During my holidays I received a lot of chess books from various publishers. There’s lot to look forward to! One of the most interesting books is the latest volume of John Watson’s ambitious project to explain and analyse all chess openings. But the book became much more than just another opening manual.

Two years ago, I wrote a generally positive review of Mastering the Chess Openings Volume 3 (I also liked the first and second volumes), but in the fourth part of his series (published by Gambit), Watson goes a step further than he had gone before. In fact, he’s returning to some of his favourite chess themes, which were also discussed in his most famous books Secrets of Grandmaster Strategy (1998) and Chess Strategy in Action (2003).

This fourth volume begins conventionally enough, with two very solid chapters on the Réti Opening and an excellent overview of black kingside fianchetto systems such as ‘Tiger’s Modern’ and the Averbakh Variation (although I didn’t know it was called that way) starting with 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.c4, but then Watson switches to a more experimental way of explaining openings. In the chapter called ‘Modern Queenside Fianchetto’, he discusses various (you’ve guessed it) queenside fianchetto systems from the perspective of both Black and White. This means he not only writes about the Owen Defence (1.e4 b6) and the English Defence (1.d4 e6 2.c4 b6), but also about Larsen’s Opening (1.b3).

True to his style, Watson clearly explains the differences between playing the queenside fianchetto with Black and playing it with White. the author thereby takes a look at Ilya Odessky’s recent book on 1.b3 (which I reviewed last year) as well and comes up with some sensible improvements. For instance, in the line 1.b3 e5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 d5 4.Bb5 Bd6 5.f4 (Watson: “This is certainly the usual continuation in both the Owen and the English Defences: when the f-pawn can’t be captured, it makes sense to use it to break up the opposing centre.”) 5…f6 Odessky gave 6.Nh3

a ‘dubious’ sign (?!) because of the line 6…Nge7 7.fxe5 fxe5 8.0-0 Bf5! after which 9.Qh5+ and 9.Bxc6+ are unconvincing, but following Watson’s suggestion 9.c4 a6 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.d4!? with the threat c4-c5, White seems to be on top.

After this chapter, the book steers into even more broad-ranging waters, starting off with a chapter on gambits (in general) in which Watson discusses and explains gambits as diverse as the Göring and Morra Gambit, the Millner-Barry Gambit, various Wing gambits (both with b2-b4 and g2-g4), the famous Evans Gambit and, of course, the Benkö Gambit.

This chapter contains good stuff (although I don’t think serious gambit-players or gambit-busters will find too much shockingly new in it), but I was even more intrigued by the book’s next chapter, called ‘f-Pawns and Reversed Openings’. I’m sure some people would dismiss it as too philosophical for an opening book, but many fragments – however digressive they may appear to the practical player – had me on the edge of my seat:

The study of reversed openings will increase your understanding of what can and cannot be achieved in openings. Many chess players are mathematically oriented, with a facility for logical thinking. So it’s only natural to assume that there must be some way to make use of an extra move. After all, chess moves have value, and you wouldn’t voluntarily give a move away under normal circumstances. However, as we’ve talked about throughout these volumes, the worth of an extra move isn’t a straightforward matter. In reversed positions of the English Opening, for example, it’s remarkable how seldom White can actually claim to have the better game. For one thing, any advantage is limited by the fact that he will usually be playing what are essentially defensive or counterattacking lines. In addition, there’s a paradoxical benefit of not having to move, in that Black gets a better look at what his opponent is up to and is able to react accordingly. (…)

Stepping outside the practical realm, this difficulty (of converting a move into something of value) is also revealing about the nature of chess itself. The paradox of information applies to every move, whether in a reversed position or not. In some sense, however sound and logical a move is, it contains the risk of leaving you worse off! That enormously magnifies the complexity and subtlety of the game. If advantages and disadvantages were additive in some linear fashion, chess would be a minor game at best. But we have geniuses who do little else but study and play chess from the time they are five years old into their forties, and they make multiple mistakes in nearly every game, often quite serious ones! As an exercise, set up a reversed opening and try to find ways to make even modest improvements to your position without destabilizing something elsewhere on the board. You’ll find that the most trivial-seeming change always seems to show up in one or another line of analysis where you’re least expecting it.

Watson then goes on to explain the subtleties of the Dutch Defence and the Bird Opening (1.f4) in lucid fashion, but as said, he also discusses other reversed openings such as the Ponziani (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3) which Watson points out, after 3…f5!? is in fact “a Vienna Game (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4) with reversed colours and as if Black had an extra …c6!” Or what about 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5, which the entire world knows as the Schliemann or Jänisch Defence of the Ruy Lopez, yet is described by Watson as…

[A] Vienna Game (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4) in which White has the extra move Bb5. Strange to say, this would hurt White if he tried the standard remedy to the Vienna position, which is 4.d4 fxe4 5.Nxe5?! (5.Bxc6 dxc6 6.Nxe5 Nf6 is about equal) as 5…Nxe5 6.dxe5 c6 (in the reversed position, White’s bishop is still on f1, so this tempo-gain isn’t possible) 7.Bc4 (having come this far, White normally tried the unclear piece sacrifice 7.Nc3 cxb5 8.Nxe4) 7…Qa5+ followed by 8…Qxe5 wins a pawn. (…)

OK, I can’t resist one more example:

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Bb4

Now we have a reversed Classical Variation of the Ruy Lopez (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5), with Black a whole tempo down. The Classical can be a pretty active system, so let’s see if White can make good use of the extra tempo.

4.Nf3 (…) 4.f4 has White playing the Schliemann Defence to the Ruy Lopez but with the extra move Bc4. The problem is that this gives Black the tactic 4…Nxe4! Then if White follows the normal Vienna Game strategy of 5.Qh5 (…), Black plays 5…0-0!, a move unavailable in the Vienna Game. (…)

4…Bxc3 5.dxc3 d6

The last reversal: Black has played the Exchange Ruy Lopez, and apparently given White much better development than he gets in the reversed position. But in fact, Black doesn’t generate many powerful attacks in the Exchange Ruy Lopez, and in this reversed position, White has nothing to be particularly excited about.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think I have seen this funny perspective applied in Vienna or Ruy Lopez text books before. Similarly, the chapter ‘Symmetry and its Descendants’ offers a refreshing point of view to infamously ‘boring’ openings such as the Petroff and the Four Knights Game. The chapter on ‘Irregular Openings and Initial Moves’ continues in this vein. What are irregular or ‘unorthodox’ openings anyway? Watson points out that

[t]he Trompowsky Attack 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 has become popular and universally accepted, but one could argue that 2.Bg5 itself is not an ‘orthodox’ move; on the flip side, the form of the Torre Attack with 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5 is orthodox by the classical standards of development, but it isn’t very popular any more. In a similar way, classically oriented openings such as the Ponziani Opening (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3) and the Hungarian Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7) are orthodox in strategic terms, but rare in master practice; today, they could legitimately be called ‘irregular’.

Apart from this terminology issue, there’s what’s Watson calls ‘the appeal of the irregular’:

You make counterintuitive moves, waste time, or sacrifice pawns, and yet some not-so-obvious factor is working in your favour to give you positive chances. It’s a break from the drudgery of ‘correct’ play and following those tired old principles. Even if you don’t secure the better game, you can at least irritate your opponent and present him with multiple opportunities to go wrong. The most entertaining irregular openings also contain tactical traps into which one innocent victim after another falls.

These are not trivial, run-of-the-mill observations. Many opening book authors and even chess-improvement books fail to mention these human and very recognizable aspects of chess openings, even though keeping them in mind might help avoid some well-known mistakes in practical play. Thus, for instance, the line 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 f5!?

in the Nimzovich Opening, which is played by some fairly strong members of my local chess club and which Watson also mentions in his book, is not just ‘irregular’, ‘ugly’ and ‘bad’, but does contain some ‘not-so-obvious factors’ working in Black’s favour. White should be aware of this or he will get tricked, as I’ve personally seen many times.

Actually, I was particularly interested in what Watson wrote about the Nimzovich Opening because I sometimes play it myself and because I’ve seen lots of crazy analysis over the past years from enthusiastic club members. Crazy analysis which are often not so bad for Black as they look on first sight! And indeed, to his credit, Watson doesn’t dismiss the opening easily at all and calls it “one of the best of the irregular openings versus 1.e4.”

One of the lines Watson analyses is 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e5 Ng4 4.d4 d6 5.h3 Nh6.

His nuanced look at even such an obscure line is characteristic of his approach:

Black has a pretty ugly position that nevertheless has some merits. His decentralized knight is an undoubting disadvantage, but he has prospects of chipping away at White’s centre, after which that piece might be reintroduced by …Nf5. Of course, White can hardly complain about his prospects, but he shouldn’t expect too much from the capture Bxh6, which gives up the bishop-pair. 5…Nh6 introduces a wide a range of eccentric possibilities that are typical of irregular openings.

Watson now analyses no less than four alternatives for White, but in the end concedes that “Black’s position is within playable boundaries”. This is rather more realistic than my own initial opinion (”absolutely horrible for Black”) of this particular variation! (To my defence, I pretty soon realized that things were not so simple once I started studying the line in more detail.) I hope this small digression shows to what lengths Watson is willing to go to illustrate the versatility of various lesser known opening lines.

The book’s penultimate chapter on ‘Choosing and Preparing Openings’ is equally insightful, although some advices may of course sound familiar to readers who’ve bought other recent books on more general aspects of opening play. To my delight, Watson also quotes the great Korchnoi who “bluntly” said that if you want to improve your chess, you should play a new opening. Interestingly, Watson also recommends playing blitz games as a way of practising your opening preparation (”in sensible, non-addictive quantities”).

Watson ends his book with yet another philosophically-inclined chapter on the future of openings. Unavoidably, there are some echoes from his earlier books here, but it’s useful and entertaining all the same. Mastering the Chess Openings vol. 4 is a book any chess lover should have a look at – if not for its openings, then surely for its general awesomeness.

Links

• Get yourself a copy of Mastering the Chess Openings vol. 4
• Read more book reviews

Otros jugadores de nuestro Club Ajedrez Vecindario que clasifican para la final autonómica son Lorelé como campeona insular sub10 y Eduardo Águila campeón insular sub12 delante de Rodriguez Mellado que clasifica de segundo, a nuestros compañeros Nauzet y Jonay (que este año juega en GranDama), les toca esperar otra oportunidad igual que Gema que estuvo cerca de clasificar.

En sub14 Romen campeón y Agust como segundo defenderán la bandera grancanaria.

De entre los chavales que nombro he tenido el placer de enfrentarme en torneos a Rodríguez Mellado en dos ocasiones, en ambos casos mi siciliana me llevó a la derrota y con Romen el parcial me favorece 2-1, primero me ganó el con una francesa y luego gané yo dos veces con la trompowsky, si bien es cierto que la última vez le gané por time por un despiste suyo.

Hello out there to everyone once again. Before I talk about the recent tournament in Norway, I would like to take a moment to explain why I have not been blogging much of lately. Recently, I have become extremely busy boht in terms of chess and other events in Seattle. As such, I feel that the quality of my recent blogs has been lacking due to the limited amount of time which I have had to communicate my thoughts. My personal feeling is that any blog or book for that matter should be quality over quantity. For the first time in over a month, I have a chance to settle down and not feel rushed.

Towards the end of the disaster in Amsterdam, I received word about the possibility of participating in the BN Bank Blitz this November in Norway. After a brief communication, I agreed to play as I felt it would be a good opportunity to warm up before London and get another crack at Magnus Carlsen. The tournament had an interesting format with sixteen players; ten invited and six qualifiers from local tournaments around Norway. These 16 players were then broken down into four groups of four with the top two players of each group advancing to the quarterfinals at which point it became a knockout.

Preliminary Qualifier:

In the qualifier, I was in a group with GM Leif Erlend Johannessen and local qualifiers FM Kjetil Stokke and the young Anders Hobber. The basic goal in the preliminary stage was to avoid any calamities against the two weaker plays and just not lose to Johannessen. I did not have any major problems as I won the four games against the qualifiers. Leif on the other hand presented a few problems. The first time I ever played Leif was way back in Bermuda in 2002 (wow, that feels like another lifetime ago)when I made my second grandmaster norm. More recently, I beat him in the 2006 Turin Olympiad when we beat Norway 3.5-.5 to capture the bronze medal. Although Leif stopped playing chess seriously in order to finish a law degree, he has always been a dangerous opponent. In the first game against him, I got a bit lucky as he had a strong kingside attack. However, after a minor error I was able to capitalize for the full point. In the second game, I obtained a very small advantage and he self destructed as his time got a bit too low. This left me with 6/6 out of the first stage and looking forward to the next stage.

Quarterfinals:

In the quarterfinals I faced GM Kjetil Lie also from Norway. Prior to playing in the Gjovik rapids last year I had never faced Kjetil. During that tournament I became aware of his style as we played four times. Despite my 3.5-.5 score, he can be a tricky player. This time around was not much different as he had problems finding a way of reaching equality against the Trompowsky in both of his Black games. I won my black game without any problems either which helped me advance 3-0.

Semifinal: The semifinal was when the real tournament began for me as I had to play GM Peter Heine Nielsen from Denmark. Although Nielsen has yet to break 2700, he has always been a super solid GM who does not lose very often. Luckily for me this was blitz and not classical so I knew I would have some opportunities. In the first game, I got Black and played the Queens Gambit Accepted. We reached a rather tame position as queens came off the board early. After reaching a pretty equal position, I was able to slowly outplay him as we started drifting lower and lower on time. After winning the first game with Black, I knew my chances had drastically improved. In the second game, things did not improve for Peter as we repeated a similar variation from our game in Amsterdam. After going for a different idea, I was able to pick up two pawns and had a much better position. Unfortunately, it was here when he was down to seconds that I let the game slip and was probably only equal at the point when he accidentally overstepped on the clock. In the third game, with such a big advantage, Peter really had to go for broke. Despite trying the aggressive 3.e4 system against the Queens Gambit Accepted, he ran into trouble early on when he got a bit too ambitious while trying to win in the opening before reaching the middlegame. This led to catastrophe as he got his queen trapped on a7. This led to an early resignation and a 3-0 victory for me once again. Not more than 30 seconds later, Magnus won his third game against Jon Ludvig to advance by a score of 2.5-.5 which setup the dream final for the organizers.

Final:

In the final I faced off against Magnus Carlsen. Little needs to be said about him as he has proven to be one of the best in the world and recently won the World Blitz Championship. Before I delve into this match I would, for the last time, like to emphatically state that I never received an invitation to play in the World Blitz Championship despite rumours that I turned down such a request. Obviously I would have played in that event had I gotten an inviation. Onto the match, I knew that I was undefeated at 12-0, but was concerned about how my nerves would hold up at the start of the match after cruising through the prelims and matches. The first game proved my worst fears as I chose a rather dubious variation of the English. When combined with the fact that I more or less fell asleep at the board (not literally) and used a minute and a half to get out of the opening with barely equality, it doomed my chances. I almost immediately went wrong and lost without obtaining any realistic drawing opportunities. After such a bad start, I thought I would turn on the secondary gear and wake up. Much to my horror this did not prove to be the case as I blundered horrendously in the second game when I allowed 24.Nf5. Shockingly, I had seen Nf5 but forgot that after intentionally hanging the pawn on d6, Ba4 was not possible as my rook on e8 was en prise. This very unwelcome surprise wrecked my position and I almost certainly should have lost from here. However, caissa seemed to have different plans as I was able to complicate it a bit thereafter. Nevertheless, Magnus kept his wits and still had a completely winning position. Luckily, I was able to hang on long enough that we both were down to mere seconds. It was at this point that Magnus went astray when he traded into a knights endgame. At this point I was still lost, but I found a way to trick Magnus into a losing king and pawn endgame. After he miscalculated the pawn race, I queened first with check and went on to win the game. This balanced the score at 1-1. Realizing how lucky I had been to not lose, let alone win, I took a deep breath and slowed everything down in the third game. This turned out to be a very wise decision as we played a pretty straight forward Grunfeld in which I sacked a pawn on c3 to gain initiative. Having looked at this variation in depth with GMs Shulman and Onischuk during the olympiad I felt pretty confident and came out with a lot of play. Despite being down a pawn, my position was slightly easier to play and I eventually was able to pick off a few pawns and convert the advantage into a win. This put me up 2-1 heading into the fourth and final game with Black. Needing only a draw, I once again decided to go into the nimzo, but I chose to play like Michael Adams when I chose the 5...ne4 variation. This turned out to be a very wise choice as I was never really in much danger throughout the game. Many people have suggested that this game should have ended in a draw, but had this been an earlier game in the match, I most certainly would have avoided a repitition myself! Alas, Magnus was in the unfortunate position of having to avoid the repitition and I won the game after picking off all his pawns in a rook and bishop vs queen ending. Thus, I won the match 3-1.

Overall, I felt that my play was pretty good; unfortunately, the finals were a bit of a letdown for me personally. Having played so well and calmly throughout every game up until that point, it is hard to improve. Putting that aside, I felt that I was a bit too nervous and was not ready to up my play to the next level. Luckily, I calmed down and soundly outplayed Magnus in games 3 and 4. Objectively, I think the score should have been 2-2 but I am still happy that I won. For me, this was a nice victory, but I am looking forward to London a lot more and hope to put together a strong tournament there. Last but not least, I would like to thank the organization of the tournament and the sponsor BN Bank for putting together a great tournament as well as Dag Danielsen and Oystein Brekke for their involvement as well.

That is all for now, time to get ready for the event in London. Have a great week everyone!

Hello out there to everyone once again. Before I talk about the recent tournament in Norway, I would like to take a moment to explain why I have not been blogging much of lately. Recently, I have become extremely busy boht in terms of chess and other events in Seattle. As such, I feel that the quality of my recent blogs has been lacking due to the limited amount of time which I have had to communicate my thoughts. My personal feeling is that any blog or book for that matter should be quality over quantity. For the first time in over a month, I have a chance to settle down and not feel rushed.

Towards the end of the disaster in Amsterdam, I received word about the possibility of participating in the BN Bank Blitz this November in Norway. After a brief communication, I agreed to play as I felt it would be a good opportunity to warm up before London and get another crack at Magnus Carlsen. The tournament had an interesting format with sixteen players; ten invited and six qualifiers from local tournaments around Norway. These 16 players were then broken down into four groups of four with the top two players of each group advancing to the quarterfinals at which point it became a knockout.

Preliminary Qualifier:

In the qualifier, I was in a group with GM Leif Erlend Johannessen and local qualifiers FM Kjetil Stokke and the young Anders Hobber. The basic goal in the preliminary stage was to avoid any calamities against the two weaker plays and just not lose to Johannessen. I did not have any major problems as I won the four games against the qualifiers. Leif on the other hand presented a few problems. The first time I ever played Leif was way back in Bermuda in 2002 (wow, that feels like another lifetime ago)when I made my second grandmaster norm. More recently, I beat him in the 2006 Turin Olympiad when we beat Norway 3.5-.5 to capture the bronze medal. Although Leif stopped playing chess seriously in order to finish a law degree, he has always been a dangerous opponent. In the first game against him, I got a bit lucky as he had a strong kingside attack. However, after a minor error I was able to capitalize for the full point. In the second game, I obtained a very small advantage and he self destructed as his time got a bit too low. This left me with 6/6 out of the first stage and looking forward to the next stage.

Quarterfinals:

In the quarterfinals I faced GM Kjetil Lie also from Norway. Prior to playing in the Gjovik rapids last year I had never faced Kjetil. During that tournament I became aware of his style as we played four times. Despite my 3.5-.5 score, he can be a tricky player. This time around was not much different as he had problems finding a way of reaching equality against the Trompowsky in both of his Black games. I won my black game without any problems either which helped me advance 3-0.

Semifinal: The semifinal was when the real tournament began for me as I had to play GM Peter Heine Nielsen from Denmark. Although Nielsen has yet to break 2700, he has always been a super solid GM who does not lose very often. Luckily for me this was blitz and not classical so I knew I would have some opportunities. In the first game, I got Black and played the Queens Gambit Accepted. We reached a rather tame position as queens came off the board early. After reaching a pretty equal position, I was able to slowly outplay him as we started drifting lower and lower on time. After winning the first game with Black, I knew my chances had drastically improved. In the second game, things did not improve for Peter as we repeated a similar variation from our game in Amsterdam. After going for a different idea, I was able to pick up two pawns and had a much better position. Unfortunately, it was here when he was down to seconds that I let the game slip and was probably only equal at the point when he accidentally overstepped on the clock. In the third game, with such a big advantage, Peter really had to go for broke. Despite trying the aggressive 3.e4 system against the Queens Gambit Accepted, he ran into trouble early on when he got a bit too ambitious while trying to win in the opening before reaching the middlegame. This led to catastrophe as he got his queen trapped on a7. This led to an early resignation and a 3-0 victory for me once again. Not more than 30 seconds later, Magnus won his third game against Jon Ludvig to advance by a score of 2.5-.5 which setup the dream final for the organizers.

Final:

In the final I faced off against Magnus Carlsen. Little needs to be said about him as he has proven to be one of the best in the world and recently won the World Blitz Championship. Before I delve into this match I would, for the last time, like to emphatically state that I never received an invitation to play in the World Blitz Championship despite rumours that I turned down such a request. Obviously I would have played in that event had I gotten an inviation. Onto the match, I knew that I was undefeated at 12-0, but was concerned about how my nerves would hold up at the start of the match after cruising through the prelims and matches. The first game proved my worst fears as I chose a rather dubious variation of the English. When combined with the fact that I more or less fell asleep at the board (not literally) and used a minute and a half to get out of the opening with barely equality, it doomed my chances. I almost immediately went wrong and lost without obtaining any realistic drawing opportunities. After such a bad start, I thought I would turn on the secondary gear and wake up. Much to my horror this did not prove to be the case as I blundered horrendously in the second game when I allowed 24.Nf5. Shockingly, I had seen Nf5 but forgot that after intentionally hanging the pawn on d6, Ba4 was not possible as my rook on e8 was en prise. This very unwelcome surprise wrecked my position and I almost certainly should have lost from here. However, caissa seemed to have different plans as I was able to complicate it a bit thereafter. Nevertheless, Magnus kept his wits and still had a completely winning position. Luckily, I was able to hang on long enough that we both were down to mere seconds. It was at this point that Magnus went astray when he traded into a knights endgame. At this point I was still lost, but I found a way to trick Magnus into a losing king and pawn endgame. After he miscalculated the pawn race, I queened first with check and went on to win the game. This balanced the score at 1-1. Realizing how lucky I had been to not lose, let alone win, I took a deep breath and slowed everything down in the third game. This turned out to be a very wise decision as we played a pretty straight forward Grunfeld in which I sacked a pawn on c3 to gain initiative. Having looked at this variation in depth with GMs Shulman and Onischuk during the olympiad I felt pretty confident and came out with a lot of play. Despite being down a pawn, my position was slightly easier to play and I eventually was able to pick off a few pawns and convert the advantage into a win. This put me up 2-1 heading into the fourth and final game with Black. Needing only a draw, I once again decided to go into the nimzo, but I chose to play like Michael Adams when I chose the 5...ne4 variation. This turned out to be a very wise choice as I was never really in much danger throughout the game. Many people have suggested that this game should have ended in a draw, but had this been an earlier game in the match, I most certainly would have avoided a repitition myself! Alas, Magnus was in the unfortunate position of having to avoid the repitition and I won the game after picking off all his pawns in a rook and bishop vs queen ending. Thus, I won the match 3-1.

Overall, I felt that my play was pretty good; unfortunately, the finals were a bit of a letdown for me personally. Having played so well and calmly throughout every game up until that point, it is hard to improve. Putting that aside, I felt that I was a bit too nervous and was not ready to up my play to the next level. Luckily, I calmed down and soundly outplayed Magnus in games 3 and 4. Objectively, I think the score should have been 2-2 but I am still happy that I won. For me, this was a nice victory, but I am looking forward to London a lot more and hope to put together a strong tournament there. Last but not least, I would like to thank the organization of the tournament and the sponsor BN Bank for putting together a great tournament as well as Dag Danielsen and Oystein Brekke for their involvement as well.

That is all for now, time to get ready for the event in London. Have a great week everyone!

World Chess Olympiad debutant, Bomo Kighiga, is the new king of Nigerian chess at list for the next one year, after a hard victory at the just concluded 32nd Nigeria Breweries International Open Chess Championship which was held at the Media Centre of National Stadium in Lagos.

The chess prodigy, who rose through the ranks as National Junior Master up to the Intermediate level and recently into the Masters category, played brilliantly in the 9-round Swiss event during which he over powered defending champion, Adegboyega Adebayo to become the champion for the second time in five years.

Kighiga, who made a promising appearance at the last Chess Olympiad in Dresden, Germany, came back into reckoning in round seven with a valuable win against Adebayo, whom he defeated in a long game Trompowsky attack.

The former champion playing with white pieces had an overwhelming advantage at the opening stage but a faulty gamble in the middle play gave the winner some level of initiative and equal the game till a long end game with Kighiga having the upper hand in minor piece ending.

The new champion with 8 points won for himself the star prize of N140, 000 while Adebayo and Ajibola Olanrewaju are joint second with 7 points.

Full Story… http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=156204

Starting Out: the Trompowsky Attack has just arrived.

On the 269 pages of this latest volume of the Starting Out series, Richard Palliser covers all the main lines of this ambitious opening and he includes tips, notes and warnings to help the reader understand their chosen lines.

Few openings allow White to stamp his authority on the game as early as the Trompowsky. After 2.Bg5, the King’s Indian, Nimzo-Indian, Modern Benoni, Grünfeld or even the Benko Gambit are being side-stepped.

The Trompovsky is not hard to learn and it can be used as a surprise or a full-time opening to be employed against 1.d4 Nf6. This makes it an ideal opening for improvers, club and tournament players of all levels.

Garry Kasparov has enjoyed successes with the Trompowsky in his many simultaneous exhibitions, and players as Shakhriyar Mamedyarov, Michael Adams and Antoaneta Stefanova are still playing it today.

You can learn from the inspiring games of these and many other leading grandmasters and become a Trompovsky expert yourselve.

• S Zierk 1/2 V Akobian: Steven holds a pawn down endgame vs a strong GM.
  
• E Tate 0-1 R Agarwal: The legendary IM Tate has no answer to Philidor gambit.
• Y Liou 1-0 J Irrzary: Yian goes king hunting after a strange Alekhine opening.
• M Nita 0-1 M Aigner: This expert quickly bows to the power of the Dutch defense.
• R Hess 0-1 S Shankland: IM Shankland smokes his main junior rival IM Hess.
• S Shankland 1/2 J Ehlvest: For an encoure, a solid draw against a veteran GM.
• S Zierk 1-0 E Tate: The local juniors sure gave IM Tate the one-two punch!
• R Agarwal 1-0 K Mackinnon: NM Agarwal shows off the power of gambits.
• M Aigner 1-0 D Haessel: The Trompowsky takes down a FM in a quick win.
  

Pregame Analysis: There are some very interesting match-ups in the first round of the 2008 Olympiad. In the past, a 4-0 result was typical of the Swiss format pitting a strong team against teams without titled players. However, using the match point system, a 4-0 score will be worth the same as 2½-1½ result. Apparently a different pairing system has been used and the first round will indeed see a number of close matches. China-Philippines will be interesting.

Round #1 Analysis: While there was only one upset (Germany 2½-1½ Bulgaria and Venezuela 2½-1½ Croatia), other chess powers had to eke out victories. Bulgaria rested Veselin Topalov and figured to have the edge over Germany 2, but the Ivan Cheparinov and Kiril Georgiev dropped games on the top boards. IM Arik Braun finish Georgiev with the cute 74…Ra7! after the game displayed geometric wizardry.

Croatia was upset by Venezuela which is led by Eduardo Iturrizaga, the nation’s first and only Grandmaster. Croatia boasts a team of 2600-rated players, but Iturrizaga caused a stir after uncorking 20.Nxf7! on Mladen Palac and winning a technical ending in 81 moves. A quartet of Finnish IMs toppled Georgia and Iran held Hungary!

China’s Ni Hua was crushed by Filipino phenom Wesley So putting China down a game early. Wang Yue and Wang Hao rallied victories to give China the margin of victory over the Philippines 2½-1½. Azerbaijan showed it means business by crushing Macedonia 4-0. Teimour Radjabov mated Vladimir Georgiev and Shahkriyar Mamedyarov sent Vladimir Georgiev’s king on the run in a wild Trompowsky.

In women’s play, there were a lot of lopsided scores which is perhaps a result of using four boards instead of the three as in previous years. Both Russia and China coasted to victories and Georgia squeaked by England. One surprising result was Argentina holding the powerful Ukrainian team. The women’s team from Iran duplicated their male compatriots by holding a much stronger team. Iran held the host Germany 1 team to a 2-2 draw.

There has been a lot of discussion about the 1-minute forfeit rule… another example of German efficiency. The arbiters have imposed a rule that any player more than a minute late would forfeit. There has been a relaxation of the rules for the first two rounds as players gain their bearings. However, there were a number of forfeits. There is also a rule that no game can end in a draw before move 30. This may have been instituted because of the embarassing draws on less than 15 moves in previous Olympiad matches. Some occurred on all four boards.

• 19.939 editierte Partien aus dem Zeitraum April bis Juni
• größtes Turnier: Mumbai op (1. Krasenkow): 1096 Partien
• Schnellschach-Turniere in Yerevan (1. Aronian), Leon (1. Ivanchuk) und Odessa (1. Tregubov)
• Schnellschach-Matche Leko-Carlsen, Navara-Kramnik
• Kategorie 13 in Bazna (1. Short)
• NEU: CBM Extra mit Videos im Fritztrainer-Format
• je ein Video von Nigel Davies und Andrew Martin zum Trompowsky-Angriff