Mate in Two

The following Mate in Two problem is from Yusupov's Build Up Your Chess I, and I think it's the hardest mate in two problem I've come across so far.



I'm not going to give away the answer, but it's a good test of your ability to analyze a dense thicket of short variations.

Laszlo Polgar's Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games has a ton of mate-in-two problems in it, and I occasionally turn to a random page and try to solve some. Some of them are really devilish, and are good practice for practicing Kotov-like analysis (trying to analyze each branch of a variation once and only once).

I'm going to try and get a couple more chapters of Yusupov's book knocked out this afternoon.

I'm In the Driver's Seat

Encountered while surfing: the Advertising Slogan Generator. Here's one that was generated for me:

Everything We Do is Driven by Grandpatzer.

Enter a word for your own slogan:

Generated by the Advertising Slogan Generator. Get more Grandpatzer slogans.

Play around with it and let me know if one tickles your fancy (for me, or you, or whoever).

Mate Analysis from Yusupov's BUYC2

Just to give a taste of the level of Yusupov's book, here are the first 6 positions from Chapter 1, with my own, often flawed, analysis. It seems that I am capable of both relatively deep analysis and gross oversights.

I started off well, solving the first position with little difficulty (white to move):


1. Nf6+ Qxf6 2. Bh7+ Kh8 3. Bg6+ (key point: blocks Q from coming back to the defence) Kg8 4. Rh8+ Kxh8 5. Qh5+ Kg8 6. Qh7#

So, after calculating a mate-in-6 I felt pretty good going into the next position (Black to move):


This example revealed a couple weaknesses in how I analyze. First, the two most obvious candidate moves are 1...Qxd1+ and 1...Nf6+ (both the most forcing move possible: a check). I analyzed the latter move first, and when I arrived at a satisfactory answer I stopped there without analyzing 1...Qxd1+. I usually try to keep in mind the old advice "when you've found a good move, look for a better one". However, in tactical puzzles I've noticed a tendency to think, "oh I found the answer" and stop my analysis there when in a real game I would think a bit more.

I analyzed 1... Nf3+ and found that Black wins after 2. Bxf3, 2. Kh1 and 2. Kf1. However, after analyzing 2.Bxf3 I very quickly thought "and 2. Qxf3 is no different". However, 2... Qxd1+ 3. Qxd1 Re1+ doesn't work because of 4. Qxe1 (whereas after 2.Bxf3 and 3.B (or N)xd1 the e1 square isn't covered and 3...Re1 will mate. It's rather shocking that I dismissed 2.Qxf3 as leading to an identical result as 2.Bxf3 with about 1 second of thinking.

Correct is 1...Qxd1+, which the reader can work out leads to mate, e.g. 2. Nxd1 Nf3+ 3. Qxf3 Re1+ 4. Bf1 Rxf1#.

The next position I solved easily. White to move:


1. Qxf4 Bxf4 2. Rxh5 gxh5 3. Rxh5 *

I was then brought back down to earth in the next example. Curiously, I analyzed a double capture on h6 that failed, and missed a different capture on h6 that worked. White to move:


After 1.Rh8+ Kg6 I analyzed 2. Rxh6+ 2... Kxh6 (a secondary oversight: 2... gxh6 would also defend, but ...Kxh6 is stronger) 3. Rh8+ Kg6 4. f5+ exf5 5. Qh6+, which would mate except that there's still a g-pawn: 5... gxh6! -+

Correct, however, is 2. f5+ exf5 3. Qxh6+! because here after 3...gxh6 4. Rag8#

At this point I'm batting .500. I get the next position "half-right" (White to move):


The principal variation was clear to me: 1. Bxf6 Bxf6 2. Qxh7+ Kxh7 3. Rh5+ Kg8 4. Ng6 with mate to follow.

However, I had trouble with 1... gxf6. I calculated 2. Qg4+ Kh8 3. Rd3 Rg8 4. Nxf7#. Alas, 3...Nxe5!-+ defends, as well as 3...fxe5+/=.

The book solutions include both 2. Qh6 (which seems more straightforward, e.g. 2...Nxe5 3. Rh5) and 2. Rh5, e.g. 2...Nxe5 3. Rxh7 Ng6 4. Qh6. If instead 2... fxe5 (so the bishop defends after 3. Rxh7? Bf6), White has 3. Qf5!

I may charitably still been batting .500 after that example, but not after this position. Black to move:


This is another example where I had two moves to consider, and stopped after analyzing just one. I thought I had found a clever tactic with 1... Rh3, and indeed after both 2. gxh3 and 2. g3 Black mates. There was just one little problem: 1...Bxh3. On occasion, I overlook that bishops can indeed move backwards.

Yusupov mentions in the "Candidate Moves" chapter: "Accurately calculating over the distance of the first few moves is more important than the capacity to calculate long variations". This oversight certainly supports that remark.

Correct is 1...Nf3!, which leads to mate.

This should give the reader both an idea of the level of Yusupov's book, and the uphill battle I face in improving my ability to calculate.

Build Up Your Chess 2 by Artur Yusupov

Yusupov has turned a series of chess lessons from his chess academy into a series of books. The first book at the under-1500 Elo crowd; the second is for the 1500-1800 Elo players, and the third book will be for the 1800-2100 Elo level. I'm barely into BUYC2, but so far this book is promising to be just what the doctor ordered.

For a long time I've recognized that one of the most important exercises I should be doing is just analyzing tactical positions at a board, without moving the pieces. The first chapter of mating combinations seems to be tuned to just the right level of difficulty for my needs. However, I would also like to to check out a copy of the first volume as well, because from what I've read on the intertubes it should still be plenty challenging enough).

Unfortunately, I won't be taking this book with me on vacation because I don't want to be packing a chessboard with me. Yusupov is instructing the reader to analyze the positions over a board, write down your analysis, and play the positions out; I agree with that advice and want to use the book accordingly.

For now, I want to give an overview of the contents of the book. I intend to follow up soon with another post featuring some mating problems from the first part of Chapter 1. This is in part to give readers a feel for the level of the book, and in part because some of my mistaken analysis reveals some of my chess weaknesses.

The Table of Contents includes:

1. Mating combinations
2. General endgame principles
3. Combinations involving the back rank
4. General opening principles
5. The double attack
6. Good and bad bishops
7. Candidate moves
8. The centre
9. The pin and the discovered attack
10. Zugzwang
11. Deflection
12. The Greek gift sacrifice
13. Evaluating the position
14. Planning in chess
15. An opening repertoire for White after 1.e4 e5
16. Destroying the castled position
17. an opening repertoire against 1.e4
18. Exchanging
19. Priorities when calculating variations
20. Pawn endings 1
21. Decoying
22. Time in the opening
23. Improving the position of your pieces
24. Pawn endings 2

Plus a final test and recommended books.

Two features immediately strike the eye. The first is the large number and variety of topics, which spans opening, middegame and endgame; tactics, calculation, strategy and endgame technique. The second is the apparent randomness of the order in which the topics are introduced. The first is readily explained: it's the author's intent that, through this series of books, that a student get a well-rounded education and that any gaps in the player's knowledge be filled. As for the second issue, I suspect that there's method in the author's madness. If nothing else, given the length of each lesson (1-2 hours) it would be good to mix it up a little. Plus, some order can be seen in the progression. General opening principles are covered, then the center, then specific opening repertoires, then a discussion on the value of time in the opening.

I will be very interested in the opening material, since the author's approach to developing an opening repertoire seems to match my own. For example, "This is... only an example...You should prepare your repertoire according to your own chess tastes and style. It is very important that you should like and understand the typical positions which result from your chosen opening." I have only skimmed the future sections of the book, but I get the sense the approach taken to studying the opening is "teach a man to fish" rather than "give a man a fish".

I leave for vacation tomorrow, but I'm looking forward to working through this book when I return.

Winning a R vs. Knight's-Pawn Endgame

I recently had another of my obtain-crushing-advantage-then-screwing-up games. However, I managed to draw instead of lose because my opponent couldn't find the win in a R vs. P endgame. The analysis was interesting, because it showcases an interesting resource that is peculiar to knight pawns.


61...Rb2?= 62. g7 Rb7 63. Kh8 Rxg7 64. Kxg7 1/2-1/2

Instead, both 61...Kg5 and 61...Rh2 win for black. I find the former move the clearest, so I will use that move order.

61... Kg5 62. g7 (else 62. Kg7 Rf6) 62... Rh2! prevents promotion of the pawn 63. Kg8 Kg6 64. Kf8 threatens again to promote Rf2+! 65. Kg8:


65...Rf1

This is the key finesse: Black must capture the pawn via ...Rh7, not ...Rf7, to avoid stalemate: 65...Rf7?? 66.Kh8 Rxg7 is stalemate.

66. Kh8 Rh1+! 67. Kg8 Rh7 and the pawn falls.

After analyzing this game I found this same type of endgame covered in Muller and Lamprecht's Fundamental Chess Endings (Vaulin-Gashimov, Swidnica 1999 on p. 162). In that game, the attacker also missed the best sequence of moves and ended up drawing.

DKos Chess Tournament, Round 3

Not too much to add to the commentary in the Flash player for this one. I really like Black's 12th move, not because it was hard to find so much as just an interesting, tight cluster of mutually supported pieces and pawns.

The commentary to moves 15 and 17 show that this wasn't a stress-free game... I had faith in my ability to lose these types of advantages. I think my decision not to capture on h3 was practically best, no matter what Rybka thinks. White's remaining queen, bishop and rook make it look like nastiness could ensue against g7.

Current standing: 1.5/3

DKos Chess Tournament, Round 2

It's very rare for me to attribute the primary cause of a loss to my not trying, especially in a serious game. It was clearly the main factor in the following game.

It's interesting to see how the flash player handles variations. I have to make more use of this widget! For this game I'm going to let the widget do my work, and skip .jpg images of key positions.

1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. Bc4 Nf6

This is as far as my "1% repertoire" continues. I've finished a lean repertoire database that contains only positions I've encountered in at least 1% of my games. Up until this point I haven't studied King's Gambit lines much...they're not encountered frequently, and opponents don't typically play main lines. 4.Bc4 is the main move that I encounter here, and the only one in my 1% repertoire (another example of how, at lower levels, sidelines are actually main lines). It's not specifically addressed in Marin's Beating the Open Games, but is likely to transpose to the main line...

5. Nc3 Nc6 6. d3

...as it does here. However, in my database of 7000+ personal games, I've only encountered this tabiya twice! So, until now, I've been justified in not studying the main lines of this opening.

6...a6

...and here I don't recall my "repertoire" move 6...Bg4, which was played in the other two games. Now that I've finally encountered this game in a serious game for the first time, I'll spend some time reading over Marin's chapter on this opening and map out a main line. I intend to flesh out my "1%" repertoire by mapping out one main line for each variation.

Marin actually has some analysis of 6...a6 in the footnotes. The idea is to preserve the bishop against Na4. This is a common moves in openings such as the Guioco Pianissimo, but here it's costing a tempo that could be used for developing. Some of the lines I'll be investigating are included in the widget's annotations.

7. fxe5 (7. Rf1!? Marin) ... dxe5 8. Bg5 h6 9.Bxf6 Qxf6 10. Rf1


Essentially a novelty (one unrated game in my main database). Marin gives 10. Nd5.

10...Qd6=

Understandable, but not addressing the need to develop. 10... O-O is preferred by Rybka, who doesn't seem to mind castling into a minority attack. However, I would be inclined towards queenside castling.

I like 10... Bg4, e.g. 11. h3 Bxf3 12.Qxf3 (12. Rxf3 Qh4+ =/+) 12... Qxf3 13. Rxf3 Nd4 14. Bxf7+ Kd7 15. Rf2 Raf8 16.Rc1 Be7 =/+. However, because this line is still somewhat crazy tactically, 10... Be6 may be a better practical choice, e.g. 11. Bxe6 (11. Nd4?? Qh4+ -+) 11... Qxe6= (Rybka also likes 11... fxe6!?, which I find interesting...the doubled pawns take away key squares from White's knights).

11. Bxf7+?! -/+


Looks more dangerous than it is. At this point, however, I felt I had missed something and from this point on stopped trying--which is not like me at all.


11... Kxf7 12. Nxe5+ Ke8?! +/=

This move can't be explained. 12... Kg8!? is the obvious choice, even if it wasn't clear at the time whether Bxf7+ was "!" or "?". 13. Nxc6 is then probably the best chance for White. I would probably have played 13...Qxc6, deflecting the Q off of an important diagonal. Rybka prefers 13... bxc6 =/+.

However, 13. Nf7? would be a mistake: 13... Qxh2! -+ I think this is an example of where opening study can be helpful, not because knowledge of an exact sequence of moves would have helped, but because knowledge of a typical motif would help find the right move here. A Queen and Bishop ravaging the White kingside and creating mating threats appears as a common theme in the King's Gambit.

Even if Black didn't find this killer move after 13.Nf7?, a move such as 13... Qg6 would leave Black with a slight edge, e.g. 14. Nxh8 Kxh8. With the bishop pair offsetting a rook and two pawns, Rybka and I prefer Black. Black has an advantage in development; the white king is still stuck in the center; and White appears weak on the dark squares.


13. Qh5+ g6 14. Nxg6 +/- Black resigns??

Black resigned without even trying to find a solution. It would not have been hard, however, to find the following resource: 14...Bg4!, which would have allowed Black to play on. 15. Qxg4 Rg8 looks like it leaves Black a manageable game (B vs. three pawns). Rybka at this point initially evaluated the position as a modest advantage for White, but as I explored some variations it found a good continuation that leaves White with a distinct advantage: 16. Qh5! Rxg6 (16... Qxg6? 17. Qxc5) 17. d4!, e.g.17...Bxd4 18. O-O-O Qe619. Nd5 Kd7 20. c3!

Which is besides the main point: there was no need for Black to resign in this position.