Laszlo Lovass
I supposed (based on experience) that programs can endure the pressure better than the people (they have no emotions, complexes) and they can defend their positions more stubbornly than human players.
Proving this could at least partly explain the worse statistics for BLACK in humans' games. Let see the results!
All the games were played at the rate of 2 hours/40 moves. The source is the database of the SSDF (the Swedish Chess-Computer Federation). They regularly make the programs play each other and approximately quarterly they release a list about the present order of the 'participants' taking the latest results into consideration.
All games since 1985:
White BLACK
+6712,=5499,-5082
Between 2000-2003:
+3248,=2927,-2402
In the two fastest PC category (450 and 1200 MHz):
+1534,=1445,-1115
In the fastest PC category (1200
MHz):
+910, =974, -316
The trend is very interesting. On our way from the whole database through the ever newer, to the greater capacity, the rate of draws is noticeably growing. The wins for White are slightly decreasing, but BLACK is also winning less - and what is more a little sharper than White's tendency.
Laszlo Lovass
programmer
The figures of computer battles, as I interpret them (I could tell a lot more if I only could see at least some of the games in every category), are a reflection of their Masters - who are PEOPLE! And that is also - as I see it - the explanation. For whatever is a program 's potential, its lexical, theoretical knowledge, should I say mentality, is up to those who input.
And what material (both quantity and quality) is in the belly of the machine? The playing strength is a different story, but the build up of a position from which you go to the middle game heavily influences the
146 Chess(playing) Programs - Statistics against each other
outcome of the duel. I think, the main strength of programs is that they rarely make a mistake, and if they have an advantage they confidently convert into wins.
I remember when I spent some time in Hong Kong in 1 992. My host was Kaarlo Schepel who was the head of their Chess Federation. He knew the managing director of Scisys, which produced chess computers. We got together. And I asked him: 'Tell me, Gordon, why is it so, that programs play stronger and stronger, while their opening repertoire is still very poor? They play all the sub-variations such as 2 c3 against Sicilian, which are safe but also harmless. If you want me to do it, I can teach your product a repertoire with BLACK, which is going to be careful as well, but dynamic, flexible and sharp. So it can play with BLACK to win! It will take some time, but not very long, if I make the material ready so it would not have any 'holes ' My work in constructing this needs a fine mind and the benefit of all my experience. On the other hand to input it needs only patience. It is all mechanical, and if you want a bet, I can teach it to a monkey if you support my efforts with a large amount of bananas. And we were discussing the matter seriously, but unfortunately the Computer World Championship of the year was too close, according to the program
mers of the machine, so we did not get into anything we were not sure we could finish in time. You surely have experienced that even computers have sensitivity, and sometimes react strangely. You mend something here, and then somewhere else things go wrong.
And when you say, 'what the Hell is
going on? ' a little red Devil jumps out saying, 'It is not yet Hell! But you will see it soon! ' Then it disappears. And all you can hope is that you are a schizophrenic who sees and hears - hallucinates ...
Nothing came out of this association, but since then such things have happened and computers are entering serious lines.
As to the question of whether we got a clearer picture of the BLACK IS OK! thesis, the answer is yes and no. If I had the chance to give a hand to a strong program with BLACK while somebody else (Shirov would do) handled White, the guy could do extremely well with both colours. This is what I can 't prove in practice because of a lack of opportunity. Therefore I will finish here.
A.Kuligowski - A.Adorjan Warsaw 1 979 1 c4 g6 2 e4 eS!
AA
Watson's 4-volume(!) mono
graph on the English Opening names the system starting with this move the Adorjan Variation. The truth, however, is that quite a few people had already started their
Chess(playing) Programs - Statistics against each other 147
games like this. The key to my idea is 3 lL!f3 5 .... lL!f6!, born at the board in I970 against Adamski (Polanica Zdroj). After this, both my humble self and others achieved some success with the BLACK 'White guys' shifted to 3 d4 4 lL!f3 - considered to be the best continuation by 'Theory' BLACK has nothing to fear in that line either, he only has to give up his romantic attacking dreams. It is quite strange, and indicative of the volatility of the royal game, that after I .... g6, preparing a fianchetto, the 'King's Indian' bishop appears on b4 in a lot of positions!
3 d4
3 lL!f3 4 d4 exd4 5 lL!xd4 lL!f6!� (5 ... 6 lL!c3 lL!bc6 7 Ji...e3�) 6 lL!c3 (6 e5 lL!e4!) 6 ... 0-0
A) 7 Ji...d3 d5! 8 cxd5 (8 e5 dxc4 9 Ji...xc4 lL!h5 I 0 o-o Ji...xe5 I I lL!f3 Ji...xc3 I2 bxc3 'ii'xdi 13 l:.xdi Ji...g4+) 8 ... c6 9 0-0 (9 Ji...g5 h6 I 0 Ji...xf6 'ii'xf6 I 1 lL!de2 cxd5 1 2 exd5 lL!d7� T.Petrosian) 9 ... cxd5 10 exd5 lL!xd5 1 1 Ji...e4 lL!xc3 12 bxc3 1Va5 . . . .l:le8 1 3 l:.e1 lL!d7=) 13 1Vb3 14 1Va3 1fxa3 I S Ji...xa3 l:.e8 16 .l:r.fe 1 Ji...f8! 1 7 Ji...xfB �xfB 1 8 Ji...f3 .l:lxe 1 + 1 9 lhe 1 iDeS 2 0 l:.e5 lL!e6 2 1 h4 (2 1 .l:lb5 lL!xd4 22 cxd4 l:lb8 23 l:.c5 Ji...e6=) 2 1 ... .l:r.b8 22 iDb5 a6 23 ltJd6 b6 24 Ji...e2 •A-•A
T.Petrosian-Adorjan, Sochi 1 977 (24 Ji...e2 a5);
B) 7 Ji...e2 l:.e8 8 f3 c6!
Bl) 9 Ji...g5 h6 10 Ji...h4 d5 1 1 exd5 cxd5 1 2 0-0 ltJc6
Bla) 13 cxd5 ltJxd4 14 1fxd4 lL!xd5! 1 5 ._,xg7+ ( 15 1fxd5 ._,xh4+) 15 ... �xg7 1 6 Ji...xd8 ltJxc3
1 7 bxc3 .l:lxd8+;
Bib) 1 3 ltJxc6 bxc6 14 Ji...f2 Ji...e6 1 5 ltJa4 ltJh5+ Bobotsov-Adorjan, Vrnjacka Banja Zonal 1972 (ending 0- 1 );
B2) 9 ltJc2 d5! 10 cxd5 cxd5 1 1 ltJxd5 lL!xd5 12 1fxd5 ._,h4+
(12 ... xd5 ! 1 3 exd5 ltJa6 14 'iti>f2 Ji...f5 1 5 lL!e3 Ji...d4 16 l%d i Ji...b6�;
12 ... 1Vc7! ?�) 13 g3 'ii'f6 14 l:.b1 ltJc6 1 5 Ji...g5 1Ve6� 16 �f2? (16 b3 f5 1 7 Ji...c4 'Wxd5 1 8 Ji...xd5+ Ji...e6�) 16 ... 'ii'xd5 1 7 exd5 lL!d4+ Adamski
Adorjan, Polanica Zdroj 1970 -This was the stemgame! (again ending 0-1 ).
3 ... lL!f6
3 ... Ji...b4+!? Everybody forgot this check, given by Tseshkovsky to Quinteros in an ancient game, although it ended in a draw! I find it a healthy alternative to 3 ... ltJf6, almost exclusively. 4 Ji...d2 (4 lL!f6 5 f3 exd4 6 'ifxd4 ltJc6 7 'ii'd2 0-0<X>) 4 ... Ji...xd2+ 5 'ii'xd2 exd4
148 Chess(playing) Programs - Statistics against each other
6 'ii'xd4 lbf6 7 lbc3 lbc6 8 'ii'd2 d6 9 0-0-0 0-0�.
4 lbf3!
4 dxe5 lbxe4 5 'ii'd5 (5 'ii'd4 lbc5 6 lbf3 lbc6 7 "iVe3 lbe6 8 lbc3 d6 9 exd6 �xd6�) 5 ... ..tb4+! And this is my improvisation against Polugaevsky (Sochi I 976 I -0).
Before people used to play 5 .... f5 -between you and me, it's not bad, either, but I was playing for an advantage! Since BLACK IS OK ...
6 lbd2 f5 (6 ... lbxd2 7 ..txd2 ..txd2+
8 'ii'xd2;!;)
A) 7 a3 c6 8 "iVd3 'ii'a5 (8 ... 'ii'b6?
9 axb4 lbxf2 1 0 'ii'c3 lbxhi I I c5 'ii'd8 I2 g3;!;) 9 lbgf3 ..tc5 IO lbd4 lba6 I I f3 lbxd2 I 2 ..txd2 lbb4! 13 ..txb4 ..txb4+ I 4 'itf2 ..te7 I5 "iVe3 'ii'b6 I6 b4 c5 (I6 ... a5 I 7 c5) I7 lbb5 0-0 I 8 lbd6 ..txd6 I9 exd6 'ii'xd6 20 'it'xc5 'ii'xc5+ 2 I bxc5 l:tf6=;
B) 7 exf6 lbxf6 8 "iVd3 0-0 9 a3 lle8+ IO ..te2 ..tf8 I I lbgf3 d5 I2 cxd5 ..tf5 1 3 'ii'c4 b5? (13 ... 'it'xd5+
and I have the upper hand, but I was enraptured by the tempting sacs, and unleashed trouble - on my own head! I4 0-0 l:txe2 I 5 'ii'xe2 ..td3 I 6 'it'e5 ..txfl I 7 'iti>xfl 'ifxe5 I 8 lbxe5 lbbd7 19 lbxd7 lbxd7 20 lbe4!=)
14 Wxb5 c6 15 'ii'h3!±.
4 ... ..tb4+?!
4 ... exd4! is the last word of theory, and I can only confirm that it's true. 5 e5 ..tb4+ 6 ..td2 "iVe7! 7 ..txb4 'ifxb4+ 8 "iVd2 'it'xd2+ 9 lbbxd2 lbh5 (9 ... lbg8 IO lbxd4 f6 I I f4 fxe5 12 fxe5 lbe7 1 3 lbe4±) 1 0 .!C!xd4 .!C!c6 (o i0 ... 0-0! I I lb2f3 b6 I 2 ..te2 ..tb7) I I .!C!xc6 (I I
�2t3 !;!;) I l ...dxc6 I2 g3 0-0 ( l 2 ... ..tf5) 1 3 ..te2 f6 I4 ..txh5 gxh5 I 5 exf6 l:te8+! I6 'iti>di ..tf5«>
Romanishin-Gulko, Tallinn I 977.
5 ..td2 ..txd2+ 6 'it'xd2!
6 lbbxd2 exd4 (6 ... d6 also occurred several times, with ample compensation if the pawn is taken: 7 dxe5 dxe5 8 lbxe5 'it'e7 9 f4 .!C!bd7 I 0 lbxd7 ..txd7 I I e5 lC!h5 I 2 "ii't3 ..tc6t) 7 e5 'ii'e7 8 'ife2 d3 9 'it'e3 lbg4 IO 'ife4 f5 I I exf6 lbxf6 I2
"ii'xe7+ 'itxe7 I 3 ..txd3 d6=.
6 ... lbxe4 6 ... exd4 7 e5 A) 7 ... 'ife7 !?
AI) 8 'ii'g5 lC!h5 (8 ... "ii'M+) 9 'ifxe7+ 9;xe7 I O lbxd4
Ala) I O ... l:le8 I I ..te2 lbf4 I 2 g3 lbxe2 13 lbxe2 lbc6 I4 f4 d6 I 5 exd6+ 'itxd6 I 6 lbbc3 �c5 I 7 b3 .!C!d4! ( I 7 ... ..tg4 1 8 0-0-0 ..txe2 I 9 l:td5+ �b6 20 lba4+ �a6 2 I .!C!c5+=) I 8 'ifi>f2 lbxe2 I 9 lbxe2 ..tg4+;
Alb) IO ... lbc6 I I lbxc6+ dxc6 I2 lbd2 l:te8 I 3 0-0-0 �f8 I4 l:te I f6
I 5 lbt3 ..tg4 I6 l:te3 ..txt3 I7 l:.xf3 llxe5 I8 g4 lC!g7 I 9 llxf6+ �e7 20 llf3 lbe6+;
A2) 8 ..te2 lbh5
A2a) 9 lba3 ! d6= (9 ... 0-0? IO lbb5 d6 I I exd6 cxd6 I2 0-0 .!C!c6 1 3 lbfxd4±);
A2b) 9 'ii'xd4 .!C!c6 I O 'it'e3 d6 1 1 exd6 (I I lbc3 dxe5 I2 .!C!d5 lbb4! !=) I l ...'ii'xe3 I2 fxe3 cxd6 I 3
Chess(playing) Programs - Statistics against each other 149
ttlc3 i.e6 14 0-0-0 r:/;e7 1 5 ttld4 ttlf6oo;
B) 7 ... ttle4? Successful rubbish!
There is still a move here: S 'ii'xd4 ttlg5 9 'ii'xg5 1 0 f4 ttlc6
Bl) 1 1 'ii'f2! 'iVdS 12 ttlc3 0-0 1 3 0-0-0 f6 ( l 3 .. . d6 14 c5) 14 exf6 'ii'xf6 1 5 ttld5 'iVdS 1 6 h4±;
B2) 1 1 'ii'd2 'ii'dS 12 ttlc3± We had this position with the late Tony Miles (Hastings 1 976-77), and he managed to lose it as White! In the bulletin issued on the following day, the opening was named 'Irregular' Sulking, I went to the bulletin editor: what do you mean by irregular? This is my variation! My friend Peter Griffiths apologised with a smirk: 'You see, the whole thing looked so terrible that we couldn't presume it was worked out by you .. .' 12 ... 0-0 1 3 0-0-0 d6 14 exd6 cxd6 1 5 'ii'xd6?! (15 h3 ! i.e6 16 g4t; 1 5 i.e2 i.e6 16 ttlb5±) 1 5 ... 'ifa5 16 'iVd5 'iVb6� 1 7 'iVd2 i.e6 1S ttld5 i.xd5 19 cxd5 ttlb4 20 'itb 1 l:t.acS
B2a) 2 1 a3 ttlc2 22 'ii'd3 llfdS 23 lld2 ttle3 24 'iVd4 'iib3 25 d6 llc2 (25 ... ttlc2 26 'iVxa7 liaS 27 'ii'xaS llxaS 2S llxc2 'ii'd5 29 i.c4 'ii'xd6 30 g3=) 26 llxc2 'ii'xc2+ 27 ..ta2 ttlxfl 2S llxfl l%xd6! 29 'ii'xd6 'ii'c4+ 30 �bl 'iVxfl + 3 1 �a2 'ii'xg2 32 'iVbS+ �g7 33 'ii'xa7 'iVd5+ 34 ..ta l '1tf6 35 'iVf2 �f5+ 36 'iVh4
�e4;
2 1 d6 llfdS 22 d7 llc7 23 'iVe2 24 a3 ttld5 ! 25 g3 (25 llxd5 'ii"xd5 26 'ireS+ r:/;g7 27 'ii"xdS 'ii'd l + 2S ..ta2 l:tc l -+) 25 ... 1:tcxd7 26 i.g2 ttlc3+ 27 bxc3 lhd1 + 2S l%xd1 l:txd1 + 29 'ifxd1 30 'iVdS+ r:/;g7 3 1 'iVd4+ '1th6 32 'ii'h l + 33 'ifi>c2 'ii"xh2+ 34 '1tb3 'ii'xg3 35 'ii'xb7 'iVxf4 36 a4 'ii'f5+;
B2c) 21 'iVd4 llc5! Now this is no longer a joke.
B2cl) 22 i.c4 llfcS 23 b3 (23 d6 ttlc2! 24 'ifd3 llxc4 25 d7 lidS 26 .l:.d2 l:lc7 27 llxc2 llcxd7 2S "ii'e2 'ii'f6 29 .l:.fl lle7+) 23 ... ttlxd5! 24 lld2 ttlc3+
B2cll) 25 �al ttlb5 26 i.xb5 (26 'ifb2 ttld6+) 26 ... 'ii'xb5+;
B2c12) 25 'ii'xc3 .l:.xc4+;
82c2) 22 i.e2 .l:.fcS 23 'ii'e5
23 ... ttlxa2!-+ 24 l:td3 (24 'iti>xa2 l:ta5+ 25 'itb l 'iib3) 24 ... ttlc3+ 25 l%xc3 llxc3 26 d6 l%e3 27 d7 l%dS 2S 'ifb5 'iVxb5 29 i.xb5 a6 30 l:c I
�f8 0- 1 . 7 'iVh6?!N
'This move is the result of nearly one-hour's thought, aiming at the forced refutation of BLACK's seemingly inconsequent play (g6, i.b4).' - I wrote in my analysis published in Hungarian chess monthly Magyar Sakkelet ( 1 979/3, p.5S). It's not so easy, though.
7 'ii'e3
A) 7 ... f5 S dxe5 'ii'e7 9 ttlc3 (9 ttlbd2!;!;) 9 ... 'ii'b4! (9 ... ttlxc3 1 0 'iVxc3 ttla6 1 1 i.e2 b6 12 0-0;!;) I 0 0-0-0 ttlxc3 1 1 'ifxc3 'iVxc3+ 1 2 bxc3 b6= ( 1 2 .. . ttla6=);
B) 7 ... d5 S dxe5 (S cxd5? 'ii"xd5 9 i.d3 'ifa5+! 1 0 �e2 ttlf6 1 1 'ii'xe5+
I 50 Chess(p/aying) Programs - Statistics against each other
'ii'xe5+ 12 lDxe5 i.e6 1 3 lDc3 1;e7 14 f4 l:.d8+ Ghitescu-Sax, one round later.) 8 ... lDc6
B1) 9 lDc3 d4! 1 0 'ii'xe4 ( 1 0 lDxd4 'ii'xd4 1 1 'ii'xe4 'ii'xe4+ 12 lDxe4 lDxe5=) 10 ... i.f5�;
82) 9 lDa3 !± Portisch-Sax, Rio de Janeiro Interzonal, 1 979.
7 ... exd4 8 i.d3
8 'ii'f6 9 'ii'xf6 lDxf6 10 8 lDxd4 fke7 9 'ii'e3 lDc6 10 lDxc6 dxc6+.
8 •.. lDc5 9 0-0 d6!
9 ... lDxd3 10 'ii'g7 l:r.ffi 1 1 'ii'xd4 d6 1 2 'ii'xd3�.
10 l:r.el+ i.e6 11 'iVg7 l:r.f8 l l ...<i;d7! ? 1 2 'ii'xd4 lDc6 13 'ii'c3 lDxd3 14 'ii'xd3 'itc8+.
1 2 lDxd4 lDbd7!
1 2 ... lDc6? 13 tDxc6 bxc6 14 i.e2�.
13 lDxe6?!
The complications after the 'Orang-utan' pawn move would have given me more of a headache.
On the other hand, BLACK is fine after 13 i.c2 fif6 13 b4!? lDxd3 1 4 lDxe6 fif6 1 5 lDxc7+ <i;d8 1 6 'ii'xf6+ lDxf6 1 7 l:.e3 ( 1 7 l:r.d I lDxf2! 1 8 l:r.xd6+ 'itxc 7 19 l:r.xf6 lDe4 20 l:r.f3 a5+) 1 7 ... lDxb4! 1 8 lDxa8 lDc2 1 9 l:r.b3 1;c8 20 lDa3 lDxa1 21 l:r.bl 'it>b8 22 l:r.xa1 (22 lDb6 axb6 23 l:r.xa l d5+) 22 ... �xa8 23 lDb5 l:td8 24 l:r.d 1 d5 25 h3 (25 lDc7+ 'itb8 26 lDxd5 lDxd5 27 cxd5 'itc7+) 25 ... 1;b8 26 lDc3 l:r.c8! 27 lDxd5 lDxd5 28 cxd5 'itc7+;
1 3 i.c2 'iff6 14 'ifxf6 lDxf6 1 5 b4 lDa6! 16 a3 c5! 1 7 lDxe6 fxe6 1 8 l:txe6+ �d7 1 9 l:r.e3 cxb4+.
13 ... lDxe6 14 lDc3 lDe5+
1 4 ... f6? loses! This is how: 15 'ii'xf6 lDxf6 16 lDd5+-.
15 'ii'xh7 lDxd3
16 l:r.xe6+C fxe6 17 'iVxg6+ 'it>d7 18 fixd3 'ii'f6+ 19 l:r.fl l:r.ad8?!
This is rather languid, even in mutual time trouble in an all-important battleZONAL! It's a rare sight indeed when you can attack the enemy king with both of your rooks along 2 open files. Such a chance must not be missed!
1 9 ... l:r.h8! 20 .:tel l:tag8t.
20 'fke3 'fkf4! 21 'fke2
2 1 'ii'xf4 .lhf4 22 b3 l1d4! 23 l:r.d 1 lhd I+ 24 lDxd I d5-+;
2 1 'fkxa7 'fkxc4.
21...l:r.f5! 22 f3� 'iVd4+ 23 'ith1 23 'ii'f2 'fkxc4 24 'ii'xa7 b6+.
23 ... l:r.h8t
Threatening 24 l:txh2+ and mate in two
24 g3?!
24 h3+.
24 ... l:r.fb5! 25 :a
25 h4 l:r.xh4+ 26 gxh4 'fkxh4+ 27 'it>g l l:r.g8+-+.
25 ... l:r.c5-+ 26 lDe4 l:r.xc4 27 'ii'fl l:.b4 28 _.cl 'iVe5 29 l:tc2 c6 30 l:.e2 'itc7
30 ... l:r.xe4 3 1 fxe4 'ii'xg3-+.
31 'ii'd2 l:.d4-+ 0-1 White lost on time.
BLACK to play and ...
It really pleased me when a reader of my polemic article 'BLACK IS OK! or the Presumption of Innocence in Chess' pointed out the preposterous, not to say manipulative, practice of placing White closer to the reader I spectator ALL diagrams of chess magazines, books, and on all demo boards too. Moreover, the instructions of chess problems and studies always say 'White to play .. .'. Then he either wins or mates. It is a well-known discovery of advertising psychology and political demagoguery that a message repeated to the public many times gets through even if the subject was indifferent in the beginning, or even if he or she had definite misgivings! I have already mentioned elsewhere how I was shocked by a film that gave trivial examples of the inconveniences suffered by left-handed people, only because those who use their 'nicer' hand outnumber them by far, and hardly waste a moment's thought on them. The objectivity of chess players is also hampered badly by the intricate web of manipulation in White's favour.
When I was young, my opening studies often reached well into the realm of the middlegame, even into the endgame (let alone my copybooks filled at the age of II or I2, where all the lines end with checkmate, and 3 exclamation marks to a move was not a rarity ... ).
I remember clearly that the line leading to the following highly instructive endgame position started out as a Griinfeld. You can imagine what bloodshed it took to reach the diagrammed position!
Jocha*, 1966 (*my name till '67)
Instruction: BLACK to move and win!
For those who are erudite enough to know that this endgame is being published for the second time already, let me say that it comes out for the first time in its ORIGINAL form now! Peter Griffiths included it in his book 'The endings .. .' in I976, but he switched colours!
However, even this did not spoil our friendship!
Let's see the solution:
I. f3+
A) 2 �hi? lbh3 winning
152 BLACK to play and ...
B) 2 �gi ltlh3+ 3 �fl ltlf4 4
�g i (4 �ei? �h3 5 lLlfl lLld3+ and BLACK wins) 4 ... ltle2+ 5 �hi (5
�fl ? �h3-+) 5 �h3 6 lLlfl (the stalemate attempt 6 ltlxf3 is met by the elegant refutation ltlg3+!) 6 ...
7 fxg3 f2 - zugzwang - (8 g4 and BLACK wins
So far so good. Now comes the difficult part:
C) 2 CiPfl ltle4
Cl) 3 'it>ei �h3 4 ltlfl g3 5 fxg3 f2+! (5 ... �g2 is met by 6 ltle3+
�gi 7 ltlg4!) 6 �e2 �g2 7 ltle3+
�fl 8 g4 ltlc3+! and White is helpless the double threat of ltld5 and I .
C2) 3 'it>gl ltld2! (as the knight exchange is fatal for White, the 'first player' is trapped in a cage.
Now BLACK sails home with flying colours, all it takes is a little more caution and finesse) 4 �hi
�h(g)5 5 �gl �g(h)5 6 �hl �h4!
(BLACK deliberately lost a tempo, and now the moment has finally come) 7 �gi �h3 8 �hi g3(! ) 9 fxg3 (9 ltlxf3 g2+!) f2 I O g4 ltle4, forcing I I ltlfl ltlg3+, winning as above.
I believe the above example contained some really instructive motifs, especially in the field of stalemate and parrying stalemate threats. The reason why I keep avoiding the word 'study' is that it has another solution. To make things worse, it is shamelessly easy!
Just have a look:
In line C2): 4 �h l �g5 5 �gi
�f4 6 �hi ltle4 7 �gl , and now ltlxf2! wins.
Speaking of stalemate, those in doubt concerning the justice of the existing chess rules would usually
abolish the SAVING effect of stalemate. My friend Lajos Portisch has been murmuring to everyone's ears for a long time that draw by stalemate is unfair if one of the players has a (large) material advantage. A classic example is 'a' or 'h' pawn + the wrong bishop vs lonely king in the comer. Some of you might remember how I failed to equalise in the World Championship Candidates' match against Hubner in. I 980 -playing BLACK in the 9'h
(penultimate) game:
In this position BLACK is totally winning.
Any 'patzer' would take on h3 winning with his 2 extra pawns. A true artist, however always wants to win in style ... So I played l ... .l::tc5??
carelessly, and was very much surprised when Robert continued with 2 'it>xh4 drawing! But I had an extra rook in the final position, didn't I?
I presume you are surprised that I do not have anti-stalemate sentiments even after this fatal accident. (I can add that I also stalemated my Hungarian colleagues P.Szekely and Tolnai in completely winning positions in rapid games!) I still think that stalemate is a wonderful moment of the royal game. It teaches us that it's
never too late to make a mistake. At the same time, it can be a last resort (or a resort after the last) when you are losing. Some stalemate combinations are breathtakingly beautiful!
Chess has seen plenty of proposals for reform ( cf.
Capablanca's I Ox l O board with additional pieces), but none of them gained ground. I first met Andor Lilienthal ('Uncle Lili'), who is the oldest grandmaster in the world, when I was 16. Bobby Fischer visited him quite often when he was staying in Hungary, and tried to persuade the old man to play shuffie chess, which he called 'reform chess' back then. Uncle Lili's reply was as follows: 'Look, Bobby, I am 83 years old, and have been playing chess for nearly seven decades. This game still holds new miracles for me, don't you tell me it is dead!' Agreed. If someone wishes to play some other (board)game, whatever it should be, let him do so. But to - especially on your favourite topics - but not easy. I am always fretting about leaving out something important, for one. (This is not all that much better than seeing an error I intended to correct in print...) So let me tell you here that I asked Uncle Andor a few questions at roughly the same time as Fischer showed him his 'reform chess'. It was not only about BLACK IS OK!, he didn't have much to say about
BLA CK to play and... /53
that one anyway: 'But of course you are right, my dear, BLACK has no problems at all. If, for example, White plays 1 c4, the position is already equal after e7-e5.' As a matter of fact, the dignified old man proved to be more radical than myself! The above-mentioned pair of moves leads us to the popular Sicilian Defence with an extra tempo for White. Called the English. Still, I dido 't get anything against those who knew the lesson, although I played it in several White games with g3 (a tempo up Dragon). This is, by the way, a recurrent bone of contention in chess theory and tournament practice. Once I complained to Hiibner about it in a post mortem.
His reply was: 'Don't even mention it, I play this with both colours, and the more games I play, the less I understand of it! ' Obviously, it's something psychological again: a position that satisfies us as BLACK fails to please us with the White pieces, even with an extra tempo.
Geza Mar6czy, the great Hungarian grandmaster of the early 20'h century, even said: 'if we play something with reversed colours, we keep looking for the move we would play on the opposite side if it was our tum, instead of thinking normally'. This may also be true, and this dilemma reminds me of the moments when we try to remember what - let me quote the late grandmaster Barcza - 'Oh yes! This is how GM Whoever played against Whatshisname... where was it
Geza Mar6czy, the great Hungarian grandmaster of the early 20'h century, even said: 'if we play something with reversed colours, we keep looking for the move we would play on the opposite side if it was our tum, instead of thinking normally'. This may also be true, and this dilemma reminds me of the moments when we try to remember what - let me quote the late grandmaster Barcza - 'Oh yes! This is how GM Whoever played against Whatshisname... where was it