Saturday, January 15, 2011

Every Picture Tells A Story: And Then There Were Three.

Blog 4 in a series of collaborative posts: this one by Richard Tillett, with comment by Martin Smith.

Patient readers who have persevered this far into our saga will know that Martin and I are in thrall to an obsession. The object of our attentions is an early 19th century picture of the gentlemen of the Hereford Chess Society. We want to find out as much as we can about it, the little-known artist (Thomas Leeming) who painted it, and the people he depicted.

Our previous blogs can be accessed here. In our last one, we explained how we discovered that there are actually two, intriguingly different, versions of this picture. One is in store at the Hereford Art Gallery. The other, formerly owned by Ian Greenlees and subsequently sold at Sotheby’s, stubbornly resists all our attempts to locate its whereabouts. Since that blog appeared we have sourced a high quality image of this version on a German art website, Kunst für Alle, which probably came from Sotheby’s at the time of the 1991 sale. Here it is:

You can buy a reproduction to hang on your wall.
Go on, treat yourself. It’s available here.

Well, we thought there were two versions. Now we know there are three. To explain how we came upon the third, I must first admit to a vice – auction catalogues. I love to browse them online. Call it art porn if you like and yes, I know it’s sad. I also have a taste for attending the viewings that precede the sales (art voyeurism, you might say). Occasionally I even buy stuff, funds permitting.

It’s August and I’m browsing through a Christie’s sale catalogue for an auction to be held at their South Kensington showrooms the following month. I drool over some period chess sets, then scan through the paintings. One of them catches my eye. There are some gents playing chess. Hello, they look familiar. Surely it couldn’t be those gents again. It is.


Version Three. Sold at Christie's 7th September 2010.

I pick myself up off the floor and take a closer look. There are some notable differences. The dog is larger and sleepier than the poodle in the Hereford version, (which you can see here) and it has wandered over to the other side of the picture. Although there is still a pile of clutter in the left foreground this time it includes a book (it turns out to be a chess book) resting on a rather stylish stool. All change with the chairs too – these are fancy, expensive ones upholstered in what looks like leather and in the Empire style. They would have been the height of fashion in 1815 and doubtless would have been much admired in polite Hereford society.

The room setting is different too – the early Georgian fittings and decoration in the other two versions have given way to a later 18th century style, with lighter mouldings around the door, an ornamental lockplate at the extreme right of the picture, and neo-classical plasterwork on the ceiling. There’s also a new position on the board and some different paintings on the walls. However, the figures themselves are much the same, and that looks like Beavan in the left foreground (as in ‘Hereford’) rather than Buckson (as in ‘Greenlees’ at the top of this post).

Martin and I confer. We wonder how many times Leeming turned this out. Perhaps it was his ‘nice little earner’, with different versions coming off the production line for any of the gents who fancied one, customised to include the client’s pooch, some personal possessions, and even interior furnishings.

‘I may have to buy it,’ I declare. But how much should I pay? The estimate is £800-£1200, well below the £7200 the Greenlees version made in 1991. The auctioneers do not know the background to the picture (the catalogue describes it merely as ‘English School, 19th Century, the chess players’), but that alone does not explain the low estimate.

A peep at Christie's. James Gillray (1756-1815).

The reason becomes apparent at the viewing. Parts of the picture are poorly painted. The hand that hovers over the board is a bit iffy, as is some of the perspective. The artist’s attempts to take out the niches on the back wall have not been entirely successful, and the top right hand edge to the fireplace looks wonky. Leeming was a better painter than this – surely it is wholly or partly by another hand.

We discuss the picture with one of Christie’s specialists, the extremely helpful Gus. He takes us into a darkroom where we examine it under ultraviolet light. This shows up areas where the picture has been restored. He tells us that it was sold once before in 1982, also at Christie’s, when it made £750.

The day of the auction comes. Egged on by Martin, I decide to attend in person. There are about 30 bidders and half a dozen or so Christie’s people taking phone and internet bids. Lot 572 comes up and bidding opens at the top of the estimated range (£1200), so there must have been some absentee bids.


Christie‘s Auction Room in London. Thomas Rowlandson and Augustus Pugin for Ackermann's Microcosm of London, 1808-11.

I stick my hand up at £1300. For a moment there are no other bidders but then a competitor enters the fray via the internet. We battle it out to £1700, which is £100 over my limit. Mrs T will surely have something to say if I go any higher. So, despite the auctioneer’s best efforts to tease another bid from me, I decide to let it go. Sold to the internet bidder for £1800, which is £2250 when you add in the buyer’s premium. I tell Martin that I shall grieve, but not for too long.

We will have more to say in a future blog about how we think this version relates to the other two, and who knows, maybe by then a fourth version will have surfaced. In our next instalment (February 5th), Streatham and Brixton Chess Club’s Institute for Thomas Leeming Studies goes on a field trip to Hereford.

Acknowledgements:

Kunst für Alle (Art for all).
Christie's Interior sale catalogue No. 5986, 7 September 2010.
Goldmark Gallery for the Gillray.Wikimedia for the Rowlandson.







Friday, January 14, 2011

Ray Could Play VIII

Sometimes it's the smallest details that most grab your attention. A casual remark, intended almost as an aside but which, with the benefit of hindsight, really stands out.

Yesterday, for example we (re)published Keene's Gambit, the Sunday Times piece on what became known as the 'Keene-Miles Affair' that stirred-up so much poop at the beginning of the 1990s.  Of all the 4,700 words in Nick Pitt's article it was these 24 that I enjoyed the most:-

[Miles] contacted Brian Eley, a discontented former Federation officer, who after a few inquiries made a complaint about how the inter-zonal fund had been spent.

Yes, the initial complaint to the BCF really was made by notorious kiddie-fiddler Brian Eley. The guy apparently felt that a few hundred quid's worth of alleged fraud is really not on, but that doing a runner while the police are investigating you for child abuse is completely fine. Eley had himself quite a moral code, don't you think?


Omar Little:
"A man should have a code"


Anyhoo, what of Keene? It was twenty years ago, so why bring this all up again now? Well, I tend to believe that old stories are interesting precisely because they happened a long time ago (see Times chess man cracks 'missing woman' riddle for another example), but aside from that, it seems to me that the fall out from the Keene-Miles business still has some relevance for chess today.

For a start, the picture that the Sunday Times paints of the (then) British Chess Federation, is not a happy one.

Despite the strength of British chess the Federation is now riven with discontent and faction-fighting. Rumours and allegations of maladministration and financial mismanagement, of which the Miles-Keene affair is merely the most colourful, are prevalent.

If true, might the deterioration of England's chess fortunes to our current position as one of the chess world's also-rans derive, at least in part, to the BCF's inability to handle itself effectively back then? British chess was "booming" when Keene's Gambit was published.  We can hardly say the same now.

Then there's last summer's Staunton Memorial dinner and CJ de Mooi's somewhat muddled insistence that the event had nothing whatsoever to do with the ECF. Why, I wondered at the time, would it be a problem if there was some kind of official connection anyway? Might the events that the Sunday Times described (or claimed, at least) have something to do with it?

Keene, of course, denied Miles' allegations, but even if we imagine for a moment that he had done exactly what he was accused of, after two decades should it be controversial for the ECF and RDK to work together? It might not have been if the issue was satisfactorily resolved at the time.

Keene wrote through his solicitors to the British Chess Federation informing them that he could not attend the inquiry on the appointed date because his wife’s grandmother had died; that he would not agree to attend on any future date; that he would sue anyone who repeated the allegations made by Miles; and that he hereby resigned from the BCF.

I suppose that whenever somebody leaves an organisation under a cloud of allegations not fully investigated, however much water subsequently passes under the bridge, resuming a working relationship will inevitably create an issue or two for those involved - perhaps on both sides. At some point, though, shouldn't we allow people to be rehabilitated?



Happier times
photo from emmabentley.com


Aside from Keene, though, aside from CJ and the ECF, aside, even, from Brian 'Evil Uncle Ernie' Eley's bizarre cameo, if there's one reason why you might want to take another look at the Sunday Times' piece it's Tony Miles' story. It's easy to overlook given the article's title, but the sensitive portrayal of Miles's deteriorating mental state, and his subsequent recovery, remains as deserving of attention twenty years on as it was on the day of publication.

For all these reasons, then, I hope that some folk amongst our readership will consider Keene's Gambit to be worth a look. It is there, at least, for those that want to read it. For those who only want to see some chess, here's the first ever R.D. Keene v A.J. Miles encounter. The first of nine, as it turned out, with Raymondo finishing up slightly ahead with +3 =4 -2.






Not the brutal demolition of Keene-Miles, Hastings 75/76, to be sure (see here for the final combination), but still quietly pleasing for those of us who like this sort of thing. Raymondo's notes to this battle, by the way, can be found on chessgames.com.




Ray Keene Index



Thursday, January 13, 2011

Keene's Gambit





Keene's Gambit
Sunday Times Colour Supplement

13th January 1991
page 16-26


For more than five years Raymond Keene(left) and Tony Miles, leading figures in British chess, have been locked in a dispute so acrimonious it has threatened to destroy both their careers and, in the case of Miles, even his sanity. Report by Nick Pitt.


English chess is booming. From the turn of the century until the mid-seventies there were no English grandmasters and the England team was the whipping boy of the world. Today there are 17 English grandmasters, and the English team is second in strength only to the Soviet Union.

But all is not in harmony. The two men most responsible for the renaissance of the English game are Tony Miles and Raymond Keene. In 1976 they were the first two Englishmen to achieve the coveted grandmaster title. But Miles and Keene are deeply antagonistic to one another. Miles has accused Keene of corruption, and has spent two years trying to expose him. Keene claims that Miles is a “dangerous lunatic” trying to ruin his career, and that he has an answer to every charge Miles has made against him.

Their conflict began on the chessboard, thought it has gone far beyond it since. When chess, thanks largely to Bobby Fischer, moved into the modern era of big money and high publicity, with $1m purses for world championship matches, the financier Jim Slater put up a prize of £5000 for the first British player to become a grandmaster. Ray Keene, a graduate of Trinity College, Cambridge, was the hot favourite to win it, but he was denied the prize by the meteoric rise of a young, very aggressive English player, Tony Miles.

Miles went on to become one of the world’s strongest grandmasters, making a particular habit of beating top Soviet players, including, twice, Anatoly Karpov, when he was reigning world champion. Miles was certainly the busiest grandmaster, for he played far more tournaments than any other leading player. But the price was an itinerant, disconnected life. His hair was always unmanageable, his emotional life in disarray, and there was hardly a spare bed or sofa in the chess world he had not slept upon.

Miles’ character is complex and apparently contradictory. He is highly strung, charged with nervous tension like most top players, but he is also, as one fellow-grandmaster puts it, “as strong as an ox”, a fighter with enormous powers of concentration and endurance. It is not the game that absorbs Miles but the struggle. He is demanding and difficult, a loner who used to exasperate the non-playing captain of the England team with demands for better conditions and better money for the team, but delighted him by being “quite brilliant, the first top board we ever had who tried to win rather than survive.”

Ray Keene, though, never quite fulfilled his promise as a player, and gave up competitive play in the mid-Eighties. He became a prominent promoter of chess in England and around the world; at first a driving force within the British Chess Federation, and later, when he had fallen out with that organisation, the founder of his own breakaway English Chess Association. He is a prolific chess author and publicist, and the chess correspondent of both The Times and The Spectator.

Keene has become a grand player in the complex and poisonous politics of chess. There are two camps in world chess: the camp of FIDE, the world governing body, and its Philippine president, Florencio Campomanes; and the camp of the opposition, whose spiritual leader is the world champion, Gary Kasparov, but whose political secretary is Keene. For some, Keene is a great and energetic chess organiser, and many of England’s best young players pay testimony to his efforts to secure sponsorship for them. For others, he is a self-server a political manipulator. For Keene, himself, there are also only two categories – those with him, and those against him. This, at least, he has in common with Miles: a tendency to view the world as a chess-board, in black and white.

The chess circus moves around the world on a tournament circuit rather like those established in motor racing and tennis. And, as in tennis, the burden of fear falls on the players, whose very living is determined by their performance and the need to maintain and improve their rankings. For to have a high ranking is to be invited to the big tournaments, to be given appearance money, free accommodation and travel. To have a low ranking is to have nothing. It is a world of confusing loyalties. Fellow players are comrades, sharing their peculiar environment and troubles; and enemies, egotistical maniacs in an intellectual jungle, knowing the alternative to killing is to be killed.

Tony Miles was one of the toughest of the tough on that demanding circuit, until disaster befell him and he began to fall like a stone through the rankings. But after two years in the wilderness, he has returned to his position as one of the world’s top 30 elite grandmasters.

What had happened to Miles? After 10 years as England’s number one, he had vanished, dropping from public view as suddenly and completely as Bobby Fischer. And, like Fischer, all he left behind were rumours. But the real story of what happened to Miles, and where his rivalry with Ray Keene eventually led, is much stranger than anyone can have imagined.

* * * * *

Shortly after midnight on Monday, September 28, 1987, the driver of a lorry making its way down Horse Guard’s Parade in London had to break sharply to avoid running down a man who had stepped off the pavement without looking. The late-night pedestrian, Tony Miles, had been making his way towards Downing Street, intent on seeing the prime minister. He was carrying a walking stick with an ivory handle, a legacy of a pulled muscle.

Miles stuttered at the driver, and then struck the windscreen with his stick. It cracked without shattering. Miles walked on, as if in a dream.

Miles continued on his way and noticed that the policeman he had previously spotted at the entrance to Downing Street was no longer to be seen. He vaulted the steel barrier and was making his way towards Number 10 when he was tackled to the ground by four policemen.

Miles’ mind, which is stunningly brilliant in certain respects, though not the most securely-fastened, had slipped its mooring from what most of us like to regard as reality.

But it wasn’t the pressures of top-level chess that drove Miles off the rails and won the world chess rankings, sending him spinning from the ground in Downing Street to a police cell, to Brixton prison, to a trial for criminal damage, and to mental hospital. Nor was he suffering the effects of overtaxing his brain with displays of blindfold chess against 22 opponents, a feat that was said to have been the ruin of some of the greatest players in history, like Philidor and Morphy.

What droves Miles mad, almost finished his career as a chess player and very nearly ruined his life, was his involvement in a scandal that has been lying half-submerged for five years, though not, until now, fully brought to light.

* * * * *

One evening in May 1985, Miles was sitting alone, having dinner in the restaurant of the Hotel Cap Carthage, near Tunis. He has been at the hotel for nearly two weeks, and was pretty miserable.

The tournament Miles was playing, an inter-zonal round of the world championship cycle, was not going well. He had drawn his first three games and had lost the fourth in traumatic circumstances. Playing against Zapata, the Mexican grandmaster, Miles was winning easily when he glanced at the clock and saw that he had a full minute left in which to make the next two moves. He paused for a few seconds, and then the flag on his clock fell, which meant that he automatically lost the game. He left the table stunned at what had happened. The next day he examined the tournament clocks and found they were of an unusual type, and that the flags of several others also fell early. The effect of this episode was that for the next few rounds, as Miles later wrote, “I played like a maniac and was fortunate not to lose the next four games.”

The venue did not help. The hotel was so new it hadn’t even been completed, and was stuck out on a peninsular on the north African coast, 20 miles from Tunis. The 18 players in the tournament, and the officials of FIDE, the governing body of chess, who were gathering for an executive committee meeting, being held at the same time, were the very first guests.

Miles has having dinner alone when he was joined by Ray Keene, who had just arrived at the hotel with his wife, Annette. Keene’s arrival was not unexpected. Before Miles left for the tournament he had been told that Keene, who in those days was not an opposition figure in chess politics but a leading insider in both the British Chess Federation and FIDE, was in charge of British attempts to put on the world championship final in London, and would be coming to lobby the FIDE executive meeting.

Miles had been offered Keene as his second. (The duties of a second are critical to the affair. Briefly, a second must be any or all of chess analyst, trainer, companion and servant, wholly at the disposal of his player.) Before Miles left for Tunis, David Anderton, a Midlands solicitor who is the international director of the British Chess Federation and the non-playing captain of the England team, had suggested that since Keene was going to be in Tunis, Miles should use him as his second.

A group of chess supporters in England had established a fund, raised by public donations and sponsorship, to play the expenses and fees of seconds to help four English grandmasters who had qualified for the inter-zonal tournaments. This fund could be used to pay Keene’s fee and expenses. But Miles turned down the offer, firmly and repeatedly, and he continued to do so when Keene himself raised the matter again on his arrival in Tunis.

It started innocently enough.

“Tony, are you sure you don’t want a second?” Keene inquired.

“Yes, thanks, Ray. Quite sure,” replied Miles.

Miles' reasons for not having a second were straightforward. When he had previously been given one (not of his choosing) by the Federation, he had found the experience difficult. His second had approached analysis quite differently and was not temperamentally suited to Miles. Afterwards, Miles had made it plain that he would prefer to play alone.

In any case, if Miles had wanted a second, why Keene? Keene was no longer an active grandmaster; and when he had been, he and Miles had been rivals. Furthermore, as Miles was well aware, when Keene had been used as a second by other grandmasters, there had been complaints. The most widely talked about example concerned a match for the world title itself. During his world championship campaign in 1978, Victor Korchnoi, the brilliantly combative grandmaster who had defected from the Soviet Union, used Keene and another English grandmaster, Michael Stean, as his principal seconds.

After he had beaten Boris Spassky to reach the world championship final, Korchnoi was upset to discover that a book on the match, written by Keene, was published within days of the end of the match. Therefore, before the final against the reigning champion, Anatoly Karpov, Korchnoi told Keene he must choose between writing about the match and being his second. Keene chose to be a second and signed an agreement “not to write, compile or help to write or compile any book during the course of the match”.

But within three days of the end of the match, another book by Keene with the title Karpov-Korchnoi 1978, The Inside Story of the Match, was in the shops. Korchnoi and his other seconds were furious. According to Korchnoi, “Mr Keene betrayed me. He violated the contract. It was clear that while Mr Keene was writing one book and then another, Mr Stean was doing his work for him.” Michael Stean, who was a close friend of Keene’s, and had been a fellow-undergraduate at Trinity College, has not spoken to him since.

Given such a background, it seems rather extraordinary that Keene should subsequently be put forward as a second for England’s number one grandmaster, when Miles was bidding, with some hope of success, to be the first Britain this century to challenge for the world title. And it is hardly surprising that Miles responded to Keene’s inquiry about whether he was sure he still didn’t want a second by saying: “Yes thanks, Ray. Quite sure.”

Then came the bombshell.

“Well,” said Keene, “how would like to make some money then?”

Keene began to scribble some figures on a napkin. “According to my calculations,” he said, “there must be a lot of money spare in the inter-zonal fund. If you’ll back up my story that I was your second, I’ll split the profits with you.”

Miles was unsure what to say. The suggestion was outrageous, but he wasn’t sure if Keene was serious, and even if he was, could he, they, really get away with it?

“Well Ray,” said Miles, “the way the money was collected – all those well meaning chess players supporting the cause – I just couldn’t. I’d feel I was stealing from them.”

“You wouldn’t be stealing from them,” Keene said. “You’d be stealing from me.”

Miles was trembling between outrage and inquisitiveness. Could such a thing really happen? Would no one inquire whether he had had a second or not when it was well known that he didn’t want one?

Miles told Keene to go ahead and said he would not contradict him. If anyone asked him about it, he would just say that seconds were an underpaid species. According to Miles, though Keene disputes his version, that was the end of it. Keene did not act as his second. Nor did he pretend to. They occasionally met each other in the hotel, and had dinner together on a couple of occasions. And when Miles left Tunis having failed to qualify for the next stage of the world championship, he heard nothing more about his “second” from the British Chess Federation, Keene, or anybody else.

Three months later, at the end of July, 1985, Miles was playing in the British championship in Edinburgh when Keene casually handed him a cheque for £589. At first Miles didn’t realise what it was for. He had almost forgotten what had happened in Tunis, assuming that Keene hadn’t been serious. Then the realisation hit him. Keene’s proposal to help themselves to money from a fund that had largely been raised by public subscription was no longer a suggestion. It had happened.

* * * * *

Miles put the money into his account. But first he photocopied the cheque. He had decided to expose Keene and knew that the cheque was important evidence. But he also knew it wasn’t conclusive and that he would need further evidence to link the cheque with the inter-zonal fund.

Miles’ attempts at private investigation were pretty disastrous. He wanted to get information about the inter-zonal fund but without going to officials of the British Chess Federation. He contacted Brian Eley, a discontented former Federation officer, who after a few inquiries made a complaint about how the inter-zonal fund had been spent. The complaint came to nothing and Eley reported to Miles that his attempts to get to the bottom of the matter had been “blocked at a high level.”

It was not until the summer of 1987 that Miles grasped the nettle and confronted David Anderton, the British Chess Federation’s international director, who had suggested Keene as a second, and who also administered the inter-zonal fund. Miles asked Anderton whether or not he’d had a second in Tunis.

“Yes, Ray Keene was your second,” said Anderton.

“Was he paid as such?” asked Miles.

“Yes,” said Anderton.

Miles told Anderton what had happened in Tunis and told him that he had been given a cheque by Keene in Edinburgh. Miles also promised to return his share of the money, and made out a cheque for £589 in favour of Keene, to be paid as and when Keene returned the whole amount to the federation.

Anderton decided that a preliminary inquiry into Miles’ allegations would be conducted by two senior Federation officers: the president, David Jarrett, a stockbroker, and the finance director, Mohammed Amin, an accountant.

Jarrett and Amin arranged to meet Keene at the Great Eastern Hotel in London. Jarret opened the proceedings by saying: “I’ve received a complaint from Tony Miles that you were never his second in Tunis in 1985, that an arrangement was suggested by you of splitting the profits and subsequently money was paid by you to Miles. Can I have your comments?”

Keene showed little surprise and produced form his pocket an article he had written for The Spectator. It contained a savage attack by Keene on Miles.

After explaining that Miles, after 10 years leading the England team, had retired from the team, Keene had written: “Much nonsense has been written along the lines of how grateful we all are for Tony’s marvellous achievements in the past, what a noble team player and self-sacrificing human being he is etc. This misses the point. Miles is an egoist who cannot face playing on board three, which is now the highest board to which he can legitimately aspire … he may as well defect entirely to Andorra [where Miles owns an apartment], where he will, I am sure, hold down top board as long as he wishes.”

Keene was suggesting a connection between his article and Miles’ complaint. But, as Jarrett pointed out, Miles’s original complaint, made through Brian Eley, had long predated the article.

Keene told Jarrett and Amin that he had been expecting to second another player, Nigel Short, in a subsequent inter-zonal tournament, but had been turned down. It had then been suggested by David Anderton that he approach Miles. Miles turned him down at first, and Keene, believing that the only way Miles would be willing to have him as a second would be if he were offered money, then offered to share his fee, and Miles agreed, by telephone.

When he was asked why he had not arrived in Tunis until the midway point of the tournament, Keene explained that he had been delayed by negotiations concerning London’s bid for the world championship, but that when he arrived he had acted as Miles’s second as arranged, building his morale and helping him to improve his position after a bad start.

* * * * *

After Jarret and Amin had reported, the British Chess Federation decided to hold a formal inquiry, to be heard by a barrister early in October 1987.

It was unfortunate for Miles that by that time he had fallen out with the British chess authorities over other matters, and that it was widely believe that his allegations against Keene were occasioned, or magnified by them.

Miles had long believed that he had been excluded from the few prestigious tournaments that were organised in England; he had also suffered two blows to his chess ego, first being slaughtered in a challenge match against the new world champion, Gary Kasparov, and then losing his status as England’s automatic number one when Nigel Short overtook him. Early in 1987 he had become so disaffected that he informed the BCF that he no longer wanted to play for England.

* * * * *

As the formal inquiry approached, Miles was becoming increasingly irrational. He hadn’t slept properly for months and had become obsessed with bringing Keene to justice. He even told acquaintances that he was worried Keene would have him bumped off, an absurd idea that had casually been put into his mind, but which had taken root.

Miles’s chess fell apart. When he played a tournament in San Francisco, according to a leading American grandmaster, “he was a total nervous wreck. He was there, but he wasn’t there. He would only talk about the Ray Keene matter, and it made us all feel uncomfortable. People felt sorry for him, and offered him draws. But if he tried to win he was taken to pieces.”

Miles himself remembers that he had become frightened of the chessboard, almost unable to lift a piece. In San Francisco he was the highest-ranked player in the tournament, but finished 11th out of 12, only beating a local player who had been included to make up the numbers. When he returned to Europe, to play a simultaneous exhibition in Hilversum, Miles was seen wandering around babbling to himself.

In late September 1987, just before the inquiry was due to begin, Miles lost his reason altogether. He was flying from Amsterdam when he found himself consumed by a sense of deep morbid foreboding, a feeling that grew into a certainty that someone close to him was about to die, or had just died.

When the plane landed Miles rushed to a telephone. First, he called his girlfriend. She was all right. Then he called his parents in Birmingham. They were all right. But just as the pips went, his father said, “By the way, did you know the inquiry has been postponed?”

“No,” said Miles. “Why?”

“Because Keene’s wife can’t attend. Her grandmother has just died.”

The obsessive is always likely to grasp a coincidence and regard it as proof of conspiracy or the workings of the supernatural. For Miles, the coincidence of the death of Keene’s wife’s grandmother – hardly a central figure in the drama – was enough to take him across the narrow dividing line between obsession and delusion. At the very moment he heard the words “Her grandmother has died”, he lost his reason.

As he stood by the telephone in a baggage hall at Heathrow airport, Miles seriously believed that in some way he had caused the death of an old woman. He telephoned one officer of the British Chess Federation after another until he raised Mohammed Amin. Had he heard about the woman’s death? He hadn’t. “I don’t want to go on with it,” said Miles. “I don’t want an inquiry. I just want the whole thing to be finished.”

That evening Miles was arrested in Downing Street.

What Miles didn’t know was that the inquiry wasn’t called off by him, but by Keene. Keene wrote through his solicitors to the British Chess Federation informing them that he could not attend the inquiry on the appointed date because his wife’s grandmother had died; that he would not agree to attend on any future date; that he would sue anyone who repeated the allegations made by Miles; and that he hereby resigned from the BCF.

* * * * *

The next day, Keene informed the press that he had resigned from the Federation in order to establish a new organisation, the English Chess Association. According to The Times, his own newspaper, “Mr Keene denies reports that his resignation was spurred by a complaint lodged with the BCF against him by Tony Miles ….”

The British Chess Federation called off the inquiry, a decision which suited everybody except Miles. But Miles at the time was in a mental hospital in Birmingham, undergoing sedative treatment, and under medical advice not even to think about the affair for fear of a relapse. His parents were also advised not to raise the subject. It was as if Miles had disappeared. There were newspaper articles alluding to his “defection” from the British team, but no reaction from Miles. In his absence, his weekly chess column in The Sunday Telegraph was written, by a supreme irony, by Ray Keene.

It was only much later that Miles, who was discharged from hospital after two months, but who returned as an out-patient, found out what had happened to the inquiry and determined to raise the matter again. He also discovered who had been writing his chess column.

In the summer of 1989, Miles sent a letter to a small-circulation chess magazine giving his version of what had happened in Tunis. Soon afterwards, Miles’s father sent him a packet of documents that had been sent to Miles in September 1987, and which, following the medical advice, he had not passed on to his son. They were the documents which the British Chess Federation had gathered for the inquiry which never took place. The included a number of statements, correspondence, and Keene’s claim for payment as second and expenses. The documents convinced Miles that if the inquiry had taken place, he must have been vindicated.

As Miles took up the cudgels again and began to bombard officers of the Federation with demands for information about the inquiry, and how and why it had been called off, his form as a player returned almost miraculously.

For a year and more, the effects of the drug treatment had made good chess impossible. He had tried to play, but had got nowhere. One English player who came across Miles at a tournament in France during this period found that “his eyes were vacant, the fire had gone.”

Today, Miles is again a force to be reckoned with. He has married for the second time, and has set up house again in England. He has intimated that he might be prepared to return to the England team. But there is still, he insists, the unfinished business of the-second-that-never-was.

And what of that case? What would the inquiry have found out, if Keene had allowed it to proceed?

Keene has given the following account of events in Tunis to The Sunday Times: “When, on my arrival, he (Miles) surprised me by saying he didn’t want a second, I simply took this as a cue that he wanted me to make him an offer, which I did, by offering to split my fee with him. I have never made any secret of this, and our discussion took place openly in the hotel restaurant.

“When I made the offer to Tony I told him very clearly that I would be available at any time to help him, and I was. I watched every game he played, and these can last up to five hours at a stretch. Considering that I arrived after some rounds had been played I must have watched around 10 such games. I helped him analyse his adjourned games, though I think he had only one or two of these, and they were very simple; I stayed in the hotel each evening to buy him drinks and boost his morale. At the time of my arrival he had been doing badly, and looked isolated and depressed. After I arrived, my wife and I spent a lot of time with him, in the evenings and at meals.”

But one witness who was present in Tunis, the American grandmaster Larry Christiansen, is convinced that Keene never was Miles’s second. “I don’t believe Ray was Tony’s second,” he says. “Tony spent most of his time with me and another American grandmaster. Ray seemed to spend his time politicking and sitting by the hotel pool with his wife.”

Despite the strength of British chess the Federation is now riven with discontent and faction-fighting. Rumours and allegations of maladministration and financial mismanagement, of which the Miles-Keene affair is merely the most colourful, are prevalent. Two county chess associations, Yorkshire and Lancashire, have threatened to secede because they are unhappy with the Federation’s management. David Anderton, the international director of the BCF, who was deeply involved in the Miles-Keene affair – it was he who suggested that Keene second Miles, he who set up the investigation, and he who decided that the inquiry should be dropped when Keene refused to cooperate with it – has resigned his position, insisting that his decision has nothing to do with controversies within the organisation.

Anderton and the BCF, who must have reckoned without Tony Miles’ persistence, hoped that when they called the inquiry off that would be the end of the embarrassing affair of the second-that-never-was. How wrong they were.













Ray Keene Index




Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Chaessthetics


You go down the Club after Christmas to get back into chess-shape at the mid-season Rapidplay, you get through the door, and some wag takes the proverbial about an injudicious Comment you posted on the 11th of ejh's Twelve Puzzles of Christmas.

"You wouldn't recognise a stalemate if it shook your hand and wished you Happy New Year," he seasonally quips and, warming to his theme, adds "As for that puzzle number nine; if I've got a rook and king against a king why should I care if there's a mate in only nine? A few more wouldn't worry me". But the bar was open, and he may have been talking about pints.

So, what is the point? What is the point of Puzzles?

I didn’t know either, but the book by Jonathan Levitt and David Friedgood “Secrets of Spectacular Chess” published in a second edition in 2008 (henceforth SOSC), makes a seductive attempt to entice you into this wonderful world of problems, studies and the like. Their USP is to reveal the irreducible elements of beauty in chess. Problems and studies are the specimens in their laboratory, to be dissected and dismembered, poked and probed, to expose its essential qualities.

To me it makes a strong bid for the Misleading Book Title of the Year award, 2008. Chess-beautiful isn’t the same as chess-spectacular; and the authors aren’t disclosing their inner-mosts so much as calling the well-knowns to order. It’s categorisation not confession. But that’s publishers for you. Nonetheless, the book was favourably reviewed in the chess press, and rightly so.

Levitt and Friedgood's (L & F for short) scholarship - they are both titled players, and expert problemists - is impressive, and what will be of special interest to practical players is that, along with puzzles etc, they illustrate and apply their conclusions to OTB games.

To get down to business, and set out their stall , the core of their analysis is that there are four “elements” of chess beauty: Paradox, Depth, Geometry and Flow.

Paradox is the shocking “that-can’t-be-possible” quality. Of the four elements it is perhaps the one with which we are most familiar in “real” chess. It is the stunning blow that unleashes the winning combination. Kotov’s Queen for Pawn sac against Averbakh in the 1953 Candidates for example (which L & F analyse at length).


Grandmaster Kotov (black) at work.

We’ve all got our favourites, and they’ve been collected into books: “The 110 Most Amazing Moves of All Time” and so on. But caution: for L & F beauty is not “That’ll blow him away!" but “You can’t be serious!”. “Something which is apparently absurd but is or may really be true” - as my dictionary puts it, to John McEnroe's chagrin.

Broadening things with examples of puzzles and studies L & F illustrate the aesthetic delights of paradoxical underpromotion, “winning with limited material”, “breaking the rules” (in one end-game study, the under-dog voluntarily, and for no apparent reason, blocks his own pawn on the 7th with his king), and the dark arts of Zugzwang (see book cover). There is chess beauty in them all.

"Depth" they also use in a special sense, something like “not clear why until later”. It isn’t simply the long combination, as practical players would think, but a move whose point isn’t obvious until others, may be many more, have been played. It is not a trap laid for the unwary opponent, so much as a positive "self-serving" device that your antagonist will only realise in retrospect you had it planned all those moves before. A nice example from L & F featured as the seventh of ejh’s Twelve Puzzles. The reason why the key move is 1.Kg8, rather than the equally plausible (at the outset) 1. Kg7 or Kh7, becomes clear later, at the end of the winning sequence, when on g8 the King avoids a self pin.

This particular puzzle was a “helpmate”, one example of the exotic creatures parading in the SOSC zoo; the sort of thing that has yer man heading for the bar spluttering “Helpmate in seven?…It’s you wot needs help, Mate. And now".

Geometry is to be found in the satisfying patterns of the pieces moving around the space of the board. My practical chess favourite of visual geometry is Taimanov’s breathtaking win in this position against Karpov.


A.Karpov - M.Taimanov, Leningrad 1977. Black to play and win.

Of 38...Ng3+! Taimanov said "Perhaps the most beautiful move of my entire career....capture with the WQ [loses] the rook at b1...[and]...after capture with the pawn Black forces mate by the paradoxical manoeuvre of his rook from a1 to a8. Here the geometrical motif creates a truly aesthetic impression, as the rook, as though enveloping the entire board, moves round the corners a1-a8-h8 in order to attack the king at h1!"

In SOSC geometry may be happen before your very eyes, as in the Taimanov rook tour, or the quality may rely on a higher order of apprehension. Maybe mating with a K, N and B v a lone K is like that – the precision and economy of a minimal force co-operating at maximum efficiency, and with latent choreography.

Finally there is Flow, as in that K & R mate in ejh's puzzle nine by Pal Benko (thanks to Anonymous, for commenting thus on the blog). This is the passing game where the ball is moved from player to player from goal keeper’s throw to back of the net in one smooth seamless unfolding.

It is a term regularly used by Jonathan Speelman in his Independent chess column when referring to quality blitz and speed chess. As the tide of flow runs tactics hide in the shallows, and the game possesses an on-the-surface (not the same as superficial) coherence and directional inevitability. A practical example given by L & F is Karpov beating Ivanchuk (Tilburg Rapid, 1993) and according to the authors, earning the applause of his opponent.

So, what are we to make of all this?

Well, we can take a straightforward approach, consider it on its face value, and politely enquire: do the four elements really define the fundamentals of beauty in chess ; if problems and studies are artificial, isn't the “beauty” they possess contrived? Perhaps there are other types of beauty to be found in adverserial OTB chess?

There is also a more philosophical approach such as put by Peter Millican (Professor of Philosophy, Correspondence Chess expert, and Double Muzio Junkie) on page 249 of “Secrets” – paraphrasing – “You’ve got a set of elements, now what’s the theory that underpins it?". Which maybe one of those "it takes longer to understand the question than answer it" sort of questions.

That is enough for one post. I must dust off my thinking cap and come back to the heavy stuff .

But just to underline the point that those problemistas keep some weird beasties in their bedrooms, shake a stick at this behemoth mate in 290.

Problem by Otto Blathy (1860-1939)

(Please don't write in - yes, it is an illegal position.)

I'll repeat that. Two hundred and ninety. Better not try this one at home. Instead, after you have opened this link (and enjoyed the Surrealist juxtaposition) scroll down and let the video do it for you. It's got loads of Flow. SloFlo. It only takes a couple of days to play through.

Acknowledgements:
Levitt,J.and Friedgood, D. Secrets of Spectacular Chess. 2nd ed. (2008). Everyman.
Taimanov, M. trans Neat, K. Taimanov's Selected Games. (1995). Cadogan.

ejh's Twelve Puzzles of Christmas posts 25th December 2010 to 5th January 2011 on this blog.
Blathy comes from here .

For more on the Double Muzio see the Game Room on the Streatham and Brixton Chess Club site here, and look at James Toon's notes.

Chess in Art index

Monday, January 10, 2011

The Great Chessboxing Swindle comes to Private Eye


from Private Eye 1279, 7-20 January 2011.

[Thanks to the reader who supplied the image.]

[Chessboxing index]

Saturday, January 08, 2011

A Literary Reference : Anna Karenina


Konstantin Levin regarded his brother as a man of great intelligence and education, noble in the highest sense of the word, and endowed with the ability to act for the common good. But, in the depths of his soul, the older he became and the more closely he got to know his brother, the more often it occurred to him that this ability to act for the common good, of which he felt himself completely deprived, was perhaps not a virtue but, on the contrary, a lack of something - not a lack of good, honest and noble desires and tastes, but a lack of life force, of what is known as heart, of that yearning which makes a man choose one out of all the countless paths in life presented to him and desire that one alone. The more he knew his brother, the more he noticed that Sergei Ivanovich and many other workers for the common good had not been brought to this love of the common good by the heart, but had reasoned in their minds that it was good to be concerned with it and were concerned with it only because of that. And Levin was concerned in this surmise by observing that his brother took questions about the common good and the immortality of the soul no closer to heart than those about a game of chess or the clever construction of a new machine.

....

"I can see," Sergei Ivanovich continued, "that you're generally pleased with your day."

"Very pleased. We mowed the whole meadow. And what an old man I made friends with there! Such a delightful man, you'd never imagine it!"

"Well, so you're pleased with your day. And so am I. First, I solved two chess problems, one of them a very nice one - it opens with a pawn. I'll show you. And then I was thinking about our conversation yesterday."

"What? Our conversation yesterday?" said Levin, blissfully narrowing his eyes and puffing after he finished dinner, quite unable to recall what this yesterday's conversation had been.
Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina, Penguin, 2006, p.239, p.258. Translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky. (Original date of publication 1873-77.)


[A Literary Reference index]

[Thanks to Tom]

Friday, January 07, 2011

(Not) Becoming a Grandmaster: The Bill Hartston Story

You have to feel a bit sorry for Romain Edouard. Half a point clear going in to the last round at this year's Hastings, the French GM knew that a win would see him take first place and the winner's cheque of £2,000 while a draw would mean a share of first at worst (and £1,600 in prize money as it turned out). Unfortunately, though, he got absolutely spanked and ended up equal third with 'just' £750 in his pocket. That's not bad for a week or so's work, I suppose, but I wonder whether he sees it as money lost rather than money won.

Justin reminds me, by the way, that Edouard's misfortunes have appeared on the blog before, so we best move on to a regular visitor to our comments box, Richard Bates. Richard started Hastings very strongly - 4/5 including a win over a 2500+ GM - and had the chance of a GM norm until he lost in the eighth round. As it happens, he then ended the tournament with a win over Ryan Rhys-Griffiths, thereby ending the latter's hopes of an IM norm.

It seems congratulations for playing well and commiserations for ending just shy of the target are due to all three. Close but no cigar, as they say. Still, if the story of what happened to Bill Hartston at Hastings in the early seventies is to be believed, it could have been much much worse ....


It was at the Hastings Tournament of 1972/73 that it happened, or so legend has it anyway. Either a gruesome accident or a needlessly self-inflicted wound depending on your point of view, but undeniably the sort of thing that could wreck a career and come to define a man forever more. It was nothing less than a chessboard Greek Tragedy.

Bill Hartston once turned down a draw that would have given him the Grandmaster title. That's the story. That’s his story. For years I just accepted it; didn’t give it any further thought beyond a cursory, “what an eejit”. Over time, though, I began to have my doubts. Could it really be true?

The more I thought about it, the more my suspicions grew. The more I sought details, the less certain I became about what had actually happened. Fortunately, Hartston himself agreed to meet with me to satisfy my curiosity. As it turned out, however, our chat didn’t just uncover the truth about that game from Hastings so long ago, it also took in the nature of personal achievement and Bill's place in the generation that transformed British chess and took the game from a hobbyist’s pursuit to the very brink of the World Championship title.

The real Bill Hartston story, I discovered, is very different to the received wisdom. That's for later, though. Let’s start at the beginning with the fairytale.



Hart breaker?


Hastings: the early 1970s; the second-to-last round. Bill Hartston sits down to play Wolfgang Uhlmann needing just a solitary half-point to score a GM norm.

In a few short hours Uhlmann will propose a draw and, in effect, the Grandmaster title with it, but, impossibly, both will slip from Hartston’s grasp. He will think he is winning so will spurn the East German's offer only to find that his advantage is just a mirage. He will go on to lose not just the Uhlmann game but the next day’s against Larsen too. All this will come to pass and Hartston's dreams of the title will drift away on the Hastings tide.


You’ll find this story all over the place [e.g. here, here and here], albeit with variations according to who exactly you happen to be listening to. Writing for TWIC back in 2001, for example, John Henderson includes the details that Hartston miscalculated a mating attack and had been distracted by the prospect of pocketing Jim Slater’s £5,000 reward for the first British chess player to become a GM.

The essence of the story, though, is always the same: Bill Hartston once turned down a draw that would have made him a Grandmaster. It’s a grisly tale, and one that is all the more piquant knowing that Hartston never quite made the grade and was still an IM when he retired from active play some twenty years after that fateful day.






It’s easy to see why this story became so firmly embedded in chess lore. Hartston is not so much Asamoah Gyan missing the last minute penalty that would have seen Ghana through to the World Cup semi-finals as he is Icarus choosing to fly close to the sun. This is not, after all, a fable about a man who is separated from his just desserts by the actions of those with no integrity: it’s the story of a man brought down by hubris.

It’s pure self-destruction, then, and yet, despite (or even because of?) the fact that he’s the author of his own woes, it’s impossible not to empathise with the protagonist in this morality play. "That’s it. I’m giving up." Is there anyone amongst us who hasn’t uttered these words at least once? Anyone who hasn’t vowed that their latest act chessboard self-harm will be the last? Multiply that feeling by infinity. Does it even begin to approach what it feels like to blow the Grandmaster title?

It’s not hard to imagine what such an experience might do to a man; hard not to picture Hartston as some washed-up Marlon Brando wandering around decades later telling anybody who’ll still listen that he could have been a contender. That, in any event, is exactly what I’d be doing if it had happened to me.


Could have been somebody?


A great story, then, and yet one that I came to doubt. It slowly dawned on me that for all sorts of reasons it just didn’t ring true.

For a start, there’s the game with Uhlmann. After many years I suddenly realised that I was actually quite familiar with it: It’s in Winning with the French Defence (Uhlmann’s book published by Batsford in 1995). There’s no immediately obvious point at which White might plausibly have considered himself to be winning which is probably why it had never occurred to me that this was the Hartston game.







Secondly, there’s the man himself. Hartston became British Champion in 1973, but only after winning a play-off against Mike Basman. He'd agreed a short draw in the last round which had allowed the Basmaniac to catch him up by winning his own final game. Cautiously agreeing a draw to guarantee a play-off place at worst rather than going all-out to secure the title outright? That's hardly consistent with playing on when offered the GM title on a plate and yet that's exactly what's supposed to have happened just months after at Hastings.

Finally, the Hartston story conflicts with the usual portrayal of the race to become Britain’s first Grandmaster. You invariably read about the struggle between Tony Miles and Ray Keene, the former pipping the latter at the post in 1976. If Hartston could and/or should have won the title three years earlier, why is he never mentioned as one of those who had a serious chance of being our first GM?

Many questions, then, but my attempt to find some answers proved fruitless. I found many references to the story, including one in an article I’d written myself, and yet a definitive account remained stubbornly elusive.

Clearly, if I wanted the truth, I was going to have to go to the horse's mouth. When I finally got to talk to Hartston, it didn’t take very long to find out what had really happened…



Jonathan Bryant:
It’s said that you turned down a draw that would have made you a Grandmaster.


Bill Hartston:
That’s absolute rubbish.

JB:
The Uhlmann game from Hastings.


BH:
Yeah.

JB:
You didn’t turn down a draw?


BH:
No. No. No.

JB:
He didn’t even offer you a draw then?


BH:
No. (emphatic)

It would have been the first norm. Actually at the time of the game I was leading the tournament and I wasn’t interested in … (pauses to think) … I’ve never pursued titles.

Just deciding how to play against Uhlmann’s French Defence, well, there were some lines that he played that I really ought to have been able to draw quite easily as White, and probably he with Black wouldn’t have been too averse to something quite simple, but I was trying to win the game.

There was no question of turning down a draw. None was ever offered. I missed a draw against Larsen in the last round but that’s …. (laughing)

JB:
So, you knew that you were a half point away from the norm?


BH:
Yes.

JB:
And that it would have been the first one?


BH:
Oh yes.

JB:
But you decided that you were going to try to win the tournament?


BH:
Well yeah … and possibly I felt that if I played for a draw I’d have deserved to lose.

JB:
Like Gurevich – Short from the 1990 Manila Interzonal.


BH:
Oh yes.



- So that’s that. The story is just a myth after all. It seems, though, that had Hartston got that extra half-point he would have become a Grandmaster. Not at Hastings but after he’d collected a further two norms much later in his career.



BH:
I got the IM title on the same day [in 1972 – JMGB] that I got my MA from Cambridge so I became two masters on one day. That was really good.

I don’t remember which were the norms that got it. There was a funny thing: after struggling to make the norms for years and years, once I got the title every tournament I played in for about the next two years I made the IM norm easily.

JB:
And you got GM norms subsequently? I’ve seen it said that you missed the GM title by the narrowest possible margin but I think that might derive from the Hastings story.


BH:
Who knows? I made a norm in one Olympiad, but I don’t think those ones should count (laughs). I think I made another norm somewhere. I won a tournament in Sarajevo which I think would have counted because I won the tournament but I was actually half a point short.

JB:
I think under the current regulations that you would have been given the title even without a draw with Uhlmann or Larsen because these days you can get a norm in the middle of tournaments as well as at the end.


BH:
Is that right? I don’t know.

JB:
It doesn’t sound like not getting the title bothers you any.


BH:
No, no (laughs). It never did.

I never wanted to be a weak grandmaster. Ambitions tend to be counter productive. If you’re going to try to reach a particular level, I’ve always felt that when you get to that level you ought to see the next level as attainable. I think that this is one of the reasons that the British were so crap at chess for so long. Once you’d become the British Champion there was nowhere to go. There was such a big leap between British Champion and good international player that people were just stuck at the level.

JB:
By ‘crap for a long time’ you’re thinking of which era? The '60s?


BH:
Up to and including mine. (Laughs)

JB:
There does seem to have been quite a change in the late '60s with yourself, Ray Keene, Andrew Whiteley and Mike Basman coming through.


BH:
I think we were the intermediate generation. There was the Penrose-Golombek-Alexander era which had no way of competing with the top Eastern Europeans and just got completely overtaken by them in the '50s and '60s. Then Keene and I, and Basman maybe, we introduced a sort of professionalism without being professional: professionalism in terms of attitude to the game. I think that sort of set the road to the next generation of Miles and Short, Stean maybe, just to completely overtake us.

JB:
You didn’t consider yourself a chess professional at the time?


BH:
I never considered myself a chess professional, no. I never earned enough money from chess to consider myself a chess professional.

JB:
Not getting the grandmaster title didn’t lead you to give up active play then?


BH:
Oh no, no no. No, in a way I think it was probably good for me not to get the title because I would have probably played much more and not moved on to other things.

JB:
And earned a lot less I would imagine.


BH:
Yes. (laughing)



- As we came to the end of our chat I wondered whether I would have wanted to have had my cake as well as eaten it: to have had a successful post-chess career and the GM title to look back on. I'd heard that a few years back Ray Keene organised a campaign to get Hartston the GM Emeritus title. I asked Bill about it, but, he seemed far from enthused.



BH:
I’d say ran a campaign is a bit strong. He may have written an article or two in The Times or Spectator saying that we [Hartston and Penrose – JMGB] deserved it, but he was just trying to curry favour rather than running a campaign. I once received a letter from I think Stewart Reuben asking if I would be interested in the BCF pursuing something with FIDE to try to get the title for me and I said 'Not remotely'. (laughs)

JB:
It feels slightly like a posthumous award without having to die first.


BH:
You know the famous line of Korchnoi to Gufeld when Gufeld became a Grandmaster and said, ‘Now we are colleagues’? Korchnoi replied, ‘No. Now you are a colleague of Damjanovic.’ If I’d have been given an honorary Grandmastership I’d have been a colleague of Golombek’s (laughs).








Interview Index

Bill Harston Speaks
Bill Hartston Speaks II: Chess on the Telly
Bill Hartston Speaks III: What Bill Did Next
Chess Tower





Bill Hartston photo from chess.co.uk


Thursday, January 06, 2011

Ch ch ch



Well, here we are again. New year, new blogging.

How was the festive period for you? Did solving EJH's puzzles [I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII] keep you busy?  Perhaps, like me, you had a stab at a few of them, but mostly failed miserably?  Perhaps you were down in Hastings playing proper chess instead?  Judging by the comments box over the past few days, at least one or two of you out there have been doing both!  Whatever you were up to, I hope that you enjoyed yourself.

Anyhoo, in blogging as in real life, it's time to put 2010 and Christmas behind us and get 2011 underway.  As from tomorrow we'll be returning to our usual Monday - Wednesday - Friday - Saturday schedule (with a bonus item thrown in here and there). Before we kick-off S&BC Blog 2011 proper, though, we'll be making a few changes.






We've needed to make a few technical tweaks for quite a while now; have a good fiddle about under the bonnet ('hood' for our esteemed North American readers) as it were. Well, finally we've got around to it and we thought that, while we were at it, we might as well give our appearance a bit of a scrub too.

We're not doing anything too radical.  Hopefully the archives will become easier to navigate; the left-hand sidebar should look somewhat tidier and we thought we might try on a new colour, just to see what it feels like.  Other than that, though, it's pretty much 'as you were'.

With a bit of luck the changes will be all done by the time you read this. Apologies if things look a little bit messy while we get on with the job.  Normal blogging resumes tomorrow. In the meantime, we wish you all happy chessing in 2011.







Wednesday, January 05, 2011

The twelve puzzles of Xmas


Shuriakov and Syzonenko, 1985

Mate in twelve


[Thanks to Martin]

Tuesday, January 04, 2011

The twelve puzzles of Xmas


Buzandian, 1969

Mate in eleven

Monday, January 03, 2011

The twelve puzzles of Xmas


Kubbel, 1927

Mate in ten


[Thanks to Sean]

Sunday, January 02, 2011

The twelve puzzles of Xmas


Benko, 1998/9

Mate in nine


[Thanks to Martin]

Saturday, January 01, 2011