Logical Chess Move by Move - Game #1

Hi

I've seen alot of recommendation about the book of Chernev, so I decided to give it a try. The format was awesome - the games were annotated move by move. I finished the first game (von Scheve vs Teichmann) and everything was nice. The game went logical indeed.

But then I noticed something. At the final position where white resigned, he could play 18.Bxf7. Oh well, black would just capture it and then the checks will run out. So I proceeded to the next game. I opened up chessbase to use the board. But before that, I played game #1 just to see if I remember the whole game. I did remember it, but then the question remained: is there really something more to 18.Bxf7+ than to prolong the game?

I loaded houdini 1.5a x64, and to my surpirse, it assesses the position as dead equal (0.00). I let it run for 15 minutes and it changes to (-0.18). That is still far from winning for black.

I'm still running houdini now just to see if it missed something. Or maybe there is something I missed? I know the book was published half a century ago, and I'm pretty sure someone has analyzed the game too. I'm just a bit surprised that nobody mentions it. Don't get me wrong- I love the book, but I need to analyze the contents more to get the most out of it.

PS.

Please, if you analyzed the game with an engine and found something far from the values my houdini analysis gave, please post it here. There might have been something terrible that I did to get these kind of analysis.

Now it changes to (-0.24). Lol, I'd be really freaked out if I let houdini analyze it the whole night and woke up with a forced mate in x.

This is a coincidence. This book has just come today and I was about to go through the first game after tea.

This sort of thing has happened to me before though, with older books. I have a puzzle book - The Chess Travellers Quiz book whereby some of the more complex positions I set up on Fritz with the Houdini engine. It turns out that the difficult 'solution' that I couldn't get my head round was not a 'solution' at all as the computer was able to refute the answers given - in a few cases that is.

As you say though, I'm sure there is a lot to gain from the book regardless. It's just human error and now with technology we just take it for granted as given.

Now it's (-0.25) ! Haha, I turned it off now. 

@Benedictine - Hmmm, so probably the classics such as My System or Art of Attack might have some flaws in their analysis. I'm planning to get My System this Christmas, so can anyone confirm the reliability of it's analysis?

All in all, I still find it worth the work to feed a game into an engine after reading it. Seeing an alternate line is always a good thing

I don't know about My System or Art of Attack in Chess (I have both books) because I have not put any through a comp, but I bet that there are some flaws of analysis in many older annotated games yes. Like you say though seeing alternatives can only be a good thing and it doesn't take anything away from the principles of what is being taught. Incidentally, My System is also read on Youtube with the board set up, so you might find that useful as well.

Well I don't have a fancy engine to put this into but doesn't mate follow after 18. Bfx7+ Kf8.. there are no futher checks

It's a pity that I closed the engine without copying its analysis. I opened it just now, it say that after Kf8 19.Bf4 equalizes.

Forgive me for lack of editing, but here is the analysis of houdini.

Oh yes after just going through the game it seems that they overlooked the bishop move.

I like the logical approach and is the same approach my chess coach uses with me. I'm looking forward to the rest of the book. It's a shame I have an old copy which is in descriptive notation (despite the review saying it was in algebraic form) never mind, it is only a minor inconvenience, I just don't like the old notation.

I'm relieved! I thought there was some kind of malware that infected my laptop that makes Houdini spit out (0.24) instead of Mate in X 

I'm browsing the second game now. Though the first handful of moves were identical to game 1, new ideas (no matter how basic they are) are given to each move. I'm pretty sure that there's more to look forward into the book. 

My Kabayan...when you start questioning and srutinizing book analysis..you are on the right path to learning. Nimzo did that in one of Tarrasch's books to understand the principles of chess and at the same time developed his. As Martin Nievera would sing "Youre on the right track".Good luck!

I''ve read through the first eight games in this book so far and I'm really enjoying it, great book. As well as the clear logical thinking that this book tries to foster, through following great games, you also get insightful and humorous quotes from past masters. Have you gone through any more of the games yourself? What do you think of it?

I'm currently going through game 3. It has been a busy week, I had to compete for the championship of an online chess league here @chess.com

Anyway, since I have a pretty clean schedule for now, I'd put LCMbM on top of my priority list. I just wonder how many more italian games are there, and how will the first four moves be given explanation. lol

Ha, ha, not all of them are Italian or e4 but he still keeps telling your e4 and Nf3 etc are good moves. He throws in a few good quotes to boot.

I'm reading an old copy. I'm surprised actually it was printed as recently as 1981, I thought my copy was much older. I'm even beginning to work equally in old fashioned notion too.

Also, a little tip, all of the games so far have been available on the chessgames database website.

Game 7 http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1242926

I simply use the book as good commentary as I'm going through master games.

what happens when you throw in a *Gambit* ?

at every oppertunity!

just wundering.

If I may quote from Jeremy Silman's book "How to Reassess your Chess 4th" edition:

"In an age where every serious chess player has a powerful chess engine, I've watched a chess pandemic appear that's unlike anything that's ever seen before.  They are parroting their engine's assessment, but they seem to mistake it for their own.  They stare at their machine's rapid-fire burst of moves, but do they understand why it's recommending them?"

Chernev's book is full of rich instruction that displays ideas and concepts on how to attack.  Forget about the engines and rather try and absorb these ideas and once you do, you will notice an overall improvement in your play.

We are not computers that are able to calculate thousands of variations in split seconds of time.

I agree. But that is not the point of this thread.

Black resigned in an equal position. And this is uncovered by a chess engine. The mere fact that the engine told me that this "lost" position is dead equal made me aware that a beautiful combination can be ruined by a simple and "pointless" check.

I never claim it was my assessment that "refuted" the line, it's Houdini. I'd be an idiot if I'd say "so this position is equal because Houdini said so". I didn't. I made the effort to try and understand why Houdini assesses the position as equal. 

I didn't calculated thousands of variations in split seconds. It was the engine that did that. But I'm the one who made the effort to analyse the engine's assessment for my own improvement.

Cheers.

Haha, I know I shouldnt be taking your comment as offensive bro, but i can't help it. 

" Forget about the engines and rather try and absorb these ideas"

If not for the engine I'd be forever blind that White is completely lost. It taught me that a check is a powerful resource, no matter how impropable that a save will come. And the idea of Bf4 that isn't even included in the book's text, came from the engine. Would you consider that a bad thing?

Peace :D

I see your point!   (I checked with the engine also, and you are correct in spotting that, well done!).

I guess I never bothered with engine analysis on the book as I loved the examples in there so much!  Black fired up such a massive attack on White's King, that if it were an OTB game, I would have probably resigned myself out of sheer depression!

Just goes to show, even masters give up too early sometimes!  

But having that said, one should be careful not to fall too much in love with engine lines.  They can be a crutch to one's improvement as well. But in this particular case, I would have to agree with you. 

Stockfish gets -0.74 and responds to 18.Bxf7+ with Kf8.

I, too, have been going through this old book. First, I play through the game without reference to the book. I develop my own thoughts concerning the critical moments in the game. Some games I have gone through repeatedly over several days before looking at Chernev's comments (game 9, for instance).

There are many errors in Chernev's judgement. Some moves that he criticizes are the main line today.

I went through some portion of this text in the 1970s, and it helped my game. Now, I am going through the whole book rather quickly with the intent of finishing it before New Year's Day. I may go through it again several months from now and begin detailing the errors and my disagreements with Chernev. This time through, I am not making notes.
 

I'm had not used an engine on any of the games until I read this thread.