Shredder/Chess Tutor Daily Chess Puzzle
|
|
Latest
This is a list of events from the ECC (green) and DCCA (brick) and DJCA (lime) Google Calendars
Recent additions
-
From a recent email
"The most important single feature of a chess position is the activity of the pieces... (opening, middle, and especially endgame)... The primary constraint on pieces' activity is the pawn structure."
-- Michael STEAN[Event "Merseyside League"] [Site "?"] [Date "2019.10.15"] [Round "?"] [White "Blades, Tony"] [Black "Webb, Tom"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A45"] [PlyCount "49"] [EventDate "2019.??.??"]
-
The Swiss Defence gets its name from Henneberger, a Swiss player who, among other games, tried it in a smul against Alekhin in 1925. He played strongly, and that may have alerted Alekhin to its potential:
[Event "Basel sim"] [Site "Basel"] [Date "1925.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Alekhine, Alexander"] [Black "Henneberger, Walter"] [Result "*"] [ECO "D63"] [PlyCount "106"] [EventDate "1925.??.??"] [EventType "simul"]
-
Anand's easy manner sits on top of a breathtaking attacking verve and capacity for creative counterplay.
Opening
The imaginative attacking finish seems to belong to an earlier era, while the opening play is all modern. The Scandinavian leads to an early release of central tension, and, if Black can develop smoothly, will have no problems. This line is an attempt to prevent Black from developing smoothly, and no end of rule-breaking goes on to that end.
[Event "Biel"] [Site "Biel"]
-
Carlsen often seems to win without doing anything in particular, but doing it very well. Commentators have tried to explain his peculiar gift by appealing to 'nettlesome' moves, moves that have no obvious dangers, but perhaps are surprisingly awkward to meet.
Opening
Carlsen, particularly when younger, has been noted more for his avoidance of sharp and theoretical lines, than having signature opening systems. He often seems content to aim for a 'normal' White plus in the opening, hoping to build on it later on, particularly in blitz.
-
We have entered an era where it is not always obvious what the best players are doing. They are better than previous generations, they play all positions well, and they are fighting against players who also do everything well, and what makes the difference is not apparent to me.
But while Kramnik's play is subtle and deep, there are games which makes it look as though what he is doing is as simple as it looks.
Opening
Kramnik brought to several apparently settled opening systems a new clarity in pursuing White's main plans. In the Grunfeld, it was White's
-
What can we learn from the play of the strongest player of the last century? His dynamism, industry, memory and willpower are all hugely impressive, but can they be imitated successfully at all? I guess each aspect of his game might inspire us, but there are instructive moments.
Opening
Kasparov had that restless drive for the initiative that we previously saw with Alekhin. I was horrified when he destroyed Hubner as Black in a line that I had seen as a fine way to suppress any Black initiative. I expect that, at bottom, this is a case of falling behind in development,
-
Karpov had a marked preference for positional play, although, in his own words, "if my opponent offers sharp play, I do not object." Karpov had no soft spots that anyone could discern -- an alleged weakness against 'romantic' openings was less of a handicap than the openings some chose against him.
Opening
Karpov has always embraced the need for deep preparation. Here he digs deep into a position that was all the rage at the time.
[Event "Montreal"] [Site "Montreal CAN"] [Date "1979.04.25"]
-
Boris Spassky became World Champion on the second attempt, defeating Petrosian in 1969 and losing his title to Fischer in 1972. He had something of a reputation of having a 'universal' style, able to play all positions well, but that is true of anyone who holds the crown of chess, and he has a marked facility with dynamic and attacking play.
Opening lessons
-
How do you play against the Hippo? It's all about Space and Potential. At risk of sounding like an estate agent, I propose to describe my limited understanding of these issues...
Space
All else being equal, it's an advantage to have more space. More space means you can get about the board more easily, organise an attack more easily, and sometimes all your opponent can do is sit tight while you work out how to win:
[Event "Top 10 endgames: "] [Site "Arnstadt"] [Date "1926.??.??"]
-
Mr.B and I have been looking at an interesting game called Camelot.
Camelot uses some of the ideas from chess and from draughts and was, in the words of its inventor, George S. Parker, “the best game in 2000 years”!
There are ‘men’ (pawns) and ‘knights’. Basic movement is like the King in chess, and capturing is more like draughts.
The GOAL is to place two pieces in the last two squares of your opponent’s side of the board (the CASTLE).
