23 lines

I was thinking about how little opening theory can be applied to my games, so I conducted a little exercise with Chessbase and a database of about 7000 of my games (most from ICC). I constructed an opening tree consisting only of positions that I would expect to face as White in 1% or more of my games.

The result is shockingly small: 23 variations, with none longer than 6 moves.

Because I'm in the middle of an online tournament, I don't want to reveal too much of my repertoire, but just breaking down the percentages after 1.e4:

1...e5 44.6% (My mainest of main lines continues past move 5 just under 1% of the time!)
1...c5 16.0%
1...e6 9.0%
1...d5 5.9%
1...c6 4.6%
1...d6 3.3%
1...g6 1.7%
1...Nf6 1.6%
1...b6 1.4%
1...Nc6 1.1%

The data is somewhat skewed. My database of 7000 or so games goes back 12 years or so, and I only counted positions that I would face in my current repertoire. I've been quite faithful to my repertoire over those years, but there are notable exceptions (I used to play the exchange Spanish, and I avoided the open Sicilian with c3 or Bg5 systems for much of that period). In my current repertoire, no Sicilian line has been seen past move 5 more than 1% of the time! I need to see if I can do some sophisticated filtering to separate out the games that agree with my current repertoire.

The data also shows that at lower levels of play, "minor" variations actually become major. For example, in the Ruy Lopez the Steinitz, Cozio and Bird variations are now "major" lines to contend with.

My repertoire database has been getting a bit weedy, so I may start a leaner, meaner repertoire database using just these 23 lines, and making sure that I map each main line out several moves further. I can repeat the exercise for my Black games, although there I expect an even stubbier tree of variations because White gets to vary with the first move. The goal is to declare a chunk of theoretical turf where I know anything outside its boundaries is encountered less than 1% of the time.

DKos Chess Tournament, Round 1

I'm taking part in an informal online tournament organized by the Daily Kos community. Apparently Mig Greengard caught wind of this, so there are actually prizes to be had, including a book autographed by Kasparov. I doubt I'll win anything, but you never know.

Here is my first round game, where I had White. The time control was 30 minutes...no incremental, no "insufficient losing chances" appeals to an arbiter. Rybka found a lot of interesting variations throughout the game, but I'm going to try and focus on key moments. Also, I may get some traffic from players that are new to the game, so I'll try to elaborate more on certain concepts that are unfamiliar to newbies. I'll also have a summary list of take-home lessons at the end of the game.

For those unfamiliar with chess annotation symbols such as "?!" or "+/=", I direct you here.

FreeRadical - FightingRegistrar [B35]

DKos Tournament (1), 16.06.2009

[Rybka 3 32-bit (120s)]

Rybka 3 is the name of the analysis software I used to help me analyze the game.

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6

I'll have some commentary on the opening because I'm a bit of an opening wonk. I want to re-emphasize for the Kossacks that, for most of us, studying openings in depth isn't the best use of our chess time....but I enjoy it.

The "Accelerated Dragon". A standard Dragon inserts 4...Nf6 5.Nc3. When Black omits 4...Nf6 in the Sicilian, it can allow White to play 5.c4, leading towards a "Maroczy Bind" position. The pawns on e4 and c4 tend to cramp Black's game. In Beating the Sicilian 3 by Nunn and Gallagher, this is the approach they choose for White. I find the weakness of a1 and b2 early in the opening uncomfortable, but I should look into these positions more.

In Winning with the Fischer-Sozin Attack by Gary Lane, the author advocates Bc4 and kingside castling against dragon systems. This is the approach taken in this game.

5.Bc4 (5.c4 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3 0–0 8.Be2 d6 9.0–0 Bd7 10.Qd2 is the Maroczy Bind main line) 5...Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.Nc3

7...0–0 So far the main line of this variation. I have 5572 games with this position in my reference database.

7...Nxe4 8.Nxe4 d5 is the "center fork trick" that White has to keep in mind. Here it fails for Black: 9.Bb5 dxe4 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Bxc6+ Bd7 12.Bxa8.

8.Qd2 A stereotyped move in these Dragon positions, but not the choice of Grandmasters. 8.Bb3 (avoiding the center fork trick) is the main line, e.g.: 8...d6 9.h3 transposing into a regular (i.e. not accelerated) Dragon.

8...a6 The center fork trick 8...Nxe4! works now, e.g. 9.Bxf7+ (9.Nxe4 d5) 9...Rxf7 10.Nxe4. Black isn't "winning" but does have the bishop pair and a central (albeit hanging) pawn pair. White has a developmental advantage and fewer pawn islands. 9.0–0N ("N" stands for "novelty", meaning we finally have reached a position that's not in my database of about 3.6 million games) 9...b5 10.Bd3 Bb7

11.Rae1 11.f3 was considered during the game. Rybka likes it, but the weakening of the a7-h2 diagonal is unattractive. Also, a long-term consequence of pushing the f-pawn in these positions is that, if Black succeeds in penetrating the queenside (typically down the c-file), he can then sweep towards the kingside down the second rank. In such cases a pawn on f2 often provides important shelter. As an aside (because it was referred to in the DKos open diary), Bc4 and f3 are most commonly associated with queenside castling, in the Yugoslav Attack main line of the Dragon.

11...Ng4 Usually, if White has played this opening properly, ...Ng4 is either prevented with f3 or h3, or is allowed when Bf4/g5 is possible. White does not want Black to capture the e3 bishop if it can be helped. 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 13.Bf4 Qa5

This was the "oh, crap" moment for me, because now it appears that I can't avoid a shattering of my queenside pawn structure. Rybka, however, found a solution.

14.a3?!

Rybka found 14.Nd5! Qxd2 (14...Qxa2 15.Nxe7+ Kh8 16.b3 Qa3 17.Nd5+/=) 15.Nxe7+ Kh8 16.Bxd2 Bxb2= Both sides now have isolated pawns on half-open files.

14...Bxc3 15.Qxc3 Qxc3 16.bxc3=/-

The isolated doubled pawns on the c-file are ghastly. However, White does have the bishop pair. For a while, Black's N is offside and the bishop pair helps White stay alive. For those new to chess: a pair of bishops is usually considered an advantage, but a small one (about half a pawn). For more information on tallying the relative values of the pieces, see this article.

16...Nf6 (16...f6 17.c4= Rybka) 17.f3 Rac8

I now wanted to repair my queenside pawns, but I chose the wrong way. 18.a4?! Instead, 18.c4! looks best to me. It gets rid of one pawn off the c-file, and the remaining pawn can be backed by a rook and advanced. Rybka shows that complications can be found by Black, however: 18...bxc4 19.Bxc4 Bxe4!? 20.Bxa6 Ra8 21.fxe4 Rxa6 22.e5 Nd5 23.Rd1 with an unclear position to me. 18...bxa4 19.Bxa6

My plan was to offset pressure down the c-file with my own pressure down the a-file. However, Black isn't so much defending his a-pawn as attacking with it. The passed pawn is very dangerous and much more easily advanced than White's doubled, but not passed, c-pawns. The constellation of pawns on the queenside actually gives Black a space advantage. White will be cramped trying to attack the a pawn and defend the c pawns at the same time.

19...Ra8 20.Bc4 Actually at this point having three loose pieces on the c-file bothered me a lot. I was worried about ...Rfc8, and Rybka agrees. Rybka prefers 20.Bd3 d6, but I felt at the time I needed my bishop on the a2-g8 diagonal to help manage Black's passer. 20...Ra5 (20...Rfc8!?-/+ Rybka] 21.Be3 Thinking of using the two bishops to cause problems for Black's rook(s) on the a-file (21.Ba2 Rybka) 21...a3 (21...Rc8! Rybka) 22.Ra1 Rybka has more faith in White's defence at this point than I do, and considers this position roughly equal. 22...Rfa8

23.Rfb1 Rather than doubling rooks on a1 and a2, which seems futile, I wanted to keep one rook active. I felt that a rook on the b file could alternate between attacking the a pawn, defending a c pawn, and possibly creating other threats such as back-rank mates. 23...Ne8 (23...d5!? is given by Rybka), but activating the knight makes sense) 24.Bb6 Ra4 25.Rb4 trying to tempt Black into undoubling my c-pawns (25.Bb3 R4a6 26.Bc4 might lead to a draw by repetition as well) 25...Nd6 (25...Rc8!? Rybka: 26.Rxa4 Bxa4 27.Bd3 Rxc3 28.Ra2=)

26.Bb3

Over the board I couldn't see through the complications after 26.Rxa4, which Rybka prefers: 26...Bxa4 (‹26...Rxa4 27.Bb3 Ra8 28.Bc5±) 27.Bd5 Rc8=

26...R4a6 27.Bd4 simultaneously protecting the c-pawn and indirectly preventing a2 27...Nb5 (27...a2? 28.Rxa2 Rxa2 29.Bxa2 Rxa2?? 30.Rb8+ Nc8 31.Rxc8#) 28.Kf2 I was willing to give up the bishop pair to get rid of the active N and fix my pawns 28...d6 29.Bc4 Pressing the issue 29...Rb8

In several variations in the next few moves (omitted for brevity), I saw Rybka taking advantage of the fact that the knight is pinned to the b8 rook (e.g. Be3 is possible without dropping the c3 pawn). I was aware of some of the possibilities but did not appreciate at the time how valuable an asset this was. 30.Rb3 e5 31.Bxb5? I was worried that at some point the knight would be unpinned and become dangerous, but this is a premature release of the tension. White has given up the bishop pair and simplified the position. I think this should be a black win as long as an opposite-coloured bishop endgame is avoided.

For the novices: endgames with just pawns and opposite-coloured bishops (one on light squares, the other on dark) are the easiest for the defender to draw. In a nutshell, you can always defend with more force than the attacker, so for example your bishop and king can blockade passed pawns on, say, dark-coloured squares and be impervious to a light-squared enemy bishop.

31...Rxb5!-/+ 31...Bxb5 seems OK for White after either 32.Be3 or 32.c4. 32.Be3 Rba5? Rybka is adamant over the next few moves that "passed pawns must be pushed":...a2! 33.c4?! Rybka blockades the pawn with 33.Ra2! In the game I didn't like putting both rooks on the light diagonal, but Rybka is ok with it: 33...d5 and White just avoids …34.exd5?? Bxd5. 33...Ra4 (33...a2!)

34.c5? Finally getting rid of the doubled pawns, but Rybka considers this a clear error (34.Ra2!) 34...dxc5! 35.Bxc5 a2! 36.Rb2 Rc4 I think better choices include centralizing the King, advancing the f-pawn, and (my favorite) cycling the B to e6 via d7 to overprotect the pawn and commence working on another weakness. 37.Be3 Rca4

38.Bh6 At the time, I thought encouraging ...f5 and trading some kingside pawns would be advantageous. Actually, I think that gives Black further play options, e.g. creating another passer. At this point, however, all of White's options seem poor. Rybka initially liked 38.Bc5, but on further analysis seems no better: 38...Bd7 39.g4 Be6 40.Rb8+ Kg7 41.Bf8+ Kf6 42.h4 g5 43.hxg5+ (43.h5? Ra8 44.Rxa8 Rxa8 45.Bb4 Rb8 46.c3 Bc4 47.Ke3 Rd8 48.Kf2? Rd2+ 49.Kg3 Rb2) 43...Kxg5 38...f5 39.exf5 gxf5 40.Kg3?

I was thinking of penetrating with the K to grab loose pawns...if the 4th-rank barricade could be lowered. 40...Kf7?

Rybka, however, found a very interesting set of lines that gave Black a clear advantage, based on threatening to trap White's bishop with 40...f4+! I started to analyze these lines, but it gets rather complicated. However, given that White was under time pressure this complication would have been very uncomfortable.

41.c3? 41.c4! Without going into too much analysis, this provides a wrinkle in the line 41...f4+ 42.Kf2 The c4 pawn prevents ...Bd5, so Black's bishop gets in the way: 42...Bd7 (42...Ba8 43.Bg5 Rc6 44.Rbxa2 Rxa2+ 45.Rxa2 Bb7 46.Ra7) 43.Bg5 and the B can escape.

41...Kg6 (41...f4+!) 42.Bf8 e4 43.fxe4 fxe4

44.Rb4? Rybka considers this an outright error leading to a losing position. I think simplification helps Black, but at the time I wanted to get closer to an opposite-coloured bishop endgame. [44...Rxb4–+ 45.cxb4 Ra4 The move that bothered me was 45...e3! , since the king can't get in front of the pawn]. 46.Bc5 (covers both b4 and e3) 46...Kf5!–+ 47.Kf2 Ke5

48.g4 trying to get some counterplay as my clock is getting low on time. After losing several endgames because my opponent's pawns on one wing were further ahead than mine, I've come to appreciate such advances. In this game it turns out that my advanced kingside pawns save me. 48...Kd5 49.h4 Kc4 50.Ke3?! Kb3?! (50...Ra3+! Rybka. The rook on the third rank is powerful) 51.Bd4? The time crunch is taking a toll. It wasn't neccessary to give up the pawn. White could have continued with 51.g5, e.g. 51...Kb2 52.Bd4+ 51...Rxb4 g5

52...Ka3?? 53.Bc5!= White doesn't win the exchange because of his own weak rook. However, the resulting endgame should be a draw, even though White must give up the bishop to do so. 53...Kb2 54.Bxb4 Kxa1 55.Bc3+ Kb1

56.h5! Rybka had a hard time seeing that this leads to a draw. When you've used computers enough you realize that there are positions where they have difficulty "looking over the horizon" and need to be coaxed along. I had to drag Rybka through the variations kicking and screaming before it would agree. a1Q 56...Be8!? was Rybka's move, but the computer took a while to find that 57.g6! draws, e.g. 57...Bxg6 (57...hxg6?? 58.h6+-) 58.hxg6 hxg6 59.Kxe4= 57.Bxa1 Kxa1

58.g6! I was desperately short on time here. For a while I thought that maybe I should have pushed h6 first and then g6, but that doesn't work because of 58...Be8-+. 58...hxg6?? My opponent felt that 58...h6 was the move he should have made. Rybka agrees but still doesnt' see a win for Black. 59.Kd4! actually threatens to win for White by taking d5 away from the defending bishop: 59...Bd5! (59...Kb2 60.g7+-) 60.Kxd5 e3! 61.g7 e2 62.g8Q e1Q and if anything White should have the advantage in this queen endgame, but it's complicated and White would probably lose on time. 59.h6+- now White technically has a win, but only seconds on the clock. 59...g5 60.h7 g4 61.h8Q+ Ka2 62.Qc3 Ba4 63.Qd4 63...Bc2 64.Qd5+ 64...Kb2 65.Qg5 g3 66.Qxg3 Kb3 67.Qb8+ 67...Ka2 68.Qa7+ There are many forced mates in this endgame. I'll just show one mate in 4, because that's at least possible to see with about 15 seconds on the clock remaining: 68.Kd2 Bb3 69.Kc3 Ka1 70.Qxb3 e3 71.Qb2# 68...Kb1 69.Qc5 Kb2

70.Qxc2+ [70.Kd2 e3+ 71.Qxe3 Bb3 72.Qb6 Kb1 73.Qxb3+ Ka1 74.Qb4 Ka2 75.Kc1 Ka1 76.Qa3#] 70...Kxc2 71.Kxe4 ½–½ Draw forced with 3.6 seconds left on the clock.

Themes this game:

• the center fork trick (moves 7-8)
• using piece exchanges to weaken an opponent's pawns (moves 14-16)
• the bishop pair (annotation to move 16)
• "passed pawns must be pushed" (moves 21-35)
• the pin (moves 29-31)
• opposite-coloured bishops (annotation to move 31)
• entrapment (moves 40-41)
• advancing pawns as endgame insurance (move 48)
• the skewer (move 53)

Pawn Breakthrough

Here's the second recent endgame of mine that I thought was instructive. Don't panic, though...it's not nearly as complicated as that last rook endgame.

I've noticed that I have trouble with breakthroughs in pawn endgames. I think it's part blindness, part the avoidance of calculations, and part unwillingness to muck up my tidy pawn chains.

I entered into a pawn endgame where I, as black, had a pawn plus and the opposition.


However, after White played 49.Ke2-d2!?, Black can't win through opposition alone. In some endgames the attacker keeps re-seizing the opposition, pushing the defending king back and finally grabbing material. However here, after 49... Kf3 50. Kd3 for example, White takes the opposition, and after my 49...Kf4 White could have kept up resistance with 50.Ke2!? and repeating the position. Instead, he let me take the opposition and win with the usual opposition technique: 50. Kd3 Kf3 51. Kd2 Kf2 52. Kd3 Ke1 53. Kc2 Ke2 54. Kc1 Kd3 55. Kb2 Kd2 0-1.

The fact that opposition alone here shouldn't win should have been more obvious to me at the time. The following is a classic position of this nature. Black to move:


1...Ke7!=

However, in my game Black still wins in several lines by the breakthrough ...b4! For example, after 49.Kd2:


49... b4! 50. axb4 (50. cxb4 allows Kxd4) 50... a3 51. Kc2 a2 52. Kb2 Kd3 and after White captures the a-pawn Black gobbles all of White's remaining pawns and wins.

I tried to find a similar pawn endgame in my reference books, and also by ChessBase posistion searches, but couldn't find anything. I think this highlights how complex pawn endgames can be...only 4 pawns versus three, and yet this structure may be unique. ChessBase's search functions can be quirky, however. For example, if I searched my blog database, I could find this game using the position, or using the material count, but not both. Weird.

Two Killer Apps for the iPod

Months ago I looked into chess applications for my iPod Touch and didn't find anything that grabbed me. I checked again this last weekend and found two I was quite pleased with. One is free, and one is ten bucks. Which is for you?

Glaurung is the free chess app. You can vary its playing strength on a scale from 0 to 100. You can play against it or analyze with it (best line only shown), and can set up positions. There are several different preset time controls, and you can tweak other options such as permanent brain, play style, and book variety. One advantage that Glaurung has is that it can save games or load them from a .pgn file. I have no idea where this .pgn file is located, or if it syncs to your computer, but it at least means you can save games.

Shredder has an app available for $10. What do you get for your money? First, you can vary the play strength from 850 to 2400 Elo (I can't independently verify the accuracy of its Elo scale, but I like it better than Glaurung's 0-100). It can also be set to automatically adjust its rating to your level as you play games. You can adjust its play style, and can turn on a coach feature. The one main drawback to Shredder is that, at least in the current version, you cannot save your game. However, you can email it.

One final edge that Shredder has is that it has a database of 1000 test positions built into it that you can solve. The points you get for each puzzle depends both on accuracy and speed of solving. I like this feature a lot, although for some of the positions it says "you have solved this puzzle" after getting the first few moves correct, when I would still like to see a few moves further into the solution. this isn't a big deal, though, because you can stop the quiz and select "play this position".

So far my conclusion is: Shredder has the advantage if you're looking for a program to play against. The Elo rating with a sliding scale and automatic adjustment to match your play level is a nice feature, and I really like the puzzle feature. However, if you want to be able to save your games (e.g. if you don't have email access and can't email the game to yourself), or if you're thrifty, Glaurung is really quite nice. Both look attractive, and both appear to be hideously strong (I'm worried about the consequences this technology will have on tournament play). If you're serious about chess, and can already afford an iPhone or iTouch, then I don't think you'll regret purchasing Shredder...but you can download Glaurung first and then decide if you really want or need more.

Instructive Rook Ending

First: a shout out to chunkyrook. His endgame posts helped get my gumption level up to posting some endgame analysis of my own. I also rather liked this example of seizing a file...a fairly simple idea, yet one that was new to me.

Sometimes I get a basic ending that I thought I knew reasonably well , and then after analyzing it I realize how much of endgame play is still mysterious. I had two such instances recently where the analysis was instructive. Here is the first, which should have a dead-drawn R+P vs. R endgame. I was black:



I had just captured on c5. The defending king is able to get in front of the pawn, which should be an easy draw. A rule of thumb in 1-pawn rook endgames is the "Rule of 5": if the number of the rank of the pawn, plus then number of files the defender's king is cut off, is greater than 5 then the side with the pawn wins. There's exceptions but it beats assessing a position by coin toss. With a pawn on the third rank (counting from Black's side) the defending king would have to be cut off by 3 files to be winning according to the Rule of 5. Here, you don't even need to invoke the rule: the king isn't cut off at all and is free to get in front of the pawn, so this should be a cakewalk for White. However, after 76. Kd3 Rc1 77. Ra4 Kb5 78. Rh4 c5 79. Kd2 Rg1 80. Kc2 Rg3 81. Rf4 c4 82. Rh4 Kb4 83. Rh8 (threatens a series of checks from the rear, a theme of the Philidor position we are arriving at) Rg2+ 84. Kc1 Kc3 85.Rh3+ Kb4:



This should be a dead drawn Philidor position. For those unfamiliar with this ending, the Philidor position is one of the standard defensive techniques. All White has to do now is keep his rook on the third rank (e.g. 86.Rf3), which prevents White from getting their king ahead of the pawn. If Black delivers checks from the side, the White king just bounces between c1 and c2. If Black tries to make progress by advancing the pawn, White can play the rook to the 8th rank and deliver endless checks from the rear. If this drawing method isn't familiar to you, it's one of the first rook endgames you'll want to study.

However, my opponent played 86. Rh4?-+, probably thinking this prevented advancement of the pawn because of the pin. However, 86... Kb3 is now a win for White--but only barely! The king can use the pawn as shelter against a check on the 3rd rank. After 87. Rh8, a critical position has been reached:



87... Ra2?= If the pawn were on c3, and White was passively defending with a rook on the first rank, ...Ra2 would be involved in the winning line. This method of playing against passive defense is another basic rook endgame, but that's irrelevant to this position. Short on time, and with a 12-second increment on the clock, I was going with my gut at this point.

There is only one winning move here: 87... Rg1+! and it turns out that after 88. Kd2 c3+ white wins:



For example 89. Kd3 Rd1+ (89...Rg3+ also wins) 90. Ke3 c2 91. Rb8+ Ka4 92. Ra8+ Kb5 93. Rb8+ Ka6 94. Ra8+ Kb7.

I have not seen this winning method in any of my endgame manuals, yet it seems important. If anyone has seen this covered before, can you let me know where?

The game continued 88. Rb8+ Kc3



89. Kb1! Well played. This ending appears similar to one covered in Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual as well as (if memory serves) Soltis' Grandmaster Secrets: Endings. Dvoretsky mentions Philidor's "second defensive method": if the rook can't occupy the cutoff rank, it should place itself behind the pawn. The king goes to the "short side" of the pawn (i.e. the side with less space between the pawn and the edge of the board...in this case the left side). Because the defending king is on the "short side", the attacking king is on the "long side" and if it tries to squeak out the long side it can be subjected to checks from the side.

89...Rh2 90. Rd8 This also draws, but 90. Rc8 is the thematic "attack the pawn from the rear" second defensive method. After 90.Rd8, White needs to be careful. 90... Rh1+ 91. Ka2 Kc2 (if the defending rook were on c8, this move would just lose the pawn to Rxc4)....



92. Rd7?-+

Now we see why the "short side" defence is an important resource. Because White's rook didn't stay behind the pawn, it is able to advance. Now the only way to draw is from side checks, e.g. 92. Rg8! (or 92.Rf8!) 92...c3 93. Rg2+ (93.Rg3 also draws) and if 93...Kc1 94. Kb3.

After 92.Rd7? there are still a few tricks involved in winning the endgame. 92... Rh5 wins, but the endgame tablebases reveal this shorter and sneakier winning line: 92... Rh8! 93. Ka3 c3 94. Rc7 Ra8+ 95. Kb4 Kb2!!



with the point 96. Rxc3 Rb8+ 97. Kc4 Rc8+ wins the rook. This appears to be an important resource. Several of the lines I analyzed in this endgame resulted in this position.

93. Ka3 Rc5?=


This allows checking from the side. It turns out the only winning move is 93... Rh3+! 94. Ka2 (94. Kb4 c3 95. Rc7 Kb2 is the sneaky win mentioned above) 94... Rh8 and wins.

94. Kb4?-+ (Many moves draw, but 94. Rh7 with the idea of checking from the side appears simplest, e.g. 94...c3 95. Rh2+)

94... Rc8! Now rook behind the pawn wins. Black can advance the pawn and use it as a shield from side checks. 95. Rd4 c3 96. Rh4 Kc1 (96... Kb2 is shorter) 97. Rh1+ Kb2 98. Rg1 c2 99. Rg2 Kb1 100. Kb3 c1=Q 0-1

Even the simplest rook endgames are difficult to play perfectly. Familiarity with the basic positions (e.g. Lucena/Philidor) and concepts (checking distance; Rule of 5; playing the king to the short side; defending via repeated checks from rear/side/front) help guide you in the right direction (86.Rf6; 89.Kb1!; 94.Rh7 etc.). However, sometimes there's no substitute for calculation (87.Rg1!).

Fine's Description of Chess Masters

I found A Passion for Chess by Reuben Fine at a used book store. I've only played through a few games in it so far (I'm currently working on a collection of Alekhine's games), but I've really enjoyed them so far. I've never paid much attention to Fine or his writings in the past, although I noted while playing through the games of Nottingham 1936 that he shared joint second with 9.5/14 (Capablanca and Botvinnik won with 10/14; Alekhine was at 9/14).

He ultimately chose a professional career in psychology over chess. In one interesting passage, he categorizes the masters of the day into pure chess professionals and dabblers:

In the period from 1935 to 1938 I had come to know all the leading masters of the day personally. There were two types of master: one whose primary interest was in some other field, and who played chess chiefly as an intellectual exercise; the other the pure professional. Among the leading players the former type was more common; the pure professionals, surprisingly, were often second-raters. Lasker thought of himself primarily as a philosopher and a mathematician, though he did make a living at chess for a while. Capablanca was in the Cuban Diplomatic Service. Euwe was a mathematics instructor and assistand principal of a high school in Amsterdam. Vidmar was an eminent authority on electrical engineering; Botvinnik, who was in the same field, used to say admiringly that he would give up half of his chess skill to do what Vidmar had done in electrical engineering. Edward Lasker in this country is a well-known engineer; he invented the breast pump.

I was always struck by Edward Lasker's tournament photos. The expression was of someone daydreaming about something pleasant, with a gentle-yet-odd smile. Perhaps like many professionals he had a hard time getting work off his mind.

Fine continues:

The pure professionals, even in Europe where they got along better, were most uneasy about their status, and sometimes acted in a most offensive manner. Alekhine is perhaps the best example; he was a very sadistic individual, who became a Nazi sympathizer during the war. Bogoljubow had some of his rivals put in concentration camps by the Nazis when they arrived on the scene in Germany. But there were also many pure professionals who were quite attractive as personalities. Tartakower was a learned, witty, and amiable gentleman. The Englishman Winter was a most unusual and colorful man. Both of these could have done well in any number of other fields.

A famous quote of Bogoljubow's is: "When I am White, I win because I am White. When I am Black, I win because I am Bogoljubov." And then, there's the lesser known Option Three...

Rybka 3 Monte Carlo Analysis: Fixed!

Commenter Stalemate gave a fix to my Rybka 3 problem with Monte Carlo analysis. I had to tweak his suggestion to fit the Vista folder hierarchy.

Basically, copy of the contents of the c:\Program Files\Common Files\ChessBase\Engines.uci\ folder to a "local settings" folder. You may need to turn on the ability to see hidden files to do this.

Stalemate's destination folder:c:\Documents and Settings\xxx\Local Settings\Temp\ (where xxx is your user name). This appears to be for Windows XP.

For my Vista laptop, the path was c:\users\xxx\AppData\Local\Temp\

Note: you're not copying the Engines.uci folder to the Temp directory, but its contents (i.e. the .uci engines). At first I just copied the folder, and it didn't work.

I'll be letting ChessBase support know about this fix.