Compare the Champions

Right here on the eave of Game One of the long awaited World Chess Championship in Bonn, between WCC Vishy Anand Vladimir Kramnic, seems as good a place as any to highlite an excellent study by Charles Sullivan. Before my quoting much, but not all of the major parts of the article referenced at left, a small word on atribution:

Whether by my own failure to get new updates or simply that Mig Greengard had greatly updated his 'Daily Dirt Chess Blog' significantly is unclear, but all I know is that now Mig has a great site. I used to read it now and again, and find now that it always contains great riches--and with it, probably the smartest chess comments on all the web--never fail to miss it.

In fact, often reading his already excellent blog is but an excuse to then read the comments of his readers, often pointing out things from the side not easily found at chessBase, TWIC, or even chessVibes.com.

And it was there recently at his post, 'Awesome Augury Action' that a reader provided a link )Oct 8, 2008 7:59 AM) to this excellent study. The net result is that it compares the complexity of the games, with the raw error of the moves, and I reproduce the main body of the article here, as it is all said better than I can by it's originator:














'Truechess.com Compares the Champions:

'Who was the greatest chess player of all time? from Truechess.com home.

'The Project:

' For 24 hours a day for 15 months (from February 2007 through May 2008), 12 computing threads (on three Intel quad-core Q6600 computers running at 3.0 GHz) analyzed the games of the World Champions. Entire playing careers were analyzed -- for example, 69,084 positions from 2318 games were analyzed for just one player (Smyslov). In all, 617,446 positions from 18,785 games were processed. (For comparison, a previous analysis of the World Champions by Matej Guid and Ivan Bratko [1]-- that you can read about here -- examined about 37,000 positions.)

'The commercially-available program Rybka [version 2.3.2a], the strongest chess program available at the time, and a modified version of Bob Hyatt's open-source Crafty program [version 20.14] were used in the project.

'Calculating "Raw Error" and "Complexity"

'The first 8 moves in each game were ignored, but each subsequent position was searched three separate times. First, a search for a full six minutes (the average search was 17.4 iterations) by Crafty to determine a score for the best move available. A second search, to the same depth as was reached in the first search, assigned a score to the move played in the game. The difference between the move made and the best move in the position is the "raw error" score. Finally, a third search calculates the "complexity" score for the position.'





















'Who Was "The Greatest"?

Here is the short case for -- and against -- each champion:

Paul Morphy (born 1837, died 1884)Although not usually recognized as World Champion, Morphy belongs on this list.
Pro: Morphy was clearly way ahead of his time: the numbers indicate he would easily have beaten Steinitz. Had he kept playing, Morphy surely would have been the strongest player in the world from 1857 until his death at age 47 -- a span of 27 years. Had he lived, he might have been the best player until the beginning of the 20th century!
Con: Judged by today's standards, Morphy's accuracy was just average. Also, his career in top-flight chess lasted only 3 years.

Wilhelm Steinitz (born 1836, died 1900)Steinitz was universally acknowledged to be the first World Champion after defeating Zukertort in 1886.
Pro: Steinitz had a complex style, won a high percentage of games, was successful as a match player, and was probably the best active player for about 20 years (although he was "official" Champion for only 8 years).
Con: Most of Steinitz's numbers place him at the bottom -- nobody else is even close!

Emanuel Lasker (born 1868, died 1941)Lasker was World Champion for a record 27 years.
Pro: Although Lasker played in an era which had relatively few great players, it is still remarkable that he was one of the very top competitors for more than 40 years (he won the strong New York tournament of 1924 by 1½ points over World Champion Capablanca)! According to the numbers, Lasker is the first chessplayer who could have held his own against the great champions of history.
Con: Lasker was absent for years at a time from competition, so it is difficult to get a fully reliable fix on his ability.



José Raúl Capablanca (born 1888, died 1942)Capablanca awed all those who saw him because of his extremely rapid comprehension of the position on the board. Lasker famously said, "I have known many chess players, but only one chess genius, Capablanca."
Pro: Capablanca's numbers are universally excellent. He played with great accuracy, committed relatively few blunders, and won a high proportion of games.
Con: He suffered an unexpected loss to Alekhine in 1927.

Alexander Alekhine (born 1892, died 1946)Alekhine was not born with the Capablanca's natural talent, but he showed what an unparalleled love of chess and a fanatical will to win can do. He played several of the most-admired games of all time.
Pro: He defeated the "invincible" Capablanca in 1927 and decisively defeated the underappreciated Euwe in a match in 1937.
Con: The numbers suggest that Alekhine was not quite as good as his reputation. He also suffered a most surprising defeat to Euwe in 1935.

Max Euwe (born 1901, died 1981)Euwe had a successful life away from the chessboard, which cannot be said for most World Champions.
Pro: He convincingly defeated Alekhine in one of the biggest upsets in chess history. The numbers say that Euwe was better than his reputation.
Con: Euwe's reputation as a player who blundered often is, sadly, richly deserved.

Mikhail Botvinnik (born 1911, died 1995)Botvinnik was so strong that he could have become World Champion as early as 1935. He finally become champion in 1948 and held the title for most of the next 15 years.
Pro: According to the numbers, Botvinnik was probably one of the five best players of all time. In addition, his fighting spirit must have been very resilient -- after losing matches to Smyslov and Tal, he won return matches a year later.
Con: After winning the title in 1948, Botvinnik became simply the first among equals and lost matches to Smyslov, Tal, and Petrosian.



Vasily Smyslov (born 1921)One of those rare players who played almost as well in his sixties as he did in his thirties.
Pro: A player with impressive numbers -- he ranks 2nd behind Capablanca in the 15-Year Rankings (above). In 1984, he reached the Final of the Candidates' Matches in his 63rd year!
Con: There always seemed to be at least one player better (or luckier) than Smyslov: Bronstein, Botvinnik, Tal, Fischer, Kasparov.

Mikhail Tal (born 1936, died 1992)Beloved by most everybody, Tal deserved a better fate: he was plagued by health problems throughout his life.
Pro: He had a sensational rise to the top in the late 1950's and early 1960's. He probably was an objectively better player in the 1970's.
Con: Although he was always among the handful of great players, he could never quite match his achievement of beating Botvinnik in 1960.

Tigran Petrosian (born 1929, died 1984)In many ways, the anti-Tal: solid, possessor of a puzzling style, and widely unappreciated.
Pro: He won the Candidates in 1962 (over such great players as Keres, Geller, Fischer, Korchnoi, and Tal), handily defeated Botvinnik in 1963, and beat the great Spassky in 1966.
Con: His tournament results were usually mediocre and the numbers say he is not one of the greatest Champions.

Boris Spassky (born 1937)World-famous because of his two matches with Fischer, Spassky was probably the best player for most of the 1960's.
Pro: Spassky proved his strength by winning the Candidates' Matches in both 1965 and 1968. He also proved his superiority in the 1966 Piatigorsky Cup where Fischer finished second. The numbers show that Spassky was an impressive player into his mid-forties.
Con: Spassky was not able to sustain the high level of brilliance he evidenced in the 1960's.



Bobby Fischer (born 1943, died 2008)Like Morphy, "The Pride and Sorrow of Chess." Fischer coupled the precocious talent of Morphy and Capablanca with the obsession of Alekhine.
Pro: The sustained level of his play from 1967 through the 1972 match with Spassky is unmatched, as the numbers show.
Con: He quit too soon.

Anatoly Karpov (born 1951)A steely competitor who, unlike most previous champions, was extremely active and competed successfully against the very best players of his time.
Pro: The numbers and the results show that Karpov was the best of his time.
Con: Karpov was not quite as good as either his predecessor or his successor.

Garry Kasparov (born 1963)Kasparov showed that aggression pays on the chessobard. Also, he demonstrated the importance of the computer as a training aid.
Pro: The numbers confirm that Kasparov was one of the greatest players of all time.
Con: His blunder rate (as defined by this project), is surprisingly high. And, almost unbelievably, he lost a match to Kramnik without managing to win a game.

Vladimir Kramnik (born 1975)Kramnik, at his best, is one of the most difficult players to defeat who ever played. He has had some health problems in the last few years.
Pro: In 2000, he defeated the truly great Kasparov (who was at or near his peak strength) in a match by two points without losing a game.
Con: Although he appears to have the talent to be the dominant player of his generation, he seems content to win by attrition. Also, perhaps because of his health issues, his form has been inconsistent.

Vishy Anand (born 1969)As a youth, Anand shocked the chess world with his strong moves that were played at blitz speed. After several years of steady improvement (and learning to curtail his impulsiveness), he became Champion in 2007.
Pro: Anand's numbers have been outstanding in recent years -- his performance in 2006-2007 was almost flawless.
Con: Anand is at the top now, but he needs to sustain his current form for a few more years before he can be mentioned in the same breath with Capablanca, Fischer, and Kasparov.

The Greatest Was ...I think you can reach your own conclusion! And of course, it depends -- what are the necessary qualifications for the world's greatest chess player?'



With a match about to begin, with two of these mighty fifteen chess greats having a showdown, and one of them who wrested the crown from a third among them (Kramnik from Kasparov), this makes the match about to begin in Bonn of potentially great historic importance, not to mention enormous potential chess pleasure, creativity, imagination, and of course beauty.

Warmest, dk

[1] Attentive readers know that I also referenced that study here, a little more than a year ago.

The Kramnik of the Far East: Wang Yue

Needless to say, right before the Anand-Kramnik match in Bonn is as good a time as any to broach the subject of the highest ranking Chinese Chess Grandmaster, Wang Yue [0].

I have wanted to write this for weeks since his recent top result at the second FIDE Grand Prix in Sochi. You see, it all started with a snide viewer remark at ICC, while watching the last FIDE World Cup in Khanty-Mansiysk, in December 2007 where some ‘mere’ Grandmaster asked “WHO is Wang Yue?”, wishing to disparage him, dismissively saying that he was lost, and that he “couldn’t play’ My antenna went right up that moment! And you know what, he won the game!

After that tournament, where he scored very high into the double elimination, it seemed like his time had come. Adding to his obvious imprimatur, he then went on to share first place with Gashimov, Carlsen at the First FIDE Grand Prix in Baku in May, and clear second place with Gata Kamsky at the Second FIDE Grand Prix in Sochi early this August.

His rank today, at Live Ratings, at 2740.5 ELO puts him fair and square at number ten in the world, just below what Mark Crowther of TWIC recently called nine who ‘clearly form the current elite’ (excellent table, enhancing the FIDE ratings).



And now for our simple and clear major point: he did not loose ONE single game, among those two sets of 13 game tournaments (26 games) among many of the world best chess players at their best preparedness [1].

In fact, I have just created a chessBase file, and compiled all the data, and he only lost NINE times among 222 games in the last two years [2]. More to the point, the bulk of those were among seven losses in 2007 across 148 games (1 with White and 6 with Black), and even more remarkably, only two of those occurred in 2008 across 74 games (both with black)! His last loss that I can detect was on March 3rd, at the Reykjavik Island 23rd Open [3]. One loss with white in all those games back in 2007. Man.

Hence our title of his starting to be recognized as ‘the Kramnik of the Far East’. He is plays very super solid. Like Vladimir Kramnik, he proves very, very difficult to win against. You don’t think he gets major support from the Chinese leadership now? Think again.



















Much like Carlsen, he is often seen winning seemed drawn endings, and converts to win with unrelenting if not manically calm pressure, not unlike the patent boa constrictor squash Nakamura applies when he is in form and refuses NOT to not win or just as Fischer did in the early 70’s. This guy is tough! Just look at him. We could also call him the Clint Eastwood of Chess. Just look at this guy:






















Look at this game, which he won when no one could see any real large advantage:

'Our surprised and respectful attitude to the Chinese grandmaster slowly turns to sincere admiration. [Source, you guessed it: ChessVibes, here! Very convenient viewable java applet. dk] He demonstrates not only typically Chinese composure, tenacity and good calculation skill, but also shows good chess education. His endgame technique is very high.

'Today Wang Yue won another complex bishop ending, against Radjabov, after going through the storm of complications and obtaining a slight advantage against a dangerous opponent…. Radjabov showed his ambition by not looking for equal positions. He was determined to play for a win, and missed the moment when he had to secure the equality.



















'His last chance was 19...Rxd3! (instead of 19...Rdc8) 20.Rxd3 Bg5 21.h4! (21.Rd7? Bc6 22.Rc7 Be8) 21...Bxe7 (21...Bf6 22.Rd7 Bc6? 23.Rd6!) 22.Rd7 Bc5 23.Rxb7 Rxa2 24.Rd7 Rxb2 25.Rd2 Rb1+ 26.Rd1 Rb2 with a move repetition.

'After that Black desperately fought for a draw, but Wang Yue's technique was superior to Radjabov's. The Chinese player calculated a bit deeper and maneuvered a bit finer. I (Shipov) think, Teimour could and should have taken White's dangerous central pawn.'



















'He played 24...Bxa2, but I failed to fins any danger after 24...Bxe4. For example, 25.Bc4+ Kh8 26.Re1 (26.Rff7 g5!) 26...Bf5 27. Rxe8+ Rxe8 28.Kf2 Bb1!, and Black will not lose in this sharp ending. However, this was not the critical moment of the game!'

'In my opinion, the game was decided in the bishop ending. Radjabov's passive strategy proved wrong. He could transfer the king to c5 by




















31...Kd7! (instead of 31...Ke7) 32.Kf2 Kc6! 33.Bg8 h6 34.Bf7 (34.Ke3 Kc5!) 34...Kc5! 35.Kg3 (35.Bxg6 Kd5; 35.Ke3 g5) 35... Be4 36.Kf4 Bb1, creating an unbreakable fortress. After the move in the game, the Chinese grandmaster prepared a zugzwang position (46.Bf5!) and took the b4-pawn. Then the b6-pawn fell as well. I was impressed by 55.Ba6! (intending 55...Ke7 56.b5!). Compared to that, 58.Bd7! looks really simple. White created an adjacent passed pawn, and secured a win. Wang Yue is now one of the leaders!'



















1-0

I expect that we will be hearing a lot more from him in the future and certainly this is one more facet of major evidence of the rising supremacy of China.

Warmest, dk

[0] Did you know that China is now third among all chess nations, for having the near highest average chess rating of it's top level grandmasters? See FIDE Country chart, at this link. They now surpass even Israel, Azerbaijan, USA, Hungary, India, Armenia, and Bulgaria in the top ten. Of course, Russia and the Ukraine occupy the strastophere for ELO density and elevation.

[1] Needless to say, I have objectively aggregated the data in xls of the two tournaments, but this is a matter for another day. Yasser kindly sent it to the editor of chessBase for me and I also sent it to TWIC, also Peter Dodgers at ChessVibes, but the feeling was that its still early yet. At the third tournament, I will be ready to resubmit! Remember, there are six tournament, you play in four, and get to pick your best three results, dropping your fourth worst. Wang Yue wont be dropping any of these two [4]!

[2] Please email me at the email provided at my Classic GM Game Collection file, and I will gladly send the cbv file (no pgn’s please for this file. I am not a web service in this case please).

[3] That I have found. Not perfection, but probably very, very close to accurate. {addendae: I did exact checking today, and had to revise these figures, and THESE are now perfectly accurate. cf. FIDE player data, directly. Thur 09 Oct 08 dk}

[4] Again, much to his credit, I much prefer Peters format at the now, in my eyes, preeminent chess site ChessVibes, shown here (Baku), and here (Sochi) for the two Grand Prix to date.
















The Eyes! Asiatic Dreaming, for some deep far off place like chess Jupiter! That GM look of many troubles and cares that is uncanny greatness!

Belles Lettres or Beautiful Hearts

St. Peters, Vast!

We all had the equivalent of our first love in 'real chess' and mine was named Ibrahim. He was the first giant I had met along the path of getting started back in real chess. And before he went back to Bahrain, eloping in secret with the very lovely sister of our mutual best friend Benjamin, but in the end leaving me out of their circle, when they coldly made sure not to invite me back with them for Thanksgiving dinner, before he left, he made many, many astute recommendations about how to study chess that I use to this day. I did much if not nearly not all that he said and his sporting a 2,000 FIDE elo seemed ample evidence enough. That is another story.

But like our first mentors or guides who have strong opinions, not all of them can be judiciously correct. For example, he had a very low opinion of Bruce Pandolfini. Now, lets be clear: after a life time of scholarship, I have found it most important to draw a distinction between the man and his work. Early on, I discovered in copious checking that mythographer Joseph Campbell never mentioned Romanian French expatriate Mircea Eliade, nor the latter the prior. I always preferred Campbell's views, but somehow, despite my inability to ever read Eliade with satisfaction or utility, nevertheless also always found the man fascinating [1]. Similarly, I loved Nietzsche's books in my younger days, but the man could be a real ass, not to mention Thoreau or Veblen assuredly as well. And so I found that this young man had really confused the work of Pandolphini with the man, and if not the work, then the production.



Years latter, after using 'Pandolphini's Endgame Course: Basic Endgame Concepts Explained' with great benefit, upon AJ Goldsy's glowing recommendation at Amazon [2], I had to agree that despite the well known innocuous typo's, that his book was even more useful than Chernev's already very, very useful Practical Chess Endings [3].

I have lived a lot of years by now. I have learned not to judge. Some of Pandolphini's books had well known production problems, but are we to blame him concretely? Were we there? Did we know the publishers or editors or printers? Did we know the circumstances? No. But mark my words, I have been reading his monthly column 'The Q & A Way', at chessCafe, for as long as I can remember, and always enjoy it, and never fail to read him.

He is both affably and warmly kind and unpretendingly eruditely sophisticated without grandstanding or pretense if not on occasion acerbic [4], in a way well beyond most chess scholars and teachers. He gives ample evidence bespeaking of wide awareness, well beyond the narrow specisim of the our beloved chess venues. His humanity [5] at times reminds me of Znosko-Borovsky, who not only managed to beat quite a few of the truly great world chess champions, but starving as he was between the two great wars, demonstrated a enormous familiarity with belles lettres in what must have been a beautiful heart.

Warmest, dk

Mr Pandolphini, who wrote me back promptly and without any complications, very kindly approved my copying the first part of his most recent column below. There have been many Q & A's over the years, but this one simply struck me as if not among his best then surely most representative. Without further ado:
















Beware of Regimens

Question:

After five to ten years of practice, chess players usually reach a plateau. This supposes the chess player has over this long period of time: participated in a number of chess tournaments, played in over 100 classical games (40 moves in 2 hours, 20 moves per hour, etc); gone through classic books on openings, tactics, middlegames, and endings; analyzed his own games, as well as having gone through classic games (World Chess Champions, current top GM games, etc.); and played many blitz games in a chess club or on the Internet. Let’s assume, for sake of argument, that all this brings the player to a level of a seasoned club player, corresponding to a USCF 2150 player (FIDE 2100). How do you suggest improving your own level of play (obviously not as strong as the FM/IM level), without repeating the basic stuff? How do you separate what you already know (rook endings, typical tactics, such as pins, skewers, and double attacks) from what you should learn to make progress? What should you pay attention to when you replay grandmasters games? Frank Fortune (USA)





















Josh Waitzkin and his first chess coach, Bruce Pandolfini

Answer:

Chess players don’t have to wait five or ten years before reaching a plateau. It can happen much sooner than that, and typically does. Nor need there be just one plateau. Periods of stasis occur all the time. They can last a few weeks or go on for years. All along the way are potential obstacles halting improvement, putting our playing ability in a virtual freeze. Regressions are even possible, where our method of addressing troublesome stages can retard progress, if not detract from overall skill. Clearly, how we cope with such troubling circumstances plays a role in shortening those episodes. It also is a key determinant in how far we can ultimately go.

Moreover, there’s no single path that guarantees advance. Some players achieve success naturally, absorbing ideas in the context of regular play, with aptitude developing over time, without specific effort. Others do it by dint of hard work, studying this and that, until all major areas are reviewed systematically and everything seems to fall into place. Still others, taking definite steps or not, never get beyond a point. Either they accept who they are or give up altogether.

I’m going to take slight issue with another one of your implications, which is that it’s wasteful to study things you’ve already gone over. Indeed, constant review of the same or similar techniques and concepts, viewed for a variety of situations, reinforces what you know. And it gives you a range of conditions under which you can adapt that knowledge to efficient use. This modus operandi is a chief weapon in the chess player’s arsenal. That is, players are always looking for analogies. You can’t employ analogous reasoning so effectively, however, if you haven’t a proficient grasp of what you’ve already experienced. The way you acquire such facility is by constant reconsideration and repeated immersion. To that end, the argument that learning some things well, rather than lots of things on the surface, may have greater impact here. I’m not suggesting that tangential treatment of many different notions doesn’t have value, too. But if you don’t constantly review your past experiences, you’re bound to make the same mistakes, fall into the same snares, miss the same shots, and form the wrong plans, again and again.





















Mercedes-Benz Museum in Stuttgart

So, even though you’ve laid out your question hypothetically, I’m going to take exception with the nature of your basic premise anyway. It implies that one has to do certain things in order to succeed (play at least one hundred serious tournament and match games, study particular tactics and strategies, examine the games of great players, and so on). Yet, there’s no accepted evidence whatsoever that one has to follow a definite regimen of any kind before attaining specific playing levels. To be sure, such an approach is antithetical to the idea that each of us is an individual. Put simply, an activity is more rewarding if we’re able to pursue it along a unique pathway, to the Thoreau inspired beat of our own drummer.

Here’s my advice for those who are decent players but seem to have been stymied in their recent attempts at progress. Begin by playing a bunch of serious games at respectable time controls. Take those games and have them assessed by a competent observer. Have the analyst spell out what he or she thinks you need to work on in order to move ahead. It probably won’t be right on the money – it almost never is – but it’s a place to start.

Acquire, borrow, or tap into the recommended materials. Start using them on a regular basis, and in accordance with the laid out program. Play lots of serious games, all of which should then be analyzed by you first, then by a strong player who cares that you exist. The strong player could be named Fritz, even though Fritz is likely to be indifferent. Modify your original program as it reflects your recent experience. Over time this constant testing of challenging opposition, intense review, from within and without, should direct you to relevant areas worthy of attention. It’s typically the best way to break the stalemate in your progress and move you along. It’s tough to say what may be the best thing to study to push improvement along. But probably it should be pertinent to your needs, rather than satisfying some abstract ideal. If you want to get more out of you, study you [6].



[1] Such as his systematically reducing his sleep, so that he could study study Sanskrit for twelve hours a day, ultimately settling for only four hours sleep in the end. See his wonderful Autobiography: Ordeal by Labyrinth: Conversations With Claude-Henri Rocquet.

[2] As well as his colorful and wonderful, if not idiosyncratic website. His site reads like the Arabian Knights on Acid for chess denizens. Enjoy!

[3] At the same time, to be clear, I cannot praise Chernev's book too highly: READ and STUDY both, might I suggest: first PEC/BECE, then move onto PCE. In this order, the latter will mean more.

[4] Bertrand Russell, AKA Lord Russell, who if anyone ever could write the English language, was said to be acerbic. He relates in his wonderful Autobiography that he had learned to write the English language with precision by taking the advise of his brother in law, to take the already very, very clear a and concise writings of John Stewart Mill, and TRY to summarize each of his paragraphs with one sentence. Can you imagine?

[5] My definition of humanist, quoted from my 1989 letter of application to teach architecture, at UNC Charlotte: "As a humanist, I believe in the betterment of man through self knowledge".

[6] His original ChessCafe article in full, directly here.

Economic Koans or Just Bad Behavior?

The Planet and It's People are All Crying,
And I am Crying With It. Get a cleanex.

My very dear friend BDK, who is one of the smartest guys around, has been gently pushing me, but without let up all the same, to write about the meltdown. Now, this is a chess blog, and chess besides being a form of mental combat if not 'mental torture' [1], is a form of consumption. We consume free time, and emotional energy in pursuit of our craft. And if we are forcibly disturbed daily, neh, not disturbed, but unrelentingly attacked by the media, by financial markets, by national instability, by sinking and towering debt to fight two wars offshore when we cannot even mobilize our society to put shoes on children or fix the many potholes in our roads then, well *God Damn It* , it seems to me that this is chess too. You know the drill: we have to send probes to Mars but cannot regulate the ten largest banks in the country, we cannot face the issues.



KEATING ECONOMICS: John McCain & The Making of a Financial Crisis [2]

So yes all right. Its chess. Fuck yea it's chess. I was on a roll. I was blogging several times a week, I was in flow and all the rest is in my brain. But I can't write. No I cannot. Not today. Am I to write about chessBase intervening files when we are reeling with staggering upset? I have a lot more to say in chess, but not today:











When someone closer to a Fulbright Scholarship to Japan than not, when someone is a Registered Architect, when someone is a deft knowledge manager, and nimble in sales and customer service is asked three times, in eight days, to unload tractor trailer trucks, when such a person protests the third time constructively to his HR Department that this is bad business, leaving his Tool World Empty for theft or lost and helpless customers, to what? unload a tractor trailer truck AND hurts his lower back, AND then works sick the next two days because it is pre-inventory, yes, America, we are fucked. When at the end of the second day, I am approached by my bosses boss, told that big boss 'WILL DEFININETLY BE WANTING TO SEE' ME 'TOMORROW', said in an intimidating fashion, this is a problem. So I call District HR Manger, who asks me to stay home today and rest my back, and that it is very wrong for me to have to work in an intimidating work environment. Let me say more:

This is not an economic crisis. Yes, yes, I know.... 'we didn't land on the moon, but Disney did it in hidden areas in Yemen' and 'Nixon had it done with off the books money...'

It is not an economic crisis! Got your attention?



Global Warming is NOT Real, and Soylent Green is People

The crisis is that we think it is an economic crisis, that somehow we are going to, 'baby, baby, just one more time baby' re-engineer ourselves, borrow more money, postpone the day of reckoning?

We are immature. We are juvenile. We overconsume. We are fragmented. We allow hatred to rule the day. We are petty. We concentrate wealth among the few, fewer and fewer each day, while cutting taxes to the rich? We abuse our workers, seperate ourselves from our neighbors, we are overstimulated, and overtaxed. Our cars are too big, are wars too far from home, our spending leaves us ill prepared for an unsustainable future. We polute. We cut down. We both allow drugs and punish drugs. We punish guns, and we shoot guns. We talk of conservation, then we reward big Golf with Big Skin Games, we have gigantic Superbowls, we have Emmy's, we have monstrocity sized Indianappolis 500's while preaching air quality, Dupont while talking of water quality, we have glory, but we are a society which rewards hatred, excess, instability, narcisisim, ignoreAnce, and fame. We exploit sexuality. We disrespect our old. We disregard the moans of our planet, which is crying.


















No Caption Necessary!

We ALLOW corporations to run our so called democracy, and we remove and punish dissenters, much as Ralph Nadir says, and Noam Chompsky, yes, all of it is true. We are infantile and spiritually bankrupt. We conduct our work places, like gulags, so that those who work the hardest are often treated the worst. And if you are not honest, you get more sick time, more days off from work, and if as me you are the sort who never calls in sick unless you are dying, then, yes, you sir, are off on an adventure.
















Upper Deck, Now Making Presidential Predictor Trading Cards...
Yes, Yes, We are all Serious About this! [3], [4]

Me? I have seen it all. The zen monks with shaved heads with the stick that smacks you if you sleep. I have trained with Marine Special forces in martial arts, I have walked with Grandmasters for hours discussing the global world and FIDE's travisty of mismanged irresponsibility. I have bought and sold $150,000,000 worth of stock with these same fingers, I have unloaded trucks with ten intercity kids, I have sat with the ineffable Joe Six Pack and know his hurt. I have sat with his lover, hearing of her hurt, the worry for her children while he watches videos as she cooks and cleans and mends. I have seen it all.

We cannot fix this, and it is too late now, by re-engineering our society. The economy is a major minimal signal, maybe one of the largest most significant signals, but this is not the problem, but the symptom. We, my friends, are in very, very serious trouble, and if the 'virtuous circle' or virtuous cycle accelerates, as it surely will, falling equities, leads to falling dollars, then they are repatriated offshore, leading to lower stocks, leading yet again to lower dollars.



Lets Be Clear. I don't like Ted Nugent or agree with his views, but put it up here apropos of passion. I give him credit for that. And authenticity.



More of the Same. I repeat, I do not agree with him. But he is real man!

It is time to pay guys. And it won't be financial. It will be physical, social, psychological, behavioral, and relational, as in how we are each day with each other, but yes, for sure, someone will really have to pay, and I suspect that both Joe Six Pack and Vanila Ice will all be paying.

God Bless, yes. Now I have said it. Thank you BDK for giving me the initiative to say this, say this now, say this here. May you all carry on and be well in your lives.

Warmly, dk

[1] Attribution, well known to Garry Kasparov, the very essence of masculinity.

[2] Links to Obama web site and video here (I have not planned to vote for Obama but keep thinking about it. I think that he is a truly great man, but cannot do half of what he promises, and this, I feel, perpectuates more dilusional thinking here on our shores).

[3] Makers, for example of 'World of Warcraft'; needless to say, as a young stock broker, I called on the two founders, and had a big two hour meeting with them, but they were, yes, surprise, real bona fide jerks. They asked me to do a bunch of free work, then, at its conclusion, wouldn't return my calls. Oh well.

[4] It took a bit of counter intuitive digging, but the full series can be handsomely viewed here, at Presidential Predictors.

Tools for Structuring Getting Better, Part One: Starting

In order to get better at chess, you are going to need a structure to work within. I will be having a LOT to say about this structure, in the weeks ahead--so much so, that I will have to take this one in bite sizes. I usually like to dive in head first, in large scale, but this is one (and good for me at that, against my nature as it is!), that necessitates piecemeal discussion. Also, the cap stone post will have to be last, as the 'big chessBase discussion', is one that I need to both build up to, and cover a lot of ground, first.

Today we begin this discussion, but first with miscellaneous subjects to prepare the ground as it were:

To begin with, I am not the foremost example of improvement. In fact, I am fairly typical. Perhaps above average in chess knowledge, significant in some ways, but lacking transfer of that knowledge. It doesn't mean it will be this way forever, but is so now. Added to that, I am an extremely very 'type A' person, and chess IS tension, so the need for more of it is antagonistic to getting better at chess, if not simply antagonistic to PLAY AT ALL. The net result is that I don't enjoy playing chess or rather don't get to play chess much unless I add stress, so that I greatly prefer study, which is more about lifestyle or hobby or activity than chess per se. I don't say this with pride or shame but as a fact about me.



















Tama: Nine Year Old Cat Wearing Stationmaster Cap Helps Debt Strapped Japanese Train Company As Thousands come to visit him [3].

So what I can share with you is how I organize that effort, not what you DO with that effort, or what you extract from that effort. If you want to know more about 'types of correct effort', then go to Phaedrus's wonderful blog, Chess Vision, previously called Chess Training, I think it was. I wrote about chessedelic weeks ago, and he must be a very good coach. But if I were in Europe or had the right circumstance, Phaedrus is another coach that I would have to carefully consider. Might I suggest you go to his blog? He not only talks about it, but has 'done it'. For example, he once took a young man, who was pretty much considered uncoachable, and this man recently made his third IM norm.

Finally, I need not remind anyone that while he neither seeks money nor fame, full with his own successful career outside chess, loving family, and serious chess study, but rather that he not only has 'done it' himself but also knows how to skillfully communicate it, not to mention much else besides?

* * *
And now for the bones of our current essay:

In order to structure your effort, first you will need to be able to access and store your games, so that you can review them. If you are not doing that, you simply won't get better. Many of us do that already, but I have to start, in 'Aristotelian fashion' at square one, and work my way progressively forward by topic. And if you can do that, then you will be able to view high level games, both in classical and contemporary form.
















'I am Done Organizing My Books by Color'

There are many viewers and I much prefer chessBase, but not everyone wants to spend that much, so there are alternative. To name but one, SCID is reputed to be the best, when previously ChessPad was recommended to me as recently as last spring-for those who like to research comparisons [4]. Free downloads are available at this link. ChessBase Light is very, very good, but I am going to ask readers to wait on that, for that is a separate post completely (chessBase Light is for great for viewing work in hand but cannot CREATE files, nor access them when too large). For now, I can say that I am going to recommend both but again, lets discuss this latter.

With your viewer, you will need a large database, and again, a completely free 4M game database is available for download at: ICOfY [1]. Now, there is a LOT to say about this. It is not a perfect database, but we are talking free, yes? The key is to get started, and you can make substitutions latter. What this database lacks it makes up for in shear size. What is really good about it, is that few record games are NOT in it [2].

This database will not stand still. And each week, you go to chessCenter.com, and download the full games form the last week here or at The Week in Chess here, also free. There are few if any serious chess players who do not do this each Monday night (EST) or Tuesday morning (CST).






















Florence: Old World Effort at Control

Finally, a small detail but might be news to many here, for I myself only discovered it by accident: chesscenter.com had a Silverlight Chessboard application enabled embedded at the news site for months, before I realized that I had to both download and enable the Microsoft Application. I am not going to get into Macromedia, and Flash, and all that, only that I avoided doing so, for a long time, then one day I did and boy am I glad! Now I have viewable java applets at Mark Crowther's wonderful, World Number One chess site, and get immediate updates on live game's. I suggest you try it. If you are not going to chesscenter.com daily or weekly, then you, kind sir, are missing out big time.

Much, much more to follow. Stay posted!
Warmly, dk



Jim Bishop Castle Builder. If you like this guy, then here is an even better one of him here. Gotta love the guy. Damn, some cool shit. Here is a full expose of him.

[1] You will need to download a free tool, to unzip it, and for this, download another free application, 7-Zip.

[2] For someone as scholarly minded as me, its lack of detailed game data bothers me, but I use it daily for when I cannot find a game in my $Megabase$, sold by chessBase. For example, it lacks round numbers and venue information such as the name of the tournament, using only city name.

[3] Alert males will notice the carefully calculated complete absence of inclusion of any eroticized females at this blog when previously widespread if not frequent. Yes. Believe you me, every week I consider the matter, so that WHEN I do restore that feature, you all will REALLY have something to see, and duly note it as such. For now, we must suffice with fractal, heuristical, urbanistic, geopolitical, iterative, natural, mechanical, global, and feline scenes but not permanently as you can appreciate.

[4] Thanks to Phaedrus, who just wrote me back, from my inquiry earlier today, to tell me that SCID was the best.

Thantos or Chess Urge?

After Aristotle, came Plato, and in the mysterious groves of Ancient Greece before them, the Pre-Socratics. Much latter, in a carbon based world, nano-technology followed the semi-conductor and biotech revolutions, and excess food allowed the division of labor to elaborate detailed gaming structures and heuristical methodolgies, and chess cannot be excluded in the deepest urge to escape persistent thantic urges, or thoughts of ultimate mortality. Such an anger [1]!:



[1] If any of you find him at all amusing, here is another one that definitely portrays something!

Marry The Bosses Daughter

Allow me a brief digression but, yes, yes, we will get to the harsh combat of chess tactics in a second... Despite having boundless energy, my mother was a slight woman, all 86 pounds of her when she had me, so that my reasonable 5'-10" stature and decidedly endurance type build is a work of gratitude. When she gave birth to me, she was told not to expect to live, for her frame could not take another cesarian section, her third. She did live, and the very old world jewish Doctor Pearlman (we are not Jewish but were surrounded at my birthplace) had tears in his eyes when he delivered me.

It was this same Doctor Pearlman, who upon telling my mother in reply to her certainty that she 'could NOT be pregnant' (my dad had a vasectomy, and my mom for sure only 'knew my father') in heavy Yiddish accent: 'Vhat do you vmean to tellm me, hez Jesus Christ??' But so it was, and here I stand today, four weeks from my fiftieth birthday.

Much latter, as he was in his last days, this dear man, who was so tough that he REPEATED MEDICAL school here (for they wouldn't recognize his credentials from Europe), summoned me to his home right before my freshman year of college. He told me a few things, none of which I remember except one in particular: "Always David. Always Marry the Bosses Daughter".

Now what the heck does that mean? Is it a spiritual thing, or is it concrete?? One thing is for sure, I never did marry her (in either sense of it), and have suffered for it ever since. How prescient of him! Fast forward.



















Every Karateka gets a new white belt, and one of the first things you notice is not only are there few black belts, but the really senior students have them in tatters. Just threadbare from battle, sweat, and arduous training. At my Dojo with Sensei Vic Coffin, the former Special Forces guy, there was a guy named Mr. Dempsey. Every dojo always has somebody who not only has all the teaching, but from long ago, a fixture, but Dempsey-San was young, so he had been there from the start! His Gi or Karate Uniform was tattered and falling to pieces. His belt was worn to threads from all his tumbles and scrapes.

Today, kind readers, I am almost done with Reinfeld's 1001 Winning Sacrifices and Combinations. The binding is wrecked, and it is beyond taping. I have taped, and retaped. I yearn for completion, so that when I go to the beach, as I am want to do, studying tactics, always, I need not fear for half the loose pages blowing away, as happened to a few pages in the front, so that I must put an apple on top!

I met a man once, who was an aspiring chess master. He told me, in 2002 that I needed 'to sleep with that book;, and that, I have done, literally for more than two years--not in a mad rush, not like some classic novel you rush through, but like the book you never rush at, taking in every word like a gold button.















I did this with Murasaki Shikibu's Tale of Genji in 1982 [1] and I did this with E.M. Cioran's Temptation to Exist in 1978 particularly. If he mentioned Tacitus or Montaigne, I would look it up, every single citation. Now you, have any of you taken a chess book and so used it, that you would destroy it, pulverize it? I cannot recommend it enough, as GM Seirawan calls it, 'burning it into the circuitry of your brain'.



warmest, dk

[1] Reputed to be among the world oldest novels. It might be suggested that it almost makes either Tolstoy's War and Peace or Prousts Remembrance of Things Past but short vignettes or of limited complexity, in comparison. I would read only a paragraph and then sometimes have to stop, so beautiful was its artistry of thought or touching the emotion. And--yes--it was writen by a woman.

High Level Preparation

Dear Kind Readers:

I am starting to get comments far and wide from a lot of new people, which is a sure sign that I am on the right track in my primary motivation to 'share' in its higher, formal sense as against incipient attention seeking in its lower, baser kinds. This is emboldening. All your visits and each of your comments--however small, all of them truly mean a lot to me. They provide additional energy. Thank you.



I Love this Audio. I listen to it three times per day. Might I suggest you listen to it, while reading?

I still plan to write both regularly and a LOT more in the near term, as there is just too much to share to allow much pause, for otherwise I would get buried under 'to-do lists' and 'wish lists' as distinct from the habit of concrete action. Nevertheless this means that at times I must put up smaller posts--in no way lesser, but among those subjects affording more laconic or concise explication and thus more ruled by simplicity, even if it is simplicity concerning very large things.

Take, for instance World Chess Champion Viswanathan Anand and former World Chess Champion Vladimir Kramnik. Now that is big. My good friend GM Seirawan wrote me two weeks ago, before his 'simul' trip to Malaysia, and upon my asking what he thought about this big match, said that 'this is the match that' he 'always wanted too see'. Heady stuff from the originator of the Prague Accord!

Now things should be so simple and clear, but they are not: and so we begin the first post spotlighting some super GM's:

Clearly if the tally were taken any time in the last year, few among us would ever have any reason to grant anything other than higher odds in favor of Anand. Not big odds, but greater odds we might say?

He has the fate of it being perhaps his turn at the page of history after all these years, the ceaseless brilliance of his high speed mind, and good manners. He even has the kind thoughts of hundreds of thousands of chess fans, which can hardly be underestimated as an outside subtle factor [1]. My goodness, he even has a pleasant, beautiful, and affable wife [2].















But after taking dead last upon yesterdays now concluded FIDE Grand Slam Final in Bilbao, we have to wonder how good a form he is in? I am not predicting a loss or collapse, but a note of concern. It is even rumored that he has Wunderkund Magnus Carlsen among his seconds [3], which cannot hurt at all!

Now for Kramnik: despite his irregularity in tournament play, where he can be as good as Kasparov one month, and in the lower half in another, not to mention his health problems previously impairing him, no one has beaten him in a match for a long, long, long time. This is a big factor. It is one thing to play scores of high level round robbins and wholly an altogether vastly different thing to prepare for match play.

It is true that Kramnik beat Kasparov, or rather the latter could not win a SINGLE GAME in his match in 2000, but he came back and successfully defended against Leko, then yet again against Topolov with the usual and also well known controversy, also winning.



















Being Ready

Finally, we can talk extensively all about openings, and psychology, and all sorts of chess things but let us not forget knowing how to prepare and peak at the right moment is an art distinct from the technical side of chess. Just look at Michael Phelps effort in winning eight Olympic gold medals. When asked how he felt, he kept saying 'how tired' he was.

Think about that. Swimming two miles or 2.3 km at world record pace in most instances, not to mention time trials. But he knew how to be fully ready at each key event. Kramnik must have the edge there [9], as he has been there three times already and Anand, while world champion by contract agreements in place has not defeated Kramnik in a match yet, as Kramnik wryly points out. Here is one of many excellent interviews, Kramnik: “I think my level is quite all right.”

What does Maxwell Maltz say in his book, Psycho Cybernetics?
: "Confidence is the repeated experience of success". So Kramnik.

Very, very lastly, it is often said that Kramnik has the deepest understanding of chess. In a world with even still Kasparov in one form or another still demonstrating preternatural genius (breakneck instant speed comments at playchess.com, accurate at 15 to 20 ply, given while sitting at the beach, blindfold as it is said) and Ivanchuk in remarkably great form, to say that he is the deepest is a profound admittance. This will prove to be a great match, and with Anand now only 5th in the world and Kramnik 6th in the Live Top Ratings table [4], sufficient motivation exists, not to mention the likely super motivation to face Topolov [5], [8].

Warmest, dk



Joy Division: Penetration To the Depth of Our Very Souls

-----------
[1] It has been proven that group thinking can, as it were, in a biomorphogenic field sense, affect individual performance, negatively or positively.

[2] Often seen in photos sitting, for example, Leko's wife Sophie, talking as women do in whispers and furtive private smiles (the latter with GM Arshak Petrosian, his trainer and father in law!) Can you imagine that one? Chessbase article with photos, here: 'Picture gallery'.

[3] Anand, when hearing how Magnus answered probing questions as to whether he was on the team (Magnus: "No comment"), was heard as saying: "The BOY gave a good answer". This was widely discussed in the last ten days, and here is but one of the articles mentioning this: 'Will Carlsen be Anand’s second?' from India's Daily New Analysis.

[4] Real time chess ratings, reflective of the must current results, day by day, as distinct from FIDE's glaciatic quarterly calculation!

[5] Who would say that Kamsky can win? A subject of another post. Let us note for now, despite Kamsky's well known dogged tenacity [6], it is hard for us to see him beating Topolov, in his current form [7]

[6] Who has not seen Kamsky win lost games, and drawn lost positions, not unlike Aaronian (7th in World today)?

[7] Topolov is number one in the world, in today's table. Kamsky is 'only' sixteen, a big difference from the world top six.

[8] Wikipedia:
"Viswanathan Anand and Vladimir Kramnik have played 51 classical chess games, of which Kramnik won six, Anand took four wins, and 41 games were drawn.
"In rapid games, the score is 10–2 in favor of Anand with 34 draws. In blitz the score is 2–2 with four draws.
In the blindfold games the score is 4–3 if favor of Kramnik with six draws.
In Advanced Chess Kramnik leads 1–0 with seven draws".

[9] See this fantastically informative interview, from the Russian Online Newspaper, The Sports Express Train, conveniently translated here: 'Kramnik vs. The Rest of the World'. Hat tip Dennis Monokroussos, linked here, at The Chess Mind.

Chessedelic Makes it Clear

Chess Friends, I have resolved to post more often--not for the sake of ‘often’ or ‘frequency’ but as I have intimated in the last two posts, I have found that there is so much that I see, think, or know of that I greatly wish to share and not forego. And as I also said, my attachment to larger, more elaborated posts was stopping me and I was thirsting to surrender it, ‘give it up’ as they say. Tonight I thus begin the first of far many more, with the proviso that they will all be shorter, as best as I can given my overarching tendency towards the catholic and synoptic, or universal and maximally inclusive approach to all that I do.

In chess study, we all benefit greatly from routines. And, if you like me have many of them, in time they can become so utterly comprehensive, that willy-nilly we can find ourselves in our own massive prison of tasks, our own Boolean flow chart of ‘I must do A, B, C’. and thinking futher such as ‘then after P, D, Q, if S, T, or V occur, I must go back and to B…’ and so on. My goodness.

So in time, I have evolved my own routines that are sustainable, and this means not only downloading ALL the current games to my Megabase each week from chesscenter.com's pricelessly invaluable TWIC but also adding all the major games in high level tournaments each week to a separate, ‘stand alone file’.

In so doing, I always assign colored chessBase medals to exemplary games such as ‘Best Game’, ‘Ending’, ‘Tactical Blunder’ and much else to discussed at posts in the not too distant future [1]. This also includes viewing weekly both Benjamin’s ‘Game of the Week’ (each Friday), and ‘Attack with Larry Christiansen’ (each Wednesday) at ICC Chess FM.com [2]. And finally perhaps my favorite of all, this means viewing also in its entirety Chessedelic’s Videos of current high level games.





















Korchnoi's Scoresheet from the recent Rising Stars Tournament [2.2]

To elaborate, I had wished to ‘be the one to tell you all about this’ but his work while not as yet widely known is, by now, not unheard of [3]. What I love about his videos is that unlike the exhausting myriads of variations presented by the two great ICC Grandmasters (so very well done, but a bit of an overload [4]), unlike those, chess trainer Waldemar Moes manages to keep a very high level while streamlining his smooth, warm, and approachable delivery into comprehensible nuggets.

To elaborate on this must mean to compare them to GOTW and AWLC at ICC mentioned above, but this is the subject of another day. He also often begins from a key diagram and if like me you use chessBase, you can tile the view with the web video on the left, and the cbv game on the right, adding variations if not noting the commentary as notes, in making the game more memorable. After all, what else do we strive for if not to absorb so much great chess?

Lets let his fine work speak for itself, and let me heartily encourage all of you to visit his blog, add his RSS feed, or if you have seen his work, then to reinforce the value of repeated visits. There are so many instructional videos today, in chess and blogging, some good, some bad, some indifferent, that it’s nice to know where more of the gems are [5].

Warmest, dk



Some Facets of Traditional Higher Culture Make the Space Shuttle Seem like the Work of Children, such Rich Archaic depth, like something from the Gods!

[1] I have an entire list of new things to write of, and two or three times a week intend to address them one by one, and knock them off in a workman like way, without making a chore out of it. One major highlight is a rich process to share, in how I manage my truly massive effort, in creating and accessing multiple if not vast chessBase files. This is two years now for me, non-stop effort and it is still building. Every day I find something new.

[2] In the future, I will compare these two, and only note for now, that those of you inclined to subscribe to ICC but not members have the further inducement of not only having access to high level chess, but a rich library of videos and interviews. ICC password necessary to access. This site is now truly rich gold to me.

[2.2] Can you imagine what his love making must have been like, 'back in the day?' :) Such a distinct exuberance, that even well into his 70's the Eros still shines through, like an elemental force of nature like wind, rain, or oceans!

[3] The excellent blog Greg’s Chess Progress, to his great credit, mentioned this weeks ago. Greg is not yet a ranking chess player, but A++ for his sincere effort and I read all his posts. I suggest you visit him. I love his blog.

[4] Along with note 2. above, I need to write about suggested ways to better use those ICC Videos, and how this relates to chessBase Knowledge Management mentioned at [1] immediately above.

[5] Please be advised that my video selections are in no way inadvertent. I have recently viewed about three hundred youTube videos and try to select the one that I think is best, choosing from a large short list, much as I have done the last two years here, in selecting from a now capacious library of images. So here too now.

Another Chess Board that the USA is Getting Crushed On!

Magnus Now Number One in the World

As many of you probably know by now, Morozevich was world number one for ONE DAY about two weeks ago, through the now increasingly popular Live Ratings Website. This same table is conveniently viewed through the ChessVibes.com website. Experienced or news current readers among you already are aware of this, and this is only to inform those of you who love chess who might not have time or inclination to view these sites.

So many times in the past--hundreds, in fact--I have wanted to post some smaller factoid, but stopped myself for needing to be more extensive in blogging, as was my practice, but herein I am allowing myself to include shorter items. My goal is not to regurgitate news but rather, to spread the word in help further broaden horizons more quickly where appropriate.

More than news, when I post here outside my own chess about the world of chess at large, hopefully it won't be like the commonplace Susan Polgaresque inane creation of news about news, but rather to share some of the tools, resources, and discoveries I have found or realized.

Also, I will now have shorter subjects about chess and, as usual, still have bits and pieces about me. In the weeks ahead, I will be writing about the ascension of the Kramnik of Asia--Wang Yue of China, notes about the benefit of using ChessBase Lite for newer serious students, how to organize and structure ChessBase files as work in progress, sources for some notable chess blog videos that I have found and enjoyed, and much else. Stay tuned!

Without further ado, in beating Radjabov today in the FIDE Grand Slam Final at Biblao in the Basque Region of Spain, Magnus Carlsen is now provisionally rated Top in the world in this real time calculation, that is to say, if it were today, he would occupy that role [1].














Carlsen-Radjabov, Grand Slam Final 2008

Both Magnus and Radjabov have been resusitating the Sicilian Dragon of late, and needless to say with extensive preparation. But today, Carlsen was ready on the White side when the two highest ranking proponents of this resurgence meet in a topical line.

Here are the ratings. What an accomplishment for this once boy wonder, and now young man [2]:

'Live rating list - updated September 5, 2008
Rank Name Rating Change Games
01 Carlsen 2791,3 +16,3 25
02 Anand 2790,9 -7,1 4
03 Morozevich 2787,0 -1 9
04 Topalov 2786,2 +9,2 4
05 Ivanchuk 2781,8 +0,8 44
06 Kramnik 2771,9 -16,1 16
07 Aronian 2754,1 +17,1 17
08 Radjabov 2749,5 +5,5 17
09 Leko 2746,6 +5,6 16
10 Wang Yue 2735,5 +31,5 23

Daily updates of top 10 ratings provided by Hans Arild Runde
See chess.liverating.org for details and complete list'

[1] Change does not occur in a vacume or in isolation. Change occurs always in relation to something else. Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason outlined four categories: Quantity, Quality, mode, and Relation. For Carlsen went up while Anand went down. Helping Carlsen for sure, mighty Topolov today obliterated Anand in twenty five moves, as indicated here. As discussed at the link in the ChessBase article, this is a relatively rare phenomenon [3]

[2] Finally, here is a very nice article with more about him, mentioning for example, his dinner with Anand and his wife Aruna, where they did the Monty Python skit. :)

[3] Here in Microsoft country in Seattle, it is well known that not only was Bill Gates ruthless, brilliant, had good parents including a lawyer for a father, but in addition to great timing in seizing a new idea, he had GOOD STARS. In short, he had preturnatural good fortune, aka good luck. So here, Carlsen had to have good luck on top of hard work, boundless talent, enjoyment of the game, and the strongest connection to the royal game.

My check now, of my megabase, indicates that this has happened only four times in his career, since 1995, twice by Kasparov and once, of course, by nemesis Kramnik. Just think about that.

dk Version 8.2

[Proof of the Pudding: I wrote this on the 10th of August, and only now have a proper moment to reread and edit this! I aught to rename this post, dk Version 8.2 or Ecce Homo Chess! warmest, dk]



It's not hard to see my massive blogging for two years then sudden silence if not motionless fixity at my leading post.

Many quit or cease from blogging perhaps due to feeling they have nothing worth saying; perhaps others due to exhaustion, or simply because they have other more important concerns; or the more rare occurrence: those who must deeply sort out their thoughts, and doing so in a community of knowledge, with great exchange if not notoriety and popularity, and after forming many great cyber chess friendships, find that they got what they needed.

What would that look like? It might be a great list of books, swaths of recommendations employed and put into practice such as routines, or realization of the need to 'do CTS' or 'not do CTS', resolve to do the first Circle such as through CT-Art 3.0, Position Chess Trainer, the Steps Method, Chess Tempo, resolve to join ICC or get a USCF Rating etc. This also might involve the purchase of chessBase10 and having strangers send you files you NEVER asked for which took someone six to seven years of constant work (as I have done many times), or it can be the gift in one's email of a file you were going to laboriously construct but was instead generously given to you by a total stranger, such as the Endgame Part of GM-Ram from a British Master. God bless them all.



















Then the friends. I met temposchlucker, and BDK, and Bob aka chipschap (chessRelearner, inactive here now), Blunderprone, likeForests, Tanc (lousy@chess), chessLoser (the inimitible hardcore pawnography ), ReAssembler, Robert Pearson . So we have knowledge, we have skills, we have exchange of sources and data, we have relationships and alliances, and in time we meet folks, exchange emails... and we got exactly what we came looking for! In fact, we recieved far more than could be asked for. So what is left then?

Do we wish to impress others when this wears out?, or to do we wish to chart our plans when truly our plan is (albeit for me to say not confused) but truly crystal clear so that you no longer have to talk about it--nor even seek reassurances from close friends? Do we wish to expand our horizons when we already have a beautiful bouquet of humans, the best of the best in a genetic algorithm or fractal of discovery?

It takes a lot of energy to maintain these relations. For how many can you truly know in the cyber world and when you do, which ones to keep or to pass on, nice and all but when the connection is not there or if it is there, too busy for even your best and dearest friends? What else can concern us? Read on:


My blood pressure went way up in the fall then I got a horrid rash. Then both my hands started to give out... Of course, my general health is excellent and my diet impeccable, so what to do? I went through a lot of genetic tests for gluten and dairy allergies, and even had my cordisol or adrenal function tested.

It's a mix of things. To some extent, it is my being very, very alive. It is going into awakening, so that sleep is rare or short. Think of a brain going from 32 to 64 bit--there are all the more boxes to move things around in! The wall between the two sides erodes, and all there is, is ENERGY, VAST energy. So some of this is old imbalance, such as my being an obsessive compulsive person, some of it my broken heart so that I never stop so as not to feel, some of it is the result of such a refined diet, I ALMOST CANNOT get tired. The other night, I went to bed at 7:35 am, woke at 11:50 am rested, worked ALL day, then did several hours of chessBase annotations late into the night, then at 5:30 the next day, I was not tired. That's barely 4 hours sleep in 41 hours. No one get alarmed. No armchairs docs, please. I already have a Holistic Doctor (MD)and a nutritional councilor to a comprehensive degree. Some of this is being so energized that its a lot to process....



Then letters and emails. temposchlucker wrote me, and I have yet to write him back. Then Tanc, and likeForest, when all three wrote me right away about my desire to be USCF rated and the prior a warm and engaging note. I could not, as yet, reply. It hurts not to. But when you sleep less, the amount of work piles u