— Etching by Adolphe LaLauze
Schadenfreude: In his memoir, 18th-Century Italian playwright Count Carlo Gozzi describes actress Signora Ricci being the butt of Sacchi’s jokes and derision as others in the theatre troupe laugh.
I’m sure most people, when asked to provide a list of emotions they experience in a given month, would not include “schadenfreude” even though it rears its head often enough.
Coming from the German “schaden,” which means harm, and “freude,” meaning joy, the experience is one of feeling pleasure at the misfortune of another.
It’s a strange emotion to be sure because we usually associate joy with a pleasant outcome whereas schadenfreude is pleasure derived from another’s ill.
And the experience is universal. William James in “Principles of Psychology” says, “There is something in the misfortunes of our very friends that does not altogether displease us; [even] an apostle of peace will feel a certain vicious thrill run through him, and enjoy a vicarious brutality, as he turns to the column in his newspaper at the top of which 'Shocking Atrocity' stands printed in large capitals.”
Indeed researchers who seek to quantify its presence in our lives say schadenfreude is on the rise. In “The Joy of Pain: Schadenfreuse and the Dark Side of Human Nature,” Richard Smith says he looked at the number of times “schadenfreude” appeared in the English language from 1800 to 2008. In modern times, he says, from the 1980s on, schadenfreude as concept and “practice” has achieved a greater share of our emotional landscape.
I’m inclined to think it’s because we’ve become a more punitive and cynical society, maybe even more sadistic, and schadenfreude is one of the manifestations of that callousness — though schadenfreude is not in the same ballpark as sadism (or even gloating), which are more actively aggressive in nature.
Because schadenfruede is etymologically German, for years critics characterized it as a peculiarly German phenomenon, especially during World War II! But, when we examine the spectrum of world cultures, we see that every culture has its own word or combination of words to denote this emotion or some approximation of it.
The French have their “joie maligne,” Hebrew has “simcha-la-ed,” and ancient Greek has “epichairekakia,” which ancient as well as modern scholars say is a distant relative of greed, avarice, and envy.
In Japanese, there’s “meshiuma,” which means, “Food tastes good that comes from the misfortune of others.” The writer Gore Vidal once remarked, “Every time a friend succeeds, I die a little.” The converse would be, “Every time a friend fails, I am more alive” and the double converse, “I derive pleasure from the misfortune of others.”
For those unfamiliar with the word (I will not say the experience), an example might be helpful at this point.
We are driving along our favorite county road, staying well beneath the 30-mile-per-hour speed limit because the road is highly patrolled. All of a sudden, a large SUV appears in the rearview mirror with a young kid at the wheel and he’s up our bumper.
Staying our course, we see the “kid” begin to wave his arms in what seems to be gestures of anger; he then pulls out over the double yellow line and guns it past us. As his passenger window nears ours, he looks down at us with derision and double-guns it up the hill and out of sight.
A few moments later, as we near the hill, we see his car pulled over and a cop writing him a ticket. If we feel a certain satisfaction at this point and think something like, “He got what he deserved,” or, “Justice triumphed,” or, “There is a God,” we are in the schadenfreude business.
When Martha Stewart was indicted in 2001, the United States experienced a kind of national schadenfreude. People felt that the person who had dictated personal and social tastes for years finally got her comeuppance.
There is some debate over whether the shadenfroh’s delight comes from the bodily pleasure produced or seeing society’s fabric saved. In other words, was justice done to the nervous system or to the collective? And there is strong evidence that shows when the experienced misfortune is great, schadenfreude all but disappears and a hybrid form of empathy kicks in.
Understandably schadenfreude has been linked to envy because when we envy another’s possessions or achievements, we engage in an internal (and often subtle) trash-talk dialogue, subconsciously trying to improve our own lot. People pay big money to therapists for years to understand and get out from beneath such a complex.
The irony is that people will talk about schadenfreude experiences openly whereas they are far more reluctant to speak about what they envy because envy is an open admission of inferiority.
Of course the moral implications of schadenfreude have not gone unnoticed. In Spanish there is a saying: Gozarse en el mal ajeno, no es de hombre buen (“A man who rejoices in the misfortunes of others is not a good man”). Or should we say is a person who has not reached emotional maturity?
We do know that when schadenfreude is primed with emotional steroids, the frequency and intensity of its presence leads to the destruction of relationships. When I first came upon schadenfreude years ago, I immediately thought of the great psychoanalyst Karen Horney’s concept of “vindictive triumph,” which she saw alive in her patients saddled with neurosis. Vindictive triumph might be viewed as schadenfreude when it becomes a structural part of our identity and one justified by a more highly toxic logic.
In “Neurosis and Human Growth,” Horney says the drive to vindictively overcome others grows out of “impulses to frustrate, outwit, or defeat [them] . . . because the motivating force stems from impulses to take revenge for humiliations suffered in childhood.”
Often enough, this chronic illness might be accompanied by headaches, stomachaches, fatigue, and insomnia because the drive to see others get their “due” is relentlessly churned up in the subconscious.
If vindictive triumph is indeed a compensatory mechanism, and schadenfreude and vindictive triumph are in fact manifesting themselves more frequently in our culture, as research suggests, what are we compensating for? Why has the need to triumph vindictively moved center stage? Why the need for such an array of trophies?
Heavy stuff indeed, but, as the United States continues to undergo its current identity crisis, understanding what drives people to increasingly take joy in the misfortune of others will enable us to forge a less aggressive future self. Maybe that’s what the great American poet Allen Ginsberg was alluding to when he said, “Candor disarms paranoia.”
La Grande Chartreuse is the head monastery of the Carthusian order and is situated in the Chartreuse Mountains north of Grenoble, France. The order, founded in 1084 by St. Bruno, follows rules called the Statutes. Visitors are not permitted at the monastery and motor vehicles are prohibited on nearby roads. Philip Gröning’s movie about the monastery, Into Great Silence, is available for loan at both the Voorheesville and Guilderland public libraries.
Nearly 50 years ago, I made a rule never to recommend movies, restaurants, and vacation spots to anyone save a few intimates whose number today I gladly count on half a hand.
And though I firmly believe rules are made to be kept, I’d like to call attention to Philip Gröning’s 2005 documentary on the Carthusian monks at La Grande Chartreuse, the Carthusian motherhouse in the valley of the Alps of Dauphine north of Grenoble, France.
The highly critically acclaimed film is called Into Great Silence and its tourdeforcity is a human magnet.
At a period when Gröning was obsessed with trying to understand “time,” he wrote to the superior of the 4,268-foot high Carthusian charterer house seeking permission to record the life of the monks. The superior wrote back saying they wanted to think about it. Sixteen years later, Gröning received a reply saying they were ready, if he still had interest.
He did and arrived at the monastery in mid-March 2002 as a team of one: the film’s director, producer, cameraman, soundman, grip, and whoever else was needed to get the job done. To fully grasp the depth of silence the monks lived in, Gröning decided to live with them and follow their highly structured horarium.
And though the monks chipped in to help Gröning move his equipment up mountainous slopes surrounding the monastery when needed, the director was solely responsible for lugging his tools.
One day, while shooting along a steep ridge, he fell 20 feet and found himself spread out on a slab of stone thinking his day had come. It hadn’t, and after a bit he was back shooting the 120 hours of film that served as the vein from which he mined the 162 minutes that comprise Into Great Silence.
The editing was harrowing for Gröning; it took him more than two-and-a-half years to find a proper narrative. He could not find the glue to hold things together.
Those familiar with Roman Catholic religious orders know the Carthusians are the strictest of all. The monks live in near-total silence, spending most of the day in their cells (warmed by a tin-can-shaped wood-fired stove) and in a walled-in garden.
In these spaces, the monks meditate, pray the liturgy of hours, read, write, and eat alone. Each monk washes his own clothes, does his own dishes, splits his own wood (it gets cold there), and works in the garden for exercise and cultivating plants.
The monks are also assigned communal chores to support the upkeep of the house. For some, this means making the green-colored Chartreuse liquor for which the monks have been famous for centuries.
Some have said the highly structured schedule leaves no “free time” for the monks, but the monks say their whole life is free.
They do leave their cells to chant in the chapel and celebrate Mass. On Sundays, they eat together in silence as one of the monks reads aloud and once a week they take a walk in the woods for hours where they converse about “edifying” things. Gröning caught the monks sliding down the snowy slope of a hill, yelping like kids on holiday, using their shoes as sleds.
Twice a year, the monks may receive a daylong visit from family members, and the silent grounds of the monastery grow abuzz with the chatter of kids and adults alike. Though not of this world, the Carthusians recognize the importance of the human feelings and the connections the monks had (have) with the families they grew up in.
They sleep no longer than three hours or so at a time. To bed at eight, they’re up past eleven praying and singing psalms, then back to sleep for three hours, and up again to celebrate more lectio divina. Those who persevere after the novitiate spend an average of 65 years in the monastery doing the same thing every day of every year, with no place to go and no apparent goals.
Gröning beautifully captured their spirit on film and I recommend it because it does deal with “time” in that it shows human beings who treat each moment of life as if it were the totality of that life and who find happiness in such gestures of gratitude. If you watch the film, it will blast smugness out of every bone.
When I speak to Roman Catholics about the film, more than a few claim the movie is a Roman Catholic venture because the Carthusians are a Roman Catholic order. And I tell them they are reading it wrong because the movie is about human beings who fully appreciate what life presents to them each moment of the day, and that that human possibility is not sectarian but belongs to everyone.
I saw the movie at the Spectrum 8 in the city of Albany when it first came out and it knocked my socks off. I was back three days later for a second sock-knocking. I’ve watched it on DVD after that but judiciously because it is such a workout.
The writer Adair Lara said that, when she was growing up, her mother “used to wash our clothes in a wringer washer and then hang them on the clothesline outside. As she pinned up each garment, she said, she thought about the child it belonged to. She never wanted a dryer, even after we could afford one, because it would steal this from her, this quiet contemplation.”
That woman understood the great silence of La Grande Chartreuse, aware of the precious gift that every moment is, realizing that that gift could disappear in the blink of an eye.
If you decide to watch the film, pour yourself a beer or cup of tea, or whatever you like to have at the movies, sit back, and give yourself over to the life ahead without interruption.
You will be transported into another world of time and space and perhaps like me return transformed, an appreciator of the soil in which great silence is born.
Henry Rowe Schoolcraft, who lived from 1793 to 1864, has long been heralded as Guilderland’s most prominent son, in these pages and elsewhere.
In his local history classic Old Hellebergh, published in 1936, the late Guilderland town historian, Arthur Gregg, said, “There has never been in the long category of soldiers, patriots, statesmen, manufacturers, educators, and jurists, born and reared in sight of the ‘Clear Mountain,’ [the Helderbergs] one with more fame than the pioneer . . . Henry Rowe Schoolcraft.”
A Renaissant-like omnivore of human experience, Schoolcraft was a glass manufacturer early in life, then a mineralogist, then a geologist, explorer, ethnologist, poet, editor, and for 19 years, from 1822 to 1841, served as United States Indian Agent headquartered at the frontier posts of Sault Ste. Marie and Mackinac Island, assigned the tribes of northern Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
To many folklorists, Schoolcraft is considered the first “scholar” to amass and publish a body of Indian folklore and deserves to be called the father of American folklore. When he arrived in Michigan, he lived with the family of John Johnston, an Irish fur trader who married the daughter of a prominent Ojibwa war chief and civil leader from northern Wisconsin.
Schoolcraft married Johnston’s daughter, Jane, who provided him with a host of Chippewa legends. His mother-in-law gained access for him to stories from “the greatest storyteller of the tribe” and to ceremonies open only to tribe members.
Schoolcraft’s ethnological findings were published in many volumes, the magnum opus of which is his six-volume folio-size Historical and Statistical Information Respecting the History, Condition, and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States, published between 1851 and 1857, and costing $150,000.
As editor and writer, Schoolcraft, in 1826 and 1827, produced a much-sought-after weekly journal called the Literary Voyager. The 15 issues constitute the first magazine produced in Michigan and one of the first to appear in the frontier west.
Schoolcraft’s accomplishments have not gone unnoticed. In the Midwest, particularly Michigan, the Schoolcraft name is ubiquitous. A Michigan County is named after him, a town, a village, river, lake, island, highway, ship, park, and even the culinary arts Schoolcraft College in Garden City, Michigan has a food court called Henry’s.
As a person with an abiding interest in local history, I paid due attention to Schoolcraft over the years, particularly his relationship with Henry Wadsworth Longfellow whose epic poem, “The Song of Hiawatha,” was based on information Schoolcraft published.
But what enthralled me most about Schoolcraft was a touching one-page story I came upon two years ago when I was looking at Oneóta or Characteristics of the Red Race of America, published in 1847. It is called “Chant to the Fire-Fly.”
Schoolcraft relates that on hot summer evenings before bedtime Chippewa children would gather in front of their parents’ lodges and amuse themselves by singing chants and dancing about.
One spring evening, he says, while walking along St. Mary’s River, the evening air “sparkling with the phosphorescent light of the fire-fly,” he heard the Indian children singing a song to the firefly. He was so taken with the chant he jotted it down in the original “Odjibwa Algonquin [sic].”
Below the text, Schoolcraft offered two translations of the chant — one “literal,” the other “literary” — of a song he says that was accompanied by “the wild improvisations of [the] children in a merry mood.”
I will not give the Ojibwa — you can find it on page 61 of Schoolcraft’s Oneóta — but I will provide Schoolcraft’s literal translation. After I read the poem several times, I could not escape its charms. I envied Schoolcraft that evening when he first heard the children sing. This is his translation:
Flitting-white-fire-insect!
Waving white-fire-bug!
Give me light before I go to bed!
Give me light before I go to sleep!
Come little dancing white-fire-bug!
Come little flitting-white-fire-beast!
Light me with your bright white-flame-instrument—
Your little candle.
I was so taken with this text that I wrote two poems about the firefly and started looking deeper into the story but the more I did the more I smelled something rotting in Denmark.
That is, I found a chorus of folklorists, linguistic anthropologists, ethnopoeticists [mine], and those of that ilk, taking Schoolcraft to task for being a “textmaker” rather than a scientist dedicated to taking down the Indian world as it presented itself to him.
Schoolcraft wanted to produce something “literary” (marketable), and to achieve that, he engaged in mediating between what the Indians said and what a projected readership might accept from the “savage.”
Schoolcraft says he began to weed out “vulgarisms,” he “restored” the simplicity of style, he broke legends “in two,” “cut [stories] short,” and lop[ped] off excrescences.”
In the introduction to The Myth of Hiawatha and Other Oral Legends, published in 1856, he said the legends had been “carefully translated, written, and rewritten, to obtain their true spirit and meaning, expunging passages, where it was necessary to avoid tediousness of narration, triviality of circumstance, tautologies, gross incongruities, and vulgarities.” In other words, what did not fit his aesthetic and religious views of reality, went.
While giving credit to Schoolcraft for his pioneering work, the early 20th-Century folklorist Stith Thompson noted, “Ultimately, the scientific value of his work is marred by the manner in which he reshaped the stories to suit his own literary taste. Several of his tales are distorted almost beyond recognition.”
This is not an imposition of postcolonial standards on Schoolcraft’s doings. As Richard Bremer points out in his full-length biography of Schoolcraft, Indian Agent and Wilderness Scholar, even Francis Parkman told Schoolcraft to stick to the facts.
Though he often exhibited paternalist sympathies with the Indians, Schoolcraft signed treaties as the Indian Commissioner for the United States that displaced the Michigan Indian. The Treaty of Washington in 1836, concluded and signed by Henry Schoolcraft and several representatives of the Native American nations, saw approximately 13,837,207 acres (roughly 37 percent of the current State of Michigan) ceded to the People of the United States.
I went over to Willow Street the other day to visit Henry’s house, waiting in the cold outside, thinking he might come out. I have many questions for Henry Rowe Schoolcraft.
Peter Henner, a lawyer from Clarksville, wrote an award-winning chess column for The Altamont Enterprise, "Chess: The Last Frontier of the Mind," for four years, retiring from the column in the fall of 2014 to resume his law practice on his own terms. His columns are archived here.
In the winter of 2015, Dennis Sullivan, a scholar and historian from Voorheesville, began his column "Field Notes."
Tal0Smyslov Bled 1959
White to move and mate
Solution: 1. Qxf7! forces mate. If 1..Rxf7, then 2. Rxd8 Rf8 3. Rxf8+ Ng8 4. Rxg8# If 1…Rg8, then 2. Qxg8 Nxg8 3. Nf7# If 1..Re8, then 2. Qg8+ followed by 3. Nf7#.
Crossword puzzle lovers may have wondered about the frequent clue “Russian chess champion” (three letters). The answer is “Tal,” as in Mikhail Tal, who died on June 28, 1992. The “Magician of Riga,” as he was known, Tal became the eighth World Champion in 1960, at the age of 23.
The Soviet-Latvian Grandmaster, who had been terrorizing the chess world for the previous five years, particularly the relatively staid Soviet players, with his unorthodox style of play, was, at the time, the youngest player to win the world championship.
Tal was known as a brilliant attacker, a creative genius, who played intuitively and unpredictably. Today, with modern computers, we know that many of his speculative sacrifices were unsound and should have lost.
Tal himself said “There are two types of sacrifices: correct ones, and mine.”
However, it was not easy, even for the world’s best players, to refute these sacrifices over the board, and contemporary analysts usually were unable to show why or how Tal could have been defeated.
His style was a challenge to the Soviet school, exemplified by Mikhail Botvinnik, which preferred systematic logical chess, buttressed by hard work and study. Botvinnik, who, with one interruption, had been Champion since 1948, prepared carefully and methodically for the 1960 match.
Tal, in contrast, simply played a tournament in his hometown. Tal decisively won the match by a score of 12 ½ - 8 ½.
However, the Fédération internationale des échecs rules at the time permitted a rematch for a defeated Champion, which Botvinnik won, 13-8.
In the second match, Botvinnik, once again carefully preparing for the match, deliberately played for closed positions, leading to positional struggles and endgames, and avoiding the sharp tactical play that Tal loved.
During the rematch, Tal continued to play his favorite Nimzo-Indian Defense and the aggressive advance variation of the Caro-Kann, even as it became clear that these openings were not working for him. It was not until five years after the match that Tal, playing White against Botvinnik, abandoned the advance variation in favor of the more common Panov variation and won easily.
Tal had a great career, winning the USSR championship six times between 1957 and 1978 (when that tournament was probably the strongest tournament in the world), established a record in 1973 - 74 by playing 95 tournament games without a loss (46 wins and 49 draws), and tied with Karpov for first in the 1979 Montréal “Tournament of Stars.”
Although he continued to compete in world championship cycles, he never again played a match for the world championship. However, at the age of 51, he won the World Blitz Championship ahead of then world Champion Kasparov.
Tal died young: He suffered from serious health problems all his life, complicated by chain-smoking, excessive drinking, and partying. His wife, Salli Landau (they were married from 1959-1970), who wrote a biography of Tal, noted that, while some people thought he might have lived longer by taking better care of himself, if he had done so, he would not have been Tal.
She also commented that Tal “was so ill equipped for living… When he traveled to a tournament, he could even fact is on suitcase… He didn’t even know how to turn on the gas for cooking…Of course if he had made some effort, he could have learned all of this. But it was all boring to him. He just didn’t need to.”
In the spring of 1992, shortly before he died, Tal escaped from his hospital room to play in a blitz tournament. The following game, played against Kasparov, is generally regarded as his last game.
Tal –Kasparov 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Nd7 4. d4 Nf6 5. O-O a6 6. Bxd7 Nxd7 7. Nc3 e6 8. Bg5 Qc7 9. Re1 cd 10. Nxd4 Ne5 11. f4 h6 12. Bh4 g5 13. fe gh 14. ed Bxd6 15. Nd5 (a Typical Tal move! Houdini says the position now goes to -2.0 for Tal) ed 16. ed+ Kf8 17. Qf3 and Black forfeited on time.
The computer says Tal is losing, but it is not so easy to meet the threats on the board. And so Tal leaves the game as he found it, playing aggressively, speculatively, for the fun and joy of the game.
No column for the summer
I have been writing this column for more than four years, and am going to take a break for the summer, until late August.
In the last year, I have put a lot of energy into chess — playing, studying, writing about it — and I want to take some time to do some self-evaluation, decide whether I want to keep doing as many chess things as I have been doing.
This week’s problem
Here Tal finds a neat mating attack against former world champion Vasily Smyslov, who had also defeated Botvinnik for the world championship (in 1957) only to lose a rematch the following year.
After the crucial first move, White mates in no more than four moves.
Location:
E.Z. Adams – C. Torre New Orleans 1925
White to move and win
Solution
The point is to force the Queen away from the defense of e8, by chasing her around the board. 18. Qg4 Qb5 (18.. Qxg4 19 Rxe8 Rx8 20. Rxe8#) 19. Qc4 Qd7 20. Qc7 Qb5 21. a4 Qxa4 22. Re4 Qb5 23. Qxb7
As those of us who are Red Sox fans know all too well, sometimes the favored competitor that has a history of winning somehow finds a way of winning, even when it appears that he or she does not deserve it.
Defending Champion Gata Kamsky and four-time, and twice defending Women’s Champion Irina Krush both came from behind to become part of three-way ties for first place in the 2014 United States Open and Women’s Championships, and then went on to win their playoffs.
Although Kamsky was undefeated after 10 rounds, he had only won twice, and never been leading the tournament, and had a score of 6-4. Earlier in the tournament, he had predicted there would be a new champion this year.
However, the two leaders, Alexsandr Lenderman and Varuzhan Akobian, had scores of 6½ - 3½, and were scheduled to play each other. Both played hard, continuing to play for a win even as the game simplified into a drawn rook and pawn ending.
Lenderman, the early leader of the tournament, playing White, said he had no idea how the playoff worked because he wasn’t planning on drawing the game. Meanwhile, Kamsky managed to win a difficult game against Josh Friedel to force a three-way tie at 7-4.
Kamsky had the best tie breaks, and was therefore designated to play the winner of an Armageddon playoff game between Akobian and Lenderman. Akobian, playing Black, needed only a draw to advance to the final game against Kamsky.
He found a pretty Bishop sacrifice, which led to a forced win. The finals consisted of two games played at a time control of 25 minutes for game with a five second for move increment. After drawing the first game with the black pieces, Kamsky won the second with White, to claim the championship.
Krush, like Kamsky, went undefeated in the tournament. However, she complained of a mild fever during the tournament, and had given up three straight draws going into the penultimate eighth round, where she defeated her main rival, four-time champion Anna Zatonskih.
In the last round, Tatev Abrahamyan, with 5½ - 2½, won her game early; if either Krush or Zatonskih, both with 6-2, won, she would have been eliminated. However, both drew, setting up a three-way tie at 6½, 2½ .
In the Armageddon playoff, Abrahamyan, playing Black, forced a draw by perpetual check against Zatonskih, to set up the final against Krush. Krush won the first game with White, then held on for a draw in the second game with Black to win the title.
Ashritha Eswaran
After achieving an even score after five games, Ashritha Eswaran faded to finish with 3½ - 6½.
It is still unprecedented for a 13-year-old girl to play in a U.S. championship, and she certainly demonstrated that she can compete with the best women in the country.
Sam Shankland
Although a poor start disqualified Sam Shankland from a chance of winning, he had the distinction of defeating the tournament leaders on two occasions: Lenderman in the sixth round and Akobian in the ninth round, to ultimately finish with a score of 6-5.
Lenderman – Shankland
U.S. Championships
St. Louis 20141. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Bf4 O-O! 6. e3 Nbd7 7. Qc2 Shankland usually plays 2…c6, and Lenderman seemed a little surprised by the opening 7. c5 is more common.
7... c5 8. Rd1 cxd4 9. Rxd4 Qa5 10. Rd1? Lenderman thought a long time before this move, which leaves him with an inferior position. GM Finegold commented that 10 Bg3 is the only move played in top-level play. 10..Nb6 11. Nd2 Bb4 12. a3 Bxc3 13. Qxc3 Qxc3 14. bxc3 Bd7. Black has a slight edge due to White’s weak c pawns.
15. Be5 Ba4 16. Rb1 Nfd7. Black’s Bishop is strong, his Knight threatens e5 and he is about to seize the c file and win a pawn. 17. Bd6 Rfc8 18. cxd5 exd5 19. Nf3 The pawn on c3 will fall anyway, so White decides to develop his Knight.
19... Rc6 20. Be7 Rxc3 21. Bb4 Rc7 22. Be2 Nc4 23. Nd4 Nf6 24. Rc1 Rac8 25. Nf5 Nd6 Black has a clear advantage: in addition to the pawn, his rooks are doubled, his Knight is well posted, and his Bishop is annoying, Here, Shankland accurately calculates how to simplify the game to an easier win. 26. Rxc7 Rxc7 27. Ne7+ (27. Nxd6 Rc1+) Kf8! (better than Rxe7 28. Bxd6) 28. Ng6+ Ke8 (28... hxg6?? 29. Bxd6+ )29. O-O. Excellent play by both sides! But Black is still a clear pawn up.
29... Nde4 30. Ne5 b6 31. Ra1 a5 32. Be1 Nc3 33. Bd3 Nfe4 34. Nf3 Bb5 35. Bxb5+ Nxb5 Forcing the trade of White’s most active piece. 36. a4 Nbc3 37. Nd4 Rc4 38. f3 Nc5 39. Bxc3 Rxc3 40. Nb5 Rxe3 41. Nc7+ Kd7 42. Nxd5 Rb3. Although Black has not increased the material advantage, he has used his better piece position to reach a 2 versus 1 on the Queen side and the Black’s a pawn is very weak. Houdini says Black is up 2.1 and White is lost.
43. Rd1 Kc6 44. Ne7+ Kc7 45. Rd4 Ra3 46. Nd5+ Kc6 47. Ne7+ Kb7 48. Rd8 Rxa4 49. Rf8 Rd4 White resigns (Black will easily Queen his a pawn).
New York State Open
The Tiki in Lake George is the kind of motel that gives tourism a bad name. It features fake Polynesian décor, mediocre food, and has seen better days. Still, it is an excellent venue for a chess tournament the week before the main tourism season starts on Memorial Day weekend, and the Continental Chess Association, the largest sponsor of tournaments in the United States, does well by chess players to negotiate a discounted rate for chess players.
The New York State Open is an excellent opportunity for Capital District chess players to play against players from outside the region.
The Open section was won by Boston GM Alexander Ivanov with a 5-0 score; two local players, Albany club champion Jeremy Berman and Mike Mockler, had the opportunity to play him.
Twelve of the 32 players in the Open section were from the Capital District, including Martha Samadashvili, who drew a master and an expert on the way to a score of 2½ - 2½.
For the second year in a row, the Senior section (limited to players over 50 with a rating under 1910) was won by a local player: Alan LeCours, who tied for first with 4 ½ - ½, ahead of 20 other players, including five locals.
Thirty-four players, including five locals, competed in the under-1610 section; Albany player Thomas Clark tied for second with 4-1, raising his rating over 1600.
This week’s problem:
Cherchez la femme
In the problem below, White has doubled rooks on the e file threatening Rxe8, which would lead to mate except for the fact that the Black rook on e8 is defended by both a rook and a queen. How does White win?
Readers may reach chess columnist Peter Henner by e-mail at
Location:
On April 1, Chessvibes.com reported that United States President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a joint statement announcing that they would meet later this month to play a game of chess.
Although President Obama stated last month that the United States does not see the current situation “as some Cold War chessboard,” he now acknowledges that “the game of chess goes beyond any possible conflict… between the United States and Russia. This is an expression of hopes and aspirations of people in every country to solve all conflicts between us between the boundaries of the 64 squares.”
President Putin added, “The stakes are very high. The game will be of utmost importance for the new world order.”
Although both Obama and Putin have some experience with chess, they both will be assisted by famous grandmasters. Obama is expected to be assisted by three-time U.S. Champion Hikaru Nakamura, and former world Champion Garry Kasparov, a Russian opponent of Putin who characterized Putin as “a decent calculator [who] likes to attack, but… lacks… positional judgment.”
Another former world Champion, Anatoly Karpov, currently a member of the Russian Parliament, is expected to assist Putin.
(Editor’s note: Yes, this is an April Fool’s Day joke.)
Anand wins Candidates Tournament,
earns rematch against Carlsen
Many people believed that Vishy Anand would withdraw from high-level chess competition after losing the world championship last year. However, Anand, at 44, the oldest competitor, won the eight-man double round-robin Candidates tournament in Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia, and will play Magnus Carlsen for the championship in November.
Anand was undefeated, scoring 8 ½ - 5 ½, to place first by a full point over Sergey Karjakin who was second with 7 ½ - 6 ½. Anand won his first-round game against Levon Aronian, ranked number two in the world. Aronian recovered to tie Anand after 7 rounds, but lost his last two games to finish in a tie for 6th-7th, with 6 ½ - 7 ½.
Chess has come a long way in the last hundred years: The prize fund for the tournament was €420,000, with Anand, as the winner, receiving €95,000, and even Veselin Topalov, who finished eighth with 6-8, receiving €17,000.
Deepak Aaron scores big
at Eastern Class Championship
Deepak Aaron, the strongest player to grow up in the Capital District, came home on spring break from Georgia Tech, where he is studying chemical engineering, to play in the Eastern Class Championships in Sturbridge, Mass.
He defeated Grandmaster Alexander Fishbein and drew GMs Alexander Ivanov and world champion contender Gata Kamsky, and raised his rating 35 points, to 2465.
Kamsky placed first with 4 ½ - ½, ahead of GMs Sam Shankland and Aleksander Lenderman, who tied with Deepak and Victor Shen for 2nd – 5th, with 4-1 and Ivanov and Fishbein with 3 ½ - 1 ½.
Other Capital District players: in the Expert section: Dean Howard 1 ½- 1 ½, Peter Henner 1 ½ - 2 ½. Class A: Dilip Aaron 2 ½ - 2 ½, Martha Samadashvili 2 ½ - 2 ½, Scott Boyce 1 ½ - 2 ½. Class B: Zaza Samadashvili 3 ½ - 1 ½, Jonathan D’Alonzo 3-2, Sandeep Alampalli 2 ½ - 2 ½. Class D: Joseph D’Alonzo 3-2.
Sam Shankland is a senior at nearby Brandeis University, and is establishing himself as one of the strongest players in the U.S. His uncle, my endodontist, is happy that his nephew may have found a career doing something where he may be one of the best in the world.
Shankland was undefeated when he met Kamsky in the fourth round. Kamsky sacrificed a piece for an attack in a game that drew a crowd of spectators, including me.
Kamsky-Shankland,
Sturbridge, Ma. 3-16-14
1. d4 Nf6 2. Bf4 d5 3. e3 e6 4. Nd2 c5 5. c3 Nc6 6. Ngf3 Bd6 7. Bg3 O-O 8. Bd3 Qe7 9. Ne5 Nd7 10. Nxd7 (f4 is more common) Bxd7 11. Bxd6 Qxd6 12. dxc5 Qxc5 13. Bxh7+!? Kxh7.
14. Qh5+ Kg8 15. Ne4 Qc4 16. Ng5 Rfd8 17. Qxf7+ Kh8 18. Qh5+ Kg8. The crowd of spectators was at its thickest at this point, at least 10 of us. Kamsky thought for a long time, at least 10 minutes here, obviously looking for a win rather than a draw by perpetual check. Looking at the position, I saw that Kamsky had an attack, but I didn’t see how he could win, and thought he might have to settle for a draw since he was behind in material.
19. Rd1! e5? After this move, Houdini downgrades Black’s position from - 2.4 to -3.3 20.Qf7+ Kh8 21. e4 Ne7 (Black must give the piece back to prevent Rxe5) 22. Qxe7 Bb5 23. Rd2 Qxa2? (desperation, but Black is lost anyway). 24. Qf7 Qa1+
25. Rd1 Qxb2 26. Qh5+ Kg8 27. Qh7+ Kf8 28. Qh8+ Ke7 29. Qxg7+ Kd6 30. Rxd5+ Kc6 31. Qf6+ Black resigns.
This week’s problem
As a young man, future world champion Wilhelm Steinitz was known as the “Austrian Morphy.”
The American Paul Morphy was perhaps the most brilliant chess player of the 19th Century — he traveled to Europe in 1857, defeated all the best European players, and then retired from chess, reputedly because there was no one strong enough to compete with him.
Here Steinitz finds a neat mate in 3.
Aronian — Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee 2014
Black to move and mate
Solution: 38...Bd4+ and White has no defense against the mate on the first rank. For example, 39. cd Qb1+ 40. Ne1 R:e1+ 41. B:e1 Q:e1 mate.
There is an old story about a lively debate that supposedly took place at the Marshall Chess Club in New York City in the early 1960s. One of the debaters vociferously argued that chess players were obviously smarter than the general population.
However, the discussion ended suddenly when his adversary simply responded, “Then how do you explain Bobby Fischer?”
I am not aware of any studies showing any correlation between chess strength and I.Q. I don’t know anyone who admits to being a member of Mensa, but I suspect that very few of them are actually strong chess players.
Conversely, I know of many chess players rated over 2000 who have never distinguished themselves in any other intellectual activity.
Still, chess players, especially strong chess players, tend to be capable of mental feats that appear miraculous to the general public. For example, most chess players rated over 1800 can play “blindfold” chess, where the player is told the moves, and plays without actually having a board and pieces in front of him.
My wife is amazed that I do not write down possible entries in Sudokos; I keep the possibilities in my head until I am sure of the number to enter in a particular square.
The newest world Champion, 23-year-old Magnus Carlsen, solved complex jigsaw puzzles before he was 2, built advanced Lego models at the age of 4, and knew the area and population of all of Norway’s 430 municipalities at the age of 5. Although he worked very hard to become a Grandmaster by the age of 13, and ultimately to become world champion, Carlsen clearly had tremendous talent, both for chess, and for other intellectual activities.
Training, a supportive family, and hard work alone could not have produced a champion; consider the talented Polgar sisters whose father set out to train them to be chess wizards. Although Sofia became an International Master, and Zsuzsa a Grandmaster, only Judit had the talent to reach the highest levels of international competition.
Gates – Carlsen
Recently, Carlsen played an exhibition match against Bill Gates on Norwegian television. Gates is obviously a very successful businessman, and, while the extent to which intelligence is necessary for such success is another question, he is obviously not stupid.
Carlsen needed all of 12 seconds and nine moves to checkmate Gates (who played White) (a video of the game is on Youtube). 1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 d5 3. Bd3? (this move shows that Gates knows nothing about chess openings) Nf6 4. ed Q:d5 5. Nc3 Qh5 6. 0-0 Bg4 7. h3 Ne5 (Carlsen would normally not play a move like this — he described it after the game as “a cheap trick,” but he correctly believes that Gates will fall for the trap by taking the Bishop) 8. hg Nf:g4 9. N:e5?? Qh2 mate.
Chess strength
If native intelligence is not the sole, or even the main, determinant of chess strength, what is? There are many players who study very hard and very long and whose ratings never change.
In the Capital District, there are about 20 players, including myself, rated over 1800, who have been playing a long time, who were or are experts at one point, but who have not made it to master. Why not?
The current issue of Chess Life has an article by a man in his early 40s, describing his efforts to become a master over the next few years (he has also established a blog, ontheroadtochessmaster.blogspot.com.) In 2011, when he was rated in the 1500s, he established a goal of a rating of 1800, by the end of 2012, an expert rating of 2000 by 2015, and to become a master by 2020 (a rating of 2200).
He achieved a rating of 1721 in 2011, but, in three years, he has yet to break 1800. I would not be optimistic for him.
When I closed my law office last year, I decided to seriously attempt to become a master.
First, I spend about an hour a day solving tactical and endgame problems on a website, chesstempo.com, that I would highly recommend.
Second, I carefully analyze all of my games, with the aid of a computer, to see what I did right and what I did wrong.
Third, I do “solitaire chess” or “guess the best move” exercises, where I play over a Grandmaster game trying to guess the moves made.
Fourth, I try to review three to five high-level chess games a day.
Fifth, I try to do some formal study, some of openings, some of endgame theory, and some through books of general instruction. If I had more time, I might review some theoretical texts that have been written by great players over the years.
I would like to study 20 to 30 hours a week, but rarely do that much. Certainly, there is enough material to study 50 to 60 hours a week for the next few years. But, even if I do spend this time and effort, it is by no means clear that my rating will improve. Although I still believe that I have the ability to improve, it is possible that I have reached my maximum strength.
Tata Steel (Wijk aan Zee)
The 76th Wijk aan Zee (Netherlands) tournament (now known by its current sponsor as the Tata Steel Chess Tournament), one of the strongest annual chess events, was won by Levon Aronian, who is the only player in the world to be rated over 2800 besides Carlsen. Aronian clinched first place before the last round by scoring eight points in the first 10 rounds.
The American Hikaru Nakamura, ranked third in the world behind Aronian and Carlsen, tied for 8th-9th place with a score of 5-6.
This week’s problem
In the 11th and last round of the Tata Steel Chess Tournament, Aronian played the strong Dutch player and hometown favorite, Loek Van Wely. Aronian described the game as his most interesting game in the tournament.
Although he had clinched first place, he was playing hard for a win, had broken through Van Wely’s Dutch Defense, and had missed forced wins on moves 35 and 37, before making a time pressure mistake on move 38, which permitted Van Wely to force mate.
Location:
Gaasland – Carlsen Oslo 2001
Black to move and win
Solution
23.. Ne3! Threatening the Queen on c4, R:d1 mate, and forking Rook and Queen. 24. R:d8+ R:d8 (still threatening both mate on d1 and Q:c4) 25. Qe2 Qc4+ and White resigned.
— From Peter Henner
Philadelphia Five: The Capital District team at the National Chess Congress, held in the City of Brotherly Love, included, from left, Patrick Chi, Phillip Sells, Peter Henner, and Zaza and Martha Samadashvili.
Until very recently, American chess was largely centered in New York, with some secondary centers in California and possibly Chicago. However, in 2007, Rex Sinquefield, a retired billionaire financial advisor, best known for his contributions to conservative political causes, decided to provide major funding for the Chess Club of St. Louis.
Because of his substantial contributions to the chess center, Sinquefield has been awarded the Gold Koltanowski Award by the United States Chess Federation as the person who has done the most to support chess in the United States during the last four years, and St. Louis was designated Chess City of the Year in 2009 and 2011.
Since 2007, St. Louis has hosted the United States championship the last four years, with the largest prize funds in history; hosted both the U.S. Women’s Championship and the U.S. Junior Closed Championship in the last two years; established a major club with 900 members; conducted weekly rated events; offered several levels of chess instruction for players of all standings; conducted a variety of high-level scholastic programs; maintained a full-time staff; and sponsored rotating “Grandmasters in residence.” (The current GM in residence is Ronen Har-Zvi, who lived in the Capital District for about five years, giving chess lessons to a group of local players.)
In September, the Chess Club of St. Louis conducted the first Sinquefield Cup, a tournament with a total purse of $170,000 for a double round-robin tournament with only four players:
— Magnus Carlsen, the world champion, rated first;
— Levon Aronian, rated second in the world;
— Hikaru Nakamura, rated fourth in the world and one of America’s top two players; and
— Gata Kamsky, the other top American player, who lost a match for the world championship against Anatoly Karpov (7 ½ - 10 ½) in 1996 at the age of 22, before taking an eight-year break from chess.
The average rating of the four participants was 2793, making it the strongest tournament in history.
Carlsen won the tournament by winning his last-round game against Aronian. With 3 ½ points, he needed only a draw to clinch first, while Aronian, with 2 ½, needed a win to force a three-way tie with Nakamura.
At first, Carlsen appeared to be content with a draw, but, by the time Aronian offered it on move 48, Carlsen turned down the draw, and the certainty of the $70,000 first prize because, he said, “It was a little bit of a gamble, but I thought winning the last game would be so sweet.”
Carlsen won to take first place with 4 ½ - 1 ½, ahead of Nakamura (3 ½ - 2 ½), Aronian (2 ½ - 3 ½), and Kamsky (1 ½ - 4 ½). It was the first time that Carlsen had played in the United States, and he also became the first person to achieve a USCF rating over 3000, a provisional rating of 3004.
After this tournament, Carlsen took a two-month rest, before his ultimately successful match against Anand for the world championship.
Nakamura said that he was very disappointed not to have won the tournament. However, last week, he demonstrated that he had fully recovered, by winning the prestigious London Chess Classic, this year conducted as a rapid chess event. Nakamura defeated former world champion Vladimir Kramnik in the semifinals, and Boris Gelfand, who lost the 2012 world championship match against Anand, in the finals.
Chess at Robben Island
South African President Jacob Zuma, who was imprisoned for 10 years, recently stated, “On Robben Island, chess provided a solace to us that we needed in those conditions of isolation and deprivation. It propelled our minds beyond the confines of the prison walls and allowed us to reflect and to position our thought strategically to fight the regime. Many comrades made chess sets out of soap and driftwood that allowed us to continue to play this great and noble game.”
One of the strongest players on Robben Island was Nelson Mandela.
Neville Alexander, a fellow inmate recently interviewed by PBS, described him as taking “his time with every move, [considering] it very carefully. He would sort of mislead the other person by pointing things, this way, that way, the other, and then making the move that wasn’t expected, and so on…. [Mandela] had that way of, as I say, it was a war of attrition, and he tended therefore to be victorious in most cases.”
National Chess Congress
Five players from the Capital District — Patrick Chi; Phil Sells; Martha Samadashvili; her father, Zaza Samadashvili; and myself — traveled to Philadelphia over Thanksgiving to play in the National Chess Congress.
In the Premier section (limited to players over 2000), our home-grown master, Patrick Chi, held his own with a score of 3-3.
In the under 2200 section, Phil Sells gained 27 rating points to regain his expert rating (over 2000) with a score of 3-3.
Going into the last round, I had gained more than the 83 points needed to regain my expert rating, but blundered away a won game to finish with a score of 3 ½ - 2 ½, and a rating of 1985 (a gain of 68 points).
Martha Samadashvi, in her last tournament before traveling to the United Arab Emirates for the World Under-10 championship, scored 4-2 in the under-2000 section, to raise her rating 102 points, to 1861.
Zaza Samadashvili, troubled by a virus, and perhaps overwhelmed by his responsibilities, did not play the last day and finished with a score of 2-4 in the under-1800 section.
Local club championships
In Saratoga, a seven-player double round-robin, the favorite is Gary Farrell, with a score of 8-2, and two games left to play.
Defending champion Jonathan Feinberg is undefeated, with three wins and five draws for a score of 5 ½ - 2 ½, and has a chance of catching Farrell. Other scores: Bill Little, 4 ½ - 3 ½; Glenn Gausewitz, 3 ½ - 3 ½; Dave Finnerman, 3-4; Josh Kuperman, 2-5; and David Connors, 1 ½ - 7 ½.
In Albany, a 14-player single round-robin, the leader is newcomer Jeremy Berman, with a perfect score of 3-0, followed by Timothy Wright, 5-1; Jonathan Lack, 3 ½ - 1½ ; Dean Howard, 2 ½ - 1 ½ ; Jason Denham, 2 ½ - 1 ½; Glen Perry, 1 ½ - ½; Peter Henner, 2-1; and Michael Mockler, 1 ½ - 1 ½.
Joseph Jones ( 2 ½ - 2 ½) and Gordon Magat (2-3), who were expected to be among the leaders, already have more than two losses, followed by Will Stephenson, 1-4; Art Alowitz, ½ - 3 ½; Cory Northrup, ½ - 3½; and Chuck Eson, 0-3.
Schenectady, with a 13-player single round-robin, has been the most surprising tournament.
Jon Leisner, 3 ½ - ½, and Michael Mockler, 4-1, are leading, joined by Cory Northrup, 4-1, followed by Zachary Calderon, 3 ½ - 1 ½; Peter Henner, 3-2; Carlos Varela, 3-2; Junior Canty, 2-2; Carl Adamec, 2 ½ - 2½; John Phillips, 2-3; Matthew Clough, 2 ½ - 3½; Joel Miranti, 1-4; Richard Chu, 1-4; and Elihu Hill, 0-3.
There have already been five upsets of greater than 300 points: Clough - Henner, ½ - ½; Northrup – Henner, 1-0; Phillips – Canty, 0-1; Adamec - Clough 0-1; and Miranti - Clough 1-0.
This week’s problem
Are you as smart as a 10-year-old?
Magnus Carlsen found an elegant way to finish off this game when he was 10. Can you see it?
White to mate in two moves
Magnus Carlsen, the strongest player in chess history, rated approximately 75 points higher than the second-highest rated player, Levon Aronian, decisively defeated World Champion Vishy Anand by a score of 6 ½ - 3 ½ in a match held in Chennai, India, to become the 16th world chess champion.
Carlsen won the match on Nov. 25, eight days short of his 23rd birthday. Garry Kasparov, who was only 22 years, six months and 27 days old when he won the world championship from fellow Soviet player Anatoly Karpov in 1985 holds the record as the youngest world champion.
Carlsen has been the top player or close to the top for several years; if he had chosen to compete in the 2010 world championship cycle, he might have been able to become the challenger in 2012, and might have become the youngest world champion in history.
Kasparov, who was still ranked number one in the world when he retired from chess in 2005 (he has since become very active in Russian politics, opposing Vladimir Putin), attended the 2013 match, and described Carlsen, as the “Harry Potter of Chess.”
The Nov. 25 match was surprisingly one-sided: After four draws, Carlsen won the fifth and sixth games in complicated games that Anand might have been able to draw with best play. After two more draws, Anand, desperately needing a victory, played a sharp attacking line in the ninth game, hoping to find a mating attack on the kingside.
Carlsen defended well, and the game should probably have ended in a draw but Anand blundered and lost. Trailing 6-3, Anand would have had to win all of the three remaining games to tie the match to force a tiebreaker.
In the 10th game, Anand, playing Black, offered to repeat moves on move 21, which would have enabled Carlsen to obtain a draw and win the match. However, Carlsen, feeling that he had a better position, declined the offer and played for a win, and the game was not drawn until the 65th move, when both players did not have sufficient mating material.
On a personal note, I was somewhat inspired by Carlsen’s action.
Last Sunday, in the last round of the National Chess Congress, my opponent, rated 250 points higher than I, offered me a draw, which, had I accepted, would have enabled me to achieve my long-standing goal of regaining my Expert rating. However, I believed that I was winning, and rather than accept the draw, kept playing. Unfortunately, I lost.
All of the games from the championship match are readily available on the Internet: I recommend the site, chessvibes.com, but the official match site and the Wikipedia page of “World Chess Championship 2013” have them as well.
Carlsen said, “I would like to take some responsibility for [Anand’s] mistakes, that’s for sure. It’s been that way for me for a long time. I just play and…People crack under pressure, even in World Championships.”
Anand acknowledged, “My mistakes didn’t happen by themselves; clearly, he managed to provoke them.” Anand attributed his loss to his failure to execute his own strategy.
The match was sponsored by the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, at a cost of $6 million, including prizes of $1.53 million for the winner and $1.02 million for the loser. The match organizers were given high praise by everyone for the professional way in which the match was conducted.
GM and chess journalist Ian Rogers noted that the state chief minister, Jayalalithaa Jayaram, a former movie star, may be a future candidate for Indian prime minster, and that the sponsorship of a match featuring the Indian national hero Anand may support those ambitions.
Although his qualification for the world championship match might seem to have been inevitable, Carlsen qualified for the match by narrowly winning a double round-robin tournament against seven of the strongest players in the world, winning the tournament on tiebreaks against former champion Vladimir Kramnik (see “Carlsen Wins Candidates, Will Challenge Anand,” Enterprise, April 4, 2013).
Even before the match, Carlsen was nominated by Time magazine as one of the 100 most powerful people in the world, a rare accolade for a chess player. This year, New in Chess produced a second edition of a 2004 book by Carlsen’s trainer, International Master Simen Agdestein: How Magnus Carlsen Became the Youngest Chess Grandmaster in the World.
The book has been highly recommended by the renowned chess teacher Jeremy Silman as an important book for recreational players to learn how to study and improve their game.
Anand was interviewed five days after the end of the match, and acknowledged that he had been completely outplayed. He said that he “could barely move a muscle” for three days after the match.
Although he said that he was not keen to retire, he talked at length about the fact that he would have more time to spend with his young son and said, “Chess will cease to be the thing that completely dominates my thoughts and … now I will be able to enjoy more time with my family, pursue my hobbies, do other things as well… So I think chess will find a new place in my life.”
Nevertheless, Anand, as the just dethroned champion, is automatically seeded into the qualifying cycle for the next world championship match, and he is likely to continue playing for some years.
Anand’s seven-year reign as World Champion is reminiscent of the 15-year reign of Mikhail Botvinnik, from 1948-1963 (with two interruptions — Fédération internationale des échecs rules permitted Botvinnik to contest and win two rematches, after he had lost his championship to Vassily Smyslov in 1957 and Mikhail Tal in 1960).
Both Botvinnik and Anand, as champions, did not play in very many tournaments, choosing instead to focus their chess energies on the title matches. Such a strategy was more effective for Botvinnik, since there were fewer players of world-championship caliber in the 1950s, and he was not hurt by the lack of top-level competition.
Botvinnik was arguably the strongest player of his time, while Anand, rated 100 points lower than Carlsen, is ranked only ninth in the world today.
This week’s problem
Kenneth Howard’s 1962 book, One Hundred Years of the American Two-Move Chess Problem, characterized “the ideal American two-mover [as] an attractively set composition, illustrating an interesting strategic idea, introduced by a subtle keymove.”
By convention, these problems are White to mate in two moves, and the first move is neither a capture, nor a check. Although the possible moves are limited, a good problem is subtle and, after solving it, one appreciates the beauty and artistry of the composer.
The problem below, composed by a postal worker and famous chess composer named Otto Wurzberg, appeared on the cover of the inaugural issue of Chess Review magazine in 1933, which continued to run problems on its cover until 1941.