Archive for November, 2012

If you scour the sites on the net for the latest chess news,  as I sadly do, you might have noticed that the quality of the journalism often leaves a lot to be desired. This isn’t just an on-line phenomena, many chess magazines aren’t much better…certainly the ones I subscribe to aren’t anyway. Although you are more likely to find better writing within them, much of the content isn’t inspirational in my opinion. But whenever a quality broadsheet turns its attention towards chess, we are often presented with the opportunity to see how it should be done. With this in mind, I was very happy to find the following article http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/i-never-wanted-mens-pity-chess-child-prodigy-judit-polgar-on-the-games-inherent-sexism-8340951.html  If you haven’t already, I suggest you read the article before you continue.

If you have read carefully -which of course is the only way to read- rather than glance over the article, you will have noticed the ease with which the writer handles the subject, in part this is due to the fact that the author used to/still plays chess himself. Having been a fan of ‘The Late Review’ myself for so many years, I was happy to see a distinguished journalist turn his attention to our beautiful game. So apart from the ease with which he handles the subject, what else is there to say about this intriguing article? Firstly, though we are undoubtedly aware of the paucity of women’s chess during the 80’s & 90’s, we -or certainly I- weren’t aware that it was personal tragedy which previously brought out the best in Judit. This gives us a new angle on the issue of gender in chess in an informative manner: what I am referring to specifically is the level of stress in top-flight chess was ‘perhaps’ affecting Judit’s ability to have a child.

I have spoken in a previous post about the issue of gender in chess (https://mccreadyandchess.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=360&action=edit) and will not go into that here. There is no need to add to what has been said, as the topic is well handled here. Judit tells how she was taught there should be no limit to what a woman can achieve, questioning the prevailing culture of the game, where women still tend to compete against women. The odd thing about this I thought though, is that given she herself has clearly benefited from stepping outside of the women’s circuit so to speak, why haven’t others followed?

The topic of gender is handled well in this article. He even knew of Zsuszu’s amusing reflection that she had never lost to a healthy male! Gender aside, the difficulty of achieving success within a communist state is touched upon as well as the importance of ethnic background. A light touch is used by Lawson to identify defining, personal moments in Judit’s past. The article concludes by pointing out that it will be the first time since 88 that we have seen Judit in the UK (another point I was unaware of).

So there we have it: craft and expertise from Lawson, whose effortless, unpretentious style brings us closer to the world’s best ever female chess player.

MJM

Read Full Post »

Among top grandmasters the Dutch is a rare defense, which is good reason to play it! It has not been studied very deeply by many opponents, and theory, based on a small number of ‘reliable’ games, must be rather unreliable.  –  Bent Larsen

The producers of the F.E.B (The Full English Breakfast http://thefeb.podbean.com/) recently put me onto a stunning victory by Simon Williams with the Dutch Defence against Boris Gelfand.

It can be found here: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1694581

One of the things I like about this game is that it exemplifies what the Dutch is all about. The position quickly becomes complex and unbalanced, and though black goes the exchange up quite early on, it isn’t clear if he’s winning at any point. The game, then, teaches you how important it can be NOT to simply rely on a material count to see who’s ahead. White’s strong knight and pawn majority in the center make it, in my humble opinion, difficult to be sure whether black has a winning advantage.

Another thing I like about it is that there is consistency in strategy from black’s point of view. If you happen to read or even watch William’s material on the Dutch (I do and I have to say I am not a fan) he does chide an early b4 but more importantly, we see the more typical f-pawn push to f4 (A move Williams likes to play with white, perhaps he is an f4 addict!), and an attack on the kingside, all atypical features of the Dutch, as understood by Mr.Williams.

A game well worth studying, one which can teach a great deal.

 

MJM

 

 

Read Full Post »

The beauty of a move lies not in its appearance but in the thought behind it.  –  Aaron Nimzowitsch

And so too with literature. Occasionally in chess literature we stumble upon a book based upon a concept that appears so self-evidently sound, it demands that we take a deeper look. When I then saw a plethora of rave reviews for the aforementioned text, I was powerless to resist locating it on amazon, and then as if like a robot, began punching in the numbers on the credit card, salivating in stupor, awaiting its delivery with…something or other.

More seriously, I intend to marginally break rank here. I don’t write for anyone or anything other than the joy of writing, which gives me a greater level of freedom than those within literary circles within chess. Some thoughts on that: book reviews tend to suffer from time pressure and lack of interest, and more importantly a lack of freedom. It is in the interests of a titled player not to be too critical of a text published by the company which employs him. Some criticism is both necessary and acceptable as long as the bar is raised accordingly. By this I mean an average book becomes a good book, a good book becomes a great book, and a terrible book becomes a bad book. A lack of time is more pernicious than may first appear. Personally I like to take my time to think more deeply about certain issues, as the answer isn’t always apparent. Sometimes we don’t know for sure how we feel about something until we’ve had a good night’s sleep. Of course, being rubbish at chess means that my understanding of the game is much less than titled opposition, but having invested my entire life into education, having always been an avid reader and lover of writing per se entitles me to an opinion, one which I believe is informed enough to express. In previous posts I durstn’t refer to a text without quoting from it, as I didn’t want to drag the culture of chess literature into the gutter -as its never been there before honest!-but this time it has to be that way. More importantly, I will keep this brief as the text allows me to do this.

The text in question has clearly had a lot of thought put into the construction of it, although some explanation upon how the ‘modern’ era is defined would have been nice. Is there any reason why the author chooses 1993 as a starting date I wonder? The games are chronologically ordered and fascinating without being exceptional due to  the primary purpose of the text being instruction. The quality of the annotation and commentary is consistently high, which makes reading the book an absolute pleasure. Furthermore, Stohl does a good job of choosing lesser known games, and making them, as the title says, instructive. Some of them cannot be found on-line, even though the players are well-known.

A solid effort by Stohl and well-worth buying. He should be very proud of himself. My suggestion for an active reading process with this book is to play through each game carefully, then spend time thinking about how the game is instructive in the context of the modern game. It’s not as easy to do as you might think.

MJM

Read Full Post »