Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Critical endgame


Halpern, Jacob - Pillsbury, Harry Nelson (Manhattan, New York, 1893), presented by Andreas

Black to move. Is this a draw, a win, or loss for Black?

8/5p2/6p1/p2p1k1p/P2P3P/4KPP1/8/8 b - - 0 58 Read More......

Sunday, December 21, 2008



Sunday, December 21, 2008

Ivanchuk finally wins one


GM Ivanchuk (2786) - GM Bu Xiangzhi (2714) [C26]
Nanjing, China, 21 . 12 . 2008

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Bb4 4.Nf3 0–0 5.0–0 d6 6.Nd5 Be6 7.d4 Bxd5 8.exd5 e4 9.Nh4 c6 10.c3 Ba5 11.Bg5 Nbd7 12.Nf5 Nb6 13.f3 h6 14.Bh4 e3 15.Qd3 Nxc4 16.Qxc4 Qd7 17.Nxe3 Nh5 18.Rae1 Bd8 19.Bxd8 Rfxd8 20.Qd3 Rab8 21.b3 Nf6 22.dxc6 bxc6 23.Re2 a5 24.Rfe1 g6 25.d5 Nxd5 26.Nxd5 cxd5 27.Qxd5 Qa7+ 28.Kh1 Qc5 29.Qd2 d5 30.Re5 a4 31.bxa4 h5 32.f4 Rbc8 33.f5 Qxc3 34.Qh6 White wins 1–0

Click here to see the game. Read More......

Classic tactic


Torre Repetto, Carlos - Lasker, Emanuel (Moscow, 1925), presented by Andreas

White to move. How should White proceed?

r3rnk1/pb3pp1/3pp2p/1q4BQ/1P1P4/4N1R1/P4PPP/4R1K1 w - - 0 25
Posted by Picasa
8 comments


Read More......

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Saturday morning tactic


White to move. What is the best continuation for White?

r1bkqQ1N/1pp5/5bp1/3n4/4P3/4B2P/1n3PPK/q2R4 w - - 0 6
Posted by Picasa
Read More......

Saturday, December 20, 2008

Omega Chess : The Next Generation of Chess

Pure Elegance & Sophistication !!

With its flawless symmetry, a more complex and refined tactical system and a perfectly balanced layout, Omega Chess can truly be considered the ultimate standard in strategic board game warfare. For those wishing to face the hardest challenge yet and test the limits of their knowledge, this game will definitely satisfy their expectations!



Omega Chess Features


The Champion, like the Knight, is classified as a leaper. It can move one square orthogonally, forward, backward or to either side. Or the Champion can jump two squares forward or backward or to either side, or jump two squares diagonally in all four directions.





The Wizard is also classified as a leaper. It can move one square diagonally in all four directions. Or, like a Knight move, the Wizard can jump three squares horizontally or vertically and then one square to either side. The Wizard is bound to the color of its starting square.






Ω Two Intriguing New Pieces!
Ω Fixes 8 major Chess flaws and adds 7 other improvements.
Ω Perfectly Balanced and Positioned Armies!
Ω Millions of New Moves and Game Endings!
Ω Expanded Battlegrounds to 104 squares!
Ω Wide Array of Undiscovered Openings!
Ω More Challenging & Advanced Strategy!
Ω A Tactical Rollercoaster!
Ω Pure Unchartered Chess Territory!
Ω The Art of War Raised to the Highest Level!




Read More......

The Benefits of Chess : Planning-Confidence-Patience-Dicipline

"According to research, Test scores improved by 17.3% for students regularly engaged in chess classes, compared with only 4.6% for children participating in other forms of enriched activities," states 4-time World Champion Susan Polgar in a recent interview. In approximately 30 nations across the globe, including Brazil, China, Venezuela, Italy, Israel, Russia and Greece, etc., chess is incorporated into the country's scholastic curriculum. Just as athletics are a part of the required agenda at schools in the United States, Chess has been that way in the European Nations abroad.

Chess has long been regarded as a game that can have beneficial effects on learning on development, especially when it is played from a young age. below are some of the most critical benefits that chess can provide to a child:

  • Develop analytical, synthetic and decision-making skills, which they can transfer to real life.


  • Learn to engage in deep and thorough chess research which will help them build their confidence in their ability to do academic research.


  • Help children gain insights into the nature of competition which will help them in any competitive endeavor.


  • When youngsters play chess they must call upon higher-order thinking skills, analyze actions and consequences, and visualize future possibilities.


  • In countries where chess is offered widely in schools, students exhibit excellence in the ability to recognize complex patterns and consequently excel in math and science.



  • Countless researchers and studies have shown over the years that chess does indeed strengthen a child's mental clarity, fortitude, stability, and overall health. Many schools are now finding chess as an inexpensive but essential way of helping kids grow mentally. In this technologically driven world, chess helps aid in the synthesis and growth of certain areas in the brain and mind where many children can benefit as they grow older from the game.

    Dr. Robert Furgeson, Jr., the Executive Director of the American Chess School has prepared a review of key research studies for the chess in education conference. This review contains many charts and graphs that give detailed explanations and results of numerous studies.

    Steve Sawyer, The Oklahoma Scholastic Chess Charter President, compiled "Chess: A Learning Tool",which also gives insights into the benefits of chess on children.

    Another interesting article was published in Time Magazine back in 2001 by Evan Levy about chess and learning. He dicusses chess in schools.


    "Chess is in many ways like life itself." "It's all condensed in a playful manner in a game format and it's extremely fascinating because first of all I'm in control of my own destiny, I'm in charge. You have to be responsible for your actions, you make a move, you had better think ahead about what's going to happen, not after it happens, because then it's too late. Chess teaches discipline from a very early age. It teaches you to have a plan and to plan ahead. If you do that, you'll be rewarded; if you break the rules, you will get punished in life and in chess. You need to learn the rules to break the rules." - Susan Polgar, 4 time World Champion and founder of the Susan Polgar Foundation. http://www.susanpolgarfoundation.org
    Read More......

    Friday, December 19, 2008

    GM. VISWANATHAN ANAND, profile

    Date of birth: India, December 11, 1969

    Acclaimed as the Fastest Brain in the world, Viswanathan Anand is the World Number one and World Champion. It is his success in the world scene that has made this ancient Indian game, a mass sport in India.The critics rate him as one of the biggest natural talents ever in the history of chess. His hallmark lightening speed and intuitive play came to be recognised when he became the first Indian Grandmaster in 1987.

    On 29th September 2007 Anand became World Champion for the second time in his career. By winning the event in Mexico Anand becomes the Undisputed Champion, ending many years of schism in the chess world. An feat that is unique as he achieved it while being the World No.1. A honour shared by a select few. Anand became the first Asian to win the World Championships in 2000. In 2007 Anand reached the number one spot on the world ranking lists by winning the prestigious Linares tournament. He becomes the seventh person in modern chess history to reach the coveted spot. This is the first for an Indian and Asian . He won the prestigious Melody Amber, Blind & Rapid chess in Monaco in 2003, 2005, 2004(Rapid), 2006, 2007(Rapid). The Leon Magistral for the seventh time, Corsica Masters five times & the Mainz Classic a staggering ten times. His results in rapid chess make him one , if not the greatest player ever in chess history . If his talent as a Rapid chess player is legendary, his records in classical chess have been superlative. In January 2006, he became the only player in chess history to win the Corus Chess event 5 times in the tournament’s 70-year history. He has won the prestigious Corus event 5 times (1989,1998,2003,2004 & 2006), Linares Super Tournament 3 times (1998 , 2007 and 2008), Dortmund Sparkassen 3 times (1996,2000 & 2004) and other important events like, Madrid Masters, Biel etc.

    One of the few non-Soviet players in the sport, Viswanathan Anand has been feted with many international awards. He is the proud recipient of the Chess Oscars given for the best player of the year . He received this award four times. (1997,1998, 2003,2004) (An unique distinction he shares with Bobby Fischer).In India he has received the civilian awards, Padma Vibhushan,Padma Bhushan, the Padmashree and the Arjuna Award. He is the first recipient of the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna Award. He has received other prestigious awards from private organisations .

    Having travelled to close to 50 countries, Anand is also fluent in Spanish and German. One of the projects closest to heart is the NIIT Mind Champions Academy which aims at taking chess to over 1 million children from both Government and Private schools in India . Known as the Gentleman Champion in the chess world, Anand is a spokesperson for Vidyasagar, a NGO that crusades for the Inclusion of children with cerebral palsy and he also represents Avahan, the Bill& Melinda Gates Foundation initiative on AIDS. Anand is a keen follower of current affairs, world business and astronomy.

    Homepage: http://tnq.in/vishwa.html Read More......

    Thursday, December 18, 2008

    World Champion: Viswanathan Anand!


    October 29, 2008 PDF Print E-mail


    Viswanathan Anand ( India ) is the winner of the World Chess Championship 2008! The World Champion from India defended his title with a 6,5:4,5 victory against Vladimir Kramnik ( Russia ). Anand got the half point today in game eleven of the Championship. After three hours and 24 moves the draw and Anand’s triumph was perfect!

    The old and new World Champion: Viswanathan Anand after game 11 at the press conference.

    After the decisive game, the trophy giving was held on stage of the Art and Exhibition Hall, by FIDE Honorary President Florencio Campomanes and Josef Resch, UEP president and match director of the World Chess Championship. The national anthem of India and the FIDE anthem concluded the trophy giving.



    PDF Print E-mail

    World Chess Championship 2008:
    Statement by the organizer Universal Event Promotion

    The Universal Event Promotion (UEP) would like to state herewith that the World Chess Championship 2008 was a great success. The resonance that followed this Championship was worldwide enormous. The battle for the highest chess title, taking place in Germany first time after 74 years, between Viswanathan Anand from India and Vladimir Kramnik from Russia, has attracted a huge attention and interest in Germany and all over the world.

    The venue: Art and Exhibition Hall of the Federal Republic of Germany, Bonn.

    October 30, 2008 PDF Print E-mail

    Statement by FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov
    on the closing of the
    World Chess Championship 2008

    Text by: FIDE

    I did follow with great attention the World Championship contest between Viswanatan Anand and Vladimir Kramnik. I have many reasons to be proud of the World Chess Championship that took place in Bonn , Germany .


    Kramnik wins first game - Anand now leads by 6:4

    Vladimir Kramnik (Russia) won today his first game at the World Chess Championship 2008. World Champion Viswanathan Anand (India) had to resign the game after 29 moves. Anand now leads by 6:4. After the rest day tomorrow the next game of the Championship will start on Wednesday, October 29, 3 p.m.



    All photos by: Torsten Behl.

    October 26, 2008 PDF Print E-mail

    Game 9: After five hours a hard fight ended draw

    Game 9 of the World Chess Championship 2008 today was a very hard fight. With the black pieces Vladimir Kramnik (Russia) put pressure on Viswanathan Anand (India). Finally the World Champion Anand could hold his defence, and the exciting game ended draw after five hours and 45 moves. Anand needs now one half point to win the World Championship, Kramnik has to win the remaining three games to achieve the tie-break. The Championship is decided in that moment one player has achieved 6,5 points (further games will then not be played). Game 10 starts tomorrow at 3 p.m.

    Pictures of the day
    All photos by: Torsten Behl

    October 24, 2008 PDF Print E-mail

    Game 8 draw in 39 moves: Anand leads by 5,5 to 2,5

    Game 8 of the World Championship ended with a draw after 39 moves - and Anand now leads by 5,5 to 2,5. German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück, who is the patron of the event, today made the opening move. After tomorrow's rest day the Championship will continue on Sunday, 3 p.m., with game 9.

    Pictures of the day
    All photos: Torsten Behl

    German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück, Patron of the World Chess Championship 2008, with the first move of game 8.

    October 23, 2008 PDF Print E-mail

    Draw in game seven: Anand leads by 5:2

    The seventh game of the World Chess Championship between World Champion Viswanathan Anand (India) and Vladimir Kramnik (Russia) ended in a draw after 36 moves. After he had lost two games in a row, Kramnik today got a half point, and Anand now leads by 5:2. The Championship will continue tomorrow, Friday, with game 8 (3 p.m.). German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück, who is the patron of the event, will make the opening move.

    Handshake at the beginning of game seven. Left: Chief Arbiter Panagiotis Nikolopoulos.

    All photos by: Torsten Behl.

    source: uep-worldchess.com



    Read More......

    Monday, December 15, 2008

    Elo Rating System

    The Elo rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in two-player games such as chess and Go.
    "Elo" is often written in capital letters (ELO), but it is not an acronym. It is the family name of the system's creator, Arpad Elo (1903–1992, born as Élő Árpád), a Hungarian-born American physics professor.
    Elo was originally invented as an improved chess rating system although it is used in many games today. It is also used as a rating system for competitive multi-player play in a number of computer games, and has been adapted to team sports including association football, American college football and basketball, and Major League Baseball.

    This section does not cite any references or sources.
    Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (March 2007)
    Arpad Elo was a master-level chess player and an active participant in the United States Chess Federation (USCF) from its founding in 1939.[1] The USCF used a numerical ratings system, devised by Kenneth Harkness, to allow members to track their individual progress in terms other than tournament wins and losses. The Harkness system was reasonably fair, but in some circumstances gave rise to ratings which many observers considered inaccurate. On behalf of the USCF, Elo devised a new system with a more statistical basis.

    Elo's system replaced earlier systems of competitive rewards with a system based on statistical estimation. Rating systems for many sports award points in accordance with subjective evaluations of the 'greatness' of certain achievements. For example, winning an important golf tournament might be worth an arbitrarily chosen five times as many points as winning a lesser tournament.
    A statistical endeavor, by contrast, uses a model that relates the game results to underlying variables representing the ability of each player.
    Elo's central assumption was that the chess performance of each player in each game is a normally distributed random variable. Although a player might perform significantly better or worse from one game to the next, Elo assumed that the mean value of the performances of any given player changes only slowly over time. Elo thought of a player's true skill as the mean of that player's performance random variable.
    A further assumption is necessary, because chess performance in the above sense is still not measurable. One cannot look at a sequence of moves and say, "That performance is 2039." Performance can only be inferred from wins, draws and losses. Therefore, if a player wins a game, he is assumed to have performed at a higher level than his opponent for that game. Conversely if he loses, he is assumed to have performed at a lower level. If the game is a draw, the two players are assumed to have performed at nearly the same level.
    Elo did not specify exactly how close two performances ought to be to result in a draw as opposed to a win or loss. And while he thought it likely that each player might have a different standard deviation to his performance, he made a simplifying assumption to the contrary.
    To simplify computation even further, Elo proposed a straightforward method of estimating the variables in his model (i.e., the true skill of each player). One could calculate relatively easily, from tables, how many games a player is expected to win based on a comparison of his rating to the ratings of his opponents. If a player won more games than he was expected to win, his rating would be adjusted upward, while if he won fewer games than expected his rating would be adjusted downward. Moreover, that adjustment was to be in exact linear proportion to the number of wins by which the player had exceeded or fallen short of his expected number of wins.
    From a modern perspective, Elo's simplifying assumptions are not necessary because computing power is inexpensive and widely available. Moreover, even within the simplified model, more efficient estimation techniques are well known. Several people, most notably Mark Glickman, have proposed using more sophisticated statistical machinery to estimate the same variables. On the other hand, the computational simplicity of the Elo system has proven to be one of its greatest assets. With the aid of a pocket calculator, an informed chess competitor can calculate to within one point what his next officially published rating will be, which helps promote a perception that the ratings are fair.

    Implementing Elo's scheme

    The USCF implemented Elo's suggestions in 1960,[2] and the system quickly gained recognition as being both fairer and more accurate than the Harkness system. Elo's system was adopted by FIDE in 1970. Elo described his work in some detail in the book The Rating of Chessplayers, Past and Present, published in 1978.
    Subsequent statistical tests have shown that chess performance is almost certainly not normally distributed. Weaker players have significantly greater winning chances than Elo's model predicts. Therefore, both the USCF and FIDE have switched to formulas based on the logistic distribution. However, in deference to Elo's contribution, both organizations are still commonly said to use "the Elo system".

    Different ratings systems

    The phrase "Elo rating" is often used to mean a player's chess rating as calculated by FIDE. However, this usage is confusing and often misleading, because Elo's general ideas have been adopted by many different organizations, including the USCF (before FIDE), the Internet Chess Club (ICC), Yahoo! Games, and the now defunct Professional Chess Association (PCA). Each organization has a unique implementation, and none of them precisely follows Elo's original suggestions. It would be more accurate to refer to all of the above ratings as Elo ratings, and none of them as the Elo rating.
    Instead one may refer to the organization granting the rating, e.g. "As of August 2002, Gregory Kaidanov had a FIDE rating of 2638 and a USCF rating of 2742." It should be noted that the Elo ratings of these various organizations are not always directly comparable. For example, someone with a FIDE rating of 2500 will generally have a USCF rating near 2600 and an ICC rating in the range of 2500 to 3100.

    FIDE ratings

    For top players, the most important rating is their FIDE rating. FIDE issues a ratings list four times a year.
    The following analysis of the January 2006 FIDE rating list gives a rough impression of what a given FIDE rating means:
    19743 players have a rating above 2200, and are usually associated with the Candidate Master title.
    1868 players have a rating between 2400 and 2499, most of whom have either the IM or the GM title.
    563 players have a rating between 2500 and 2599, most of whom have the GM title
    123 players have a rating between 2600 and 2699, all (but one) of whom have the GM title
    18 players have a rating between 2700 and 2799
    Only 4 players (Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Kramnik, Veselin Topalov and Viswanathan Anand) have ever exceeded a rating of 2800, and none do in the latest (October 2008) list.
    The highest ever FIDE rating was 2851, which Garry Kasparov had on the July 1999 and January 2000 lists.
    In the whole history of FIDE rating system, only 48 players (to October 2007), sometimes called "Super-grandmasters", have achieved a peak rating of 2700 or more.
    Performance rating
    A "performance rating" is a hypothetical rating that would result from the games of a single event only. A performance rating for an event is calculated by taking (1) the rating of each player beaten and adding 400, (2) the rating of each player lost to and subtracting 400, (3) the rating of each player drawn, and (4) summing these figures and dividing by the number of games played.

    FIDE tournament categories

    FIDE classifies tournaments into categories according to the average rating of the players. Each category is 25 rating points wide. Category 1 is for an average rating of 2251 to 2275, category 2 is 2276 to 2300, etc.[3] The highest rated tournaments have been Category 21, with an average from 2751 to 2775. The top categories are as follows:
    Category Meaning
    15 Average rating is in range 2601 to 2625
    16 Average rating is in range 2626 to 2650
    17 Average rating is in range 2651 to 2675
    18 Average rating is in range 2676 to 2700
    19 Average rating is in range 2701 to 2725
    20 Average rating is in range 2726 to 2750
    21 Average rating is in range 2751 to 2775

    Live ratings

    FIDE updates its ratings list every three months. In contrast, the unofficial "Live ratings" calculate the change in players' ratings after every game. These Live ratings are based on the previously published FIDE ratings, so a player's Live rating is intended to correspond to what the FIDE rating would be if FIDE was to issue a new list that day.
    Although Live ratings are unofficial, interest arose in Live ratings in August/September 2008 when five different players took the "Live" #1 ranking.[4]
    The unofficial live ratings are published and maintained by Hans Arild Runde at http://chess.liverating.org . Only players over 2700 are covered.
    [edit]United States Chess Federation ratings
    The United States Chess Federation (USCF) uses its own classification of players: [5]
    2400 and above: Senior Master
    2200 - 2399: Master
    2000 - 2199: Expert
    1800 - 1999: Class A
    1600 - 1799: Class B
    1400 - 1599: Class C
    1200 - 1399: Class D
    1000 - 1199: Class E
    In general, 1000 is considered a bright beginner. A regular competitive chess player might be rated at approximately 1750.
    The K factor, in the USCF rating system, can be estimated by dividing 800 by the effective number of games a player's rating is based on (Ne) plus the number of games the player completed in a tournament (m).[6]

    Ratings of computers

    Since 2005–2006, human-computer chess matches have demonstrated that chess computers are stronger than the strongest human players. However ratings of computers are difficult to quantify. There have been too few games under tournament conditions to give computers or software engines an accurate rating.[7] Also, for chess engines, the rating is dependent on the machine a program runs on.
    For some ratings estimates, see Chess Engines rating lists.

    Game activity versus protecting one's rating

    This section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
    It does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve it by citing reliable sources. Tagged since March 2008.
    It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since March 2008.
    Its neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words. Tagged since March 2008.
    In general the Elo system has increased the competitive climate for chess and inspired players for further study and improvement of their game.[citation needed] However, in some cases ratings can discourage game activity for players who wish to "protect their rating".
    Examples:
    They may choose their events or opponents more carefully where possible.
    If a player is in a Swiss tournament, and loses a couple of games in a row, they may feel the need to abandon the tournament in order to avoid any further rating "damage".
    Junior players, who may have high provisional ratings, and who should really be practicing as much as possible,[citation needed] might play less than they would, because of rating concerns.
    In these examples, the rating "agenda" can sometimes conflict with the agenda of promoting chess activity and rated games. [11]
    Some of the clash of agendas between game activity, and rating concerns is also seen on many servers online which have implemented the Elo system. For example, the higher rated players, being much more selective in who they play, results often in those players lurking around, just waiting for "overvalued" opponents to try and challenge. Such players may feel discouraged of course from playing any significantly lower rated players again for rating concerns. And so, this is one possible anti-activity/anti-social aspect of the Elo rating system which needs to be understood. The agenda of points scoring can interfere with playing with abandon, and just for fun.[citation needed]
    Interesting from the perspective of preserving high Elo ratings versus promoting rated game activity is a recent proposal by British Grandmaster John Nunn regarding qualifiers based on Elo rating for a World championship model.[12] Nunn highlights in the section on "Selection of players", that players not only be selected by high Elo ratings, but also their rated game activity. Nunn clearly separates the "activity bonus" from the Elo rating, and only implies using it as a tie-breaking mechanism.
    The Elo system when applied to casual online servers has at least two other major practical issues that need tackling when Elo is applied to the context of online chess server ratings. These are engine abuse and selective pairing.[citation needed]

    Chess engines

    The first and most significant issue is players making use of chess engines to inflate their ratings. This is particularly an issue for correspondence chess style servers and organizations, where making use of a wide variety of engines within the same game is entirely possible. This would make any attempts to conclusively prove that someone is cheating quite futile. Blitz servers such as the Free Internet Chess Server or the Internet Chess Club attempt to minimize engine bias by clear indications that engine use is not allowed when logging on to their server.

    Selective pairing

    A more subtle issue is related to pairing. When players can choose their own opponents, they can choose opponents with minimal risk of losing, and maximum reward for winning. Such a luxury of being able to hand-pick your opponents is not present in Over-the-Board Elo type calculations, and therefore this may account strongly for the ratings on the ICC using Elo which are well over 2800.
    Particular examples of 2800+ rated players choosing opponents with minimal risk and maximum possibility of rating gain include: choosing computers that they know they can beat with a certain strategy; choosing opponents that they think are over-rated; or avoiding playing strong players who are rated several hundred points below them, but may hold chess titles such as IM or GM. In the category of choosing over-rated opponents, new-entrants to the rating system who have played less than 50 games are in theory a convenient target as they may be overrated in their provisional rating. The ICC compensates for this issue by assigning a lower K-factor to the established player if they do win against a new rating entrant. The K-factor is actually a function of the number of rated games played by the new entrant.
    Elo therefore must be treated as a bit of fun when applied in the context of online server ratings. Indeed the ability to choose one's own opponents can have great fun value also for spectators watching the very highest rated players. For example they can watch very strong GM's challenge other very strong GMs who are also rated over 3100. Such opposition, which the highest level players online would play in order to maintain their rating, would often be much stronger opponents than if they did play in an Open tournament which is run by Swiss pairings. Additionally it does help ensure that the game histories of those with very high ratings will often be with opponents of similarly high level ratings.
    Therefore, Elo ratings online still provide a useful mechanism for providing a rating based on the opponent's rating. Its overall credibility, however, needs to be seen in the context of at least the above two major issues described — engine abuse, and selective pairing of opponents.
    The ICC has also recently introduced "auto-pairing" ratings which are based on random pairings, but with each win in a row ensuring a statistically much harder opponent who has also won x games in a row. With potentially hundreds of players involved, this creates some of the challenges of a major large Swiss event which is being fiercely contested, with round winners meeting round winners. This approach to pairing certainly maximizes the rating risk of the higher-rated participants, who may face very stiff opposition from players below 3000 for example. This is a separate rating in itself, and is under "1-minute" and "5-minute" rating categories. Maximum ratings achieved over 2500 are exceptionally rare.

    Ratings inflation and deflation

    This section does not cite any references or sources.
    Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007)

    This section is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (March 2008)
    The primary goal of Elo ratings is to accurately predict game results between contemporary competitors, and FIDE ratings perform this task relatively well. A secondary, more ambitious goal is to use ratings to compare players between different eras. (See also Greatest chess player of all time.) It would be convenient if a FIDE rating of 2500 meant the same thing in 2005 that it meant in 1975. If the ratings suffer from inflation, then a modern rating of 2500 means less than a historical rating of 2500, while if the ratings suffer from deflation, the reverse will be true. Unfortunately, even among people who would like ratings from different eras to "mean the same thing", intuitions differ sharply as to whether a given rating should represent a fixed absolute skill or a fixed relative performance.
    Those who believe in absolute skill (including FIDE[13]) would prefer modern ratings to be higher on average than historical ratings, if grandmasters nowadays are in fact playing better chess. By this standard, the rating system is functioning perfectly if a modern 2500-rated player and a 2500-rated player of another era would have equal chances of winning, were it possible for them to play. The advent of strong chess computers allows a somewhat objective evaluation of the absolute playing skill of past chess masters, based on their recorded games.
    Those who believe in relative performance would prefer the median rating (or some other benchmark rank) of all eras to be the same. By one relative performance standard, the rating system is functioning perfectly if a player in the twentieth percentile of world rankings has the same rating as a player in the twentieth percentile used to have. Ratings should indicate approximately where a player stands in the chess hierarchy of his own era.
    The average FIDE rating of top players has been steadily climbing for the past twenty years, which is inflation (and therefore undesirable) from the perspective of relative performance. However, it is at least plausible that FIDE ratings are not inflating in terms of absolute skill. Perhaps modern players are better than their predecessors due to a greater knowledge of openings and due to computer-assisted tactical training.
    In any event, both camps can agree that it would be undesirable for the average rating of players to decline at all, or to rise faster than can be reasonably attributed to generally increasing skill. Both camps would call the former deflation and the latter inflation. Not only do rapid inflation and deflation make comparison between different eras impossible, they tend to introduce inaccuracies between more-active and less-active contemporaries.
    The most straightforward attempt to avoid rating inflation/deflation is to have each game end in an equal transaction of rating points. If the winner gains N rating points, the loser should drop by N rating points. The intent is to keep the average rating constant, by preventing points from entering or leaving the system.
    Unfortunately, this simple approach typically results in rating deflation, as the USCF was quick to discover.
    A common misconception is that rating points enter the system every time a previously unrated player gets an initial rating and that likewise rating points leave the system every time someone retires from play. Players generally believe that since most players are significantly better at the end of their careers than at the beginning, that as they tend to take more points away from the system than they brought in, the system deflates as a result. This is a fallacy and is easily shown. If a system is deflated, players will have strengths higher than their ratings. But if they take points out of the system EQUAL TO their strength when they leave the system, no inflation or deflation will result.
    Rather, in the "basic form" of the Elo system, the cause of deflation is the fact that players improve. The cause of inflation is that their strength relative to their rating will tend to decline over time with age. Since most players improve early in their career, the system tends to deflate at that time. Inflation doesn't occur until much later in a player's career. Many players will quit before this natural process occurs, which would return points to the system. The net result over time is deflation.

    Example

    Both of these misconceptions can be shown incorrect via the following example:
    Let's consider the following example, which is a little contrived to make it simple. However, the principles remain the same in other pools irrespective of the level of complexity.
    Suppose there are four 1500-rated players: A, B, C, D. They are all established players. Their ratings are stable. To make the calculations easy, we will assume that we will calculate rating changes under the old Elo formula with K=32. Suppose that
    are the only four players in the rating pool. The average rating of the pool is, therefore, 1500.
    Elo recognized that simply having an improving player causes deflation.
    Let's suppose that A decides to study for a while. As a result, his strength increases to a degree that on average he scores 3 out of 4 against B, C, and D. These odds represent roughly a 200 rating point spread.
    What we would want the pool to do is this: Since B, C, and D are the same strength as before, their ratings should stay at 1500. A should see his rating go toward 1700.
    That is, their performances indicate a strength relative to where they started of 1500 for B, C, and D and 1700 for A.
    Let's suppose that they play 10 rated games against each opponent (30 total.) B, C, and D score 50% against each other, but only 25% against A, exactly as outlined above. That means B, C, and D win 12.5 games each, and A wins 22.5 games. For example, on average, B wins 5 of the 10 games against C, 5 of the 10 games against D, and 2.5 of the games against A.
    What are their ratings (assuming for ease that we rate this as 1 event) at the end of these encounters? (This example is simplified, but illustrates the point, and the principles hold true even if we treat it as several events.)
    The rating formula is:
    (W-We) x 32 + Rating old = Rating new,
    where W equals the number of wins and We equals the expected number of wins.
    Since all players started at 1500, we expect them all to score 50%. The winning expectancy, We, therefore = 15 for all the players.
    For B, C, D:
    (12.5-15.0) x 32 +1500 = 1420
    12.5 points, for B for example, is 5 points against C, 5 against D, and 2.5 against A.
    For A:
    (22.5 - 15.0) x 32 + 1500 = 1740
    What is the average rating of the pool? (1420 + 1420 + 1420 +1740)/4 = 1500.
    Hmm...exactly the same as before.
    Yet, B, C, D are all rated lower than their actual skill level of 1500. And even if A loses his "40 extra" points back to the pool fairly evenly in another series of games, we would see:
    A: 1700
    B: 1433
    C: 1433
    D: 1433
    That is, 75% of the players in the pool would be deflated, by 67 points each, even though the average rating of the entire pool is unchanged.
    [edit]Practical approaches
    Because of the significant difference in timing of when inflation and deflation occur, and in order to combat deflation, most implementations of Elo ratings have a mechanism for injecting points into the system in order to maintain relative ratings over time. FIDE has two inflationary mechanisms. First, performances below a "ratings floor" are not tracked, so a player with true skill below the floor can only be unrated or overrated, never correctly rated. Second, established and higher-rated players have a lower K-factor.[9] There is no theoretical reason why these should provide a proper balance to an otherwise deflationary scheme; perhaps they over-correct and result in net inflation beyond the playing population's increase in absolute skill. On the other hand, there is no obviously superior alternative. In particular, on-line game rating systems have seemed to suffer at least as many inflation/deflation headaches as FIDE, despite alternative stabilization mechanisms.

    Other chess rating systems

    Ingo system, designed by Anton Hoesslinger, published in 1948. Starting in West Germany in 1948, it was used in Germany as official rating system of the German Chess Federation until 1992 when it was replaced by an Elo based rating system. It influenced some other rating systems.
    Harkness System, invented by Kenneth Harkness, who published it in 1956. It was used by the USCF from 1950 to 1960 and by some other organizations.
    British Chess Federation Rating System, published in 1958.
    Correspondence Chess League of America Rating System.
    Glicko rating system
    Chessmetrics
    In November 2005, the Xbox Live online gaming service proposed the TrueSkill ranking system that is an extension of Glickman's system to multi-player and multi-team games.
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Read More......

    Chess and Intelligence

    In recent years the game of chess has been attracting more and more attention, not merely as an interesting and fascinating kind of contest, but as a readily affordable and highly effective means for intellectual development. Extensive experimental research has shown a positive effect of chess activities on logical and creative thinking, concentration of attention, memory and reproductive imagination. Chess helps children learn things easier. Therefore, as a rule, kids who regularly play chess do better at school than the rest of their classmates. Particularly wholesome is the influence of the ancient game on one's mathematical abilities.

    Well, is it really enough just to play chess to grow "a little wiser"? Definitely yes. Chess in itself is a good method for the training of one's intelligence. Moreover, results of a number of recent psychological studies indicate this method can be made even more efficient if special chess-related games are employed. One such study (A.Bartashnikov, 1988) involved two experimental classes where pupils aged 8 and with approximately equal levels of erudition were instructed in chess. In both classes the chess lessons went on for half a year. But in the first class the youngsters were taught according to traditional methodology (which is practically the same in any chess primer) whereas in the second class special chess-related intellectual games were used. Those games were aimed at improving the kids' intellectual faculties rather than their chess playing skills. A third class was also involved in the study, serving as a control group. At the beginning of the experiment the overall intellectual level of children in that class was similar to that observed in the other two classes. During the six months period pupils in the control class were not instructed in chess at all. At the end of the term the researchers checked children's intellectual achievements in the three classes. Pupils from the first experimental class appeared to be well ahead of control class kids in terms of both intellectual testing results and learning progress in general; yet their advancement was inferior to that recorded in the second class where the teachers had been applying the intellectual games based methodology. Remarkably, when it came to playing chess the second experimental group defeated the first one in a match, thus proving that their playing skill was also the better.

    The outcome of the experiment allows to suggest that the advantage of using a methodology based on chess-related games is not limited to the development of human intellectual abilities as a whole; purely playing skills can also be purposefully developed that way. Hence such games may be useful to chessplayers with particular sporting ambitions. It is games of this kind that you will find in the Chess Puzzles Series.
    Read More......

    Saturday, December 13, 2008

    How to Understand Algebraic Notation

    "Notation" is a method in chess strategy books that is used to describe the movement of pieces on the chess board, without needing a visual diagram of the chess board for each move. It greatly increases a chess author's ability to describe a large number of chess games in compact form, leaving more room for game analysis. It also allows the author to concentrate on chess strategies and tactics, rather than requiring hundreds and hundreds of cumbersome diagrams of the chess board for each move.

    If you are a chess player, aspiring to improve through strategy books, understanding the two chess notation styles is crucial to your improvement. Most chess strategy books are either written in "Descriptive Notation," or "Algebraic Notation."


    Descriptive Notation, in general, was used in older chess books and magazines, although it is possible to run into more current chess literature using this notation style as well. Nevertheless, the fact that any book or magazine written before 1970 probaby uses descriptive notation makes it worth knowing.

    However, Algebriac notation is the topic of our current discussion. Algebraic notation is the most widely used form of notation today, found on websites, in chess software, in chess books, magazines, and other literature. Understanding algebraic notation is crucial to your growth as a chess player.

    I've posted a visual diagram of a chess board describing algebraic notation on my chess game strategies site. Scroll to the bottom, and click on the resources link to access the diagram.

    In chess literature, the term "rank" refers to the rows of the chess board. "File" refers to the columns. If a chess book talks about the "1st rank" it means the "first row." The "a file" refers to the "a column."

    In algebraic chess notation, each row (rank) of the chess board is assigned a number from 1 to 8, beginning with the white side. Each column (file) is described with a letter from a to h, going from left to right from the white side. Each square is described by a letter/number combination according to the intersection of the column and row that both contain that square. As you will see from the diagram on my website that I mentioned above, the uppermost square, farthest to the right a1. The lowermost square, farthest to the left is h8. (If you are sitting on the "white's" side of the board).

    Each piece is denoted by a single letter: R for rook, N for knight, Q for Queen, and so on. A move is described by first listing the piece that is moving, then the square that it is moving to. In algebraic notation, the letter for pawn is always left out.
    chess problem diagram

    Examples: Nf6 means the knight moved to square f6. If you see f4 by itself, that means a pawn moved to f4.

    You may ask, how can I tell if a white piece or a black piece is the one moving? This is a good question if you are just starting out, however, you will find that when you are reading algebraic notation of a game, following it move by move, it will be very clear which piece is moving because 1) most of the pieces can only move on certain squares of the board (for instance, the bishop must stay on its own colored squares) and 2) as you are following a game closely, you will find yourself remembering the positions of the pieces from move to move, and it will be clear which piece is the one moving, whether white or black.

    However, there are times when, even given the above facts, it will be unclear which piece is moving. In this case, the file of the moving piece is inserted immediately after the letter describing that piece. For instance instead of Rb6, Rdb6 would be used to indicate that the rook in the d column (file) is the one that is moving to b6. In the event that the file is the same for both pieces, rank is used instead of file, again, immediately after the letter describing the piece that is moving.

    Important notes: Castling is shown by O-O or O-O-O. Pawn promotion is described by adding the letter of the promoting piece to the move: f1Q means that the pawn moved to f1, and was promoted to a queen. Pawn promotion could also be described with an equal sign or a slash (f1/Q, or f1=Q). Capture and check are sometimes noted, but often they are simply implied by the square that the piece is moving to. When described, capture is denoted with a "x" (RxB7 means a rook moved to square B7 and captured a piece. Without the x, the capture is simply notead as Rb7). Check is described with a "+" as in Rf6+, which means that a rook moved to square f6 and gives check. Without the +, this move which gives check is simply Rf6. En passant with pawns is simply described by following the move with the letters "e. p."

    The best way to become familiar with algebraic notation is to go to my chess strategies and chess tactics site http://www.chessvictory.com/, scroll to the bottom, and click on the resources link. On that page I've posted a diagram for the chessboard in algebraic notation, as well as part of a game written in algebraic notation. This partial game includes clear diagrams of the chess board to make it clear which piece is moving. Once you get the hang of what the symbols mean, I'd encourage you to find some sample games written in algebraic notation and sit down with a real, physical chess board and go through the whole game, moving the pieces as the notation describes. After doing th at a few times you'll find yourself more comfortable with this style of notation than you imagined! In fact you'll get so good at it that you can read it as fast as you are reading this sentence, and you'll see the movements of the pieces clearly in your mind!
    Author: Chad Kimball

    Chad Kimball publishes chess instruction books and courses on the Internet. He is responsible for bringing an exciting resource to the Internet: "The Grandmaster Strategy Training Library." Click here for more information on this 14 Volume Chess Resource
    Read More......

    How to Use the Internet to Dramatically Improve Your Chess Strategy

    If you are a chess student or even an experienced player, the power of the Internet to improve your game cannot be denied.

    However, anyone who has typed "chess strategies" or "chess tactics" into a search engine will agree with me that the results can be confusing. Where do I start? What kind of chess strategies websites are out there? Are any of them useful? Which chess strategies information is accurate, and which of it is misleading, incorrect, or erroneous? Which chess products are worth buying?

    Well, there are a few crucial pieces of information that I'd like to give you to simplify your search for chess strategies. This information will enable you to use the Internet to the maximum, so you can find the exact chess strategies information that you need to increase your chess rating.

    The first thing to remember, is to do a quick bit of research on the author of the text you are reading. Have they posted their chess rating? If they are a coach, how long have they been coaching? Have their students demonstrated success at the chess board? Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

    The second thing to do is to do a quick search at the chess exchange forum for the writer's name or the resource that you are recommending. I've found the chess exchange forum to be a great resource. There are a large number of experienced players posting chess strategies, chess tactics, and tips on this forum. Again, you can't believe everything you read, meaning, just because someone said it on a forum doesn't mean it is 100% accurate. However, if a majority of forum posts are positive about the resource or author in question, you can usually trust the majority consensus. You can also click on the forum poster's profile (usually if you click on their name to the left of the post) where they often provide their experience level, chess rating, and other information. This information can help you evaluate the validity of their post.

    I've also found the chess exchange forum to be a great place to discover new resources for chess improvement, as well as a great place to ask chess strategies related questions. The forum contributors are very generous with their time. They will often discuss your questions at length, providing great answers that you won't find anywhere else (especially for free).

    The third way to leverage the Internet to improve your chess game is to simply play chess online! One of the best places to play is the Free Internet Chess Server (FICS). FICS requires that you install a small program on your computer in order to play, but it is well worth it. This allows you to gain experience at the chess board whenever you have a free moment: lunch break, late at night, after work. Study is important, but in order to improve you must actually play chess against real opponents!

    Online chess coaching is the forth way to utilze the Internet to gain valuable chess strategies and chess tactics. A simple google search can bring up many chess coaches who will charge you a fee to analyze your games and coach you to improve. Often you can email them your previous chess games, and they will respond with a written analysis of the games, including tips for how to improve. Again, remember what I've shared already about evaluating information you read on the internet, and apply those principles to choosing your chess coach. The chess exchange forum is a great place to research and contact prospective chess coaches.

    The last way to use the Internet to improve your chess game is by downloading chess software. There are a few pieces of chess software that are crucial to have: ChessBase. The ChessBase format is quickly becoming a standard on the Internet. Many resources, annotated games, tutorials, etc... are being produced in this format. ChessBase has a full version that you can purchase online, but they also provide a free, pared down version which is more than enough to open and view resources that are in ChessBase format.

    Finally, a Good Chess Engine is also essential for improving your game. A chess engine refers to the part of a chess program that deals with the intelligence of game play. Chess engines can analyze games, moves, mistakes, and more. Most chess engines use the common approach of attempting all possible moves from a given position and then choosing the best one with the help of a search. (Access a long list of chess engines by going to my chess strategy website, scrolling to the bottom of the page, and clicking the "resources" link.)
    Author: Chad Kimball

    Chad Kimball is the creator of "The Grandmaster Strategy Training Library." These Training Books contain 2,213 Pages of Chess Strategies, providing years of tested strategies to DEFEAT your opponent. Click here for this chess resource
    Read More......

    Monday, December 08, 2008

    Chess Secret

    HE mental development of the chess player is a gradual struggle from a state of chaos to a clear conception of the game. The period required for such development largely depends upon the special gifts the learner may possess, but in the main the question of methods predominates.

    Most beginners do not troublevery much about any particular plan in their study of chess, butas soon as they have learnt the moves, rush into the turmoil ofpractical play. It is self-evident that their prospects undersuch conditions cannot be very bright. The play of a beginner is plan less, because he has too many plans, and the capacity for subordinating all his combinations to one leading idea is non-existent.

    Yet it cannot be denied upon investigation that a certain kind of method is to be found in the play of all beginners, and seems to come to them quite naturally. At first the pawns are pushed forward frantically, because there is no appreciation of the power and value of the pieces. Conscious of the inferiority of the pawns, the beginner does not conclude that it must be advantageous to employ the greater power of the pieces, but is chiefly concerned with attacking the opposing pieces with his pawns in the hope of capturing them. His aim is not to develop his own forces, but to weaken those of his opponent. His combinations are made in the hope that his adversary may not see through them, nor does he trouble much about his opponent's intentions. When most of his pawns are gone, then only do his pieces get their chance. He has a great liking for the Queen and the Knight, the former because of her tremendous mobility, the latter on account of his peculiar step, which seems particularly adapted to take the enemy by surprise. When watching beginners you will frequently observe numberless moves by a peripatetic Queen, reckless incursions by a Knight into the enemy's camp, and when the other pieces join in the fray, combination follows combination in bewildering sequence and fantastic chaos. Captures of pieces are planned, mating nets are woven, perhaps with two pieces, against a King's position, where five pieces are available for defense. This unsteadiness in the first childish stages of development makes it very difficult for the beginner to get a general view of the board. Yet the surprises which each move brings afford him great enjoyment.


    A few dozen such games are by no means wasted. After certain particular dispositions of pieces have proved his undoing, the beginner will develop the perception of threats. He sees dangers one or two moves ahead, and thereby reaches the second stage in his development.

    His combinations will become more and more sound, he will learn to value his forces more correctly, and therefore to husband his pieces and even his pawns with greater care. In this second stage his strength will increase steadily, but, and this is the drawback, only as far as his power of combination is concerned. Unless a player be exceptionally gifted, he will only learn after years of practice, if at all, what may be termed "positional play." For that, it is necessary to know how to open a game so as to lay the foundation for a favorable middle game, and how to treat a middle game, without losing sight of the possibilities of the end-game. It is hopeless to try to memorize the various openings which analysis have proved correct, for this empirical method fails as soon as the opponent swerves from the recognized lines of play. One must learn to recognize the characteristics of sound play. They apply to all and any position, and the underlying principles must be propounded in a manner generally applicable. And this brings me to the substance of my subject, round which I will endeavor to build up a system compatible with common sense and logic.

    Before I proceed to develop my theme, I shall set down a number of elementary rules which will facilitate the understanding of such simple combinations as occur at every step in chess.

    If we ignore the comparatively small proportion of games in which the mating of the opponent's King is accomplished on a full board, we can describe a normal, average game of chess in the following way. Both sides will employ their available forces more or less advantageously to execute attacking and defensive maneuvers which should gradually lead to exchanges. If one side or the other emerges from the conflict with some material gain, it will generally be possible to force a mate in the end-game, whilst if both sides have succeeded by careful play to preserve equality of material, a draw will generally ensue.

    It will be found a little later that a single pawn may suffice, with some few exceptions, to achieve a victory, and we shall adopt the following leading principle for all combinations, viz. loss of material must be avoided, even if only a pawn. It is a good habit to look upon every pawn as a prospective Queen. This has a sobering influence on premature and impetuous plans of attack.


    On the other hand, victory is often brought about by a timely sacrifice of material.

    But in such cases the sacrificing of material has its compensation in some particular advantage of position. As principles of position are difficult for beginners to grasp, I propose to defer their consideration for the present and to devote my attention first to such combinations as involve questions of material. Let us master a simple device that makes most combinations easy both for attack and defense. It amounts merely to a matter of elementary arithmetic, and if the beginner neglects it, he will soon be at a material disadvantage.

    Author: Zakara Belnoze
    Who Else Wants To Discover the latest Chess Tips and Strategies? For Free Chess Tips go to the Chess Tips website by clicking here

    Read More......

    webRing

    Powered by WebRing.