Questions of Modern Chess Theory

Last week I listed my resolutions for 2009. So the first book I will be going through, from cover to cover, is Isaac Lipnitsky's "Questions of Modern Chess Theory". The back cover says it's “the lost masterpiece of Soviet chess literature … Russian experts say it is one of the most influential chess books of the 20th century.” Boy, this has to be good right?

Well, I just saw that Chess Cafe posted a review, and reading it got me all excited about the book. I will be posting impressions as I go through it, but since I am just getting into it, I will quote a piece of the review for now. I chose the following partly because of the recent discussions on BDK's blog (and other places) about Watson vs. Aagaard, rule independence etc:

Chapter 7 (“The Concrete Approach”) is only seven pages long, but it may be one of the most important sections of the book. Lipnitsky demonstrates how dogmatic adherence to general principles can lead a player to defeat without his realization of what actually happened. “In any particular position,” he states, “the rejection of some laws (directives) merely makes way for the affirmation and success of others.” A player must be able to accurately assess, Lipnitsky states, “which laws – maxims, principles, rules – are valid in a given, specific case.” Here’s an excellent example, a practical case faced frequently:

It is White to move, and Lipnitsky addresses two opposite approaches regarding how White should capture the bishop on b3:

(a) The superficial, dogmatic decision: White must capture towards the centre with a2xb3, since c2xb3? would open up the king, which is on the same file as the black rook. Besides, after c2xb3? Black would be left with an easily won king-and-pawn endgame if all the pieces were exchanged. Therefore, a2xb3!.

(b) The concrete, creative decision: in this position the chief, determining principle is the all-out attack on opposite wings. In the event of 13.axb3? Nb4!, threatening Qd8-a5, Black obtains an extremely strong attack. On the other hand after 13.cxb3! Black’s attack is very hard to develop, despite the placing of the rook and king opposite each other (For example: 13…Nb4 14.Kb1!).

White for his part will be able to continue his successful storming of the opponent’s kingside. In these circumstances Black’s extra pawn in the centre has no special significance.

Thank you Chess Cafe for this detailed review. I am really looking forward to sinking my teeth into this classic and posting my own impressions. Stay tuned!

That Pile Next To My Bed

Not much posting going on here lately, mostly due to time constraints - you know, stuff like work, relationships, travel, etc. Anyways, over at Likesforest’s blog, he shared his current reading list, and I thought that was cool so I’ll do the same. These are the books that I am currently working trough:




Other bloggers have commented on Heisman’s Tactics book before, and if you haven’t read it, take a look at it. It covers all the tactics you need to know and working through it a couple of times will definitely pay off.

Jepser Hall’s Chess Training for Budding Champions has one of the dorkiest covers in my chess library, but I really like the book. It’s a great comprehensive chess course for the intermediate player that not only addresses the fundamentals (pawn structures, how to develop a plan, etc), but also talks about HOW to study.

Then there is Kasparov’s My Great Predecessors Part II, which one could spend a lifetime studying… it’s got material that is way over my head (and probably many masters’ heads), but I’m mainly using it to study Botvinnik’s games, which I have really come to love (thanks mostly to drunknknite).

Last but not least, I continue to work with Alburt’s Chess Training Pocket Book. I’ve commented on this book before, and I still think it’s one of the best little chess books out there, period. It’s very compact so I take it most everywhere I go, and the 300 positions offer great lessons – not just tactical lessons, but positional, endgames, etc. If I had to make a top 5 list of books in my library, this one would be on it. And I was really excited to see that a sequel is coming out soon!

Well, that’s about it for today. I’m hoping to put up some posts soon taking an in-depth look at Rybka 3, which is on its way into my greedy little hands. Stay tuned.

Here Are Some Beach Reads For You

In a comment to one of BDK’s recent posts, I mentioned some “historical” chess books that I enjoyed (you know, the kind that isn’t full of those annoying games and diagrams). He suggested that I turn that into a blog post and since he is a wise man, I am following his suggestion :) If you love chess and enjoy reading about the game and its origins, its famous protagonists with all their idiosyncrasies, and some crazy stories involving all sorts of crazy and not-so-crazy people, then don’t miss out on the following books.

Chess Bitch by Jennifer Shahade:
This book is mainly about women, stereotypes, and gender bias in the chess world. Shahade was US Women’s Champion in 2004 and has probably had the kind of exposure that puts her in a good position to comment on these issues. I believe this was her first book, and she clearly is no Shakespeare – but that wasn’t her goal I suppose. Shahade gives a good overview of strong female players past and present, provides entertaining anecdotes, and presents a lot of her own opinions and (often debatable) conclusions on topics such as women-only tournaments, the notion of “playing chess like a girl”, etc. The book could have been better organized, but I can say that it made for a very entertaining read.

End Game: Kasparov vs Short by Dominic Lawson:
This book is about the 1993 World Championship match between Kasparov and Short. The author is a friend of Short’s and it’s not surprising that a not-so-subtle anti-Kasparov tone prevails. I found this book to be absolutely fascinating. It’s full of drama, providing insights into the crazy mind games and psychological warfare on both sides, Short’s home preparation, and political nuances surrounding the match. Not to mention the ups and downs during the actual games. Highly recommended to any chess aficionado.

The Immortal Game by David Shenk:
This book traces the history of the game from its beginnings in Persia (ca. 500 A.D.) up to what it is today. Shenk is an excellent author and it shows in this very well written book. A very nice feature of the book is that Shenk sprinkles his chapters with the moves to the “Immortal Game” between Adolf Anderssen and Lionel Kieseritzky in London in 1851, so every now and then you get to enjoy a bite-sized portion of that classic game of the romantic era. The book’s sub-sub-title probably sums it up best: “"How 32 carved pieces on a board illuminated our understanding of war, art, science, and the human brain." Good stuff.

The Chess Kings by Calvin Olson:
This is by far the driest book of the lot, but if you want a pretty well-researched, scientific account of top level players, tournaments, and matches from the past and the present, this is it. The book provides an extensive bibliography, supplementary info, and a bunch of annotated games.

Bobby Fischer Goes to War by David Edmonds and John Eidinow:
The 1972 match between Spassky and Bobby Fischer was, without a doubt, the most notorious chess match ever. No other match has ever received the same kind of media coverage, and this duel sparked a chess renaissance not only in the US but other countries as well. After all, this was more than just a chess match – to many, it was a manifestation of the cold war. It was the single American chess genius against the mighty Soviet chess empire, trying to break the solid grip that Soviets had on the world champion title. This book was hard to put down. The authors did a great job conveying the tense atmosphere, the politics, the bickering, and Fischer’s antics. Don’t expect to see a lot of detail about the actual games – the book doesn’t provide that as the games have already been analyzed to death anyways. Bottom line – a very, very entertaining read.

King’s Gambit by Paul Hoffman:
As the sub-title to the book (“A Son, A Father, and the World's Most Dangerous Game") suggests, this book is part autobiography, part portrait of the crazy world of chess. The autobiographical part evolves around the author’s difficult relationship with his own father, tying it in with general observations about chess psychology. The book is full of colorful real-life characters (including Kasparov and many others), and there is no shortage of entertaining sub-plots – including a crazy trip to Libya for a chess tournament with spy-story-like qualities. I enjoyed Hoffman’s writing style, which you can get a taste of on his blog.

The Chess Artist by J.C. Hallman:
Another fun excursion into today’s world of chess. The author meets and becomes friends with a master, and the reader can follow them on a journey exploring chess culture in the US (including tournaments, hustlers in Washington square park, games on ICC etc). The focal point of the book is a trip to the Russian province of Kalmykia, whose president is Kirsan Ilyumzhinov – yep, the same guy that’s president of FIDE. While in Kalmykia, the two protagonists try to meet with Ilyumzhinov, who proves to be somewhat elusive. At the same time, they set out to explore the odd little “Chess City” built by Ilyumzhinov, with its crown jewel, the “Chess Palace” – a glass pavilion dedicated to nothing but chess. Overall, I found the book to be entertaining while at times it was a little “slow”. If I had to chose, I’d prefer “King’s Gambit” over this one, but if you’re addicted to chess (which you probably are if you’re reading this), I am sure you will enjoy “The Chess Artist”.

I'd love to hear other recommendations or opinions on these books.

Somebody please...

...keep me from ordering any more books.

Why Study Chess?

I found a PDF copy of Kasparov’s 1986 book “Kasparov Teaches Chess” (B.T. Batsford Ltd, 1986) and just read through the first few pages. I thought this was a really cool little glimpse into the soul of the greatest chess player ever, so I’ll provide it in full for your reading pleasure (emphasis mine). Keep in mind that he wrote this in the mid-eighties so his comment on computers is a little outdated :)

"The proposal by Sport in the USSR magazine to conduct a series of correspondence study sessions for their readers came as a surprise to me because I am still studying the subtleties of chess myself.

After some consideration I decided that to write about my understanding and interpretation of chess basics would also be useful for me.

I love chess. I have been in love with the game for many years and this love is for life. I study chess all the time and very thoroughly; nevertheless, while analyzing what I have done and in planning for the future I cannot help but be amazed at the inexhaustibility of chess and I am becoming even more convinced about its unpredictability. Judge for yourself; millions of games have been played , thousands have been written on various aspects of the game, yet there is no chess formula or method which can guarantee victory, there are no mathematically justified criteria for evaluating even a single move, let alone a position. Chess experts do not doubt that in most situations there is no more than one strong continuation and everyone chooses his own 'strongest' move guided by his own experience, evaluation abilities, even his own character. The possibility of using computers as consultants does not seem very serious at present since no algorithm of the game of chess has been found and there is no program which can deal reliably with complications. Why talk about details, situations and stages of the game at a time when there is no answer to the question 'What is the game of chess? Is it a sport? Or is it a science? Or an art?'

Some say: 'Chess players participate in tournaments and matches, they fight to win, the result is important for them - this means that chess is sport. It develops will power and helps strengthen oneself.'

How can one convince others of the correctness of the opinion of those who are amazed at the beauty of combinations and the logic of chess tactics; for whom a smart sacrifice of the queen in a lost game is a source of pleasure while a dull, forced game leaves them indifferent. For them chess is an art that brings happiness and makes leisure meaningful.

At the same time there are many chess enthusiasts who can spend night after night trying to solve one problem: 'Why did Black move the rook to d8 instead of the knight to c6? Why is Black's position better?' For them chess is mainly a science of logical thinking.

I love chess even more for its versatility and manysidedness. It was the beauty and brilliance of tactical blows that captivated me in early childhood. First, it was the admiration of this brilliance, then the search for it in my own games, later it was an attempt to play a beautiful game - these were the stages of my growth as a captive of the art of chess. But the time came when I began to compete with others, to take part in tournament after tournament, and this meant that I had set out on the path of sporting chess. I still enjoy playing beautiful games but I am not indifferent to whether I beat my opponents or end up way down in the standings.

I want to win, I want to beat everyone, but I want to do it in style, in an honest sporting battle. The former world champion Mikhail Botvinnik, whom I consider my chess teacher, is a chess academic, whose work helped to make chess a scientific subject. He developed my love for chess research and for solving innumerable problems. In my preparations for competitions, during my game analysis of openings, I suddenly discovered that I was trying to study thoroughly and methodically with a persistence which is typical of a researcher. I am convinced today that my affection for all aspects of chess will help preserve my love for it for the rest of my life.

My parents taught me the moves of the pieces when I was only five, and I was fascinated by them. One year later I was taken to a chess group at the Young Pioneer Club in Baku where I thought I found myself in a kingdom of chess players. Our instructor in his desire to convince the novices of the paradoxical character of chess set the following position on the board at one of the first sessions.



The position, where the small pawns were victorious over the enemy, was so surprising that it seemed like a fairy tale and I was unable to live without chess after seeing it. I have admired this position ever since.

I have loved to attack since childhood. I still like to be on the offensive. But it took a lot of time to study the basics, which do not seem to have any direct bearing on the game itself. I am convinced that it is necessary for both grandmaster and an amateur who wants to improve his game and get some pleasure from his play in tournaments. To achieve this high standard of play the grandmaster has spent thousands of hours studying hundreds of games. His talent would not have developed without this amount of work. If you like to play chess but do not have enough time for an independent study of it, but want to beat your friends, you will have to spend dozens of hours over the chessboard."

What do you think?

New Neil McDonald Book

I've enjoyed the Neil McDonald's books I've read so far, so I will probably buy his new one as well.(it'll be out March 4th) Making a coherent plan is something that I still find challenging at times, so I hope this book will offer some pearls of wisdom :)

What to Read While Waiting for Santa

I will be traveling over the holidays so now the time has come to decide which books to take with me. The beauty of having a shelf full of chess books (including quite a few unread ones) is that you have lots of options. Right now, I think I will take the following books with me: Nimzowitsch’s My System (I’ve read it once, but it has been a while and I think it deserves to be read again with renewed focus), Renaud & Kahn’s Art of Checkmate (that way I have some nice and entertaining attacking games to study), Blokh’s Combinative Motifs (so I can continue my daily tactics regimen while being away from PCT) and last but not least, one of my books on the Queen’s Gambit to work on my repertoire. I figure these four books will keep me happy and busy while I wait for the dude in the red costume.

Damn You, Chess Books!

I am weak... I just can't stop myself from buying chess books. So the new additions to the family are Silman's Complete Endgame Course (I fully blame BDK for this purchase, not myself, no sir!), Blokh's Combinative Motifs (the book that CT-Art is based on. I figured I'd get this for the many times I find myself on planes), and then these two:

The Grandmaster's Mind by Amatzia Avni and Inside The Chess Mind by good old Jacob Aagaard (his books seem to polarize people).



I bought these last two books because I am thoroughly enjoying the book I'm currently reading, Chess for Zebras. While one Amazon reviewer thought it was a bunch of "pop psychology", I find it to be a very enjoyable read on chess improvement with some refreshing perspectives. So I figured I'd give the above books a try since they have somewhat related subject matter.

Game Collections

I just posted this link in a comment on BDK's blog, but then I thought it's worth a little post of its own just to share it with anyone that happens to stop by my humble blog. If you own Chessbase software and are looking for game collections, positions from popular books etc, you'll find plenty of good stuff on that site. All collections are in Chessbase's CBH format.

And here is another site with lots of PGN files, sorted by player, event, or opening.

More Books

The mailman just brought me two new books - Larry Christiansen's "Storming the Barricades" and Rowson's much praised "Chess for Zebras". I'll provide some thoughts on the books once I've taken a closer look.

Nothing like a nice Saturday afternoon with new additions to my chess library :)