Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Readers’ Games, Questions and Comments, Part 1

  • IM Silman
  • | Jan 28, 2014
  • | 10085 views
  • | 29 comments

Curse of the Hasty Pawn Advance

EvgeniyZh (1192) – raj475 (1324)
ICC Live Game (30-0), 2014

1.e4 b6 2.e4 e6 3.e5


I’ve seen many sub-1500 rated players make this kind of hasty pawn advance, and I will take this opportunity to make a comment about it.

Though not the end of the world, this isn’t a particularly good move. Why? It seems to gain space, so what’s wrong with it? Here’s a breakdown of its flaws:

  • The pawn has already moved and White has so many other pieces that need to be brought into play. 3.e5 fails to do that.
  • Black is going to place his light-squared bishop on b7 where it will hit e4. However, the e4-pawn will also act as a block to that bishop. After 3.e5, the h1-a8 diagonal is wide open, making Black’s light-squared bishop very active.
  • The pawn can become a target. Black should continue with …Bb7 when an eventual ...c7-c5 (pressure against d4) followed by ...Nc6 (pressure against BOTH d4 and e5!) gives him serious play. Black was going to go after White’s center anyway, but White’s 3.e5 actually makes it easier for Black to do that. Instead of 3.e5, just 3.Nf3 Bb7 4.Bd3 is more flexible, and also develops far faster.

The game continued:

3...Bb7 4.Nf3

4...Be7

A poor move. Yes, it develops, but it blocks the g8-knight and fails to put pressure on White’s center. Instead, 4...c5, beginning an assault against White’s center, is the logical move. Play might continue: 5.c3 Nc6 (more heat on d4) 6.Be2 Nge7 when this knight (depending on how White plays) can go to f5 (more pressure against d4!) or to g6 followed by ...d7-d6 (pressure against e5!).


Black’s typical, “I’ll develop a piece but I have no idea what I really should be doing” approach to chess is yet another thing I often see sub-1500 rated players do. Of course, development IS important, but there’s an old saying that goes, “No development is better than a bad development.”

This means that at times a developing move actually makes the position worse rather than better! A more advanced player will first understand the long-term needs of the position (e.g. pressure against White’s center), and make sure that all his developing moves help to make this concept a reality. In other words, the plan and/or structure often dictate the moves, not the player! 

Taking this a bit further, one might ask, “Well, how would anyone know that Black should attack White’s center?”

That is not only a good question, it’s an important one! In fact, all players that want to improve should be asking this. And NO (for those, “Tactics is everything” zombies), it has nothing to do with tactics. You can study tactics all day and night and you still won’t have the answer. The only way you know this is by pattern recognition, which is acquired by experience (playing lots of games) and study (looking at master games and/or reading this article). Fortunately, this kind of “central pressure” pattern (found in so many openings, with the Grünfeld Defense being a prime example of killing a huge pawn center) is easily assimilated.

 

Can Children Learn If They Watch Master Level Games Zip By?

Jimmykay wrote:

“My 6-year old son understands how the pieces move, and what checkmate looks like. Although he is not interested in playing games, he loves watching me run through master-level games at blitz speed. It sounds from your recent articles that this might have some long-term benefits for his chess. Would you agree?”

Dear Jimmykay:

I think the following from Capablanca’s famous book My Chess Career will answer this:

“I was not yet five years old when by accident I came into my father’s private office and found him playing with another gentleman. I had never seen a game of chess before; the pieces interested me, and I went the next day to see them play again. The third day, as I looked on, my father, a very poor beginner, moved a knight from a White square to another White square. His opponent, apparently, not a better player, did not notice it. My father won, and I proceeded to call him a cheat and to laugh. After a little wrangle, during which I was nearly put out of the room, I showed my father what he had done. He asked me how and what I knew about chess? I answered that I could beat him; he said it was impossible, considering that I could not even set up the pieces correctly. We tried conclusions, and I won.”

This is quite a remarkable tale, but a couple things stand out (other than his mindboggling talent):

  • He learned how to move the pieces, and how the pieces interact, just by watching a couple games.
  • He absorbed some basic patterns just by watching, and (since his father was a hopelessly poor player) that (and his obvious talent at instantly turning those patterns into something usable) was enough to propel him to victory in the first game he ever played.

Jimmykay, if your son loves watching you run through master games, he’ll not only enjoy himself, but he will indeed pick up lots of subliminal information (patterns) that will, in time, “click” and become real chess skills.

phpOlySYa.jpeg

  

Are Some Game Collections More Instructive Than Others?

Arlemanne1 asked:

“My rating is not particularly good, but I have decided to take your advice about quickly playing through a huge number of master games. Right now, I’ve begun with Garry Kasparov’s collection, My Great Predecessors. I’ll be done with the whole series in a couple of months. What other books of master games (or series of books) would you recommend for somebody of my rating (around 1400) who needs to improve in all areas of chess? Would you recommend collections of any specific master or would you just recommend getting a couple of volumes of Informants and just quickly playing through the contents?”

Dear Arlemanne1:

As I said in my previous articles, one should only zip through master games if you seriously feel you can be a chess pro, and can put in that 10,000+ hours of work (and even then it might lead to nothing). 

Most people should simply toss away the “zip” and instead study instructive chess books (like my 4th edition of How to Reassess Your Chess), and look through game collections at a reasonable pace (you really should take a bit of time and savor these amazing games and their notes).

The game collections you choose should be all about personal taste, though I usually recommend the older classics followed by working your way to more modern players. For example, my first chess hero was Alekhine, and his games (with his notes) will teach you what dynamic chess is all about. Capablanca’s games will teach you how quiet positional mastery and fantastic technique will overwhelm the most violent tactician. Emanuel Lasker’s games are harder to wrap one’s mind around. Ultimately they will show you how a powerful will to win, embracing every chess game as a fight to the death, a mastery of tactics (one of the greatest tactical players ever), preternatural defensive mojo, and outrageous endgame technique placed him firmly in my “top 5 players of all time” list (the great Mikhail Tal had him as number 1). After that game collections by Botvinnik, Keres, Smyslov, and all the World Champions should follow.

BTW, Karparov’s My Great Predecessors series, though criticized by some reviewers, is fantastic. It not only has tons of magnificent games, but it also introduces players to the thrilling richness of chess history. Read them all!

phpnzFfFb.jpeg
Kasparov signing his books in London 2010 | Photo Wikipedia
  

The Endless Debate – Can Anyone Be a Grandmaster?

Tmodel66 asked:

“There is a debate going on in one of the Chess.com forums over the following question: ‘Can anyone become a grandmaster?’ I mean... if someone plays and learns chess and trains him/herself systematically, can he/her become a grandmaster? Or do you have to have some gift to do that?

“It seems evident to me that becoming a GM is not a possibility for anyone. IMO talent has to be a factor to some degree.

“The other side says that with enough study anyone (of reasonable intelligence and work ethic) could get there. What say you? And, if not GM, could ‘anyone’ become a Master? Also, how late in life is too late to become a GM (or a Master)?”

Dear Tmodel66:

This question could just as well be, “Can anyone become an astronaut, a doctor, a professional boxer, etc.”

The safe, politically correct way out is to say, “Yes, read a book on boxing, practice a bit, and you too can beat a prime Mike Tyson!” or “Yes, study hard and you can be the first man on Mars!”

Fortunately, I despise political correctness, so you’ll get my honest opinion (as always).

As I’ve mentioned in past articles, and in my answer to Arlemanne1’s question in this article, you have a real chance at success IF you are willing to put in those 10,000+ hours of nonstop, agonizing, nose to the grindstone, sacrificing, total devotion to your goal, work. But, how many are willing to do that? And worst of all, there’s no guarantee that all that work will lead you to your goal!

For those that want it without that kind of complete goal immersion, enjoy your dream and do your best (have fun with it!), but the odds are overwhelmingly against you. On the other hand, I really do believe that anyone can achieve a 2100 or 2200 rating (even if you start late!), but that also takes dedication and hard work.

I will admit that natural talent for the field of your choice gives you a huge edge over the competition. A very talented but lazy chess guy might, with experience and quite a bit of work, get that GM title, but he won’t be a top 10 player (he probably won’t be a top 100 player). That means that even Magnus, our present world champion, with all his amazing talent, put in those 10,000+ hours to reach the very top (note: to be world champion he combined 10,000+ hours of hard work, astronomical talent, and had a very rare kind of will power that you need to be born with).

phpKOqcnS.jpeg

It’s the same in other fields. If you work hard and put in the necessary hard work and sacrifice, you might successfully become a medical doctor. But will you be the best doctor? To be best in class, you’ll need talent and a driving desire to be number one.

Basketball. How many kids play the game endlessly and dream of being a professional? And they might well be very good players when all is said and done. But will they make the cut against those that worked harder, or those that have some kind of mega-talent?

When all is said and done, talking about success in any field is nothing more than spitting into the wind if you can’t embrace the necessary work ethic and sacrifice.

In my case, I learned how to play chess much too late (12 years of age... nowadays grandmaster hopefuls start at 5 or 6), I then worked nonstop to get my dreamed of grandmaster title until I was 19 (sacrificing normal childhood behavior/activities), and then I “reentered the world” and learned a lot about life, but failed in my ultimate chess goal.

For those that keep raving about how everyone can become a grandmaster, you should be working hard to do it instead of talking about it. Everyone can talk about it, but very, very few do it.

I’ll leave you with a story:

Emanuel Lasker, one of the world’s greatest thinkers and the world chess champion, took up the game of Go (it is also known as “weiqi” and other names). He played regularly against his brother Berthold and Edward Lasker, who introduced him to it (Edward eventually founded the American Go Association!), and all three became completely enamored by the game. After a while, Emanuel Lasker decided that he was an extremely good player (he even wrote about it). Of course, he should have known better, but he had never faced a real Go master and thus had no way of understanding the true depths of the game.

One day a Japanese Go master came to town and all three of them (Edward, Emanuel, and Berthold) joined together in consultation against him. They were given 9 stone odds (similar to queen odds in chess) and got wiped off the board.

To me, the people that think it won’t be that hard to get the grandmaster title in chess are suffering from the same (very human) illusion Emanuel Lasker had: they weren’t able to fully appreciate the insane amount of understanding and knowledge that the giants of chess/Go possess. Lasker, of course, immediately recognized his ignorance after that game! He still loved go and played it, but he no longer made the mistake of thinking too highly of his Go skills!

phpSYK1lI.jpeg
Emanuel Lasker

To end this discussion once and for all (yeah, sure... people will always dream of getting the grandmaster title without dedication or hard work), let’s take a look at a very funny, and very wise quote. In Saidy’s and Lessing’s wonderful book, The World of Chess, Norman Lessing (chess master, television screenwriter/producer, playwright) had this to say concerning hard work, talent, and criticisms about Fischer:

“Accusation four is usually put in the form of an inquiry: ‘why shouldn’t Bobby be good? He spent his whole lifetime on nothing but chess!’ Answer: Thousands upon thousands of chess players have done precisely the same with little to show for it, except an occasional divorce.”

Clearly, becoming a grandmaster is far from easy. And even if you do put in that 10,000+ hours, you might find yourself with “only” a 2100 or 2200 rating (not bad at all, but not close to the grandmaster goal).

Mr. Tmodel66, thanks for asking this question. You are quite right – becoming a grandmaster is, indeed, not a possibility for everyone. Instead, people should work towards more reachable goals: a 2000 rating is a great goal, and makes you an elite player (I’m not talking about an online rating, I’m talking about an over-the-board real tournament rating). If they reach that goal, then go for 2200 (Master! How cool is that!?). That’s what Magnus did, and he was overjoyed each time he reached a goal. Then, like all goals, you create a new one and strive to reach that.

If you want to dream, then dream. But if you want to achieve something, create a doable goal, work hard to reach it, and then create a new goal.

A Reader Game in the Alekhine Defense

Elkinm, who played White, wondered what he did wrong in the following game. I was happy to see it since I have always had a “thing” for this very interesting opening.

As for where he went wrong, the answer is easy! Your opponent was using a strong chess engine (Houdini) so you had absolutely no chance whatsoever! How do I know this? All his moves were perfect, and on move 21 he played the maneuver 21...Ra3 22.Qe2 Ra6, which is not a human maneuver. At that point I decided to see how his moves compared with Houdini’s. His choices (after he followed basic opening theory from some book) matched the computer’s top choices 100% of the time, and picked the number one choice 98% of the time.


After confirming that vahid608 is a cheat, I looked for his page and discovered that he was tossed from the site. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out why.

Elkinm (1694) – vahid608 (1822)
Chess.com live chess, 2014 (30/0)

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6


Compare this to our initial game, EvgeniyZh – raj475, where the moves 1.e4 b6 2.e4 e6 3.e5 were played. In the Alekhine Black is willing to waste time with his knight to overextend (he hopes!) White’s pawn center. In the EvgeniyZh game, White’s 3.e5 overextended in the same way, but he wasn’t compelled to do so.

5.exd6

A popular move. White’s other mainline moves are 5.Nf3 (positional) and 5.f4 (sometimes quite violent). After 5.f4 dxe5 (Black also has reasonable results with 5...Bf5 and 5...g6!?, while the crazy looking 5...g5!? is also fun to look at.) 6.fxe5 Nc6 7.Be3 Bf5 8.Nc3 e6 9.Nf3 Be7 White can go for a quiet game via 10.Be2 0-0 11.0-0 f6 12.exf6 Bxf6 which leads to an interesting positional battle, or a crazy tactical war with 10.d5, though 10...exd5 11.cxd5 Nb4 12.Nd4 Bd7 13.e6 fxe6 14.dxe6 Bc6 seems satisfactory for Black.


5...cxd6

5...exd6 is also common, but that’s a different story.

6.Nf3

Believe it or not, this natural move is no longer thought to be accurate. Instead the following line is all the rage: 6.Nc3 g6 7.Be3 Bg7 8.Rc1 (Defending c3 and preparing d4-d5 in reply to ...Nc6) 8...0-0 9.b3 and now both 9...Nc6 10.d5 Ne5 11.Be2 and 9...e5 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.Qxd8 Rxd8 12.c5 leave White with a small but annoying edge.

6...g6 7.Nc3 Bg7 8.Be3 0-0 9.Be2 Nc6 10.0-0 Bg4 11.b3 d5 12.c5 Nc8 13.h3 Bxf3 14.Bxf3 e6 

Anyone who is serious about playing the Alekhine Defense is well acquainted with this position – not just the moves, but the structure, Black’s main maneuver, and the opening’s general philosophy.

One might think that White should be better due to his two bishops and queenside space advantage, but the truth is that Black’s game is already superior! The reason is that White’s bishops aren’t very active, and White doesn’t have a clear target to train his sights on. Black on the other hand is pressuring d4, and that pressure will increase after ...Nc8-e7-f5. 

I’ll give the rest of the game without notes. It’s worth seeing though, since it’s a powerful demonstration of Black’s dynamic potential in this opening.

15.Qd2 N8e7 16.Nb5 Nf5 17.g4 a6 18.gxf5 axb5 19.fxe6 fxe6 20.Bg2 Qh4 21.Rad1 Ra3 22.Qe2 Ra6 23.Qxb5 Rf7 24.a4 Bxd4 25.Bxd4 Nxd4 26.Qd3 Rf4 27.Rd2 Qg5 28.Kh2 Qe5 29.Kh1 Qf5 30.Qxf5 Nxf5 31.Kg1 Rb4 32.Rd3 Nd4 33.Rfd1 Nxb3 34.Rb1 Nxc5 and Black easily grabbed the full point.


RELATED STUDY MATERIAL

Comments


  • 8 months ago

    Somebodysson

    thanks for the instructive and accessible article on the hasty pawn advances and the inaccurate developing moves. Also, your description of Lasker and  'preternatural defensive mojo' etc., was very nice. 

  • 8 months ago

    Pawnslinger1

    I think that the comparison of learning chess to learning a language is very useful. In that context we could compare Silman's (and others) approach of going through massive amounts of games to the "total immersion" approach favored by some in learning a language.

  • 8 months ago

    syzygy1

    I tried posting a longer version of this before, but I think it got eaten by the internet god!...

    It might be worth comparing learning chess with learning a language.  This is something that all human beings are fundamentally programmed for, and all will achieve, to a greater or lesser extent, so long as they do not have some form of learning disability (or incredibly cruel parents).  But it takes *years* of active learning: a lot more than the 10,000 hours quoted here.

    Learning a second language is different, and can be achieved much more quickly - as a native English speaker, about 650 hours of classroom study can get you an Advanced level in a closely related language (Spanish, Afrikaans, Swedish); about 2200 hours (half in the country of origin) will get you Arabic, Korean or Chinese to the same standard: presuming you stick at it, are reasonably conscientious in your self-study, and don't have any serious disadvantages (a tin ear; an inability to make guesses about language; being too old).  It would probably help to already have learned another foreign language or two.  

    This is *not* the same as being a native speaker of that language, but it is a standard that most learners will never achieve: not because they are actually unable to, but because they are not able to commit to the full course, and quite possibly because they are discouraged by the apparent slowness of their progress.  How does this all compare with chess?  Well, on the one hand, chess is clearly much simpler than language, and shouldn't/doesn't take so long.  On the other hand, there is no instinct for chess, no inherent need for it, and certainly no built-in capacity to learn it (though having a good set of memory skills and practices will certainly help learners of both languages and chess).

    In short, Silman's sketch of a degree of skill being achievable by virtually all, given sufficient study and patience, but of the 'heights' requiring additional qualities that not everyone possesses* seems entirely reasonable.

    * - these qualities are not just intellectual/mental (memory, visualisation skills etc), but also personal (motivation, determination) and environmental (enough time and money to study, access to an active chess culture).

  • 8 months ago

    Jimmy-the-Hand

    Yes, random articles are always enlightening!

    I can relax now. Time, effort, sacrifice; I like those words. Talent rings falsely...

    Again, thanks for the article!

  • 8 months ago

    batgirl

    "GM Jacques Mieses is a good candidate for that, he was 85 when he got the GM title"

    That's only because he was 85 in 1950 when FIDE issued titles for the first time, not because he was 85 when reached that level.

    According to the imcomparable Bill Wall who is usually right on the money about such things "The oldest I can think of was Viktor Ciocaltea of Romania.  He was born on January 16, 1932.  He became an International Master in 1957 at the age of 25.  He played on and off, and finally became a grandmaster at the age of 47 in 1979."

  • 8 months ago

    IM Silman

    @ Jimmy-the-Hand and Pawnslinger1:

    Actually I haven’t read any of those books. I noticed the 10,000 rule in some random article. But trying to make any number “special” in this respect is bogus. I use the 10,000 rule as a simple way to say, “If you want to be really good at anything, it takes an enormous amount of time, effort, and sacrifice to even have a chance at success (with no guarantees!).”

  • 8 months ago

    Jimmy-the-Hand

    @ Pawnslinger1, yes, can't say I'm a major fan of Gladwell's book. A lot of anecdotal evidence and so on, without showing the mass research itself. When I said invented, I didn't mean the scientific sense of inventing, I meant more the pulling out of nowhere. But you're right, 'popularising' is correct.

    I was just assuming IM Silman came across the 10,000 rule through Gladwell.

    As for K. Anders Ericsson, see below 'The Making of an Expert'. And who does he start his introduction with? The Polgar family!

    http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/everything/ericsson2007a.pdf

  • 8 months ago

    alghul

    Lucky_Dude7>> ...Does anyone know who the oldest person was to get the GM title? That might give some of our older chess hobbyists some hope...

    GM Jacques Mieses is a good candidate for that, he was 85 when he got the GM title... 

  • 8 months ago

    Pawnslinger1

    @ Jimmy-the-hand. The 10,000 hour rule was popularised by Gladwell, it was not invented by him. He is a reporter and a very good writer but not a scientist. 

    Professor Anders Ericcsson is the one who did the landmark work over the course of decades on the concept of "deliberate practice" and the 10,000 hour rule. Virtually all literature on this topic starts with Ericcsson's work and Gladwell definitely acknowledges Professor Ericcsson. 

    Another excellent book on the topic for the layman is "The Talent Code" by Daniel Coyle. IMO its even better done than Gladwell's book.


  • 8 months ago

    Lucky_Dude7

    Thanks IM Silman. I always look forward to and enjoy your articles. Does anyone know who the oldest person was to get the GM title? That might give some of our older chess hobbyists some hope...

  • 8 months ago

    alwaysplayasrandom

    Fantastic article, thank you so much Smile

  • 8 months ago

    qingnian

    I'm still waiting to see if anyone can explain what Houdini is thinking when executing the "Vulcan Maneouver". Was it really first played in a game between Cpt. Kirk and Mr. Spock?

  • 8 months ago

    Jimmy-the-Hand

    (If TLDR, talent is a myth!)

    Chess entertainment at it's best!

    Is there an understandable reason for the "Vulcan" manoeuvre, as you called it?! 21...Ra3 to restrain 22.a4 maybe, 22...Ra6 a nice anchor point perhaps?

    You refer to the '10,000 hour rule', which is probably a good rule of thumb, and 'talent' regularly. But the person who invented this figure, Malcolm Gladwell, thought the two concepts were mutually exclusive! The reason he put forward this idea of 10,000 hours of purposeful practice was to do away with notions of talent.

    The quote about Fischer is misleading. I don't think "thousands upon thousands of chess players" have had the same obsession, the same dedication, the same mania with chess that Fischer had.

    Carlsen's "astronomical talent"? He was able to solve 50-piece jigsaw puzzles at the age of two, granted. So perhaps we can call him a savant. But when first introduced to chess, no such 'talent' was present. He wasn't even particularly interested. His skill developed exponentially over time, but I would guess in line with the quality and quantity of his practice. I would also assume will power is a result of children's conditioning, their brains being incredibly plastic, not something you can "be born with".

    The Polgar sisters are another example. Their father, a psychologist and chess theory expert, is another believer in the myth of talent. He proclaimed his children would be geniuses, but years before any of them were born! Judit Polgar became the eighth strongest player in the world at her peak. What is more likely, her father's intensive training regime brought results, or that coincidentally Judit was highly talented as a chess player?

     

     
  • 8 months ago

    oleppedersen

    @ghms Magnus was well into his first 10.000 hours of practice by the time he reached 2000. He has played seriously for 13 years, I would guess he is past 20.000 hours by now.

    10.000 isn't that much, really. But you have to start young. For instance, the best 12 year old footballers in Argentina have 4.000 hours of coaching by that age (1.000 in Norway), according to a coaching seminar I once attended. 

    As for us adults, enjoy the game first and foremost. If I can manage 500 hours of chess in a year (10 hours a week), I hope to make some progress from my current 1700+ FIDE rating. MAYBE 2000 is still possible, even for a 45 year old - albeit with a fantastic wife who prefers that I play chess rather than turn to drink. 

    And one important part of enjoying the game is reading the articles by Mr. Silman!

  • 8 months ago

    ghms

    I doubt you need 10000 hours to become a GM. I think some people have the talent(memory, imagination) and others don't.(They are not even going to become one with 20000)

    Magnus for example jumped within 4 years from a playing strengh of ~2000 to his GM title. I doubt he investet 2500 hours/year.

  • 8 months ago

    Krokko4

    😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😃📵📵📵📵📵📵📵📵📵📵📵📵📵📵📵📵📵📵🚹🚹🚹🚹🚹🚹🚻🚻🚻🚻🚻🚻🈯️🈯️🈯️🈯️🈯️🈯️🈯️😪😪😪😪😪😪🚯🚯🆙🆙🆙🆙🆙🌠🌠🌠🌠🌠🌎🌎🌏🌏🌎🌏🌎🌏🌏🌎🌏🌏⛄️⛄️⛄️⛄️⛄️⛄️⛄️☔️☔️☔️🌵🌵🌵🌵🌵🌑🌳🌳🌐🍂🌚🌻🌹🌰🌼🌺🌻🌺🌞🌈🌑🌀🌀🐉🐖🐇🐀🐉🐁🐁🐁💐🐜🌅🏭🏭🏫🏭🏭🏤🏭🏤🏰🏤🏰🏯🏯🏰🏦⛵️🚤🚣⚓️🚀✈️✈️🚁🚂🚁💺💺🚝🚙🚖🚇🚞🚇🚁🗾🏰🏰⛺️⛺️🏡🏪🏡🏪🏠🏤🚇🚋🚋🚘🚚🚆🚎🇫🇷🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸⚠️🚥🚥🎰🎰🎰🎰🎰🎰🎰🎰🎰🎰🎰🎰🎰🎭🎭🎭🎭🎭🎭🎭🎭🚦🚦🚥🚒🚑🚑🎫🎪🚩🚩🚒🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🎿🍙🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍴🎿🎿🎿🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🍻🍻🍻🍻🍻🍛🍛🍛🍛🍛🍛🍛🍤🍤🍤🍤🍤🍤🍤🍤🍤🍤🍤🍤🍤🍤🍤🍤🍤🍤🍖🍖🍖🍖🍖🍖🍖🍖🍖🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍝🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍺🍼🍼🍼🍼🍼🍼🍶🍶🍶🍶🍶🍶🍶🍶🍗🍗🍗🍗🍗🍗🍗🍗🍗🍗🎣🎣🎣🎣🎣🎣🍕🍕🍕🍕🍕🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍟🍟🍟🍔🍔🍔🍔🍔🍥🍥🍥🍥🍥🍥🍙🍙🍙🍙🍙🍙🍙🍙🍙🍘🍘🍘🍘🍚🍜🍜🍜🍜🍜🍜🍜🍜🍜🍜🍜🍚🍚🍚🍚🍚🍚🍲🍲🍢🍢🍢🍢🍢🍢🍢🍢🍢🍆🌽🌽🌽🍭🍇🍇🍰🍇. 🚾 🚰 🚰🚰🚰🈂🛅🆘🆔🛄🛄🛄🈂Ⓜ️Ⓜ️. 🛄🚼🚼🚼🚼🚼🚼🚼🚼🚼🚼🚼🚼🚼🚼🚳🚷🚷🚷🚷🚳🚷🚷🚷🚷🚷🚷🚷🚷🚷🎣🍙🎣🍙🍙🍭🍙🍭🍙🌽🍭🍭🍭🍭🍭🍭🍭🍭🍭🍭🚷🍥🍥🍭🍭🍭🍆🍆🍆🍆🍆🆘🆘🆘🆘🆘🆘🛄🍢🍢🍢🛄🍢

  • 8 months ago

    Afieldy

    Favourite Chess-related activity of the week - every week: reading Silman's articles on Chess. Fun, informative and makes me love the game of chess

  • 8 months ago

    batgirl

    Vindication should be in that vahid608's account has been closed for cheating.

  • 8 months ago

    IM Silman

    @ Rommeldam, who doesn’t know what the moves ...Ra3 followed by ...Ra6 do.

    EXACTLY! I don’t think any human would have played that sequence. Yet Houdini rolls around on the floor moaning in ecstasy when it recommends those moves. In my mind, clear proof that Black was using an engine. When you add the fact that all his moves were Houdini favorites, it becomes an open and shut case.

  • 8 months ago

    Rommeldam

    The moves Ra3 followed by Ra6 are indeed strange but, sorry for asking, why are they usefull? They are made by a strong engine so they are probably very good moves but I fail to understand why

Back to Top

Post your reply: