Rambling thoughts of a chess minnow – an occasional series

By George Eraclides,

Ramble 1

Selecting a chess opening repertoire is always an issue for players and more so in cross-board where you do not have access to openings books while playing. If you try to pick something to unsettle your opponent, you must pick something that suits your style or at the very least, does not conflict with it. Otherwise you could end up outsmarting yourself.

In correspondence chess (CC) we are a little more fortunate. We can experiment a little and partake of the rich bounty of openings, to energise our chess.

Some players, even in CC, rarely vary their openings. In this way they develop a depth of knowledge, pattern-familiarity, which gives them an advantage. Modern chess with its emphasis on computer-assisted preparation has put a dent into that approach; your chess habits leave you open to deadly accurate counter moves prepared by an opponent. So some players change their openings to suit an occasion. Anand switched to d4 against Kramnik to deadly effect in their 2008 match. Some players think it is a good idea to refresh your chess with different openings now and then; get out of the rut, try something new which forces you to be creative.

The best approach is probably somewhere in the middle: you need to play openings that lead to set-ups you are comfortable with irrespective of what the canonical openings works say; you also need to have more than one ace up your sleeve so you can deal with problems that arise. In this respect, even the greatest of the great make mistakes. Kasparov in 2000 continued to persevere with e4 in spite of the fact that Kramnik had tamed this beast with the soporific Berlin defence to the Ruy Lopez. He admits this failure in one of his books (see Ramble 2, which reviews his book).

I volunteered to play in the match CCLA versus Belgium via the ICCF web server, where I am slotted into Board 14. Last time I played against anyone from Europe I struggled, lacking the databases and preparation of my opponents. This time I opted to play d4 as White, on the grounds that opening this way will lead to fewer surprises, and I will still be able to play attacking chess eventually. As Black I was in a quandary. What would I play against e4? A friend of mine has been extolling the virtues of the Caro-Kann. So safe you can give it to kids to play with. Then there’s the Sicilian, a fighting defence, but with so much concrete analysis subject to constant change, I did not feel up to the research task. My recent experience of e5 and symmetrical lines left me chastened (see Ramble 5 below). I decided I would play the French, a defence I play in CC and also cross-board. It suits my style which tends towards complexity and I also believe it is just as much a fighting defence as the Sicilian. The result is that as White I am playing the Taimanov attacking line in a Benoni; as Black I have an Nf6 variation in the French/Tarrasch. Battle is joined, complications have begun, lots of analysis to come. I’ll keep you posted.

Ramble 2

Just finished Garry Kasparov’s book (with Mig Greengard) ‘How life imitates chess: insights into life as a game of strategy’ (2007). From what I can tell, this book has had poor to mixed reviews, but this is only because it has been dreadfully misunderstood. Chess players expected up-front chess analysis and gossip, even chess-tips (what, no King’s Indian analysis?) while those after self-improvement found little they could use – there is not much new age spirituality, no clear guidelines to better relationships. And besides, the book does not have lengthy case-studies management-types can use, but rather short examples to reinforce the main ideas. And it is about strategic ideas. It must have been a difficult book to market outside, or even inside, the Republic of Chessia.

This book is actually a discourse on cognitive processes. Psychology and philosophy meet in the human mind, and is based on Kasparov’s vast chess experience. Presumptuous? Egotistical? Sure it is. So what? Kasparov’s achievements are incredible and unlike most great players (great anythings) he has reflected upon his success, the game itself, and its place in human culture. Can playing chess really represent how we think in life, and more importantly, how we should think? It sure can. It does it as well as any other real-life activity. Can I as an ordinary chess-player benefit from it? Yes, both in chess and in how I conduct my life. But I need to be smart about it. This is no ‘Idiot’s Guide to Better Thinking’; you will not be spoon-fed with techniques; you will instead be presented with ideas – abstract ideas – which are then discussed with some examples. Your job is to flesh out the ideas with examples from your own life, including chess-playing. The book has many sections subdivided into core ideas with pithy sayings (very Eastern, very Zen; Greengard?) and clear transitions to the next section or chapter. There are also end of chapter references to famous chess-players with the Kasparov ‘point-of-view’ summation. Incidentally, his respect for Karpov is evident in this book.

If you are not comfortable with abstract ideas, then you will find this book frustrating. It is not, however, an academic book; no turgid prose, no German-like sentences running on for pages and pages, no jargon. It is not wholly original – many of the ideas will be familiar to those who have studied psychology, philosophy, or even management theory. Originality is found in the chess foundation and scope of strategic methods he extracts from the game. I never realised I did all that kind of thinking when playing a game of chess. Succeeding in the game of life should now be easy.

I have been surprised by Kasparov. I misjudged him throughout the years he was playing. I assumed he was a very concrete, materialistic, thumper kind of chess-player. After all, you can work out what he is doing if you have some little ability and enough time (who does?). No high-falutin’, Nimzovich-like, abstractions in his games. What you see is what you get – and it’s made of concrete and coming your way. Refined positional chess, issuing mystically from the ethereal part of the mind, is not Mr. Kasparov. And yet, as a writer he brims with ideas which transcend chess but embrace it. He is a chess player who has left the old neighbourhood and wandered around to other places, seeing what there is which he can learn from and bring back, to enrich his life and that of any others who want to listen to or read him. A man who is curious about the world he is in, wanting to understand the game he has excelled in and those legends that have played it. His ego is involved in a big way, but then, as the Australian musical group Skyhooks put it long ago, ‘ego is not a dirty word’.

What I personally took from this book is that life, like chess, is full of uncertainty, and we have to try and make do with limited information, insufficient time to analyse a situation, or limited ability; in the end, if we are to have a go at life (or to just win a game) we have to trust our intuition and take a chance. Otherwise, don’t bother leaving the house or playing any game like chess. I must admit, I found this book more beneficial than his ‘Test of Time’ chess game collection, where the depth of annotations left me floundering.

But yes, Mr Kasparov, I promise that just in case, I will try and do more strategic thinking as well, before I have another go at life or chess.

Ramble 3

What a year! Aside from the normal ills the body and soul are heir to, my wife and I also lost our house and all belongings in the fires at Kinglake on February 7, 2009 (‘Black Saturday’). Which means, I also lost all my books, including my chess library. I also lost all my records of chess games from the pre computer-server days (for me, 1972-2001). The dilemma to be faced, is, how to replace what is lost. Do you bother?

I had copies of original Batsfords, Bells, McKays from the USA, modern specialist imprints, all the Dover chess books, informators, the CCLA Record going back to 1972, BCMs, Chess Life, NICs and much else. Books on openings, on endings, and even on the stuff in between! I had clippings of all the John Kellner Sunday Mirror chess columns on the Fischer-Spassky match of 1972. My wife calls it hoarding whereas I prefer to think of it as historical preservation. However, it must be admitted, all that paper made an excellent fuel source for the raging fires that decimated our area.

It is impossible to replace what is lost. While I had insurance, I was underinsured, as are most people (please check your own contents insurance against the actual value of what you have). We are rebuilding the house but to replace what I had in the lost editions is beyond my capacity. But some things have to be replaced in some form. So I prioritised and went for second-hand where possible. Books on the openings? They date badly, so forget it, except for a few: Nunn’s Chess Openings, the latest MCO (15), Watson on the French, and anything by Harding still gettable. Basic Chess Endings is a must - I managed to get a library copy on Amazon, updated by Benko, and I am already using it. Dover reprints of some classics I obtained via the Dover website; other player biographies, including recent players, via the used copies option on Amazon; the CCLA chipped in with a gift of collected games of Lasker (one of my favourite players) – many thanks to you all. Reinfelds and Chernevs of course – all used copies. Guides to chess principles and history? Yes, a few classics like Purdy, Nimzovich, Reti, Lasker. The Kasparov Predecessor series. A new subscription to Chess in Australasia, just to keep up to date with what is going on. In my professional capacity I work online and use computers a lot, but in the end, I am a paper and print man. Friends managed to find some games I had played online and sent them to me.

For the rest of it, I will stay on the hunt for what I may stumble across over the years. You never know. Some of your books may end up in the second hand bookshops if your wives or mothers have any say in the matter.

Ramble 4

Playing two wicked CC games against Mark Bruere of Yea. I lived in Kinglake before the fire when the games started and he is about 35 kilometres away, so we are practically neighbours. I have played Mark before and our games tend to be somewhat complex. This time, yours truly committed the classic blunder of chess-players – especially correspondence players: trusting the books! In my case, one book in particular, now consigned to the flames of Black Saturday. Zagorovsky’s ‘Romantic Chess Openings’ (Batsford) and the section on the 2 Knights.

Here are the moves with myself as Black: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5 c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Rb8 9. Bd3 h6 10. Ne4 Nd5 11. b3 g6 12.Bb2 Bg7 13. Qg3. It is only at this point that I actually took a good look at the consequences and realised my edition of the book must have had a series of misprints or Zagorovsky and his editor must have had a bad-hair day. Black is in a terrible state if he plays Nb4 as recommended in the book. So I continued 13...Nf4 and after 14. Qxf4!? exf4, it is still bad for Black, as I discovered when MCO 15 arrived in the post; I was actually playing a poor line listed but not recommended in MCO. What a dreadful time to show originality!

I have never had or used chess openings databases or such like. I dare say if I want to compete at a more exalted level I will have to become a mental cyborg and let the computer software do the research and thinking for me. And what will then be original in my game? Such that I could take pride in it as a creator of sorts? My computer is better than yours? I used the data more cleverly than you did? Maybe that is sufficient these days to qualify as good chess play. Using MCO or NCO is still research anyway, is that not so? Yes, I suppose it is, in much the same way that taking vitamins, managing nutrition, and training hard is like taking steroids in sports competition – preparation as a matter of degree. I still think something valuable has been lost in this post-computer age. I am glad to see the abomination of real-time, computer-assisted chess matches, has not taken off. Not one of your better ideas, Mr Kasparov.

Anyway, the other wicked game is a French Defence with me as White, where I have got the better of Mark with a Knight sacrifice. Hopefully there will be no glaring blunders in the rest of the game so I can submit it to the CCLA for a prize.

Ramble 5

How good will Magnus Carlsen become? Such a phenomenal talent, he seems to be maintaining and building on his early precociousness, unlike some other recent ‘wunderkinder’ who threatened to become truly great but remained merely gifted. Now the great chess phenomenon of the eighties and nineties, Gary Kasparov, is providing tutoring and mentoring of Carlsen. Already we see him playing the Scotch against Leko in the recent Nanking tournament and chancing his arm in the game much like GK used to do. Is it a good thing for Magnus Carlsen? A guarded yes; as long as the mature personality of Kasparov does not swamp the young Magnus who is still developing his own persona and style. He must remain a Carlsen rather than become Kasparov Mark 2.

As for me, I would be quite happy to be mentored by the great K – any of the great Ks, there have been so many of them. I’ll take being Kasparov Mark 2 or 102. It’s got to be better than being Eraclides Mark 1.