Shredder/Chess Tutor Daily Chess Puzzle
I keep seeing "Morphy would have beaten Steinitz", which we will never know, but here is some food for thought, from Steinitz' International Chess Magazine of 1886: (Nov 1886 pp 333-335)
As usual I have my duty as a critic to perform, and all the editorial tomahawks that are raised by native and foreign savages, from the Pawn and move downward to the receivers of the Rook odds, with the kind intention of sacrificing the living on the shrine of the dead, will not deter me from it. To what I have said on the subject before, I may only add quite in conformity with the
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.??.??"]