Thursday, August 11, 2011

The Mysterious Appearance of Ray: The ECF Responds

As you may have noticed, the guest of honour at Sheffield's opening ceremony rather caught our attention: When will they ever learn?; The man who would be mentioned. Interested readers might also wish to peruse the comments box to CJ, the ECF and Constable Savage which contains contributions from ECF Chief Executive Andrew Farthing and many other chess worthies as well as from chess unworthies such as myself and a couple of my fellow bloggers.

Andrew has been kind enough to answer some further questions on the matter. I was originally intending to write a full post on this topic for tomorrow. However, given that similar queries are now appearing on the EC Forum, I have decided to publish the ECF's response straight away, but without without any additional commentary (which I haven't had time to write).


S&BCB:
I am hearing that Ray Keene was invited to open the British Championships by CJ who had not previously discussed the matter with anybody in the ECF. Is that true?

ECF:
Yes, I believe that it is true that CJ did not discuss RDK's invitation to open the Championships with any other Board member. Speaking for myself, I did not learn of it until after the event, when I saw mentions of it online.

S&BCB:
Do the ECF find this an acceptable way for the President to behave?

ECF:
The President has traditionally been the Board member in charge of the opening and closing ceremonies at the British. As far as I know, it has not been usual for the President to consult the Board regarding the individuals invited, so what happened this year was not outside the norm.

S&BCB:
Are we now deciding that the Ray Keene/Tony Miles issue is best forgotten as it was so long ago, or has the matter been resolved in some way?

ECF:
I have no comment on this.

S&BCB:
Why has no mention of Keene’s presence at the opening ceremony appeared on either the tournament or ECF websites?

ECF:
I wasn't present that Monday - I intended to be there, but car trouble intervened - but the reports from Board members who were indicate that the opening ceremony was a relatively low-key affair. I understand that CJ gave the main opening address, after which RDK formally declared the Championships open. (Most of the feedback related to inaudibility, i.e. the lack of microphones.)

In general, the website coverage throughout the event didn't include much "colour" commentary, concentrating in the main on the results and the games. I don't believe, therefore, that there is anything particularly significant in the omission. If the opening ceremony had been "grander", perhaps there would have been some coverage.


Draw Bores


Tuesday 9th August: Danny Baker tweets it like it is


What were you doing last Friday around 5pm? As this was back when it was possible to venture out of doors in the late afternoon/early evening without having to calculate the chances of being looted, set ablaze or generally pillaged I suppose there are any number of things you might have been up to. What I was doing, let me tell you, was packing my cozzie and a towel into a bag and thinking, "I'll just watch the end of the last round then I'll head down to the pool." As it turned out, though, I never made it for my swim. Five hours on I was still glued to my computer, totally captivated by a game of chess that seemed like it might never end.

It was a remarkable evening. Of the top four boards Wells-Hawkins was the first to finish ...






... followed by Gordon - Short ...






... and Adams - Zhou ...






... these last two finishing within five minutes of each other around about a quarter past seven. Jones - Pert, though, that went on and on and on before, after 144 moves and very nearly eight hours at the board, they finally called it quits.






It was a truly epic evening of chess. There might not have been a single decisive result on the top four boards, but nevertheless the last round was entirely in keeping with the fighting chess that we saw, with rare exceptions, throughout the tournament.

Needless to say, Sheffield's last round would have been enthralling in any circumstances, but it was made all the sweeter by the fact that the latest issue of CHESS features the Rustam Kasmidzhanov 'open letter' and three pages of utter cobblers from John Foley on the subject draws. They are dull, they are bad for chess and they should be eliminated from the game to the greatest extent possible, apparently. Not just short 'grandmaster' or 'struggle free' draws, mind. All draws.




We've seen a lot since last Friday. OK, it hasn't quite been attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion, but neither has the torching of furniture stores in Croydon and party shops in Clapham been much of a joke.

LIF.EG.O.ES.ON, though, and we mustn't let what was important to us before the unrest began be completely replaced in our minds by images of destruction and violence. It is for precisely that reason that while I am busy joining the line of people for Danny Baker, I will also make time to contact editorATchess.co.uk to ask if John Foley and Rustam Kasmidzhanov could join the queue for me.









Danny Baker photograph from news.bbc.co.uk

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

The man who would be mentioned


Raymond Keene, beloved of this blog, has a bit of a reputation for throwing his weight around when he's not happy. Or so some say. To be honest, it's not seemed like that to me these last few years, perhaps because Ray has mostly been happy to plough his own furrow: Simpson's, the Times, Impala, Chessgames.com, that sort of thing.

It's like a man who believes he should be king: living a kind of exile life, surrounded by his courtiers and admirers, hardly impinging on the rest of us at all except for the occasional cross-border raid to borrow a passage of writing that isn't strictly speaking his. We know he's there, we talk about him now and then. But he doesn't really bother us.

But if this has been the age of Ray in exile, it is also the epoch of social media, which respect and recognise no borders man has made. You may find Ray cropping up on your Twitter feed, or your Facebook page. Quite unexpectedly, at least at first. And naturally, all kings-in-exile yearn to return to the kingdom they believe is rightfully theirs. They all dream of coming back, and if they get the chance, they take it. So even more unexpectedly, you may find him cropping up at your chess championship, speaking to the people he still believes are his. Whether they think so or not.

He dreams of coming back, the king acknowledged by his people. It is lonely, being an exile, and what the would-be-king demands, as much as anything, is recognition. Acknowledgement. Worse than being talked about, is not being talked about. So you can see how ill he took it, when he made his speech and nobody mentioned it. It is as if Bonnie Prince Charlie had come back - and everybody shrugged their shoulders and pretended it didn't happen. Intolerable.

So it is that over the past week or so, we've seen Old King Ray back to something like his previous form, demanding apologies on Twitter like he was ordering desserts at Simpson's. It was I, says Ray, who opened the British Championships. CJ made the ceremonial first move: but the opening of the tournament was I and I alone. Thus spake Ray. And those who failed to acknowledge the King must be made to submit to him.

Strangely, it took until 28 July, as late as the fourth round, before Ray, perhaps waking up after a long sleep, realised that people were writing about the British Championships as if he had never been there.


Even then, the campaign didn't really get going until Monday 1 August, when Ray - perhaps, by then, having recovered from Sunday lunch - realised that the Daily Telegraph chess column had failed to mention his central role in the opening ceremony. He demanded a correction. Or, more accurately, for we know that accuracy is important to Ray, he demanded a retraction. A retraction, and an apology. And a cherry on top.

(Readers still unfamiliar with Twitter may need to know that Tweets display above the one before, so that they proceed, chronologically, upwards on the screen. Usually.)

At this stage, though, it seemed more of a skirmish than a campaign, since only two days later, with Short-Adams I out of the way, Ray was claiming victory, having - according to him at least - received his apology. (Via CJ, he said, perhaps explaining why it hadn't appeared on Malcolm's Twitter or anything.)


Just in case we had missed it, he said it again the next day


and again later the same day. And then he opened up on another front. With victory due to be sealed officially the next day, with Malcolm due to publish his surrender in the Daily Telegraph, he moved his cannon to a new position and opened fire on the English Chess Federation.

(This one goes chronologically downwards. Don't ask.)

He fired once! He fired twice!


And then there was a lull, while he waited for Malcolm's official surrender. But what was this? Had Ray been double-crossed? Nothing appeared in the Telegraph on the Friday.

He complained. He insisted. He raged. (He pointed, too, at The Week In Chess - prop. Malcolm Pein - who had also failed to make it up to him for their previous earlier omission of his role.) He complained on the Saturday


and he complained again on the Sunday.


He complained, and he raged. My word, did he rage, since that weekend the CJ T-shirt controversy kicked off, to which Ray applied himself vigorously, on Twitter and in the Sunday Times. And in his rage, he found another subject for his displeasure, since one of the ECF officials - who he had decided, without communicating with them, were responsible for CJ's unhappy experience - was brave and foolish enough to risk his further displeasure by confronting him in front of his own court.


The "glass of water" Tweet very much the pick of the bunch, if you ask me, but regrettably Ray failed to see the funny side. Lara Barnes, new to Twitter as she was, had made the dreadful error of thinking that in referring to a "Laura", Ray was referring to her. Dreadful. Awful. And woe unto Lara for her mistake.


Woe be upon her. Woe.


Thrice woe.


Though for a few hours, Ray's wrath subsided, since he had in front of him an actual, tangible correction. If not an actual tangible apology.


How enthusiastic a correction it actually was - let alone how prominent - one might well wonder, since it gave the impression of having been carelessly compiled


and hence perhaps its presumably accidental resemblance to the old optical illusion that goes something like

PARIS
IS THE
THE CAPITAL
OF FRANCE

not to mention the possibly unconvincing suggestion that Ray's presence had been overlooked due to the absence of a PA system when he spoke. (Such a system had indeed been absent, but it strikes me that Ray is one of those people who one can see, even if one cannot hear him.)


Still, emboldened by this success, Ray was keen for more, and turned his cannon back onto Lara Barnes. Boom! Her "entirely erroneous approach". Boom! Her "obvious blunder". Boom! Her "false accusation".

The smoke cleared. The firing stopped. The surrender was forthcoming, and humbly with it.


There's lovely. I'm glad Ray didn't spoil his dinner. And it was generous of him to consider the matter closed, even if it meant that Dr Harris' suggestion, that Lara's error had been of a minor nature, went unanswered. But that is how a king behaves in victory. With magnanimity.


So ended the campaign, or at least, that is how it seemed at the time of writing. How did the old king fare? By my count, he scored one apology received, another claimed and one correction of sorts on TWIC. No obvious correction, however, on the ECF or British Championship websites, though the latter did give Ray a mention. Plus, according to his claim, a forthcoming apology in Chess, which isn't out yet. Plus one in the Telegraph, which was still overdue last I heard. Then again, I don't see the Telegraph.

So Ray may be claiming more than he's actually entitled to here, not that this is an entirely unusual habit for him. Though perhaps the most important thing, for Ray, is that Malcolm, apparently, apologised. My word, did he apologise. Not only graciously but "profusely". And other people should apologise "as Malcolm Pein did". Ray was in the right. He had been there. He did it. He was acknowledged.


We'll get back to the question of apologies, and who should make them, and whether they are forthcoming as often as they might be, later on. Before we do, though, it may be time to make the obvious point, which is that there may be a reason that people chose to avoid mentioning Ray's presence at the opening ceremony, and Ray knows that as well as everybody else.

It may be because they were embarrassed at his presence. It may be that they didn't want to have him there. It may be they didn't know that he was going to be there, because nobody had told them.

Why would this be? It would be because there is a bad smell hanging around the name Ray Keene, a bad smell that has been there for an awfully long time. A bad smell which is there for a lot of reasons, all of them known to Ray Keene, and by this time known to most of the chessplaying community, if not always recognised by his acolytes on Chessgames.com and elsewhere. (Hello, Steve. Hello, Nigel. Hello, Sean.) We know what Ray Keene is. Ray Keene knows what Ray Keene is. And that's why CJ, who appears not to know what Ray Keene is, had to invite him to Sheffield on the quiet.

Now Ray, for all his sins, can be a lot of fun, and following his Twitter account can be a lot of fun. I follow it, and I recommend it. But while it can be fun to watch Ray at work, making an unlikely claim and then backing it up with a sliver of the truth, it's not quite so much fun when he goes barging around bullying other people into apologies that they don't really owe him.

I wonder, for instance, regarding his dispute with Lara Barnes, whether Lara's real sin may have been trying to take the piss out of him. It seems to me that mistaking "Laura" for herself was about as minor a sin that one can possibly commit. It also seems to me that Lara was not obviously making false accusations, and that if anybody was making them, Ray was not necessarily their target.

Well, short-lived dispute on Twitter, nobody died, no bruises sustained, no pride much hurt, not even Ray's. So let's get back to this business of being prepared to make apologies, rather than the somewhat less gracious affair of demanding them. Another glance at Ray's admirable sentiment:


Like many admirable sentiments, it does rather beg the question of whether it's actually applied in practice, and I do confess that my memory admits to very few examples of Ray accepting that he's been in the wrong, let alone issuing, with courage, one of these admirable apologies.

I'll spare the reader the detailed list, what with life being short and blog articles being long. But just to come up with one example, when a long passage from Edward Winter turned up on Chessville.com, and later in the Spectator, with barely a word changed and without any note of attribution, I don't recall any apology from Ray, let alone any admission of guilt. All I recall, and I can find it here, is a highly unconvincing claim as to how this copying came about, and a suggestion that somebody else could organise a proper attribution.

Not obviously a demonstration of Ray's courageous willingness to apologise when he gets something wrong. Perhaps readers can furnish us with some better examples.

To be honest I doubt that Ray could stand up all the claims he made on Twitter about the T-shirt affair, but I leave that for the exceptionally patient reader to look into, and decide. (Quite a few things Ray says on Twitter don't entirely stand up, but that's part of the fun of following him.) Enough: I am off on holiday today. England, since you ask, which currently has bigger problems to deal with than Ray Keene. Anyway, I could probably have saved you all the trouble of reading this, simply by making this observation. Can we imagine anybody other than Ray Keene, making a speech at the British Chess Championships, and then going purposely unmentioned?

If not, why do we think this might be?

Perhaps because it's one thing to be the man who would be king. But quite another, when there are so many reasons for us to have it otherwise.


[Ray Keene index]
[Thanks to JB, Tom, Sean]

Tuesday, August 09, 2011

The Interesting Sacrificed Exchange V


[Author's note: It seems a little odd to be writing about chess this morning. After the tumultuous events of recent days - the riots I mean, not CJ's t-shirt - it seems a tad trivial, but, as you know, that's how we roll.

As it happens, I was playing chess last night and until about 11:30 I was completely oblivious to how it was all kicking off just down the road. Can't helping feeling that if there was a little more knight to king bishop three and little less global economic meltdown/burning of stores that sell sports footwear we'd all be much happier. Anyhoo, chess blogging resumes ...]



White plays 10 b3
Houska v Rendle, British Championships (10) 2011


I've written about exchange sacrifices before: exchange sacs to get rid of a fianchettoed bishop (TISE); exchange sacs to start an attack on the king (TISE II); exchange sacs that become standard theoretical ideas (TISE III); exchange sacs to power-up a fianchettoed bishop (TISE IV), but until now I haven't mentioned one of my favourite kinds: the exchange sac that doesn't happen. Jovanka Houska's game with Tom Rendle from the recent British Championships is a good example of one of those.

From the diagram at the top of today's post play continued 10 ... Na6, 11 Ng5 Qe7, 12 Nxe6 Qxe6, 13 Bb2 Nc5, the players ending up in a position


that is very close to one once reached by Keene and Botterill at the British Championships nearly forty years ago. Actually, the only difference between the two is that Raymondo hadn't played Nxe6 although according to Tim Harding's book The Leningrad Dutch (Batsford, 1976), exchanging knight for bishop was RDK's own suggested improvement on that old game.

This is all very well, but why answer 10 b3 with ... Na6 as Rendle and Botterill did? Why not play the obvious - obvious to this middling club chesser anyway - 10 ... Ne4? Black's just winning a piece isn't he?




Not quite, but he can 'win' the exchange after 11 Nxe4 Bxa1, 12 Bh6 Bg7, 13 Bxg7 Kxg7, 14 Qd4+ Kg8, 15 Nxd6.




What does White have for the rook? Knight and pawn and a lead in development for a start. I would also have mentioned Black's restricted light-squared bishop, but perhaps that's not the most significant factor because in the game given by Harding (Bukhman-Blekhstin, Leningrad - appropriately enough - 1968) White's next move was e2-e4 opening things up somewhat.

Most of all, I suppose, White has the weak dark squares around Black's king to aim for. This isn't quite the same as the otherwise similar Shirov - Bareev, though, because White still had a bishop on the long a1-h8 diagonal in that game. I found it hard enough to judge whether White had sufficient compensation with Shirov's position, but I find it even harder in this case.

Does White really have enough? I guess he must do. Harding quotes Taimanov saying that White's "initiative outweighs his small material deficit" and the fact is that when RDK switched from 10 b3 to 10 Qd3 (Ray Could Play VI, for example) it was not because his opponents were taking the rook, but because they weren't. Even Harding considers Rendle's 10 ... Na6 to be the 'safest' move. I suppose if Black players are avoiding a line that's a pretty good sign that it should be good for White.



Tom Rendle: didn't fancy grabbing the exchange
(snapped by Morgan at Canterbury 2010)


I was curious what Tom Rendle thought about all this so I emailed him to ask whether he'd given any thought 10 ... Ne4 and 11 ... Bxa1. He replied simply, "It's known to be an inferior (or at least very risky) line." Fair enough. He is a bit of a Leningrad expert after all. For the rest of us, though, I think it's worth a ponder.

That's exchange sacrifices for you. Even when they don't happen - especially then, perhaps - they can be pretty interesting.




The Interesting Sacrificed Exchange Index










Monday, August 08, 2011

CJ, the ECF and Constable Savage


Yes, we've had it before, but it's 2:43 that interests us today


T-shirts, eh? Who knew that seven words on one could generate so many words about one?

There’s so much to choose from, but of everything I’ve read over the last couple of days - and I’ve read a good deal, not to mention written a fair bit - one small section of CJ’s first statement caught my attention above everything else:-

The other 2 arbiters said "no problem with it" and "I hadn't actually noticed” but after a discussion returned and ....

Hold on a second. Let’s back up a moment and run that middle bit past ourselves a second time.

Somebody hadn’t noticed? The bright red t-shirt with the MESSAGE WRITTEN IN WHITE BLOCK CAPITAL LETTERS? They hadn’t noticed?? That’s right up there with Constable Savage not spotting that Mr Winston Codogo was a 'coloured gentleman'.

"I hadn't actually noticed"? For real? It would be hard to believe that such a thing could possibly have been said outside the realms of parody if we didn't have CJ's assertion right at the beginning of his post that, "everything in inverted commas is an actual quote given this morning from an interested party" to reassure us that it was.

Anyhoo, whether the quote is true in detail or merely true in substance doesn't really matter. Either way it rather neatly illustrates how the ECF have (not) been responding to some of the things that CJ has been up to over the last year or so. It isn't just the arbiter cited above; the whole federation has been Savage-esque in its ability not to notice for quite some time now.



The ECF President: hard to notice


I ended last Thursday's post by acknowledging that to a very large extent (I save some praise for the players being willing to slug it out and everybody behind the scenes whose work allowed me to watch the games live/download the pgns) the credit for Sheffield 2011 being a great tournament goes to CJ. I wrote those words with the intention of following up with something this week on the theme of, "however that doesn't give him a free pass for everything else" although, I must confess, I hadn't exactly expected that it would turn out quite like this.

When we look, if we choose to look, there's a back story to the last couple of days' argy-bargy and focusing only on the actions of the one particular arbiter who did notice the t-shirt* will leave us missing a much bigger picture. Sooner or later we'll take a peek at CJ's penchant for private initiatives and the ECF's taste for managing not to notice how they create conflicts of interest, be they actual or potential, for him. For now, let's quickly review what happened at the beginning of Sheffield 2011 and start to wonder whether all the unpleasantness, not to mention the negative portrayals of the game that appeared in the press yesterday, could have been avoided had our national body opened their eyes just a little bit sooner.



Guess Who breaks the news on Twitter


I was going to write something about CJ wearing a t-shirt and jeans at the opening ceremony first, but let's cut to the chase. It's the fact our old friend Raymond Dennis Keene was present that's really interesting.

Raymondo popping-up raised a few eyebrows, not least our own. The ECF, however, seem not to have noticed Keene's presence at all. In fact they failed to notice to such an extent that his name does not appear in official programme nor, as EJH pointed out at the time, could any mention of him be found on either the tournament or ECF websites. Even today, although room has been found to thank Ray for "over thirty articles" that mention the championships, I still don't see anything to say that he opened the tournament with CJ. Not that's all very odd, isn't it?

It is important, I think, that we keep a sense of proportion about all this. It was twenty years ago that RDK left what was then the BCF [Keene's Gambit; Keene's Move; Checked Again] after all. To put that in perspective, that's sufficiently long enough ago that even if he’d murdered Tony Miles back in Tunis, he would have been released from prison by now.

Nevertheless, as fond as I am of RDK - and I am genuinely fond of him - the fact remains that there is a difference between allowing somebody who has ‘paid their debt’ to get on with their lives and simply pretending that murky events from days gone by never happened. I have, therefore, some questions for the ECF:-


  • Have the matters relating to Ray Keene's departure from the (then) BCF now been resolved?
  • If so, how?

and also,

  • Who decided that Ray Keene should be at the Opening Ceremony?
  • When was this decision made?
  • Why was the decision not made public?
  • Why has no mention of Keene’s presence at the opening ceremony appeared on either the tournament or ECF websites?


I'm not saying that it's necessarily wrong that Ray be brought back into the fold, but it might be as well that we clear that lot up before we - including CJ - go any further.


Dated reference ahoy:
CJ didn't get where he is today by being noticed


It's been quite a weekend, but fortunately it ends with everybody loving everybody else once more. That is to be welcomed, although it is also to be hoped that the matter does not end here. Many pages before the end of that EC Forum thread I wrote,

A good discussion of the nature of CJs relationship with the ECF is overdue

and that's as true after the kiss-and-make-up messages as it was before.

The ECF's ability not to notice - including but not limited to clothing and blossoming relationships with former British Champions - paved the road that led us to Saturday morning. If there's one thing I know about the last few days it's that, regardless of what I feel about the issue, I'd rather hear "Um, CJ, about what you're wearing. Perhaps ..." over "I see no t-shirts" every time.

Or are we - meaning the ECF and the English chess world in general - going to decide that the only thing that we're going to notice is the amount of cash a person, CJ, RDK or anybody else, can bring to the table? We could, I suppose. We could reduce our relationships to "Show me the money" and "We love you long time" if we want. It would be a rather savage existence, though, don't you think?











* which is unfair anyway since CJ's account makes clear that a number of people were involved in making the decision. However, I shall take advantage of this footnote to say that while I do not know the particular arbiter concerned, Jack Rudd does and if he is willing to write publicly that "I'm happy to accept that she wasn't being homophobic and that she was trying to act in the best interests of the tournament" I am equally happy to accept that he what he writes is true.

Sunday, August 07, 2011

Nosher's Tyres


photograph from CHESS vol 44 #811-812


You may have missed this, what with everything else going on, but congratulations are due to Mickey Adams. After winning yesterday's play-off he now has the 2011 British Chess Champion title to add to those that he won in 1989, 1997 (shared) and last year in Canterbury.

Nice one Mickey, then, but it seems a bit harsh on Nosher that he should have missed out on what would have been his fourth championship (previous wins: 1984, 1987, 1998) because of a brace of games played at 20 minutes on the clock plus ten second increment per move. All the more so after he matched Adams' +6 =5 -0 over the regular eleven rounds despite facing tougher opposition.

We'll have more on that next week, but for now: them's the rules, so hurrah and huzzah for Michael Adams. While he celebrates Nigel gets to console himself with the knowledge that he'll be leaving Sheffield with some serious wedge - getting on for £7,000 not counting expenses/appearance fee - in his back pocket. He's come a long way since the days when winning a tournament meant £65 cash money and a set of Goodyear tyres thrown in.

By the way, check out Nosher's Parker. I think the organisers must have insisted that he wear it to ensure a teeshirt with an unseemly political message - something like, "hey everybody, let's all get along" or "I like tea" - remained tastefully covered up. Thank goodness chess doesn't make a complete dick of itself by doing that sort of thing these days, eh?



Addendum:
As I was writing the above last night the teeshirtgate story appeared on the Guardian website. Oh goody. Just what we need.

I suspect this story will run for a while longer. We at the S&BC Blog will certainly be coming back to it soon, if only to ask, why is RDK turning up at the opening ceremony OK, but a red teeshirt with some writing on it completely out of the question?


Addendum to the addendum:
Don't miss Martin's Chess in Art Postscript from Saturday. It features a man playing chess in top hat and tails. Just what we need right now, wouldn't you say?

Saturday, August 06, 2011

Completely offensive slogans that must be banned



Big story breaking today. We'll start on it properly tomorrow. In the meantime, don't miss Martin's Chess in Art: Postscript piece which will, undeservedly, get pushed down the batting order a bit more quickly than would usually be the case.






Source Material: originally spotted on an EC Forum post by Sebastian Stone

Chess in Art Postscript: Staring Into The Abyss Postscript

The starting point for this Postscript comes from fellow blogger Tom Chivers. A month or so ago he kindly forwarded to me an exquisitely painted picture that he saw on Mark Weeks’ blog, and Mark saw it at Gandalf's Gallery. I was sure you’d want to see it too. Who’d have thought it: Chess in Art goes viral.

The Chess Player (date unknown)
Isidor Kaufmann (1853 - 1921)

Kaufmann's work is a very fine example of the Staring Into The Abyss sub-genre of Chess-in-Art works, hence this opportunity for a Postscript Postscript. The primary elements are familiar: one player only, a board, and a decent arrangement of pieces. This is the triangular armature essential to Staring Into The Abyss, here presented with a Jewish inflection.

Regarding the pieces: who, following EPTAS: Leeming Plays a Blinder or What Dadd Did, can now resist the urge to count them? We need to know whether or not the artist has done a proper job and painted in a full set.


After Richard Dadd’s jiggery-pokery (in his chess picture, The Child's Problem, he hid a pawn under a walnut shell) we hope we are not going to be misled this time by disguise or camouflage.

Oi vey; is he hiding a piece under his left hand? The schmuck.

And is that a rational position on the board? I can’t make sense of it. Perhaps, if he’s reading this, Leonard Barden could please help us out, as he did with Dadd's picture.

There are some telling anecdotal details on show. That ciggie smouldering on the edge of the table – forgotten while his hand is put to better use soothing his cudgelled brain – appears to be wedged into an ivory cigarette-holder. Perhaps it’s a family heirloom, as the rest of his thread-bare schmutter doesn’t speak of self-indulgence. The room is also spare and down at heel. We are looking at a scene from the shtetl. Kaufmann mines a vein of European Jewish cultural experience not yet fractured by the Shoah.

Some other details are also eye-catching. Look at how Kaufmann has set the board at an angle to the table. Such a subtle misalignment, echoed by the book on the slide, and the teetering top-hat, creates some visual action where otherwise all is paused in concentration.

And that finger picking out a square on the ‘a’ file. It suggests that the fellow is struggling not just with the position, but with chess itself. He needs a physical crutch to help him with his mental stumbling.

We can see also that, for the moment, he has cast aside the book with the problem that gives him so much grief. In fact there’s a whole careless pile, and it speaks volumes for his ambition to elevate learning, culture and our obsessive game above personal affectation. All serious chessers will recognise here their own heap beside their favourite armchair. It could never be replaced, aesthetically anyway, by a Kindle™.


But let's get back to our theme, and the finger. We know from our previous dip into the murky waters of this sub-genre that the solitary player, lacking a human opponent, is pitted instead against another, indomitable, adversary: the unfathomable deep of chess itself, standing in for the mystery of life, the universe and everything.

His digital stab reveals that his grasp of the game is shaky. He is marking out the imagined trajectory of a piece in the forlorn hope that it will conform to his intention. But it is really a sign that betrays another meaning: that he is already defeated, not only chessically, but existentially. His hold on reality is as tenuous as that on his chess. He gingerly taps the board, a pictorial analogue for the thin crust of his sensible world. He is desperate lest it split asunder to reveal the Abyss beneath.

Not surprising, then, that the doomed patzer looks worried.

Note: For more rivetting Kaufmann portraits see Art Inconnu.
And for a spot of artistic reverence, and pale imitation, cop this.

Friday, August 05, 2011

Short retort


The following email was sent to New in Chess on 20 June. It does not appear in the latest issue, 2011#5.
Dear New in Chess

The Isle of Man tournament of which Nigel Short complains took place eight years ago, and Short has spent much of those eight years going on about it. I was a participant in the tournament and have a rather different view of events than his.

Firstly, everybody seems to have been aware that repairing would take place - everybody, that is, except Short. There is a very good argument, which Short makes, that this should not have been the rule. There is also a very good argument, of which Short takes (and took) no notice, that it was, nevertheless, the rule, and one should not change the rules of a tournament after a tournament has started. Even if the top seed insists otherwise.

Secondly, what attracted criticism about Short's conduct wasn't that people felt he had no case, but the way in which he put that case. It would have been possible simply to disagree, or even to appeal, and then to continue play: in Short's case, this would have entailed playing a game of chess against somebody graded about 500 points below him. Instead, he chose to throw his toys out of the pram, walking out of the tournament when he didn't get his way and subsequently attacking not just the arbiters but anybody who had had the temerity to criticise or disagree with him. (A process which, it seems, continues.) It was not a performance that impressed or endeared him to anybody.

Now we've all behaved unimpressively in our time, the present writer no exception. We've also all felt we were in the right when other people took a different view. But Short didn't seem able to accept that other people see it differently - and eight years on, still doesn't. I wonder whether this insistence, that there is no other valid point of view than his, might help to explain why the other players didn't queue up to agree with him.


Yours sincerely

ejh

[Contemporary BCM report]
[Contemporary local paper report]
[Also see]
[Last year]
[Nosher index]

Thursday, August 04, 2011

Sheffield 2011: Big Time Kiddie Chess




It was "a big day" for the British Championships, our old friend Raymond Keene tweeted on Wednesday morning, and he was right too. Rather than hyperbole, of which his jottings have sometimes been accused in the past, if anything RDK was guilty of severe understatement with that one.

Tuesday 2nd August, 2011: England’s #1 playing England’s #2 and, if we take Luke McShane as semi-retired, England’s #3 active player up against the #4. Our top four all playing each other on the same day? A Halley's Comet of a brace of pairings. Other than the first round of Malc Pein's London Chess Classic of 2009 when did that last happen?

My guess is that you'd have to go most of the way back to Blackpool '71 for anything similar. We got it at Sheffield, though. The best playing the best. Exactly what the British Championship should be, but so rarely is.




Given the standing of those involved, it was rather amusing that the games began as if they were being played by the chessers who occupy the lower boards of your club’s second team. "Wtf?" I potty-mouthed to myself as I watched the Championship website spit out the moves on the live feed. "Have they wired up the boards from the under eleven championship by mistake?"

Back in April I was on the wrong end of a total gubbing from Carsten Pedersen in a game that began, 1 e4 e5, 2 Nf3 Nc6, 3 Bc4 Bc5, 4 O-O Nf6, 5 d4 exd4, 6 e5 d5, 7 exf6 dxc4




A little tricky for an ECF 160s to defend, perhaps, but surely nothing for a 2700 Grandmaster to worry about? Was Nigel really going to play this again? Was Mickey really scared of it? Since we’re asking questions,

  • after Adams ducked with 4 … d6 why did Nosher not play 5 d4 anyway?
  • wasn’t the apparently childish … Ng4 a possibility on move 6 or 7?

I bet one of aforementioned 2nd team board eights would have tempted.




The book our super GMs spent the rest day reading?



Jones – Howell wasn’t so very different to Nosher - Adams. After,

1 e4 e5, 2 Nf3 Nc6, 3 d4 exd4, 4 Bc4 Bc5, 5 c3 Nf6




our 2600s reached a position that your humble scribe has played with both colours for at least twenty years. Back in my racier and younger days – I haven’t always played 1. Nf3, you know – I used to go 6 cxd4 here and hack away with ... Bb4+, 7 Nc3 (7 Bd2 Nxe4 = Webb-Jones, Sheffield 1st round) Nxe4, 8 O-O Bxc3, 9 d5




The Corporal preferred the somewhat less juvenile 6 e5 , but that is hardly at the cutting edge of opening theory either, is it?

"What was the opening in Jones-Howell all about?" IM John Cox asked on the EC Forum. "This 5 c3 kinda threw me - no doubt it's all been well-known theory since Greco's time, has it?" I guess if JC was not IM JC but 1600 elo/120 ECF JC he'd probably be a lot more familiar with Jones' choice than he is!

Anyhoo, after 6 … d5, 7 Bb5 (7 exf6?! dxc4, 8 O-O Qxf6, 9 Re1 Be6, 10 Bg5 Qg6, 11 cxd4 Nxd4, 12 Nxd4 Bxd4, 13 Qxd4 Qxg5, 14 Qxc4 O-O-O -+, a game I played as Black at the British Universities Team Championship circa 1991) Ne4, 8 cxd4 Bb6, 9 Nc3 0-0, 10 Be3




Howell tried 10 ... Ne7 - Mihail Marin suggests ... Bg4 in Beating the Open Games - and went on to lose in 40 moves. Adams, in contrast, eventually managed to draw against Nosher, but only after being on the back foot for much of the game. Aren't these lines supposed to be harmless?

Actually, going back to Short-Adams, I tried to look up the line in Marin and the closest position I could find for comparison was this:-



White to play


If White went h2-h3 here the game would transpose to Short-Adams after White's 12th, but would White play 12 h3 in this position? Marin evidently thinks not and doesn't mention it at all. After all, harassing the bishop with ... Ng4 doesn't make sense because White wants to play Be3xa7 anyway and Black's light-squared bish has already landed on e6 so will at least lose time if it came to g4 now. So why does White need to control his king's knight four square at this point?

To put it another way, White seems to have something more useful to be doing than shoving his rook's pawn forward one square to get into Short-Adams.  To put it another-another way, Nosher seems to have played a harmless line more or less a tempo down and nonetheless put Adams under severe pressure. There's a moral in there somewhere, I'm just not sure what it is.




Kiddie openings that turn out to be surprisingly effective or otherwise, round 8 of Sheffield 2011 was clearly a special day. It's far from obvious that the the financial model and other arrangements for this year's championships will, could or should - I retain my doubts about certain issues - be repeated in the future, but in terms of the British Championships I can't think of a parallel for last Tuesday in my chess lifetime. Hat tips to everyone, not the least of whom, to put it mildly, is CJ de Mooi, who helped bring about the day that big time chess came to town.












Photos of Adams, Short, Howell and Jones taken from the British Championships website
CJ from britishchess.blogspot.com

Wednesday, August 03, 2011

What Dadd Didn't Do

Richard Dadd (1817-1886), artist and eccentric chesser, did some strange things in his 69 years, as this series has recounted. He painted precociously, becoming a Royal Academician by the age of 20. He did a rather baffling chess picture, The Child's Problem, when he was 40 in 1857 - you can see it at Watercolour in Tate Britain.

Dadd's problem piece

And when he was fancy free he sported a fez, perhaps a minority taste even then. If you get up close, you can spot his stand-out titfer in among the tumult of William Frith’s painting The Derby Day (1856-8, also in the Tate). Frith put him in the picture. Trust me.


He is picked out below in my own furtive snap at the Tate; he's just behind the chap in the green jacket (on the left in the main picture).


Yes, that’s Dadd, fezzing up at the back. Frith (1819-1909) and Dadd were close friends in an artists' sect calling itself "the Clique". Notice the date of The Derby Day - 1856/8 - with its mini-portrait, because Dadd was then already in Bethlem Asylum having, uncommonly, murdered his father in 1843. He spent the rest of his years inside (first Bethlem and, from 1864, Broadmoor). He carried on painting nonetheless, and evidently remained in Frith's affections, appearing as if a Joan for his Darby.

Dadd revealed an unusual take on chess to his Doctor, as we found out here. It was the Over The Board game that he most likely played. As far as is known Dadd didn’t do Correspondence. This is worth a mention because a few decades later, when Dadd was nearing his end in Broadmoor, there was a noteworthy correspondence game at Bethlem. In December 1883 to March 1884 some gentlemen from the Asylum took on Cambridge University Chess Club. And beat them.

I’ll repeat that: some patients from Bethlem Asylum beat Cambridge University at chess. The Cantabs playing white resigned, the exchange down, after 25 moves, in a pretty decent game by the inmates. The Cambridge team chucked in the towel, possibly a tad early, because an upcoming Universities match claimed their attention, or so it was said. Fortunately, and to spare their further embarrassment, they went on to pip Oxford that year 5.5 to 4.5.

Chess history buffs will know that the story was reported in full by Edward Winter in his Chess Notes number 1891. Initially it appeared in The Field of May 10th 1884. Here is the game:


You can see The Field's annotations to the game via the Edward Winter link above.

Mr. Winter’s Chess Note gives a list of possible Cambridge players. The Bethlem consultation team consisted of a “Beta” and possibly a “Mr. C.”

And who was “Beta” (that's a pun on "beater", don't you think)? They say that Hoffer, who first gave the story in The Field, knew but didn’t let on. But after your blogger recently drew the tale to the attention of the Bethlem Archive and Museum, Ms Sarah Chaney, doing research on admissions to Bethlem in the period, kindly checked her notes for references to patients who played chess in the 1880s. She wondered if “Beta” might have been….
“…..Walter Haigh, who was certainly at the asylum at this time. It's often commented that he plays chess, and Haigh also had a B.A. from Oxford, so was perhaps in a position to have had the contacts at Cambridge. He is also published during his time at Bethlem, so might be a likely person to submit the game for publication. The evidence is all circumstantial, of course, but I thought perhaps if his name [comes up] elsewhere it might suggest it was indeed him. There's no mention as to who he is playing chess with when in Bethlem, sadly.

Ref: Walter Abraham Haigh B.A., Tutor from Belsize Park, age 27,
19/10/1882 (discharged well, 18/07/1888) Male Casebook 1882, CB/120, p. 102”
Unfortunately, she was unable to trace whatever he is supposed to have published, and that includes a book; but in view of Sarah's comment: please could anyone out there shed any light on Walter Abraham Haigh B.A., occasional chess-player, born circa. 1855?

I should mention that Dr.Tim Harding counselled us that those chess noms de guerre usually followed the initial letter of the player’s surname. So, the Beta=Haigh hypothesis may be misplaced, but perhaps (if I had my way) only alphabetically.

Dadd, partial to a puzzle himself, would have enjoyed the mystery, and we'll return to The Child's Problem, the Big Daddy of them all, for further scrutiny next time.

Acknowledgments.
Thanks: again to Richard James, this time for the Cambridge/Bethlem tip; and again to Colin Gale, and to Sarah Chaney, at the Bethlem Archive and Museum (follow its blog); and to Dr Tim Harding for his help and advice.

What Dadd Did
What Dadd Did Next
What Dadd Did Later