fire classroom teachers? Who’s going to watch the kids then?

JR: What is your educational background that got you into teaching in general?

EV: I did my undergraduate in Columbia in English Lit and a masters in education at City College.

JR: So you wanted to be a teacher from the beginning, and teaching chess specifically was a fortunate twist?

EV: No, no. I never wanted to be a teacher. I'm very impatient-- I thought it would be boring and I would be completely unsuitable. But it turned out that being a chess teacher is a lot of fun and I’ve become quite interested in teaching and learning in general, in the ways people acquire new information or skills.

Basically, it's fun; it's a steady job; I'm good at it; and I feel like I'm doing positive work.

JR: So did you do chess in the schools as a way to combine community outreach with your chess hobby, and a regular teaching gig fell out of it?

EV: Exactly. Before that, I worked a few weird jobs after college—I wrote encyclopedia articles for American National Biography—a 20 volume biographical dictionary of every famous dead American. I wasn’t very good at it—I’m not really a details type of person, but it was fun being in the library all day and spending my time searching through old newspapers on microfiche. And I learned surprising fact that reference material is incredibly error-filled. Then after about a year the encyclopedia was ready to be published, and so I became the personal assistant to a Jordanian princess. The mother of a friend of mine was her hairdresser if you’re wondering how that happened.

JR: A random question about the princess. What did that involve exactly? Dressing her? Screening her suitors?

EV: Oh she was in her 50s. She was going back to school at Columbia, mostly just out of vanity I think, and I did her schoolwork for her. There was an occasional adventure, like I helped choose the sisal carpeting for the royal palace in Amman. circa 1945.

JR: That is amazing! That carpet probably cost more than I’ve made in a decade.

EV: Sometimes when I returned things for her people would think I was her and call me Your Majesty. Which was awesome—it’s hard to be in a bad mood when strangers are calling you Your Majesty. I did other, business/chore type things: balanced her check book, sorted her mail, wrote her social emails. She was the source of most of my conversational stories when I worked for her—she was always doing something I found absolutely incredible. Mostly involving spending money. For instance, in one two month period, she spent $12,000 on drycleaning. She had a Picasso of herself, but I think she sold it.

JR: Back to chess teaching. Do you think teaching chess improves your chess, or does it make it worse? Or neutral?

EV: um... depends. Explaining chess to beginners requires you to over-simplify, and that's not good for your chess. For me though, a lot of my kids become good enough that they help my chess a great deal. Preparing lessons helps; constantly having to look at their games keeps me sharp; our group analysis sessions teach me a lot.

JR: Have you been playing much lately? I don't see any of your games on the blog lately.

EV: I played a lot in the summer-- three big tournaments and a few little ones. It's much harder for me to play in the school year because I work a lot-- pretty much 7-4:30 Mon-Sat. and then Sunday I plan lessons, grade papers, etc. So I'm usually tired and it's hard to muster the energy to play. I also found that my rating/strength tends to decline during the school year and that makes me really sad, so maybe it’s better if I play mostly in the summer.

JR: Do you hope to make master? (Pardon me if you had). Do you think it is important to you?

EV: I would love to. It would make me very happy, but I don't think it will happen without a period of sustained work by me. Maybe next summer. I really want to play chess regularly all my life, but it’s very hard for me to find a balance, to not let my obsession with chess take over my life, but also not feel like I'm constantly falling behind. It's a problem. Chess is a real time-sink.

But it’s also a very nice complement for me to teaching because in teaching I talk a lot and explain simple things. In chess I don’t talk and think about complicated things.

JR: Let’s back up a bit: Saturday? Classes on Saturday?

EV: I meet the kids at school every Saturday, usually 45-50 of them, and we go to play in a Chess in the Schools tournament. Or they play; I analyze their games. The CIS tournaments are incredible events: one every week, free, 500 kids, 4 rounds g/30, a lunch break and an awards ceremony in 6 hours. Shaun Smith runs them, and he does a superhuman job. I mean that literally.

JR: 50! How many are boys and how many are girls?

EV: Of the 50, I guess 7 or 8 are girls. But I taught an advanced sixth grade class today of 33 boys and no girls. It’s always a struggle.

JR: I ask because I feel obliged to bring up a question about chess and gender. Probably too much ink is spilt on the subject, but you wrote a series of very insightful articles/interviews about it, and I was wondering if you had any new insights to share.

EV: Insights? One thought occurred to me a few days ago that the girls in chess club were more mature than the boys and this sometimes extended to level-headedness in playing as well. The thought was triggered by this girl rolling her eyes at how her opponent acted stupid and played stupid and was stupid all in the same gesture of “why do I have to deal with this dumbass” dismissal. I think it is true that most of my strong female players were relatively unlikely to blunder or collapse midgame. For whatever that’s worth.
I don’t know what else to say, except I think it’s pretty hard being a teenage girl at this moment in time.

JR: I was once told by a professor in college that he wouldn't let his daughter play chess because he thought it was too much of a boy's culture. First, isn't that a terrible thing to disallow if they really like it? Second, is it really a boy's culture? Third, do you think this "boy's culture" is what turns off girls somehow?

EV: It seems to me like a very male culture.

JR: Is that because there are mostly males in it? Or because of something inherent in the game?

EV: It's hard for me to say... we first probably have to pin down exactly what we mean by lots of these terms, like ‘culture,’ or ‘male culture’ or even ‘inherent.’

But also I don’t have many interactions with adult men outside of the chess world. I’ve noticed that a lot recently. Most of my colleagues are women. Most of my friends are women. And that might make chess seem more like a male culture. So you shouldn’t necessarily listen to me. My impressions are probably totally off.

JR: Let's switch over to the blog. Many people ask me why I would bother to write for a few 10s of people. What is your motivation to blog?

EV: It started as a favor to Greg.

JR: Ah, is that why your blog is called “USCL News and Gossip”, even though that is a small part of it, in the end?

EV: Yeah, Greg named it. Also the lizzyknowsall bit. He and I are often involved in each other’s projects: I go to his US chess schools and write about them, and about the USCL. He volunteers his time to help me coach at Nationals and Grade Nationals every year. I think we both think the other person does important work and is highly competent, so it’s nice to help out.

JR: But you blog for more reasons then just to help Greg out, yes?

EV: Yeah, that’s just how it started, but then I realized I enjoyed it. I like writing. I like trying to be funny. I got a lot of comments, which was encouraging.

JR: Do you specifically blog-write just because it is there and easy to use? Do you like the informality of it? For example, you could write in other formats, but does blogging have any particular appeal?

EV: Yeah, that’s a good question. Actually, someone offered to publish a chess book if I wanted to write one, which was obviously a very tempting offer. But I said no, mostly because I don’t have a book’s worth of stuff to say, but also because I really like blogging. I like the informality of it. I think it’s easier to be funny informally, for example.
I also think I find it a reassuring genre. There’s no pretense that you need something to say in a post. Really, just one nice picture and you have complete justification for being. When I first started writing for Chess Life, I was extremely reluctant to annotate games, just because I felt I wasn't strong enough. Like who the hell am I to talk about this position? And blogging counteracts that feeling, again because of the informality. Plus, my readers came to me, so I feel like it’s inherently a friendly crowd.
So it’s a nice space for me to write.

JR: What books are you reading now?

EV: Douglas Coupland's, The Gum Thief. It’s about two Staples employees and the melodramatic novel one of them is writing about life and relationships in upper class academia. I’m also reading The Chess Instructor 2009, a collection of articles about chess teaching. And I’ve recently become addicted to The Economist.

JR: Let's turn to the US Chess League for a few moments. What do you like about the USCL? What do you dislike?

EV: I like that it's chess with drama. It's very watchable and talk-about-able. I think chess in inherently hard to write about and talk about because it's so technical, but the USCL has sort of enlightened me as to the fun of being a sports fan.

JR: Chess with drama-- yes. What have been your favorite matchups?

EV: Of course the New York matches are great. I’m interested in all moments where people's personalities come through-- Nakamura's blitzing, people trying to win a drawn game because their team needs to, clashes of styles, like Tate-Lenderman.

JR: My favorite non-matchup was Esserman-Lenderman in the Boston-Queens Quarterfinals. I thought they would play twice in a row, and they even had just played a tough game in CT the weekend before the match. Marc was upset because Lenderman used a digital clock without the delay. That is pretty sneaky/rude, when you don't tell the person. People just assume a digital clock will have delay. Marc had a great position, but flagged. So I thought that one had a lot of drama that got denied.

EV: I also love Greg's recaps.

JR: Do you go to the New York games regularly, or watch on-line?

EV: I mostly watch online. They don't have projector screens in NY, so it’s not as spectator friendly.

JR: How successful has the USCL been, in your opinion? By any measure of success you’d like.

EV: Incredibly. What criteria could we use? Strong players? He has those. Cross country interest? Definitely. Non chess media? Yes. Large audiences? Yes. Sponsorship? Yes.

Really all of Greg's projects-- the US Chess School, the NY masters, the USCL are models of success.

JR: I agree. Greg has been thinking smartly about innovating chess promotion
This has been very fun. I think we should wrap it up now. I have to go tend to my fish. Seriously.

EV: Thanks for your time! It was interesting.

JR: I agree. Both halves of our double interview were fun for me. I'll be seeing you. Maybe next summer at a tournament. I also make it a point to play in New York when I am in town. Thanks much. Ciao.

Famous Last Words - Need Your Help.

Famous last words - need your help.

They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist. . . .
Killed in battle during US Civil War.
~~ General John Sedgwick, Union Commander, d. 1864

Famous last words fill many archives and comprise a very large and popular body of human knowledge. It seems mankind has recorded and remembered many of these sayings for thousands of years; indicating a special fascination for one's final communicated reflection.

Each of us has only one opportunity to go down in history for creating their remarkably special last words. My appeal is that some of you more creative types be at the ready to promote chess at that time. Chess needs all the help you can give. As it stands, we chess players have had two memorable moments that I know of:

The world's first Correspondence Chess Champion and author CJS Purdy was one of the best chess writers of all time. Both Bobby Fischer and I are great Purdy fans. One of the more interesting lessons some of his books describe are what to do in situations when strategy is not clear. Catchy sayings like: it's equally important to look around as it is to follow a plan. But the last thing Purdy said was: "I have a win, but it will take some time". Time Cecil didn't have, as he died at the chess board mid game.

Legend has it that Dean of New England Chess Harry Lyman, in a coma for some time, awoke asking: "Shelby, do you have a good move?" Which was the last thing Harry ever said.

Myself, getting on in years and presented with a few chronic situations, realize that time is gaining on me. So I'm working on a catchy turn of phrase upon my egress en passant.

If I have my druthers I would go down in a time scramble, board surrounded by chess comrades, time running out for my last time, at the ready to turn THE PHRASE: hope I'm prepared. Hope some one hears. People will say he went in a way he wanted to go: winning.

Do you know of any other famous last words by chess players (or non players)?

Or have any suggestions?

Please Comment Mike Griffin 11/18/2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=Talk:Cecil_Purdy

http://www.boylstonchessclub.org/Harry4.html

http://www.corsinet.com/braincandy/dying.html

Sperry Split Brain Blitz Predictions

Mac side of brain: hiya, BFF s!!!!!

PC side of brain: Salutations.

MAC: like, isnt it like totally R U 4 real- the big Bs are in the semis?

PC: I am having difficulty parsing your grammar. My lookup algorithms suggest that you perhaps are referring to the upcoming encounter in the US Chess League between the Boston Blitz and the Carolina Cobras?

MAC: duh u = n00b

PC: Furthermore, your comment implies surprise that the Boston Blitz have reached the East Semifinals. I find your bewilderment itself bewildering, for both historical (the Blitz advanced to the Finals in 2007 and have the 2007 USCL Player of the Year) and statistical (the Blitz have two of the top 10 Bionic Lime rated players, with two more in the top 25 and they consistently utilize a two grandmaster lineup) analyses indicate that the Boston Blitz were favored to enter the later stages of the playoffs, possibly even the finals next week.

MAC: OMFG, like y do u have to b buggin on me?????????????? i can make predictables 2, u know. i dont need no e=mc2 math 2 C the big Bs are dope. i wuz only sayin

PC: Your banal banter does nothing to assuage my ennui. Before your otiose conversational style completely flatlines my neural processes, let us dialogue about the Blitz-Cobras match, board by board.

MAC: ROFL, ur aware that latin is dead-- atinlay is eadday, piggie!

PC: Perhaps your brain's attentional centers will someday focus on the fact that your language is not even a language.

Here are this week's matchups.

Carolina is White on Boards 2-4. Carolina also has draw odds.

Boston Blitz Carolina Cobras
GM Eugene Perelshteyn: 2619 IM Lev Milman: 2502
SM Jorge Sammour-Hasbun: 2576 FM Oleg Zaikov: 2376
SM Marc Esserman: 2307 FM Ron Simpson: 2346
NM Ilya Krasik: 2144 NM Craig Jones: 2320
Avg Rating: 2412 Avg Rating: 2386


Board 1. GM Perelshteyn vs. IM Lev Milman


MAC: OMG! lev is a cutie. he wins imho.

PC: Because his hands are shielding much of his face, my symmetry analyzers are incapable of elucidating whether Lev's features fulfill the criteria of your "cute" claim. Nevertheless, his appearance is completely irrelevant to his abilities to play a game of chess.

MAC: pffft.
PC: Curiously, however, by rationally assessing the merits of your claim that Lev will win over Eugene, I find much to praise. Lev Milman has been playing very well this season. For example, his active play against Pascal Charbonneau's tentative maneuvers in last week's Quarterfinal match with New York is noteworthy.

MAC: if u think that is gr8, check it: milman-fang. foxwoods

PC: Yes, that finale shall be enshrined in tactical workbooks for years to come. We must not forget, however, that his opponent is a strong player as well. The parsimonious prediction is a draw.

MAC: win for the cutie. ;)

Board 2. Jorge Sammour-Hasbun vs. Oleg Zaikov.

PC: Although Zaikov is a capable player, he is too mercurial.

MAC: Mercutio? i dont know him

PC: I believe you mean Horatio.

MAC: oh, horatio, i knew him ?

PC: Nevermind. Simply examine his nice draw with GM John Fedorowicz last week and his loss to FM Bartell the week prior and his loss to IM Vovsha in the penultimate regular season round. The Cobras have performed wonderfully this season, but Zaikov on Board 2 has not been the main reason. Jorge Sammour-Hasbun excelled this year and excels in high pressure matches. Few brows will furrow in consternation were I to predict that Jorge will garner the full, critical point.

MAC: i say j-blast, whatevs

Board 3: Simpson-Esserman

MAC: Hmmmmm, donuts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

PC: My probability matrices place the odds that your blatent joke has been previously told as asymptotically approaching 100%.

MAC: k. i dont wantmy friend essermn to hurthis hand ifhe looses,so i heva 2 sy that markie wins. justsee lizzyknowsall intervw with matan bout marc and the door

PC: Esserman nearly won USCL MVP honors this year and is very dangerous with the white pieces. If I were to place a wager on the outcome of this game, I would maximize my winning chances by predicting an Esserman victory. Like my logically deficient lesser half, I have a modicum of fond feeling for Marc Esserman that may be clouding my crystal ball neural network. Such are the vagaries of the human condition!

MAC: pc exclaims!!!!!!! WHOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is ur flux capacitor broke, doc? !!!!! are awesome !!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Board 4: Craig Jones vs. Ilya Krasik

MAC: ilya p3wns jones. upset- u heard it hear 1st i am like, totllay confient-take it 2 de bank.. n e 1 whooze a hater can kma loosers.

PC: Since I can not comprehend what you just said, I can not pontificate on the potential accuracy of your prognostication. I shall essay the following observations. Jones has been very strong all year long. Krasik has been playing steady chess many weeks in a row. Boston needs to overcome draw odds this week, so a placid outcome for Board four would be an acceptable outcome for the home team. As the Boston Blitz have an on-paper advantage on boards 1-3, a fractional result on the 4th board would place them upon the threshold of the finals.

MAC: u r a wus

PC: y? --------malfunction ------------

Pardon me. Why?

MAC: U JUST ARE. IM OUT EGG U BORE ME AND U ARE DUM BIG DUMDUM.

PC: I suppose I can take solace that you left the caps lock off during most of our conversation. Good day.

Troika Championship for the Boylston

The Boylston Chess Foundation Championship for 2008 has concluded with a three-way tie.

The winners are IM David Vigorito, NM Charles Riordan, and FM Chris Chase.

Congratulations to all.

corrected crosstable to follow.

The problem is the Blood-Brain Barrier....

Over the weekend, Elizabeth Vicary, US Chess League blogger from Boston's rival New York, and I had a dual-interview exchange. Here is the link to her interview with me at USCL News and Gossip (link also to the right).

Interview with Jason Rihel

Stay tuned to the BCC Weblog for my interview with her soon. We covered topics ranging from chess teaching, to blogging, to the US Chess League. I had fun, and I hope everyone finds at least one of our comments interesting.