Attendance: 1

Frisco Del Rosario writes about chess960, women's basketball, minor league baseball, unsupported collectible card games, lettering in comic books, and Golden Age movies

About the chess scene in Casablanca 09/07/2017


Screen legend Humphrey Bogart was  a chess enthusiast, once appearing  on the cover of Chess Review magazine with his wife Lauren Bacall.

In 1942, the Warner Brothers film “Casablanca” won the Academy Award as Best Picture, its star Bogart won Best Actor.

Early in “Casablanca”,  Bogart analyzes a chess position while Peter Lorre implores him to hide invaluable travel tickets.

According to Round Up the Usual Suspects: The Making of Casablanca by Aljean Harmetz, it was screenwriter Howard Koch’s idea to include the chessboard, representing the character Rick Blaine as a thinking man.

According to a forum post  without citation, Bogart’s examining one of his postal games. The Harmetz book says screenwriter told producer Hal B. Wallis that Blaine is supposed to be castling, as a metaphor for keeping himself out of trouble.

During the shooting of “Casablanca”, Bogart maintained a postal game with Irving Kovner from Brooklyn, the brother of a Warner Brothers studio employee. Bogart’s wont was to accompany his moves with a few personal words (“Now I’m in a jam”).

It would have been an extraordinary coincidence for Bogart’s analysis of the Kovner game to include castling precisely in accordance with the script. It’s my reasonable guess that the Kovner position was on the board, and Bogart castled perforce — out of sequence or illegally — then restored the Kovner setup after the take.

Paul Henreid, a “Casablanca” co-star, played chess with Bogart on the set. Round Up the Usual Suspects quotes Henreid as saying Bogart was a “fine chessplayer, very fine”. Like any chessplayer, Henreid said he won all the games for being a little better than his very fine opponent.

No Comments on About the chess scene in Casablanca
Categories: chess media

The meaning of Morphy-Bottin, Paris 1858 06/30/2017

If you sort a database of Morphy games by length, his shortest game as White was a 10-mover against Bottin, in which Morphy played the dubious Lopez Opening (or MacLeod Attack) 1. e4 e5 2. c3.

I’ve wondered for years what caused him to do that (variety, a form of odds, touching the wrong pawn?). It hit me today that he knew that in 200 years or so, some chess teacher would want to use his MacLeod Attack game to show why developing the pieces 2. Nf3 3. Bc4 before Captain Evans’ 4. b4! is the right way to play.

No Comments on The meaning of Morphy-Bottin, Paris 1858
Categories: chess

Making “the king game” fun for both players in the chess classroom 05/31/2017

Every chess teacher knows this position, and has played the black side of it a million times.
If White is given the task of reaching the 8th rank, there’s only one first move that will succeed:

1. Ke2!

Now if Black moves to the d-file, White wins with 2. Kf3!. If Black moves to the f-file, White wins with 2. Kd3! (the student should work this out). The best defense is:


After which White’s sole correct play is:

2. Ke3!

The trouble with this arrangement is that if White goes awry, it takes some moves for White to see that, and lesson time goes wasted.

An improved starting position is:


If White makes a move toward the 8th rank, then only 1. Ke6! wins, whereas White is prevented from any further progress by 1. Kd6? Kd8 or 1. Kf6? Kf8. This is easier for students to get a grip on, and then the task becomes a bit more difficult by starting the white king on e3:


1. Ke4! (1. Ke2! also wins).

After students grasp the starting positions with the white king on e3 or e5, then we can go back to kings on e1 and e8. When the students have that well in hand, this one is tricky:


Because when White makes the only correct move — 1. Ka2! — then Black might try 1…Kb8 or 1…Kb7, and White must be careful. Some experienced tournament players can’t do this one. They say they know “the theory of opposition”, but can’t demonstrate it.

When you handle these positions with Black as a chess teacher, and steal the opposition with the black king, you might allow White to make 20 or 100 moves before White finally gets (or is given) the clue that the white king is stuck. In the chess classroom, on the other hand, playing the black side is no fun: you’re supposed to lose, and when you don’t lose, the only reward is that perhaps White has learned from another mistake.

We might make this more interesting for both sides with this game:


The pawns are stationary, and hichever king reaches his own pawn first wins. Of course, White should always win. Like before:

1. Ke3 Ke6 2. Ke4 Kd6 3. Kf5 Ke7 4. Kg6 and a white pawn will be rescued.

Say White opens 1. Kd2?. Then Black wins by 1…Kd6! 2. Kd3 Kd5.

Here’s the interesting variation. If White makes an incorrect 2nd move:

1. Ke3 Ke6 2. Kf4?

Then Black can stop White’s progress with 2…Kf6!, but Black has to settle for a draw. For instance: 3. Kg5 Ke5? 4. Kg6.

The best form of this game is:


No Comments on Making “the king game” fun for both players in the chess classroom
Categories: chess

Three paragraphs of analysis about 1. h4 e5 2. h5 d5 3. h6 05/24/2017

Fifty weeks ago, a tournament began in which every game had to open 1. h4 e5 2. h5 d5. I’ve relished every moment of this: As White, you’re sacrificing time and central space and safety (I usually play 3…Bd6 heading straight for g3, right?) in exchange for a bit of kingside space. As Black, you’ve been given time and space and safety, so go like Steve Nash.
screen-shot-2017-05-24-at-4-01-55-pmAfter two qualifier rounds, the final round started last week. I’m in 2nd place (39-2-3). The leader (41-1-1) and I shook virtual hands, and the guy played 3. h6. Wow.
I thought: Why haven’t I thought of that? I’m serious. I said that White sacrificed time and central space and safety for nothing but some kingside space (the games you win as White, you probably made use of the h-file). 3. h6 takes the next logical step: there’s no trouble opening the h-file later, and Black isn’t gaining time with the capture, just material (if you’re my chess student, *get this*: let your opponents capture to gain material, you capture to gain time).
Following that cardinal logic, Black should not capture on h6, but should hope for h6xg7, so …Bf8xg7 is a genuine gain of time. Honest, chess is much more fun for players who get that. Scientifically, 3…Nxh6 gains a pawn > 3…Nf6 (say) 4. hxg7 Bxg7 gains a move, but artistically, it turns the difference operator the other way.
On the other hand, 3…Nxh6 means the knight has two different routes to g3: …Nh6-g4 and ….Nh6-f5. Also on the other hand, 3…Nf6 4. hxg7 Bxg7 points the bishop toward the queenside. And if you’re following the time > material notion, White doesn’t have to play 4…hxg7 — if fact, as long as the h6-pawn stands, the f8-bishop is tied to the defense of g7.
1 Comment on Three paragraphs of analysis about 1. h4 e5 2. h5 d5 3. h6
Categories: chess

An Anastasia’s Mate miniature in 960 04/21/2017

My MacBook Pro was stolen three weeks ago. My WordPress password was saved in a keyring, and I didn’t remember it. It’s taken a little while to learn how to reset the WP password with the admin utility.

I might have created an Anastasia’s Mate miniature in a chess960 game, but Black didn’t move his queen at move 9, so 10. Ne7+ forked his queen, prompting his resignation, instead of 10…Kh8 11. Rxh7+! Kxh7 12. Qh5#.

No Comments on An Anastasia’s Mate miniature in 960
Categories: chess

Chess tournament named after my favorite guitar composer 03/31/2017

The Kolty Chess Club in Campbell, Calif., names its tournaments thematically. One year the events were named after mountain ranges, another year Beethoven compositions.

This year the Kolty tournaments are named for classical guitar composers. They’re in the midst of the Ferdinando Carulli tournament — Carulli’s my favorite composer for guitar, so I had to drag myself down there to play in this one (not the first time I entered a chess tournament just for its name —mi0002862260 in Feb. 1985, the Berkeley Chess Club named its tournament the Farewell Jack Clark Open because the San Francisco Giants had just traded their All-Star right fielder to the Cardinals for a bag of magic beans).

Black’s play at moves 5 through 8 is such that the only other occurrence in the 365chess database is by a 1300-rated German boy. After 15. Nxa7, the Fruit engine figures White’s advantage is more than four pawns.

Not much to talk about, except for what didn’t happen: In case of 3…exf4 4 Nf3 g5 5 h4 g4 6 Ng5 h6 7 Nxf7 Kxf7 8 d4 d5, following Corzo-Capablanca 8th match game 1901, what was I going to do? I’ve annotated that game several times for print, but always from young Capablanca’s point of view; I was going to have to find an improvement for Corzo over the board.

No Comments on Chess tournament named after my favorite guitar composer
Categories: chess

Here’s what I’d do with a programmable chessboard 03/01/2017

Here’s what I’d do with a programmable chessboard, like the DGT or the SquareOff: It reads in a gamescore, compares your moves to the movdarth-vader-vs-chess-pieceses in the scoresheet, and if not a match, it replaces your move with the correct one.

In other words, that an automated version of the Purdy method for practicing chess the right way. (Play through a game, covering the winner’s moves and guessing as you go — I talk about this very often.)

For as long as I’ve practiced in this fashion, the practice was its own reward. But for this idea to work, people would want their Solitaire Chess scoring (Horowitz did that first in Chess Life, now Pandolfini does it), or grading by the Toga engine (from the Guess the Move feature at

Chess teachers would get good use from this. They could assemble groups of games to demonstrate a pattern (or a useless opening) or model player.

In the mid-’70s, the mechanical device for this kind of practice was test marketed (they called it CyberChess, though there was nothing cyber about it). At each turn, six candidate moves were presented, and the user moved sliding panels to get a score from +3 to -3 (coincidentally, that’s the range the Toga implements). It was a great idea — because it helped chessplayers study the right way — but RRS said the games selected for version 1.0 were all wrong. RRS would’ve installed his Blue Knights collection, right?

Whether you perform the guess-a-master’s-moves exercise online or in a box, or do it the old-fashioned way with a book plus a 2×3 card, it can’t be beat. With practice, you string together enough correct guesses to put you in the master’s league.

I used to think the most fun about this practice was when I guessed a better move than the master actually played (the annotations say when this happens), but nowadays I love this: When you’re playing a hard game, sometimes you make your move with a mental shrug while thinking: “OK, fine, I cannot be sure how this move will work out, but it was the best I muster at the moment”. When you’re guessing a game, and you guess a move with that uncertain feeling, sometimes it’s the right guess, and you feel like you’re sharing the feelings of a master, as well as the thinking.

No Comments on Here’s what I’d do with a programmable chessboard
Categories: chess

Bronstein Gambits accepted and declined leading to the same tactical motif at the CalChess senior championship 02/13/2017

The boom in kiddie chess gave us old-timers a greater appreciation for the CalChess Senior State Championship: the age requirement meant we had old stories to share with our opponents, when most weekend tournaments these days pit an adult against three or five children.

In the late ‘70s, Sonoma County organizer Thomas Boyd commemorated a joyous event — the birth of a daughter — with an occasion of chess volunteer work: Boyd named his chess tournament the Cynthia Ann Quads. For many years following, people told Boyd they remembered playing in the Cynthia Ann Quads — these days, can anyone tell one MegaFrankenSwi$$ Open from another?

5…Nc6 compelled 6. d5 before Black could play …e7-e5 to prepare the comfortable retreat …Nc6-e7. 6. d5 Ne5 7. f4 Ng6 crammed Black’s pieces into a tight spot, then Black invested a huge chunk of time — 8…Bg4 plus 9…Bxf3, 10…e5, 11…fxe6, 12…Nd7, 13…e5, 14…Nf4 plus 15…exf4 — to make an outpost on e5 for his knight. By that time, White was fully developed with 16. O-O-O, and Black shied away from 16…Ne5 for the looks of 17. Bh5+ g6 18. fxg6 hxg6 19. Bxg6+ Nxg6 20. Rxg6 Qd7 21. Nd5 O-O-O 22. Qd4. But 16…Nf6 17. Qxf4 Qe7 enabled White to open the position by 18. e5 dxe5 19. Qa4+, and then the self-pin 19…Nd7 ran into the crossfire 20. f6! gxf6 21. Bh5+ Kd8 22. Bg4.

Curiously, I got to play 1. d4 Nf6 g4 with both of my white games at the 2017 CalChess Senior State Championship, and the winning scheme in each case was a bishop check to push the black king to d8, pinning a knight on d7 to death. The curious aspect was that Black took the gambit in round one, and refused in round three — tactical patterns in the middlegame are usually very different depending on whether an opening pawn sacrifice goes accepted or declined.

Black was one of those opponents whose computers won the post-mortem by exposing the warts in White’s unsound opening play. They seem to think that gambit players would be surprised to learn that their opening moves are an unsound proposition, and change their speculative ways, consequently.

An original position arose from 3…Ng8, a Benoni formation where White is gifted with the space gained from g2-g4-g5, while Black’s kingside pieces are restrained. The g-pawn advance also came in handy to enable the bishop development 9. Bg2 — White blocked the f1-a6 diagonal with 7. Nge2 to fight the c8-bishop — if Black chose to develop …Bc8-f5, then White had Ne2-g3 in store; while …Bc8-g4 could fetch f2-f3 if appropriate. 13…Bxe4? was a mistake, bringing 14. Bxe4 forward with a threat (Black was better suited by 13…hxg5 14. Bxg5 Be5 with …Ng8-f6-g4 to follow). Instead, 16…Be5 met the intuitive line-opening sacrifice 17. Rxe5!, after which 20. Bf5 crippled both black knights, and 21. Qd5 made for a winning coordination on the white squares.

No Comments on Bronstein Gambits accepted and declined leading to the same tactical motif at the CalChess senior championship
Categories: chess

Time controls 02/08/2017


200 years ago, chess games weren’t played under “time control”, so players could sit in cogitation interminably. (One legend goes that the German master Paulsen studied his board for five hours until he looked up and asked if was his turn to move.) This was unacceptable — mostly because chessplayers have to understand that whether one ponders a position for one hour or 10, one doesn’t see 10 times deeper, just the same thing 10 times longer.
So chess clocks were invented, and a standard tournament time control was, say, 40 moves in 2 hours, followed by 25 moves in one hour until conclusion. In the old days, a game might go on until the the start of the next round, or midnight. Then there was the odd practice of adjournment, where one player chose his next move and put it in a sealed envelope, after which the players could analyze at home until resumption of play. This used to favor the player with a team of analysts, until computers make adjournments wholly impractical.

To eliminate adjourned games, the “sudden death” time control came along, in which the player had X number of minutes to play the game, and if time ran out, the game was lost, no matter the situation on the board. This opened a new can of worms, because there were many positions where losing wouldn’t be a reasonable expectation except for the “sudden death”. One rules adjustment was that a player running out of time could claim unrealistic or insufficient “losing chances” — some of these claims were crystal clear, like the common occurrence where the player who was about to promote the last pawn had too few seconds to deliver the checkmate. Other “insufficient losing chances” claims were murky at best — sometimes you had tournament directors running to find the strongest player on the tournament staff, who could form a more knowledgeable opinion about whether those claims were valid. There was a rule of thumb: If a player rated 1400 could plainly hold the position against a master, then an insufficiency claim could be upheld. (In my opinion, this was a bad rule of thumb, because most chessplayers and organizers don’t know what chess masters can do to upset the mind of a 1400-rated player.)

In order to fix the problems with Rule 14H (the insufficient losing chances rule became such a common bug that players memorized its place in the rulebook), chess clocks were improved in a couple of ways. A player could be given some additional seconds with each move — the idea was that if a position fell under the 14H umbrella, the incremental time would suffice to keep that player afloat while demonstrating the easy win or easy draw. Or the clock would be put on delay, giving the player three or five seconds to move before the time started ticking off his clock. (Every basketball fan knows how this goes — if you’re on your home floor, the referee can signal “start the clock”, and the local staff on the clock can brainfreeze for a *long* time.)

At tournaments these days, I’m accustomed to time controls of sudden death in 2 hours, plus a 5-second delay. This weekend, I’m playing 90 minutes plus 30 second increments. Do the math, and they’re almost the same. At two hours plus D/5, if you play 60 moves and use the whole delay each move (which never happens), it’s 125 minutes. At 90 minutes plus 30, a 60-move game is 120 minutes. I’m wondering if there will be any noticeable difference in the feel of the game.

For example, 40 moves in 2 hours or 30 moves in 90 minutes are both three minutes per move, but 40/2 feels comfortable to me, while 30/90 feels hurried — because chessplayers don’t think “three minutes per move”; there are two or three times per game where the player takes a long think, though the other moves require much less time. At 40/2, there are 30 minutes to give to the long-thinking moves that aren’t available at 30/90.

This effect is most evident at “rapid transit” chess — you never see “rapid transit” these days, because players hate it — in “rapid transit”, there’s a 10-second pause followed by a 5-second interval in which the player *must* move. It’s like 15 seconds per move, but chess thinking just does not happen like that. At any time control — whether game-in-one-minute or 50-moves-in-3-hours — moves like recaptures, and especially automatic “only” moves, require less than instant of thinking; the 15-second “rapid transit” mode tortures players during those moves.


No Comments on Time controls
Categories: chess

A sacrificial motif shared across the Wilkes-Barre Two Knights and the Nimzovich Sicilian 01/13/2017

The appeal of the Wilkes-Barre or Traxler variation in the Two Knights — 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 Bc5 — is that Black just ignores the threat on f7. No matter which way White captures, Black suffers a little discomfort, but emerges with gain of time after pushing White’s pieces back.

There’s a similar idea in the Nimzovich Sicilian:

No Comments on A sacrificial motif shared across the Wilkes-Barre Two Knights and the Nimzovich Sicilian
Categories: chess