Wang Hao just won the Chinese Championship (on tiebreaks) and Ju Wenjun won the Chinese Women’s Championship. The Mitropa Cup is on going right now with Italy leading the way. Poikovsky super tournament just started a few days ago.
The FIDE election is getting heated. FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov just announced his ticket. I have no information about the Karpov camp so far.
It’s Saturday Open Forum. The forum is yours. What would you like to discuss?
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
I’d really like to know some background on FIDE. What is it’s primary mission, how is it funded, what are concrete examples of successes and failures etc? The whole election has been so vague I really have no clue about the issues. The candidates personalities yes, but not the issues.
Karpov has no chance in the FIDE election.
I recommend changing the word FIDE to FIDO because chess politics have really gone to the dogs!
Susan I would like to see US Championship be a match between Champion and Challenger. The challenger could be appointed. For example we could have had Kamsky as the highest rated play Nakamura the champ. Then Kamsky would have to beat Nakamura.
As it happened Nakamura lost in a surprise move to someone else and Kamsky walked into the title without defeating the Champion.
We could have a rule that a player can not be chosen more often than every 3 years. This would have allowed Shulman and Onischuck and Kamsky to play the champion in a 3 year cycle.
Since Rex is paying for the tournament he should get his choice of challenger.
I believe the US Championship would get more attention and cost less to run. No need to have 24 players in hotels.
Another way is to have a fast playoff between 3 or 4 chosen top players any of whom the public would accept as Champion if he won.
Right now the public can not fully embrace Kamsky as a true Champion because he did not defeat the past Champion. We are degrading the Championship.
I hope you talk to Rex about this possibility. He might like it.
Ok, my impression, after reading Gary Lane’s book on the Vienna, is that in 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 it is 3. g3 is the best. (Makes me glad to intend to study the closed sicilian). In 3. Bc4 you do not get a game a Vienna player might be aiming for and also all of this is very complicated with minutia of move orders changing evaluations; In 3. f4 the position against the optimal defense is only a little better than that against a Petrov. 3. g3 gives a lasting initiative.
On 2. … Nc6 you have to sacrifice the knight, but the position is better than a similar king’s gambit, elsewise you get a good King’s gambit declined.
Other moves don’t seem a problem.
What I miss is besides Gary Lane’s look at where things are now, an evaluation on what a top grand master would think is good in each position: I am not completely sure on a general evaluation of positions, and if there might be improvements that have not been played.
So, this is like a blog post on opening preparation. Next I will be, while I let my brain process all the variations, to study further the Dutch Defense which I have played much unlike the Vienna.
To elaborate on the second last paragraph, it is all well and good to know Anand reached equality with good play in the this game:
Adams-Anand Linares 1994
1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. f4 d5 4. fxe5 Nxe4 5. Nf3 Be7 6. Qe2 Nxc3 7. dxc3 c5 8. Bf4 Nc6 9. 0-0-0 Be6 10. h4 h6 11. g3 Qd7 12. Bg2 0-0-0 13. h5 Na5 14. b3 Nc6 15. Qf2?! (GL) Qc7 16. Kb1 Kb8 17. Nh4 d4 18. cxd4 Nxd4 19. Kb2 Qb6 20. Be3 Qa5 21. Bd2 Qa6 22. Be3 Qa5 23. Be3 1/2.
However, this does not give insight into whether this is an end to the variation. Anand’s plan of castling on the queenside neutralised white’s play, but of course white should be able to take this into account. What is missing is idea’s on what to try, or rather, what plans to try.
Of course grandmaster games are not necessarily significant for ‘normal’ play among mortals, but it is the impressions that would give value for instance playing 3. f4.
Well, now I am writing book criticism, but also perhaps because I am interested in things I do not understand well enough.
Oh, I have to say, adding to myself, that to me it seems that white lets his advantage evaporate (well Adams is such a player). The position looks good, but there are planless moves– should not say as an amateur– but instead of a kingside attack while black hasn’t castled white could strengthen the space advantage. Does White have to castle so early?
I ask of Susan Polgar, whether there is a possibility for such, to me the opening looks promising. This question even seems to have theoretical importance, but for fans it would be simply interesting.
THE ROAD to the second round of the US open seemed quite smooth for 16 times Grand Slam winner, Roger Federer. Federer made his way through easily in the first round while his toughest opponent, Robin Soderling was seen struggling against a Grand Slam debutante.