Tomada en La Habana durante el verano de 1962 la fotografía se volvería famosa. Recoge un instante del gran torneo de ajedrez celebrado aquel año en memoria del gran cubano, José Raúl Capablanca. Se dio cita allí buena parte de la pléyade del ajedrez mundial y de no ser por el rango de quien observaba la partida, la foto nunca hubiera tenido la importancia que cobraría con el pasar de los años. Los personajes en cuestión, cada uno a su manera, marcarían un hito y escribirían páginas memorables.

Los dos jugadores, de idéntico nombre, no volverían a medirse en el tablero aunque seguirían unidos durante más de cincuenta años por el vínculo de la amistad y por la indeclinable pasión por el ajedrez; vivirían largos años y contarían hazañas. El tercer personaje, el espectador motivo de la foto, también amaba el ajedrez y estaba llamado a protagonizar grandes gestas en otros campos pero moriría joven en una escarpada sierra boliviana, en un lance imprevisto, mientras se dedicaba a lo que fue la gran pasión de su vida, la reivindicación de los pueblos y la siembra de las ideas revolucionarias. Su nombre, Ernesto Guevara, más conocido como El Che.

De los dos jugadores, el mayor, nombrado Boris Spasski, sería pocos años más tarde campeón del mundo y protagonista de una de las contiendas más apasionantes del juego ciencia: la lucha por la corona orbital diez años después ante el norteamericano Bobby Fischer, una lucha heroica que partiría en dos la historia ajedrecística. Su contendor en la partida, Boris de Greiff, aunque en escala menor en lo que al juego se refiere, estaba predestinado durante los cincuenta años siguientes a un fructífero quehacer intelectual. Jugador activo hasta bien entrado en años, acumulará a su haber, el raro placer que brinda la compañía de los mejores; testigo de excepción, le será dado el honor de representar a su país en nueve olimpiadas como jugador activo. A su retiro, continuará su labor en campos tan diversos como el arbitraje internacional, la dirigencia deportiva, el periodismo especializado hasta ser declarado Miembro Honorario de la Fide en el año 2002. Como escritor, castizo y elegante, posee la rara virtud de plasmar con pocas palabras la anécdota sabrosa y el análisis preciso en el arte de enfrentar el meollo de la partida de ajedrez. Su obra periodística constituye un inapreciable tesoro a la hora de adentrarse por la historia viva del noble juego.

Toda una vida de esfuerzo y dedicación, y el país nacional, otorgador de distinciones a manos llenas por labores de menor cuantía, no parece percatarse del significado de la labor de Don Boris de Greiff, gran Señor, a quien el país le está debiendo un homenaje que se ganó hace mucho tiempo. Honor y largos años.

…

Como una pequeña muestra de sus virtudes ajedrecísticas les traemos hoy una partida jugada en las Olimpiadas de Amsterdam 1954, primera participación colombiana en eventos de tacón alto.

Su contendor, el campeón suizo Bhend, a la postre segundo mejor puntaje personal del torneo, después del inolvidable Keres. Con comentarios marginales del gran maestro Yudovich, extraídos del libro Jaque al Olvido, del maestro de Greiff, se jugó así:

Blancas: Boris de Greiff – Negras: Edwin Bhend

Defensa holandesa.

1.d4 f5 2.Cf3 Cf6 3.g3 e6 4.Ag2 Ae7 5.O-O O-O 6.c4 d6 7.Cc3 De8 8.Dc2 Dh5 9.e3 Ad7?! (Un plan erróneo. Era mejor Cc6) 10.b4 Ac6 11.d5! exd5 (No se puede Ad7 debido a 12.dxe6 Axe6 13.Ce2 con ventaja blanca.) 12.cxd5 Axd5 13.Cxd5 Cxd5 14.Db3 c6 (Si Df7 15.Cg5!) 15.Cd4 Df7 16.b5 Cb6(No se puede 16…Rh8 por 17.bxc6 bxc6 18.Cxc6,las blancas recuperan el peón y conservan clara ventaja.) 17.Cxf5 Af6 18.Tb1 d5 19.Aa3 Td8 20.Tfd1 Cc4 21.e4 dxe4 22. Ae7! (No es posible 22…Txd1+23.Txd1 Axe7 24. Cxe7+Dxe725. Dxc4+Rf826. Axe4 con posición ganadora.) 22… Cd7 23.Axd8 Txd8 24.bxc6 bxc6 25.Axe4 Cdb6 26.Txd8+ Axd8 27.Td1 Ac7 28.Db4 Dh5 29.Td4 c5 30.Dxc5 Df7 31.Txc4  y las negras se rindieron.

…

Juegan las blancas y dan mate en dos.

Solución al anterior (M. Marble):

1. A4R!! (A cualquier jugada del negro, las blancas dan siete mates distintos. ¿Podrá el lector encontrarlos?)

Zurich, home to the oldest extant chess club in the world, is celebrating the club’s 200-year anniversary with a magnificent display of chess, featuring, among else, a simultaneous exhibition by 7 world champions and the Russian-turned-Swiss grandmaster Viktor Korchnoi. Each grandmaster was playing against 25 amateurs, quite a few of whom rated at 2000+. No easy feat, especially since the event took place inside the main hall of Zurich main station with hundreds of spectators huddled around the boards.

Now, it so happens that I live in the vicinity of Zurich, and of course I couldn’t miss out on watching eight chess greats  in action simultaneously! What was fascinating to observe was how the eight champions approached the simul differently and how each displayed his very own gamut of gestures, facial expressions, pace and gait. Here goes the gallery of greats:

Ruslan Ponomariov, youngest world champion in history at the tender age of 18. Now at age 26, he’s still going strong, scoring an impressive 25-0 against his 25 contenders.

Viswanathan  Anand, current world champion. Perhaps the nicest chess grandmaster ever. He and Kramnik seemed like super best friends. Anand’s score: 21 wins, 4 draws.

Anatoly “the Python” Karpov squeezing twenty-five little mice. As you can tell by the belly, some of them have already made it into the digestive tract. Karpov’s result: 17 wins, 1 loss, 7 draws.

Topalov looked very fancy, and was also  a sweet-heart to the fans, signing tons of boards, books and pictures for the eager crowd. His game didn’t go quite so smoothly: 20 wins, 2 losses, 3 draws.

Spasski donned a badass black suit and sunglasses upon arrival, but eventually the sweat got to him. He entertained the spectators with a running commentary on most of his games, but was reluctant to attend to the autograph hoardes in the end — understandably, I guess, after walking in circles for five hours. His result: 14 wins, 11 draws.

The Krammeister taking on some Swiss jailbait. I must say Kramnik’s attitude was magnificent. He was relaxed and cordial, encouraged the amateurs with soothing words and even dropped some analysis here and there. His geniality was on par with his performance: no loss, 3 draws, 22 wins. Not the least impressive because he finished his simul first, a good three (!) hours before Kasparov. Asked by the host how to explain this performance, he quipped that it’s his long legs that give him an advantage over the other players.

Viktor “The Terrible”, taking a break from battling against Swiss cows. Korchnoi seems like an affable guy as long as you let him win. He was all sneaky smiles when on top, and a rather grumpy old man when not. His performance was impressive nevertheless: 21 wins, 1 loss, 3 draws.

However, the most fascinating player — and the most popular among the attending audience — was Kasparov. This man is pure eye candy. And very, very serious about his chess. Prior to the simul, while most of the other grandmasters were indulging in friendly chit-chat, Kasparov was pacing up and down behind the fence like a tiger in a cage, only to be unleashed into yet another cage full of tasty amateurs. Perhaps he came out there wanting to prove something, to assert his position as the foremost chess master in history once and for all among his peers.

Kasparov had such a multifarous display of frowns, head-shakes, glares, stares, rubs, lip-bites, gestures and expressions that eventually I gave up on taking pictures and made a video instead. As you can see, Kasparov was snacking on some Swiss chocolate — clearly a performance booster, judging by his result: 21 wins, 4 draws. An astonishing result considering he’s the only retired grandmaster besides Spassky.

I maghi pare abbiano una propensione particolare per gli scacchi. Houdini, il mago delle sparizioni, era un giocatore di scacchi, (non saprei dire se di talento). David Nixon, la star televisiva, era un abile giocatore, molto perspicace. Tuttavia il premo per la più gran faccia tosta in materia di scacchi va al mago, ipnotista e showman Romark il Grande: verso il termine dell’incontro del secolo, Fischer-Spassky, arrivò un suo cablogramma nel quale sfidava i due supercampioni ad una simultanea. Romark avrebbe giocato alla cieca contro Boris e Bobby, puntandoci sopra cinquantamila dollari. Spassky rifiutò, ma Fischer espresse un certo interesse, tanto da voler controllare la situazione finanziaria di Romark. Non se ne seppe più nulla.

Non sono un appassionato di scacchi, anzi a dirla tutta direi che quando si tratta di scacchi non posso fare altro che definirmi ignorante. Le uniche conoscenze che ho in materia derivano dalla mia istruzione informatica: far muovere correttamente i vari pezzi sulla scacchiera (il cavallo si muove ad L, la torre in orizzontale e verticale, l’alfiere in diagonale, ecc…) è ad esempio un ottimo esercizio di programmazione con vincoli, ma il gioco della settimana enigmistica (il bianco muove e fa scacco matto in n mosse) fingo proprio di non vederlo.
Un’altra cosa che so – e che mi ha lasciato stupito la prima volta che l’ho scoperto – è il fatto che gli scacchi sono una disciplina sportiva associata al CONI. Ripeto: disciplina sportiva, quindi sport. C’è di che stupirsi insomma!

Data la mia ignoranza non conoscevo quindi la parabola di Robert James Fischer, primo (unico?) campione del mondo di scacchi americano, diventato un’eroe negli States dopo la vittoria nel ‘72 in Islanda contro il russo Spassky – vittoria che ha di fatto interrotto un’egemonia sovietica che durava da sempre.
Figlio di una donna spiata dall’FBI, Bobby Fischer è stato il classico genio maledetto (è mancato da poco più di un anno), prima osannato in patria come eroe della guerra fredda e poi ricercato come un traditore per le sue esternazioni contro l’America dopo l’attacco dell’11 settembre, le sue idee antisemite, il rifiuto di giocare nuovamente per il titolo – perso quindi a tavolino.
Al suo nome è anche legata la leggenda metropolitana che racconta di fortissimi giocatori di scacchi battuti in tornei giocati on-line da uno sconosciuto che non poteva esser altro che lui.

L’hanno definito in tanti modi – inaffidabile, istrione, buffonesco, geniale, offensivo, paranoico, cattivo, infantile – ma in verità è stato soprattutto un maestro della rinuncia o un asceta improbabile. Strano paradosso. Ti blindi dentro un’ossessione per evitare gli altri e aggirare la Storia e ti ritrovi proprio al centro della scena, sotto gli occhi di tutti.

La storia di questo personaggio controverso è raccontata in modo molto appassionante nel libro Re in fuga – la leggenda di Bobby Fischer di Vittorio Giacopini. Nonostante gli scacchi non siano il mio forte ho trovato il racconto interessante e coinvolgente e a lettura terminata mi è rimasta la voglia di saperne qualcosina in più. Non posso fare altro, quindi, che consigliarlo a tutti!

Col suo stile preciso e tagliente, l’autore ci mette davanti a uno specchio dove il mondo chiuso e autoreferenziale degli scacchi e quello paranoico, lucidissimo, di Bobby diventano il nostro. Ne viene fuori una storia appassionata, esauriente eppure sempre capace, quando occorre, di fare un passo indietro. Per pudore, per rispetto.

A voi la prossima mossa!

zar

Controversy hit the Dresden Olympiad towards the end when Ivanchuk refused to take a drugs test.

This press release comes from Chessbase.com

Alexei Shirov: ‘Let us ban FIDE!’
02.12.2008 – “I don’t know how many times I have said to myself,” says the world class GM and world championship runner-up, “that it makes no sense at all to keep getting involved in chess politics and that I should just concentrate on my work. But the recent FIDE ‘developments’ possibly made many late great champions turn in their graves. That means the living chess players should speak out.”

He went on to say: ‘IOC has never guaranteed that chess would become the Olympic sport, so the FIDE policy in licking their posterior is at least questionable. After the success of Intellectual games festival in Beijing it’s time to STOP trying to get into the Olympic movement. I personally feel guilty for participating in the Olympic exhibition in Sydney 2000, but at least then it seemed that the chessplayers were going to be welcome with open heart. As it hasn’t happened we have our way and we cannot lose our best representatives like this.’

In the 2002 world championships in Montreal, bridge truly joined the world of sport as it ‘stripped’ Hjordis Eythorsdottir of her silver medal for refusing to take a drug test. If you are the typical unpoliticised bridge player who could not care less that this happened and could not even care if drug testing is brought into your local club, well stop right here. But that’s exactly how this whole sorry state of affairs happened in the first place – player apathy. I’m hoping a few people will stay for this story of how drug testing works in bridge, why it is there and what it means for all of us.

I’m guessing that the story starts in the 1970s. Sport was beginning to get big government subsidies in the West, and chess wanted to jump on the band wagon. Naturally, bridge followed. To the uninitiated, this may seem a peculiar struggle.

Scene: pub anywhere in Australia. Group of middle-aged, overweight men light up cigarettes while somebody buys the round. ‘Well, of course it’s sport’, says Joe, pausing to take a drag on his fag. Murmurs of agreement all round, though a couple of those turn into hacking smoker’s coughs. ‘Hope Fred hurries up or we won’t be able to fit in another round before we have to play.’ Beer and fags, dinner and drinks – I don’t know if the average elite sportsperson would recognise the way elite bridge players prepare for bridge.

But still it’s sport! And over the years since the 1970s it has sometimes been, on the back of chess, defined as a sport and given a little money. And then it gets redefined by somebody else.

Somewhere along the track of attempting to make the people giving out the money see chess/bridge as sports, somebody had the idea of doing it through the Olympic Games. Get the IOC to define chess/bridge as a sport and use this to convince governments.

I’m sure I wasn’t the only person to whom this spelt potential disaster. Both chess and bridge have their own Olympiads. Why would we want to join an Olympic movement which is increasingly commercial and corrupt? A movement which has lost its purpose. An organisation so vast that bridge would be completely lost in it. Where bridge would become one of those sports which is ignored save for the potential humorous content. Which sport has the largest number of balding men? We all know the answer to that one.

On top of these general considerations came the burning issue of drug testing. So completely has the Olympic movement lost its way that now the overriding definition of being a sport is drug testing. No drug testing, cannot be a sport. Now that just leaves me gob-smacked.

The implications for bridge cannot be underestimated. What is performance-enhancing in bridge? What is the goal of drug testing in bridge? Never mind anything, the sheer cost involved of hundreds of dollars per test are an issue. Yet bridge, like chess, seems to have jumped on this bandwagon without the slightest consideration of what drug-testing actually means.

In chess, which is about to hold an Olympiad (2002), there is unease at national levels around the world and, needless to say, at a personal level. Already we have seen in the US, I understand, a Supreme Court case which was about the forcible drug testing of children in school chess clubs. This sort of thing is inevitable if the WBF continues to support drug testing. Don’t think that it doesn’t affect you.

‘What’s the problem’ you ask. ‘If you aren’t cheating you have nothing to hide.’ Well, that attitude got Bush started. What makes it particular rot in the context of bridge is that there is not a single drug/substance which definitively enhances the performance of mental tests. There are some which general scientific opinion sides with – glucose is the obvious one. But even if a group of students on glucose counted backwards in groups of 3 more easily than the group not given glucose, it’s a far leap from this to the idea that the performance of a complex bunch of tasks, intellectual and emotional, as bridge is, will be enhanced.

None of this seems to have bothered the WBF in the least. The WBF simply took the path of testing for everything on the IOC list of substances. The consequence of this was that in Montreal the WBF tested for an enormous number of drugs which can be presumed to be non-performance enhancing – maybe even performance damaging – and tested for not so much as one bridge-performance-enhancing drug. How could they, if we don’t know of the existence of any?

I suppose the WBF knows it is in deep water on this one. When I asked it various questions after Montreal regarding the treatment of Hjordis Eythorsdottir and the operation of its drug testing I received the public statement I wanted, but it refused to answer any of my specific questions. This is typical of the way the WBF operates at the top. Actually, it’s a group which will fit in well with the IOC as we understand the reputation of the IOC.

One of the questions I asked was whether it tested for alcohol and marijuana. I was refused an answer!

Eventually, after being unable to find anything on the WBF site or Montreal site guiding competitors to how drug testing would work, I was given an obscure .pdf file address by the WBF Webmaster. Evidently I had to click on the general rules of contest. If you wade through this tedious document, on page 10, buried between ‘official language’ and ‘ethics and deportment’ the following can be found:

6. Doping Regulations
All players are required to accept the regulations determined by the Olympic Movement Anti Doping Code. Details of these can be found at www.olympic.org or by contacting the International Olympic Committee.

How jolly helpful. As it happens I know the Anti-Doping Code off by heart. Well, not quite, so I follow the link. There isn’t actually anything on the Olympic site that I can find on the subject of drug testing, but it does provide a link to www.wada-ama.org This is the beast that has been set up to make sport clean. I believe that it stands for World Anti-Doping Association.

And dealing with it is a bit like dealing with confession as a Roman Catholic. Nobody would dare go to confession without a little sin in hand and WADA ain’t going to believe you if you say your sport’s clean. By definition – by becoming a sport – bridge has to confess its sins. We have to weed out those drug cheats and make examples of them. The notion that they might not exist is simply not to be countenanced.

Eventually one finds one’s way to a long list of substances and ‘methods’. Even if you knew what they all meant, every category concludes with a general coverall ‘and like substances’. A logistical nightmare for a sportsperson.

Back to the alcohol and cannabinoids issue. The wada document says that ’Where the rules of a responsible authority so provide, tests will be conducted….’ The same line is used for both recreational drugs.

Let’s stretch the point and call the WBF a ‘responsible authority’. Presumably there is an onus to reveal whether it is testing for these drugs. But it declined to answer my questions. Presumably, then, competitors were completely in the dark as to whether the use of alcohol or cannabis was legal.

Somebody reading this is jumping up and down. But alcohol and cannabinoids aren’t performance-enhancing for bridge or physical sports. So, why might they be tested at all? The Olympic Games, by the way, tests for cannabis but not alcohol. How tediously predictable. So a drug might be non-performance enhancing and completely legal in your own place of residence and yet make you a drug cheat out there in the spick-and-span world of the Olympic Games.

Well, whoever asked this question – why test non-performance-enhancing drugs – you’ve asked a jolly good one. And the answer is disturbing.

Let me digress, just for a second. The net consequence of the attempts of chess and bridge to become Olympic sports is turning out to have completely the opposite effect. The IOC is in the process of defining them both out of the contest permanently and completely. It hardly had a choice. If the Olympics are a chance to survive they’ve got to make them a sensible size. Not being in the Olympics never did make a sport not a sport, but bridge is going to feel like that is the consequence.

In a way, though, one would assume with a sense of great relief, that this means we can stop the whole senseless drug testing policy. Instead, in the press release I asked the WBF to make, it said the following:

Paris, 10th September 2002
At its Meeting held on Friday 30th August 2002, the Executive Council of the World Bridge Federation resolved to disqualify one of the players in the McConnell Cup. The player was informed that she was not eligible to take her place on the podium, receive a medal nor be entitled to any Master Points.
The WBF wants to remind to those concerned that:
1. The WBF was recognised as an International Sports Federation by the International Olympic Committee in 1999 on condition that it adopts:

a. the Olympic Charter
b. the court of arbitration
c. the anti doping regulations
All of the above have been incorporated into the WBF Constitution and By-laws
2. It is the absolute belief of the WBF that the anti doping regulations are:

a. to protect the players’ health
b. to ensure the integrity of the competition
and would have been enforced anyway even in the absence of IOC recognition.
3. It is recognised that some substances can enhance concentration and stamina at bridge, as well as be also injurious to the person or persons using them
4. The regulations as they are published in the 2002 General Rules of Contest are mandatory for everybody and that the refusal to take a drug test is consequently subject to penalties.

So the WBF has been hoist on its own petard. The WBF can hardly say now that the anti-doping program was to suck up to the IOC and it was going to drop it. Instead this magnificent insistence that it is being done for our own good. Disqualifying a player in Montreal was for her health and for the integrity of the competition. We can’t have players willy-nilly taking non-performance enhancing drugs. It’ll give us a bad name.
To repeat the crux of this statement:
5. It is the absolute belief of the WBF that the anti doping regulations are:

a. to protect the players’ health
b. to ensure the integrity of the competition
and would have been enforced anyway even in the absence of IOC recognition.

Do they really expect us to believe that? And if we believe it, do they really think we’ll accept it? A bit of an invasion of privacy, wouldn’t you say, the WBF deciding what’s good for us.

WBF:
‘It is recognised that some substances can enhance concentration and stamina at bridge, as well as be also injurious to the person or persons using them’

Now guess what substance that would be – try nicotine. There are only three substances I’ve been able to discover that arguably might enhance the playing of bridge. They are glucose, caffeine and nicotine. Of these I’m guessing nicotine is by far and away the most likely to aid performance. And if the smoking of cigarettes were banned within the bridge world, not only would a potentially performance-enhancing drug be eliminated but, shucks, a whole bunch of us would feel better too.

So, why was the smoking of cigarettes not banned at Montreal? Because the WBF has no intention of enforcing their own avowed aims. Attempting to ban the notionally performance-enhancing-bad-for-our-health cigarette would have led to riot and boycott. (end of article)

I can’t imagine that FIDE and WBF are ever going to conduct actual tests to see what is actually performance enhancing in chess and bridge. Anybody who’s ever smoked a cigarette will know that nicotine is performance enhancing. There is much anecdotal evidence. After the above article first appeared I received an email from somebody who worked designing vessels for the US Navy. He recalled at some point a discussion of whether ashtrays should be provided on the watch. The answer was ‘yes’ not so much because smokers who are allowed to smoke perform better than smokers who aren’t allowed to smoke, but because smokers perform better than non-smokers. By preference the US Navy wanted smokers on their watch.

More recently, and less anecdotally, a test case has been written up here:
Psychoactive Drugs and Pilot Performance: A Comparison of Nicotine, Donepezil, and Alcohol Effects again demonstrating the performance enhancing aspect of nicotine.

Since I wrote that article various things have changed in the WADA list of performance enhancing substances. Even though clearly caffeine is performance enhancing it has been taken off the lists. I wonder if that is the power of lobbyists for the companies who advertise through sport? Selling caffeine based drugs as a socially acceptable performance enhancer has become big business. Cannabis has been banned altogether, even though one assumes it is not performance enhancing for anything unless there is some sort of couch potato endurance test in the Olympics. Nicotine is not even mentioned on the list which can be seen here.

I gather that chess is still using the lot with, according to Ian Rogers, ‘the single exception of the drug I should have been taking 6 years ago but was not allowed to. (The exception was created by Jana Bellin because of me but the damage had already been done and I had to stop playing entirely.)’ How sad is that.

FIDE and WBF: you should hang your heads in shame.

Chumbawamba in concerto acustico

Nel 1988 il gruppo “Sportchestra” ha pubblicato in Inghilterra un album intitolato “101 Songs About Sport”. Gli “Sportchestra” si erano costituiti appositamente per questo progetto ed erano formati da molti musicisti del gruppo “Chumbawamba” e da numerosi altri ospiti. L’album conteneva anche una canzone intitolata “Spassky Fischer” con questo testo…

Knight to bishop four
Next move in the cold war
In the Spassky/Fischer battle
To see who rules the castle
Spassky takes Hungary (and Czecks)
Fischer takes Grenada
Russian tanks to Afghanistan
U.S. pawns to viet nam
But it’s Spassky rebellion
A Fischer uprising
The pawns have taken over
And overthrown the king

I Chumbawamba sono noti soprattutto per il grande hit “Tubthumping” (magari il titolo non vi dice niente, ma l’avete sicuramente già ascoltata) e nella loro lunga carriera hanno spaziato tra diversi generi: punk, folk, dance, world music, pop, cabaret ma una costante della loro produzione sono i testi politicamente impegnati. Come fa qualcuna delle loro biografie, si potrebbe meglio dire che hanno iniziato a fare musica come un modo di fare politica: loro erano parte della comunità anarchica di Leeds, e il periodo storico in cui hanno iniziato quello dell’Inghilterra dell’era della Thatcher.

Immagine tratta da Wikipedia.

I was going to write about rook endgames, but something came up and changed it.

I played online a few days ago, it was my favorite Marshall attack, the forced line where I get a bishop for 2 pawns. I had that line already in 2 games, lost that advantage later in one and gave checkmate in another. Now the queens were exchanged, then rooks and we got to endgame K+B+4P vs. K+6P. Despite of my expectations, the game ended in a draw, I was pissed off at myself and decided to get to the root of it.  

Bishop equals three pawns, we learned that at the beginning of our chess careers.

So, if in the endgame you have bishop for 2 pawns, you got great winning chances, right?

Not so simple. Excellent example is the first game from the World Championship match

Fisher-Spassky in 1972.  After bizarre move 29. … Bxh2

that Fisher did ( some people say, that it was miscalculation, he counted on the following line: 30. g3 h5 31. Ke2 h4 32. Kf3 h3 33. Kg4 Bg1 34. Kxh3 Bxf2 ,

but didn’t see 35. Bd2! catching the bishop) from equal bishop ending it became bishop vs. pawns endgame. He had drawing chances later, one of them was pointed out by Speelman:

Fischer playing 37. …a6 instead of 37. …Ke4

37…a6! 38.Kf3 axb5 39.axb5 b6 ! 40.Bf8 g6 41.Bg7 f5 42.Bd4 Kc4 43.Bxb6 g5 ! 44.Bc7 Kxb5 45.Bd8+ g4+ 46.Ke2 Kc4 

with a clear draw. Finally he lost.

As for my game, looks like I didn’t have the right plan in the beginning, then didn’t use the chances that my opponent gave me, the last one:

White played 54. d6? instead of 54. Kb6 with a draw.

Black returned the favor, playing 54. … Kf7 which leads to draw, instead of

playing 54. … Bg5 55. Kc6 Kf5 56. Kc7 Ke5 57. Kc6 Kd4 with a win.

“I would not like to defend or justify Bobby Fischer. He is what he is. I am asking only for one thing. For mercy, charity. If for some reason it is impossible, I would like to ask you the following: Please correct the mistake of President François Mitterrand in 1992. Bobby and myself committed the same crime. Put sanctions against me also. Arrest me. And put me in the same cell with Bobby Fischer. And give us a chess-set.”

- Former world chess champion Boris Spassky in an appeal to George W. Bush, 2004

*****

“I don’t want him in my cell. I want a chick in my cell.”

- Fischer’s response to Spassky’s letter to president Bush

Cuando muere un ídolo, se siente y cuando ese ídolo pertenece a un deporte amado produce nostalgia, por que queda un lugar vacío, si, si, de esos imposible de llenar, tal tu caso querido y admirado Bobby, como nos hiciste sufrir cuando allá por 1972 en el match por el título mundial contra el gran Boris Spassky, perdiste la primera partida y no te presentaste a jugar la segunda y cuando volviste ya perdías 2 a 0 frente al genial ruso pero luego vino la exhibición y la memorable partida 21 en la que te fuiste al hotel, mientras Boris meditaba su jugada y decidía abandonar y así te coronaste campeón del mundo.

Pero te encontraste con la gran paradoja de tu vida, fuiste el héroe de la “guerra fría” al ser el primer y único norteamericano campeón del mundo en la historia y aparte a costa de los rusos, lo máximo del ajedrez, antes que vos , perdón gran maestro Capablanca,Karpov y Kasparov.

Y la paradoja fue que por haber sido un “héroe nacional” deviniste en traidor a la Patria, buscado por la CIA y el FBI, cuando por ganarte unos mangos jugaste en la bloqueada Yugoslavia allá por 1992 de nuevo frente al para ese entonces “nacionalizado francés” Spassky (otro traidor para los rusos, hasta los enfrentó en campeonatos) rememorando “la partida del siglo” , no pudiste volver más a EEUU y primera casualidad el presidente que convalidó tu cargo de traición fue, George Bush padre y 12 años después te detuvieron en Japón, durante 8 meses, allá por el 2004 y sabés una cosa, el que pidió tu extradición, parece joda, fue el actual presidente de EEUU, George Bush hijo…..los Bush, no te quisieron Bobby.

En Islandia ganaste el campeonato, los islandeses te amaron, te asilaron en tu final y te cobijaron en tu muerte, valorando a quién dijo…”no entender” a  los jugadores que con piezas blancas no mueven al inicio de su partida, como única y posible jugada, e4 (peón cuatro rey) y “no entender” tampoco a los que con las piezas negras no contestan, moviendo e5 (peón cuatro rey negro)….por que peón cuatro rey es la movida de los grandes, por su valor frente a la lucha despiadada de los trebejos.

Querido Gran Maestro Fisher (desde los 15 años) quiso el destino que partieses a los 64 años de edad y como todo en tu vida es paradojal, todos los tableros de ajedrez, tienen 64 casillas….Gracias por haber existido.

I was sad to learn that Bobby Fischer passed away today <link>. I was equally sad to learn that none of the people I work with knew who he was!

I once went and watched a chess tournament in Wellington that featured Boris Spassky. The chess was way over my head. But I thoroughly enjoyed it. Something about being in the presence of genius I think. And the next day I was walking down the street and there was Spassky having a bit of stroll in the sun. Here was the man who played Fischer in that classic cold war chess championship walking anonymously down the street. No one knew who he was then and today no one knew who either of them were. Don’t they teach chess history and the cold war in schools anymore? Or maybe chess players just need better agents/PR people.

Unfortunately, Spassky’s reaction to Fischer’s passing was less than magnanimous according to Reuters.

“Spassky, who now lives in Paris, was less eloquent on the subject of Fischer. Asked by Reuters for his reaction, he said: “It’s bad luck for you. Bobby Fischer is dead,” then hung up.”

You could certainly do with a better PR person Mr Spassky.

R.I.P Bobby Fischer.

Read the Reuters Report below:

Chess genius Bobby Fischer dies in Iceland

Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:53am EST

By Kristin Arna Bragadottir

REYKJAVIK (Reuters) – Bobby Fischer, America’s first and only world chess champion, who beat the Soviet Union’s Boris Spassky in a blaze of Cold War publicity in Reykjavik in 1972, has died in Iceland at the age of 64.

A spokesman for Fischer, who was feted as a national hero for beating Spassky but fell foul of U.S. authorities in his later years, confirmed that the eccentric chess genius had died but offered no further details.

Rumors that Fischer, once dubbed the “Mozart of Chess”, had been ill had circulated in recent weeks on chess-related Web sites. Iceland national radio reported he had died after a serious, but unspecified, illness.

Fischer, a child prodigy who once said he liked to watch his opponents squirm and who had become an Icelandic citizen, could have faced jail in the United States for violating sanctions on former Yugoslavia by playing a chess match there with Spassky.

Former world chess champion Garry Kasparov hailed Fischer as “the pioneer and the father of professional chess”.

Kasparov said he had followed the 1972 clash of the U.S. and Soviet titans closely. “Fischer’s chess was so fresh and so new and we all grew up under the strongest impression of Fischer’s victories,” he told Sky News television.

“From an ideological stance it was the fight of an individual against a totalitarian system. He had a lot of supporters even in the Soviet Union. No one viewed him as an American fighting Soviets, it was more a great man fighting the mighty machine,” Kasparov said.

Spassky, who now lives in Paris, was less eloquent on the subject of his old adversary. Asked by Reuters for his reaction, he replied: “It’s bad luck for you. Bobby Fischer is dead,” then hung up without further comment.

NO DEFENCE

The brilliant and unpredictable American abandoned his world title without moving a pawn by failing to defend his crown in Manila in 1975. World chess authorities reluctantly awarded it to challenger Anatoly Karpov of the Soviet Union, who was to hold it for the next decade.

Fischer withdrew into himself, not playing in public and living on little more than the magic of his name, although millions of enthusiasts regarded him as the king of chess.

He made headlines when he came out of seclusion to play Spassky in Yugoslavia in 1992, at a time when the country was the target of sanctions during Belgrade’s war with breakaway republics.

He vanished after the match, for which he won $3 million, and resurfaced after the September 11, 2001, attacks on America. In an interview with a Philippine radio station, Fischer praised the strikes and said he wanted to see America “wiped out”.

Fischer, who also stirred controversy with anti-Semitic remarks, was granted Icelandic citizenship in March 2005 after eight months in detention in Japan fighting a U.S. deportation order.

Fischer always had a high opinion of himself. Asked who was the greatest player in the world, he once replied:

“It’s nice to be modest, but it would be stupid if I did not tell the truth. It is Fischer.”

It was not an idle claim. Arguably the greatest natural chess genius the world has seen, he was called “the Mozart of chess” when he began winning at the age of six.

“SEE ‘EM SQUIRM”

Fischer gained a reputation for being cocky. He told interviewers his favorite moment was when opponents began to feel they would lose. “I like to see ‘em squirm,” he said.

He was U.S. junior champion at 13 and U.S. Open champion at 14, retaining the title whenever he chose to defend it.

He became an international grandmaster at 15, gaining the rating at his first international tournament in Yugoslavia. He once defeated 21 grandmasters in succession — no U.S. player had beaten more than seven in a row.

As Fischer’s fame grew, his temperament became more unpredictable. He walked out of tournaments because of what he considered to be bad lighting or bad air conditioning. He refused to play matches on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath.

In the mid-1960s, he opted out of two world championship qualifying series because he thought the tournament system favored the Russians. In 1967, when officials would not meet his demands for better conditions, Fischer angrily withdrew from international competition “for a period of introspection”.

He took his massive collection of chess books and moved to California, where he later said he had “plotted my revenge if I ever came back”.

When the rules were changed in 1972 to include an eight-player eliminator to find the challenger to world champion Spassky, Fischer had the chance to prove he was as good as he always said he was. He became a national hero; Americans who had never played chess followed the Fischer saga.

But by the 1990s, he was said to be living under assumed names in cheap hotels in Pasadena on the outskirts of Los Angeles, surviving on occasional royalties from his books.

Former friends painted a picture of a solitary man spending much of his day in rooms littered with chess books, oranges and jars of vitamins, playing chess by himself and reading magazines on chess to keep in touch.

One commentator said there was one constant through his life’s exceptional peaks and troughs — his “running battle with the rest of the human race”.

(Additional reporting from Paris bureau; Editing by Peter Millership)

© Reuters 2008 All rights reserved

Garry Kasparov’s How Life Imitates Chess, scheduled to be published here in the States in the fall, has some entertaining stories.   Like Boris Spassky, the tenth world champion, advising Kasparov, the thirteenth world champion, that the way to defeat Tigran Petrosian, the ninth world champion, was not to attack the hell out of him (Petrosian was an expert at repelling sharp thrusts) but rather to press him continuously and methodically:

“He counseled me that the key was to apply pressure, but just a little, steadily.  ‘Squeeze his balls,’ he told me in an unforgettable turn of phrase. ‘But just squeeze one, not both!’”