Mate In Seven! and chess video link

All Things Chess
1

Colorado Springs Chess Newsletter
cs.chess.home.att.net

Game Of The Week

This week’s game comes from the Pikes Peak Open. I did not do as well this year as I did last year. Last year, I won 3 games (announcing mate in all 3), drew 1, and lost 0, taking home 2nd place. This year, I won 2 games, drew 0, and lost 2, taking home my tail between my legs. The only consistent factor from last year is that I announced mate in all my wins again this year. In the past 8 games at the Pikes Peak Open where I did not announce mate, I either drew or lost. I think next year I will just announce “Mate in 47!” at the beginning of every game. I don’t have to announce mate correctly. In fact, I often miscalculate the mate. However, according to Randy’s Rule #1 (home.att.net/~cs.chess/newslette … _2008.html), accuracy is not important as long as you err on the high side. Also, I think it was LM Brian Wall who told me that it has to be at least mate in 3 to be able to announce. I have announced mate in 2 in the past, but that was my second attempt at announcing mate. I announced mate in 3 twice after that, but once it was actually mate in 2. This year I extended my personal best announcements to a mate in 4 and a mate in 7 (and both were correct, although the best line was not played). I even took some consolation from the fact that my Fritz 8 engine has trouble getting the mate in 7 correct. Before 46…Rf2+ it says #8 but when you play that move it jumps to #6. In the game, Cory didn’t find the best defense, and I was able to announce mate in 3 and play it out correctly. I don’t mind playing out these mates as I clearly have a lot of room for improvement in this area. I am just glad Cory didn’t go to lunch and let me win on time.

Mate In Seven! (home.att.net/~cs.chess/games/fos … 012009.htm)

(156) Foster,Cory (1534) - Anderson,Paul (2003) [B12]
Pikes Peak Open Colorado Springs (1.4), 01.08.2009
[Fritz 8 (60s)]

B12: Caro-Kann: Advance Variation
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.Be2 last book move 6…Bxf3 7.Bxf3 Qb6 8.Ne2 Nh6 9.0-0 0-0 10.c3 f5 11.e5 Nf7 12.Kh1 Na6 13.Qc2 Nc7 14.Be3 dxe5 15.fxe5 Nxe5 16.dxe5 A pinning theme. 16…Qxe3 17.Qb3+ e6 Consolidates d5 18.Qxb7 Qb6 19.Qxc6 [Worse is 19.Bxc6 Qxb7 20.Bxb7 Rab8-/+ ] 19…Qxc6 20.Bxc6 Rad8 21.Rad1 Bxe5 22.Nc1 Kf7 23.Nd3 Bd6 24.b4 e5 25.a4 Ke6 26.a5 This push gains space 26…e4 Black wins space 27.Rfe1 Kf6 28.Nb2 Be5 29.Na4 Ne6 30.b5 Nf4 31.b6 axb6 32.axb6 Nd3 33.Re2?? shortens the misery for White [>=33.Rxd3 exd3 34.Rd1-+ ] 33…Nf2+!! A double attack 34.Kg1 [34.Rxf2 Rxd1+ A classical mating theme] 34…Nxd1 35.Kf1 Nxc3 [>=35…Rd6!? keeps an even firmer grip 36.Bb5 Nxc3 37.Nxc3 Bxc3 38.b7-+ ] 36.Nxc3 Bxc3 37.Rc2 Be5 38.b7 Rd1+ 39.Ke2 Rfd8 40.Ba4 g5 41.Rc6+ R1d6 42.Rc8 Rd2+ 43.Ke1 Bxh2 44.Rc6+ [44.b8Q there is nothing else anyway 44…Bxb8 45.Rxb8 Rxb8 46.Kxd2 Rb2+ 47.Ke1 Rxg2 48.Kf1-+ ] 44…Ke7 45.Rh6 Bg3+ 46.Kf1 e3 [46…Rf2+ 47.Kg1 Re2 48.Rxh7+ Kf8 49.Rh8+ Kg7 50.Rg8+ Kxg8 51.Bb3+ Kf8 52.b8Q Re1# ] 47.Bb5 Rf2+ 48.Kg1 Rd1+ 49.Bf1 Rdxf1# 0-1

This Week In Chess

On July 28th, the CSCC had 10 members in attendance. The evening’s event was a 7-round, double-Round Robin, blitz tournament (G5). I suffered a rough start, and David Meliti ran out of gas, as we tied for 1st place. Here are the results:

Official Actual
Score Games Player
5.5 11.5 Paul Anderson
5.5 11.5 David Meliti
4.5 10.5 Mitch Anderson
4.5 10.5 Buck Buchanan
0.0 3.0 Jaan Schlemermeyer
WD 3.0 Anthea Carson
WD 2.0 Lee Oats
WD 0.0 Isaac Martinez

Pikes Peak Open 2009 Prizes
By Jerry Maier

Thought you might want a list of the prize breakdowns:

Score Place Prize Player
4.5 1st $80.00 Renard Anderson
4.5 1st $80.00 Julian Evans
4.0 3rd $61.00 Jeffrey Baffo
4.0 3rd $61.00 Brian Wall
3.5 U1800 $50.00 Jeffrey Serna
2.5 U1500 $40.00 Daniel Picard
2.5 U1600 $11.25 Jeremiah Haynes
2.5 U1600 $11.25 Christopher Hanagan
2.5 U1600 $11.25 Kurt Kondracki
2.5 U1600 $11.25 Cory Foster
2.0 U1300 $35.00 Josiah Ortega

New Video From CSCN!

Another newsletter has been transformed into a piece of visual art. Enjoy another masterpiece from Matthew Productions:

home.att.net/~cs.chess/videos/thunder_seven.htm

Upcoming Events

8/4 Speed tournament, CSCC
8/5,12,19,26 2009 August East Coast Deli, CSCC
8/6,13,20,27 2009 August USAFA Chess, CSCC
8/8 It’s a Hot Time in Town Tonight Tournament, CSCA
8/11 Fischer-random tournament, 4-SS, G/10, CSCC
8/15 Super Saturday G/29 II, CSCA

For event details and additional events, see the following websites:

CSCC: Colorado Springs Chess Club (springschess.org/)
BCC: Boulder Chess Club (geocities.com/boulderchessclub/)
CSCA: Colorado State Chess Association (colorado-chess.com/)
WCA: Wyoming Chess Association (wyomingchess.com/)
KCA: Kansas Chess Association (kansaschess.org/)

2

Forgive a relative novice for asking a stupid question: what is gained by “announcing mate”, other than a show of arrogance? If you are correct your opponent is already beaten. Why not show more sportsmanship by playing it out, quietly? If your opponent sees it and resigns, you win. If not, you win. In both cases, better sportsmanship is achieved by doing so silently - and not intensifying the loss for your opponent like that.

I don’t put this in the category of chess knowledge, but rather, general second-grade knowledge. How do others feel? Am I off-base here?

3

Not much, and it could hurt you… I would consider it a violation of the “disturbing your opponent” rule, and potentially penalize the announcer.

I’ve seen a case where someone announced it, and was wrong… Many eggs – one face.

4

Yes it’s a nice fantasy, but wait until the spectators are ready to shower gold coins on you before you do it.

I cannot seem to recall that spectators were ever eager to shower gold coins on my games :cry: (there were some moments, but the gold coins seemed to be missing) but hey, ymmv!

5

I would beg to differ. I don’t know of any 2nd graders announcing mate in 7 (and being correct). If you do, I would get his autograph now before he becomes world champion.

First, I think a couple of things can be gained. In my case, I have written a couple newsletters on the topic, so I have gained material. But it has also improved my chess play as well. I used to be a win material and grind out a simple endgame player, but now I look to get the king. This keeps the game interesting for me even when my position is clearly won. But the main gain comes from time. I think announcing mate is the only polite way to ask your opponent to resign. In a slow game, moves can last 10 minutes and with mate in 7 that would be an hour you’d have to waste if your opponent is not seeing the mate. I would hate to disrespect a master by wasting his time that way.

Second, there is no rule against announcing mate. You would have to argue that it is annoying behavior and persuade the TD. However, I would argue that playing out a lost game, especially if you are taking a lot of time, is the annoying behavior. There is a rule about leaving your game for more than 15 minutes which seems to indicate some players are abandoning games rather than admit defeat.

I have been on both sides of the announcing mate, and I still think it has its place in chess.

6

I don’t think you’ll find a lot of support for that one, especially among scholastic coaches.

Alex Relyea

7

Several things struck me in your post, but I’ll just comment on this one (the excerpt above). You have EXACTLY made my point!! It’s a juvenile, even ‘second grade’ mentality to judge right vs. wrong based on “there is no rule…”! I couldn’t have illustrated this point better than you did.

“Announce” and “pointing out” are two different things. In the rare occasion that you’re holding up the next round, yes, a subtle “pointing out” might well be in order. And I’m certain that others “announce” against you, when possible, simply because you are known for such behavior yourself.

I have never seen someone announce “mate in X” at my club, and we have several players (myself not one) rated higher than you. So it’s not something that goes with higher rating/rank - it’s a simple matter of sportsmanship and interpersonal respect. Particularly in a local, hopefully friendly, club/affiliate.

There is no rule against flatulence during a game, either - but something tells me that not all your opponents would enjoy that. Ooops, sorry, Colorado Springs… I just gave him a new tactical idea.

8

You mean your TD’s have never forfeited someone for flatulence? I thought that was commonplace everywhere??? (o;

9

There was once a guy in Germany who suddenly had a string of incredibly good results for an amateur, including wins against IM’s and GM’s. In addition, he had a habit of announcing (correctly) long and complicated mates. Soon afterwards, he was found to be using computer during the game.

Announcing mates can invite extra adverse scrutiny from the guys who are already not in the best mood, having been defeated. I hope you exercise a lot and have quick reflexes.

10

Perhaps, I should have posted two replies, as my comment about the lack of a rule was a response to the Bioniclime statement, “it could hurt you.” I assumed that he was referring to some kind of punishment assessed by the tournament director. My point was that the USCF has chosen not to make a rule against announcing mate, and therefore the TD would have to be persuaded that announcing mate violated the “annoying behavior” rule. I asked a TD if he would punish someone for announcing mate, and his reply was, “There is no rule against announcing mate.” So, it would be hard to be hurt by announcing mate, as long as the manner in which it was done was not intentionally annoying. Perhaps, some people didn’t realize Randy’s Rules (home.att.net/~cs.chess/newslette … _2008.html) were just a joke and not official Announcing Mate Etiquette.

11

There may not be a rule against announcing mate but, as you said, there is a rule against annoying behavior.

Announcing mate can let an opponent know what you are thinking and, if the opponent analyzes better than you, the opponent can allow you to lead yourself down a garden path.
I’m reminded of an old story in Chernev’s book about a player who announced mate in 2(?) against a GM. As the GM just sat there with a bored expression the player looked again and realized he was wrong (due to a delaying move) and corrected himself and announced mate in 3(?). As the GM still sat there the player took yet another look, finally analyzed the position correctly, and resigned.

You have been making your announcements honestly, but one tactic that a less than honest player could use would be to make an incorrect announcement in the hopes that the opponent would simply accept that analysis and resign. A second tactic would be to make an incorrect announcement in an attempt to get an opponent to play the less-than-best response that leads to that incorrect announcement (rather than the best response) and then play a different second move that capitalizes on that induced less-than-best response.

For those reasons I would most likely NOT simply allow mate announcements.

12

Would you allow the victor to announce checkmate?

To be consistent, it seems that since there is the possibility of announcing in error, the winning player would have to sit quietly until the loser makes some authorized act of concession (tipping over a king, signing a score sheet, etc.).

I found the quote from the TD I was paraphrasing and I will post it here since it addresses the checkmate issue:

"I’d punish someone for announcing mate if they weren’t one of the two players playing the game! Ha ha ha…

But seriously, there’s nothing in the rulebook about announcing mate, and I certainly wouldn’t punish someone.

There’s no penalty for telling someone it’s checkmate, whether it is, in fact, checkmate or not. It’s the opponent’s job to judge whether the claim is valid. This is akin to announcing a “mate in 0”.

So, the same principle applies for those who wish to look into the future and announce a mate in X. As long as you’re discreet about it and not announcing it out loud to everybody, the worst that can come from it is your opponent loses their concentration. But assuming you’re even remotely right, they won’t need that concentration much longer anyway."

13

Not during the game. It’s very simple. Checkmate, with a legal move, ends the game. You’re only supposed to talk to your opponent during the game to offer a draw. There can be some exceptions, of course, and I suppose any TD can draw the line at a different place where that crosses the line into annoying behavior, but in general, you should only talk to your opponent during the game to offer a draw.

Alex Relyea

14

I think the exceptions are why it is not very simple. My last tournament game included an example, as my opponent was having trouble with his score sheet. He asked me for mine, and I reminded him that he should wait until his clock was running. While both of us talked during the game, neither of us were offended by it, and it was beneficial to the game. Even if I was annoyed by him interrupting my train of thought, it seems like it would have been my problem and not his, as he is required to keep an accurate score sheet. So, just because I am annoyed by my opponent doesn’t mean he violated the rule, it may be that I am easily annoyed. And if I am annoyed that my opponent announced mate, perhaps it has less to do with a psychological ploy intented to gain an advantage (in a game that is already won) and more to do with the fact that I am more easliy annoyed when losing.