Journey to the National Master Title, Part 8

I have been quite active in the past three months, and usually when I am very active I perform well, but unfortunately that was not the case to close out 2023. In the October 8, 2023 East Market Round Robin (Columbus, Ohio), I scored 3/5, finishing out of the money and dropping 19 hard-earned rating points to fall to 2012. I played well for most of the day, starting with 2/3 and finishing with a crisp 26 move win in round five, but the whole event went bad for me in one second during round four: in a completely winning position against eventual tournament winner Calvin Roach, I played my move one second too late and lost on time. The time control was G/40 with a five second increment, so if I had just made my move a bit faster and then responded immediately on my next move I would have then had six seconds, which would have been more than enough (with the five second increment) to finish the game off. Full credit to Roach, who defended resourcefully enough to induce me to run out of time. He scored 4/5 overall, gaining 143 rating points to vault from 1655 to 1798, just short of his highest rating ever (1823). That one fateful second represented a 24 point rating swing, meaning I could have finished the tournament at 2036 instead of 2012.

I scored 1.5/3 in the October 14, 2023 Dublin (Columbus, Ohio) G/60 tournament, gaining six rating points to improve my rating to 2018. I drew my second round game versus the top rated player (Joel Jaffe, 2191), but lost to Brett Passen (2168) in the last round and thus finished out of the money.

I scored 2/4 in the October 22, 2023 East Market Swiss, losing nine rating points to fall to 2009. I was the third seeded player out of 12 players, and I lost to the number one seed (Brett Passen) and the number two seed (John Miller).

I scored 3/4 in the October 28, 2023 Cincinnati Tornado, losing four rating points to drop to 2005. I was the fourth seeded player out of 37 players, and I tied for third-eighth place. In the last round, I drew with the third seeded player, Russell Wilson. I had lost my previous six games versus Wilson, who earned the National Master title in the late 1980s and maintained a USCF rating over 2200 for most of the time between the late 1980s and early 2000s. Wilson won the 1999 U.S. Amateur South tournament with 4.5/5, while I took second place in that event (on tiebreaks) with 4/5; we did not face each other in that tournament, and my only loss came against Ryan Milisits, a talented junior player who was rated just 1782 at that time but who earned the National Master title in 2004. Wilson tied with Mark Geist for the Ohio Champion title in the 2001 Ohio Chess Championship (Stanislav Kriventsov won the tournament, but as an out of Ohio resident was not eligible to be Ohio Champion).

A few days after the Cincinnati Open, the USCF rerated many events that were played after February 2023. I am not going to edit the articles in this series to update my ratings after each tournament that was rerated, nor am I going to edit the post tournament ratings listed above; it suffices to say that after the rerate my October 28, 2023 post tournament rating was 2009. 

I played in two tournaments on my birthday weekend. I scored 1.5/3 in the November 4, 2023 Columbus G/60 tournament, gaining seven rating points to improve my rating to 2016. In the first round, I drew with the top seeded player, Broderick Bauml, after I missed a win during mutual time pressure (but he was in worse time pressure than I was, with less than 20 seconds remaining while I had about two minutes remaining). I beat Expert Justin Notter in a wild game in the second round, and then on board one in the third round I lost to Nicholas Bize, so I failed to win a prize. I scored 4/5 in the November 5, 2023 East Market Round Robin, gaining 16 rating points to improve my rating to 2032. I was the second seeded player. I drew the top seeded player, John Miller, and I drew the third seeded player, Henry Lu, and I won my other three games to claim clear first place. 

Kings Island is one of my favorite tournaments, and I have been successful there many times, including tying for second in the U2000 section in 2003, tying for third in the U2100 section in 2007, tying for first in the U2100 section in 2012, and finishing clear second in the 2013 Kings Island Open Saturday Night Blitz. However, in recent years at Kings Island I have not performed up to my standards. This year, I scored 2/5 in the U2100 section on November 11-12, 2023, losing 43 rating points to fall below 2000 (1989) for the first time since September 2023. I lost three games in the same event for the first time since my disastrous 2/5 performance in the June 10-11, 2023 Cleveland Open. A player's rating as of the final week of November becomes his official December rating, so 2023 marks the first time since 2019 that my official year end rating is below 2000; in 11 of the past 15 years my year end rating has been higher than 2000. After round three, I played in the Kings Island Open Saturday Night Blitz, tying for 14th-16th place out of 41 players with a score of 4.5/8, and losing 30 blitz rating points.

Here is how I squandered a winning position in round one of Kings Island versus Siddarth Kunapuli, a rising young player who is currently rated 1867. In the diagrammed position, it is my turn after my opponent played Qd7. The check on f7 is not a serious threat, so I should have just played ...Bc5. My opponent can take on b7, but then I can play ...Qe4+ followed by either ...Qxc2 or ...Bd6. Stockfish 16 gives Black a nearly +6 advantage, equivalent to being ahead by more than a full Rook. Instead, I played ...Qe7 and watched in horror as my opponent took the free Bishop on d4. The engine evaluation swung by over 10 points in just one move! Objectively, in terms of advantage squandered in one move this has to rank as one of the worst moves of my chess career, or at least one of my worst moves since I became an Expert in May 1995.

Two weeks after the Kings Island disaster, I played in the November 25, 2023 Dublin (Columbus) G/60 tournament, scoring 2.5/4 and losing 12 rating points to drop to 1977. I scored 2.5/3 to set up a last round board one game versus top seeded Nicholas Bize, who defeated me to finish 4/4 and not only claim clear first but also win the bonus prize for a perfect score. Bize attained the Expert title at Kings Island, and he is well on his way to breaking the 2100 barrier during his expedited journey to the National Master title.

It is rare that I have two awful performances in close proximity to each other, but in the November 26, 2023 East Market Swiss I lost my first two games, hanging my Queen in each one. I won my next two games to finish 2/4, but I lost 34 rating points to drop to 1943, my lowest rating since September 2021. In September-November 2021, I responded by gaining 18 points, 52 points, 23 points, and 12 points in my next four tournaments.

This time, I responded by gaining a total of 25 points in my next three tournaments. I scored 2/3 in the December 2, 2023 Dublin (Columbus) G/60 tournament to tie for second-fourth place, but because all three of my opponents were rated below 1900 I lost three points despite having a positive score. I then scored 3/4 in the December 3, 2023 East Market Swiss to tie for second-third place, gaining 27 points to push my rating up to 1967. In my final tournament of 2023, I scored 3/4 in the December 17, 2023 East Market Swiss, tying for second-third place and gaining one point to lift my rating up to 1968.

Overall, I had some great chess results in 2023. I won 93 rated games, setting a personal calendar year record. I also set a personal calendar year record for rated games played, 155, surpassing my previous mark of 151 (set in 2011 and matched in 2013). My winning percentage of .684 was my sixth best ever. My peak rating was 2038. I finished first or tied for first in nine regular or dual rated events--and I also tied for first in the July 20, 2023 Cincinnati Chess Club G/24 Swiss. My record for first place finishes in regular or dual rated events in a calendar year is 12 (2019); I also had nine first place finishes in 2005, eight in 1996 and 2009, and seven in four different years (1997, 1998, 2013, 2018). I have finished first in 149 regular or dual rated events overall, which does not approach the unofficial record (more than 1000!) posted by New England FM John Curdo but is nevertheless not too shabby for an Ohio Expert who has not traveled extensively outside of Ohio to play in tournaments.

I finished second in nine regular or dual rated events in 2023, surpassing my previous record (seven, 2008). Thus, I finished first or second in 18 out of my 39 regular or dual rated events in 2023.

However, the reason that my rating currently sits below 2000 instead of above 2100 is that I had awful results in the April 1, 2023 Indianapolis Super Tornado (2/5, lost 36 rating points), the June 10-11, 2023 Cleveland Open (2/5 in the U2100 section, lost 45 rating points), and the November 11-12, 2023 Kings Island Open (2/5 in the U2100 section, lost 43 rating points). The rating losses that I suffered in those three events more than wiped out the rating points that I gained during the rest of an otherwise successful year.

The two biggest challenges that I am facing are (1) fighting against my over the board impatience/impulsiveness and (2) battling against a young generation of quickly improving players.

Look at the rating list of the top 100 players in the world, and you will see that most of the players were born in 2000 or after: December 2023 FIDE Rating List. Only four players in the top 50 were born before 1980! The point is that (1) youth matters in chess and (2) it is quite an accomplishment to maintain one's level or even increase one's level after the age of 40.

I embrace this challenge! My role models here are Wilhelm Steinitz and Viktor Korchnoi.

Steinitz reigned as World Champion until he was 61!

Korchnoi played in his first World Championship match at age 47 and then qualified again for the World Championship match at age 50. He was still ranked in the world's top 100 at age 75 and he is the oldest national champion ever (age 80, Switzerland). He played competitively until suffering a stroke at age 81, but even after the stroke he defied the odds and played a few matches before passing away at age 85.

I reached the 2000 rating level for the first time in 1995 when I was 23, and every year since that time my peak rating has been at least 2000; I sometimes fall below 2000, but I always bounce back. I doubt that many non-Masters have maintained a peak rating over 2000 every year for nearly 30 years. I am a consistently strong player for a non-professional, even though I am frustrated that I have not reached a higher peak (yet!) than 2190.

I plan to update my Journey to the National Master title on a quarterly basis in 2024. My 2024 chess goals are:

1) Gain 60 rating points per quarter.

2) Do not lose any games to players rated below 1800.

3) Accumulate more draws than losses.

4) Maintain a winning percentage of at least .750, to break my personal record of .740 set in 2014.

Accomplishing those four goals will be sufficient to obtain the National Master title. Of course, that is much easier said than done, but it is important to articulate clear step by step goals in order to create a process to achieve those goals. Here, the process involves both preparation before each tournament and also some mindset adjustments during tournament play.

I am not afraid to publicly state goals now, and then look back in a year to see how I measured up.

In 2023, I scored 93 wins, 26 draws, and 36 losses in regular rated tournament games with nine first place finishes in 39 events--but seven losses to players rated below 1750 were costly, and as a result my net rating gain for 2023 is minus 44 points, so I need to gain 232 points to reach my goal.

Bobby Knight Did it His Way

Bobby Knight, who passed away yesterday at the age of 83, coached the Indiana Hoosiers to three NCAA basketball championships (1976, 1981, 1987) en route to setting the all-time record with 902 career wins. Knight held that mark for four years (2007-11), and he now ranks sixth on the career wins list behind only Mike Krzyzewski, Jim Boeheim, Bob Huggins, Jim Calhoun, and Roy Williams. Although Knight will be remembered most for his time as Indiana's coach, he also won an NCAA title as a role player for Ohio State's 1960 team led by future Hall of Fame players Jerry Lucas and John Havlicek. Knight coached at West Point after finishing his college playing career and before coaching Indiana.

Knight's 1976 Indiana team went 32-0 and is the last NCAA team to post a perfect record en route to winning the championship. The 1975 Hoosiers went 31-0 before losing to Kentucky in the Elite Eight as Indiana's star Scott May scored just two points while playing with a broken arm after scoring 25 points during Indiana's 98-74 regular season win versus Kentucky. Knight later insisted that his 1975 team was even better than the 1976 championship team. Knight won his second NCAA title with sophomore Isiah Thomas leading the way in 1981, and he won his third NCAA title in 1987 after Keith Smart hit a famous baseline shot versus Syracuse. John Wooden (10), Mike Krzyzewski (five), and Adolph Rupp (four) are the only coaches who won more NCAA titles than Knight, who is tied with Roy Williams and Jim Calhoun.

Knight was inducted in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in 1991, even though he previously asked to not be considered after he was offended that he had not been elected in his first year of eligibility, calling that slight a "slap in the face." Knight is the only coach to win an NCAA title (1976, 1981, 1987), an NIT title (1979), an Olympic gold medal (1984), and a Pan-American Games gold medal (1979).

Knight won without cheating, and he emphasized the importance of academics. He reportedly said that the fun part of coaching is not cheating to get top recruits but beating the schools that cheated to get top recruits. The great success of Knight's teams is even more remarkable considering that just one of Knight's players became an NBA All-Star: Isiah Thomas. 

Wooden and Knight are fascinating character studies: Wooden's demeanor was much more gracious than Knight's, but the irascible Knight ran a clean program while Wooden's program will forever have the shadow of crooked booster Sam Gilbert hovering over it. Great men--or men who accomplish great things--also often have great flaws.

ESPN's multi-part, 20 hour documentary "Basketball: A Love Story" prominently featured Knight, including his success coaching Team USA to the 1984 Olympic gold medal. Knight was a master basketball tactician whose teams played stifling man to man defense and ran a precision offense featuring crisp ball movement. Knight and Dick Schaap co-wrote a 1998 article detailing Knight's ideas about how to reform college basketball; the basketball wisdom that Knight displayed 25 years ago is still relevant today, as he criticized the proliferation of unstructured summer leagues, the malign influence of the sneaker companies, and the overuse of the three point shot.

One of Knight's assistant coaches for the 1984 Olympics was Don Donoher, who coached at the University of Dayton from 1964-1989. Donoher led UD to the 1967 NCAA Championship game, the 1968 NIT title, and the 1984 NCAA Elite Eight. Knight was outraged after UD fired Donoher in 1989, declaring to Ritter Collett (a Dayton sports columnist), "When I was named coach of the U.S. Olympic team, nobody could have wanted to represent the United States better than I did. So why did I pick Donoher to help me? Because I couldn't get a better coach. I may not know a lot of things, but I think I know basketball and I know I know more basketball than (Tom) Frericks and Brother (Raymond L.) Fitz. Donoher has maintained a very good Division I basketball program during a period when his salary was probably $25,000 under the average Big Ten coaching salary. Over the years, I've had a lot of people call me and ask me if I thought Don would be interested in another coaching job. When I called him to ask if he was interested, he invariably said, 'No, I don't even want to talk to them.' He was content to stay in Dayton. He has had a love affair with the school and the community. I think that is what burns me the most. Here is a man who had chances to leave, and I'm talking about some major jobs that have come open. He has never gone in to Frericks and said, 'Look, I've got this opportunity and it will pay me such-and-such.' He's never tried to use that to improve his earning power."

In 2007, Knight spoke at the "Celebration of Flyer Basketball" and said, "There's nobody that I've enjoyed more as a friend, respected more as a coach and thought did a better job in coaching in the circumstances that developed throughout his tenure at the University of Dayton."

In 2013, I reviewed Knight's book The Power of Negative Thinking:

Knight explains that there is "a large helping of my version of humor in the title chosen for this book" and adds, "I am not arguing for being a strict negativist, for walking around with a sour look, for always seeing the dark side, always expecting failure. That's not my intent at all. Quite the opposite."

Knight's thesis is that instead of blindly believing/hoping that an endeavor is going to be successful, "being alert to the possible negatives in any situation is the best way to bring about positive results." Knight believes "Planning beats repairing" because "There are so many unintended consequences in any important action that we need to at least consider, like the best chess player, how our next move could produce an unexpected chain reaction down the line."

Knight observes, "most basketball games are not won, they are lost," so therefore Knight constantly reminded his players, "Victory favors the team making the fewest mistakes." Considering his confrontational reputation, it is not surprising that Knight also put a twist on a famous advertising slogan when he declared to his teams, "This ain't Burger King. We'll do it my way."

"Negative thinking" in Knight's parlance is analogous to what the great chess player/theoretician/writer Aron Nimzovich called "prophylaxis," which in chess means overprotecting a strategically important square, thus ensuring the overall safety of the position and also providing for smooth, harmonious deployment of one's forces.

Of course, there was another, much less savory side to Knight: he was a bully whose inability to control his temper cost him his job at Indiana. Knight infamously threw a chair onto the court during a game, choked one of his players, and committed battery versus a variety of people, including a Puerto Rican police officer. The final act of Knight's legendary coaching career happened at Texas Tech, where he landed in 2001 after being fired by Indiana in 2000. After Knight set the NCAA record for career wins, he retired in midseason, thus practically forcing Texas Tech to hire his son Pat as head coach. Texas Tech went 4-7 down the stretch of the 2007-08 season, and Pat Knight lasted lasted just three more seasons before being fired after posting a 50-61 record. During a televised interview, Knight lashed out at Dick Schaap's son Jeremy--declaring that Jeremy had a long way to go to be as good as his father--and Dick Schaap rightly fired back at Knight that Knight would have been "outraged if someone had used him similarly to criticize his son Patrick, his assistant coach."

Knight had no filter. Dan Patrick asked Knight what he thought about the Indiana University officials who fired him. Knight replied, "I hope they're all dead." Patrick then noted that some of them had in fact died, and Knight said, "Well, I hope the rest of them go." 

The paradox with Knight is that he taught his players to be disciplined yet he often lacked discipline in both his deeds and his words. "Complicated" may be the adjective most frequently used to describe his legacy, because there is no denying that he was a great coach who did not cheat and there is also no denying that he often treated people very shabbily. ESPN's Jay Bilas summarized his take on Knight: "He was OK with reasonable disagreement, as implausible as that seems to those who didn't know him. But when he believed he was right, even when he wasn't, there was no talking him out of it." Knight's intelligence combined with his stubbornness in a way that was both a great strength and a great weakness.

If you are familiar with some of Knight's most memorable quotes, then you know that there is only one way this obituary can end, namely with the last wishes he expressed in a 1994 speech: "When my time on Earth is gone and my activities here are past, I want they bury me upside down and my critics can kiss my ass."

Dick Butkus: Quintessential Bear, Quintessential Linebacker

The Chicago Bears and the Arizona Cardinals are the only two original NFL franchises that still exist. The Bears were dubbed "Monsters of the Midway" during their glory years in the 1940s when they won four NFL titles (1940, 1941, 1943, 1946) in a seven year span, but no player embodied that "Monsters" ethos more than Dick Butkus, who passed away in his sleep yesterday at the age of 80. 

Chicago native Butkus led the University of Illinois to a 17-7 Rose Bowl win versus Washington in 1964 before being drafted by his hometown Bears as the third overall selection in the 1965 NFL Draft, one pick ahead of fellow future Hall of Famer Gale Sayers. The legendary George Halas--who at various times played for, coached, and owned the Bears--was the team's coach and owner at that time, and he remained the coach through 1967. Butkus made the Pro Bowl in eight of his nine NFL seasons, missing out only in his last, injury-riddled campaign during which he played in just nine of 14 games. Butkus injured his right knee in high school, but he battled through the pain and limitations caused by that injury until he had nothing left and retired from the NFL at the age of 30; prior to his final season he played in 110 of a possible 112 games. Butkus was selected First Team All-Pro five times (1965, 1968-70, 1972). He finished his career with 22 interceptions, 27 fumble recoveries, one touchdown scored, one safety and two extra points; the last number requires some explanation: before the NFL added a two point conversion rule in 1994, if a team passed or ran the ball into the endzone on an extra point attempt that counted as one point. On November 14, 1971, the Bears beat the Washington Redskins 16-15, with Butkus providing the winning margin by catching a Bobby Douglass pass in the endzone after the Bears botched the snap on an extra point attempt and were forced to go into scramble mode. You can see a video of the wild play here. In 1972, Butkus caught another extra point pass. 

The numbers do not tell the full story of Butkus' impact--literally and figuratively. He was renowned--and feared--as perhaps the hardest hitting NFL player, and he took pride in the fact that after he hit someone the player did not have to try to figure out who made the play: a Dick Butkus tackle felt like no other. Although Butkus was a fierce player, he also took pride in playing within the rules, and when some Detroit players accused him of being a dirty player Butkus deeply resented the accusation, declaring, "No one but those jerks has ever called me a dirty player. I play as hard as I can. I try to hit as hard as I can. To me that’s what the game is all about."

Butkus never played for an NFL champion or even for a playoff team. The lack of playoff success by a Chicago team that featured Butkus on defense and Sayers on offense is a stark reminder that football is perhaps the ultimate team sport: in basketball one dominant player can carry a team, and in baseball a dominant pitcher can have a tremendous impact, but in football even an elite player needs a lot of help in order to enjoy team success. Jim Brown is arguably the greatest football player of all-time, and his Cleveland teams posted a 1-2 record in the NFL Championship Game during his fabulous nine year NFL career.

Despite the lack of postseason success, in his nine NFL seasons--all spent with the Bears--Butkus earned recognition as the prototypical linebacker. NFL Films President Steve Sabol called Butkus the greatest defensive player of all-time, describing him as "A force of unmanageable proportions, he was Moby Dick in a goldfish bowl. His career as the middle linebacker for the Chicago Bears stands as the most sustained work of devastation ever committed on a football field by anyone, anywhere, anytime...No one played harder or better than Dick Butkus."

Butkus was selected to the NFL's All-Decade Teams for both the 1960s and the 1970s, he was inducted in the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1979 (the first year that he was eligible), and he was inducted in the College Football Hall of Fame in 1983. Starting in 1985, the Butkus Award has been presented to the best linebacker in college football; since 2008, the Butkus Award has also been presented to the best NFL linebacker and the best high school linebacker. 

After he retired, Butkus became an actor in TV shows, TV commercials, and movies, and he did some football commentary as well. I suspect that the first time I ever saw Butkus was probably in a Miller Lite commercial during an NFL telecast! I am too young to have seen Butkus play during his career, but I saw a lot of NFL Films footage of him, so I understand why he was so respected and so feared. I cannot find the exact quote, but I remember reading something to the effect that it was not possible to block Butkus head on, so players resorted to chipping him low, which infuriated Butkus because he already had a bad knee. It is remarkable that Butkus played nine seasons at such a high level under those conditions. 

It is disconcerting to see so many people from my parents' generation--people who were in the prime of their lives when I was a child--getting old and passing away. For me, the 1970s and 1980s were a golden age in many different sports, even though I only remember the second half of the 1970s: when I think of great basketball I think first of Julius Erving, Pete Maravich, George Gervin, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird; when I think of great baseball I think first of the Big Red Machine teams, of Reggie Jackson's clutch play with the New York Yankees, and of Eric Davis' early career brilliance; when I think of great football I think first of the dynastic Pittsburgh Steelers (even though as a Cleveland Browns fan I hate them); when I think of great tennis I think first of Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, and John McEnroe; when I think of great boxing I think first of Muhammad Ali. That does not mean that each of the listed players and teams was the greatest of all-time (although a strong case could be made for several of them), but rather just that my deep love of sports was forged by watching and admiring them. That time is long past, but the memories and the historical impact will live forever.

Butkus was from just before that time, but I have great respect for icons like Dick Butkus, Jim Brown, and Sandy Koufax who made such indelible impacts on the sports world despite having relatively brief careers. Today, the sports world generates more money than ever, and new technologies make it possible to watch more games in more ways than ever, yet it feels like something is missing.

Rest in peace, Dick Butkus, and enjoy your reunion with George Halas and the other legends from the past.

Journey to the National Master Title, Part 7

In the August 19, 2023 Dublin (Columbus, Ohio) Summer Open, I scored 3/4, but finished out of the money as three players tied for first place with 3.5/4. I drew with two of the first place finishers: National Master Charles Diebert (the top seeded player, with a pre-tournament rating of 2217), and Evan Fan, one of the top rated players in the country under the age of 10 (1794). I gained five rating points to push my rating up to 1991.

I scored 3.5/5 (three wins, one draw, and one loss) in the U2100 section of the August 26-27, 2023 Indianapolis Open, finishing tied for fourth through eighth but losing three rating points. The difference between gaining points and losing points in this tournament--and the difference between potentially winning the U2100 section versus settling for a lesser prize--was how I handled being up an Exchange by move 12 as Black in the second round. Here is the position after my opponent played 13. Kxf1 (taking my Bishop after I had just captured his Rook) and then I replied ...Nd5, strongly centralizing my Knight:

 Here is the position just 11 moves later:

What happened to my extra Exchange, and what happened to my Queen? The moves between the two diagrams were 14. Rb1 Nb4 Objectively this is fine, but there is no reason to seek complications when you are up an Exchange: 14...Nxc3 15. dxc3 d5 is a simple and direct way to play. 15. Qd1 Qa5 16. Ne5 d6 17. Nc4 Qa6 18. Kg1 d5 19. Nxa3 Bxc3 20. dxc3 Nxa2 21. Bb2 Qxa3?? I thought that I was simplifying to a position in which my two Rooks would be better than my opponent's Queen but--needless to say--I miscalculated. I should have played 21...Qa5 22. Qe1 Nb4 This is the idea that I missed during the game: if my opponent takes my Knight with his Pawn then his Knight is trapped after I take back with my Pawn. 

The game continued: 22. Bxa3 Nxc3 23. Qe1 Nxb1 24. Bxc5. I underestimated my opponent's 24th move; I would be winning if he had taken my Knight and I had then taken his Bishop, but this intermezzo puts him on top. He soon gave me one chance to equalize, but I missed the opportunity to fully activate my Rooks and then it was downhill from there, as his Queen and Bishop proved to be too powerful.

After the first three rounds of the Indianapolis Open, I played in the Indianapolis Open Saturday Night Blitz, scoring 5/8. I finished tied for seventh through tenth out of 32 players. I lost my mini match with National Master Joseph Cheng-Yue Wan 2-0, and he went on to tie for first place with FIDE Master Arvind Jayaraman at 7/8 each. My USCF blitz rating remained unchanged (1816).

I scored 2/5 in the Open section of the September 2-3, 2023 Ohio Chess Congress, finishing out of the money but gaining 21 rating points to push my rating back over 2000 (2009). I drew with two National Masters: Justin Storn--who is the new Ohio Chess Champion (he finished tied for second overall behind Grandmaster Alex Fishbein, who is not an Ohio resident)--and two-time Ohio Chess Champion (2005, 2013) William Wright. I have drawn with and defeated many Ohio Chess Champions in rated tournament games, but I have not won the Ohio Chess Championship, though I contend that John Lodger Hughes and I should be recognized as co-Ohio Chess Champions for 2010; we were the highest scoring Ohio residents in that year's Ohio Chess Congress, but the Ohio Chess Champion title was inexplicably granted to the overall first place finisher despite there being no information proving that he was an Ohio resident (that player, IM Siddharth Ravichandran, is a resident of Chennai, India and the 2010 Ohio Chess Congress is the only tournament he ever played in Ohio).

After the first three rounds of the Ohio Chess Congress, I played in the Ohio Chess Congress Saturday Night Blitz, scoring 5/8. I started out 5/6, and so I played National Master Jesse Ren on board one in the last round. Ren beat me 2-0 in our mini match, just like he beat me 2-0 in our mini match in the June 10, 2023 Cleveland Open Saturday Night Blitz. I gained 14 rating points, pushing my USCF blitz rating to 1830.

I scored 2/3 in the top section of the September 9, 2023 Dublin (Columbus, Ohio) G/60 tournament, tying for second through fourth place. I gained four rating points to improve to 2013. Two weeks later, I scored 3.5/4 in the September 23, 2023 Columbus G/45 tournament, gaining 22 rating points to lift my rating to 2035. In round three, I defeated the number one seeded player, National Master Charles Diebert, who has been one of Ohio's top players for well over 30 years. Despite my great result, I did not win a prize, as two players in the 55 player field finished with 4/4.

The Ohio Senior Open tournament is one my favorite annual events, as it provides a great opportunity to catch up with--and compete against--players who I have known for more than three decades. Organizer/chief tournament director Grant Neilley does a wonderful job, and I would encourage anyone who is eligible to participate in next year's event, which is scheduled for the weekend of September 28, 2024. One of the highlights this year was a contest for the most interesting or unusual chess set. Charles Diebert won in the non-Staunton set category with this beautiful set that his mother gave to him over 40 years ago; a friend of hers handcrafted it from ceramic materials:

Peter Galupo won in the Staunton set category:

I scored 3.5/5 in the September 30-October 1, 2023 Ohio Senior Open, losing four rating points to drop to 2031. I tied for fourth-fifth overall, and received the trophy for first place in the 50-59 age group. John Bath won the tournament on tiebreaks over Alan Casden (who defeated me in round three) and Mike Sheaf. Those three players each scored 4/5. This is the third consecutive year that I have participated in this event, which is open to anyone who is at least 50 years old (or who turns 50 before December 31 in the year that the tournament is held); each time, I have scored 3.5/5, and each time my only loss has been to a player who finished first or tied for first. In both 2021 and 2022 I won the third place trophy on tiebreaks. I was the fifth seeded player out of 22 Open section participants this year, I was the fourth seeded player out of 24 Open section participants in 2022, and I was the ninth seeded player out of 31 Open section participants in 2021. In other words, I have finished higher than my seeding each year; I like to think of this being equivalent to a race car driver who consistently finishes higher than his qualifying position, because I have "passed" players en route to winning a prize in each of these three tournaments. 

In the past 12 months, I have scored 50% against National Masters in regular rated tournament games (one win, four draws, one loss). I drew my game in the Ohio Chess Congress versus the eventual champion, National Master Justin Storn (and I also drew a quick rated game versus Storn in the July 20, 2023 Cincinnati Chess Club G/24 Swiss as he and I shared first place with 3.5/4). I have often demonstrated that I can play National Master level chess. Why have I yet to break the 2200 rating barrier, and why is my current rating below 2100? My journey to National Master has been slowed down by two issues: 

1) My unfortunate proclivity to squander winning positions, most recently demonstrated in the above example from the second round of the Indianapolis Open. This year alone I have cost myself at least 100 rating points by losing objectively winning games to lower rated opponents.

2) Many young players are significantly underrated, in part because during the early days of COVID over the board play paused while online play increased, which created a large group of young players whose over the board ratings lag far behind their actual playing strength. FIDE, the governing body of international chess, plans to address this issue by providing a one-time rating increase to the 85% of chess players whose FIDE ratings are below 2000; this increase is scheduled to take place in January 2024, subject to final approval by the FIDE Council in October 2023. 

What can I do to address these two issues? Regarding the first issue, I must be more aware of my opponent's threats, particularly in positions that seem to be easy wins (there are no easy wins!). I remember what Senior Master Boris Men once told me about how to win from a winning position--"You must play against your opponent's play"--but I must apply that wisdom in practice as opposed to just understanding it in theory. There is not much that I can do about the second issue, though perhaps it is worth considering playing in tournaments in which I am less likely to play against underrated young players.

In 2023, I have scored 68 wins, 17 draws, and 22 losses in regular rated tournament games with eight first place finishes in 27 events--but five losses to players rated below 1750 were costly, and as a result my net rating gain for 2023 is 19 points, so I need to gain 169 points to reach my goal. 

Vladimir Kramnik Loses His Mind After Losing an Online Blitz Game to Hans Niemann

Grandmaster Hans Niemann can now play at Chess.com again after settling his lawsuit against Chess.com and former World Champion Magnus Carlsen, with both Chess.com and Carlsen publicly acknowledging that there is no evidence that Niemann cheated in over the board games in general and specifically in the Sinquefield Cup game when Niemann defeated Carlsen. Niemann returned to Chess.com in style, beating former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik in a blitz game. Instead of taking the loss like a man, Kramnik accepted a rematch, but replied to Niemann's e4 with ...f6, and then answered d4 with ...g5, allowing Fool's Mate. Kramnik was trolling Niemann, who resigned rather than playing Qh5 mate. Niemann responded to Kramnik's disgraceful display by simply saying that he has much respect for Kramnik and does not understand why Kramnik did this. Niemann apparently felt that he took the high road by resigning, but if I had been in his shoes I would have checkmated Kramnik and trolled back by saying something like, "I beat this guy so thoroughly last game that he forgot how to play chess and fell into the Fool's Mate." If Kramnik wanted to lose like a fool, Niemann should have fulfilled his wish.

Kramnik behaved like a petulant child--just like Carlsen did after losing to Niemann--because Kramnik is too arrogant and insecure to admit that Niemann outplayed him. Rather than losing with dignity and grace, Kramnik--echoing Carlsen's shameful behavior when Carlsen resigned against Niemann after one move rather than play against him in the online $150,000 Generation Cup tournament--chose to make a mockery of the rematch game, likely assuming that people will pay more attention and credence to the implication that Niemann is a cheater than to the fact that Niemann outclassed Kramnik in the prior game. 

If you have followed Kramnik's career, then you know that he has never lost a post-mortem analysis session; his post-game press conference performance after drawing with future World Champion Ding Liren is legendary--and not in a good way, because Kramnik comes across as either incredibly delusional or insufferably arrogant. If you don't watch the whole video, at least check out around the one minute mark when Kramnik is running his big mouth about how he is winning before Ding quietly but confidently refutes Kramnik's moves. Kramnik still insists that he is better, but Ding just chuckles and says, "I don't think so."

In short, Kramnik has always been a sore loser (or "drawer" in the game with Ding Liren), so his behavior after Niemann beat him is par for the course. What first Carlsen and now Kramnik are making abundantly clear is that the tight circle of elite Grandmasters who are invited to big money tournaments to play against each other do not want an interloper joining their club. They don't like Niemann, they don't respect Niemann, and they don't want him to ever be included. It is not clear if Niemann will ever become a top 10 player--his peak to this point has been 31st in the world rankings earlier this year--but it is very clear that Carlsen and Kramnik are afraid of the mere possibility that Niemann will crack the exclusive private club where a handful of chess players make far more money than even other Grandmasters make.

It is worth emphasizing that there is no evidence that Niemann has ever cheated in over the board competition, nor is there any reason to believe that he cheated in his recent win versus Kramnik--but there is plenty of evidence about who Kramnik is and how he will be remembered by knowledgeable, objective observers.

History will not remember Kramnik as a great World Champion or as one of the 10 greatest players of all-time; yes, he beat Garry Kasparov in the 2000 World Championship match, but by that time Kasparov had already reigned as the World Champion for 15 years. Kramnik's reign lasted just over half as long as Kasparov's. Kramnik spent eight years as World Champion before losing the title to Viswanathan Anand, who Kasparov defeated 10.5-7.5 in the 1995 World Championship match. 

When Kasparov retired from top level chess in 2005, he remained the highest rated player in the world, and he had received the Chess Oscar--the chess world's Player of the Year award--a record 11 times, including in both 2001 and 2002 when Kramnik was the World Champion. Anatoly Karpov is second with nine Chess Oscars, while Kramnik received the award just twice. 

Shamefully, Kramnik did everything in his power to avoid a World Chess Championship rematch with Kasparov, knowing full well that Kasparov had an excellent chance of retaking the crown. An exasperated Kasparov criticized Kramnik's refusal to arrange a rematch:

I believe it is the duty of the world champion to defend his title against the most dangerous opponent. When I beat Karpov in 1985 I was forced to defend my title against him within eight months. The organizers and the public believed that Kramnik was the most dangerous opponent, so I had to play him--I had no choice. Kramnik knows this and now he is champion he must prove to the world he is "real" by facing his most dangerous opponent--me.

In the last six months I have proved I am still the world number one and I beat Kramnik recently. But now Kramnik, who was not made to win a qualifier to play me, implies that I must qualify to play him. I don't want to diminish the importance of his victory. He deserved to win. But it is Kramnik's turn to prove Kasparov didn't go mad in London. The public need another match to prove Kramnik is the real thing.

Kasparov and Kramnik played 10 tournament games against each other after their 2000 World Championship match, with Kasparov scoring one win and nine draws. Kasparov's victory came on the White side of the Ruy Lopez Berlin Defense, demonstrating that he had figured out how to defeat the main weapon Kramnik used to wrest the title away from Kasparov. 

As noted above, after losing or drawing games Kramnik tends to insist that he was winning all the way until the end, despite the fact that his assertions are often demonstrably false--but if we take Kramnik at his word that he has squandered numerous winning positions then perhaps he is the biggest choker in the history of elite level chess; after all, Kramnik committed one of the most ghastly blunders ever made by an elite player when he fell into a mate in one in the second game of his six game match versus the supercomputer Deep Fritz.

How can chess be promoted as a big-time sport and be taken seriously by the public if top players behave like whining crybabies when they lose, and if top players (and media members) throw around unsubstantiated cheating allegations? Grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura recently whined about being dragged into Niemann's lawsuit, but Nakamura was not dragged into anything: he opened his mouth to spew unsubstantiated cheating allegations against Niemann and as a direct result of that Niemann sued him. "Start no stuff and there will be no stuff" would be a good mantra for Nakamura to live by in the future. Further, if Nakamura is truly interested in promoting chess as opposed to just generating more clicks and obtaining more viewers, then he should think twice about making unsubstantiated accusations that cast aspersions on the sport. There is a reason that the NBA fines owners, coaches, and players who make negative statements about officiating: such statements are bad for the league.

Nakamura is more of a chess streamer than a full-time player at this point, so he may figure that anything that creates content is good for his business model in the long run. Kramnik has retired from top level play for the most part, but he often speaks about promoting the game, as does Carlsen--but Carlsen and Kramnik seem much more interested in promoting themselves and their brands than in promoting the game. For instance, Carlsen's refusal to defend his World Championship title is bad for chess: why should anyone outside of the chess community take the World Championship seriously if the World Champion does not take it seriously? Note that Carlsen has not retired from chess; he is very busy playing in a host of big money tournaments--usually invitation-only--which is not only lucrative for him but also keeps his name in public view, which helps him promote his businesses and corporate sponsorships that are providing the bulk of his income now.

There is good reason to believe that the ratings of the top chess players are inflated now because they have essentially created a separate rating pool amongst themselves (and the ratings of other chess players are likely deflated, but that is a topic for another day). Instead of whining about losing games to Niemann, it would be great to see Carlsen--and other elite players--participate more often in open tournaments so that they put their money--and their rating points--where their big mouths are.

Magnus Carlsen and Chess.com Reached a Settlement Agreement With Hans Niemann

Magnus Carlsen and Chess.com have reached a settlement agreement resolving Hans Niemann's claims against them, thus avoiding further litigation. On June 27, 2023, Judge Audrey Fleissig of the Eastern District of Missouri dismissed with prejudice the antitrust claims in Niemann's federal district court lawsuit against Carlsen, Chess.com, and Hikaru Nakamura--meaning that Niemann can never file that same claim against the same parties based on the same set of alleged facts--but Niemann retained the right to file his defamation claims at the state court level, and he had made clear his intention to do so. 

After Niemann beat Carlsen over the board in the prestigious Sinquefield Cup tournament last year, Carlsen--despite zero credible evidence that Niemann cheated against him in that Sinquefield Cup game--not only withdrew from the Sinquefield Cup but he later resigned after one move versus Niemann in a major tournament with a $150,000 prize fund, thereby skewing the pairings for all of the tournament's participants; as I wrote at that time, "By throwing a game to Niemann without a fight and then competing hard against all of the other players, Carlsen has placed every player other than Niemann at a disadvantage. In short, there is no proof that Niemann cheated against Carlsen, but there is proof that Carlsen threw a game. As Grandmaster Jon Ludvig Hammer--a fellow Norwegian Grandmaster who has served as Carlsen's second--declared, 'It's completely unacceptable behaviour to lose on purpose. It's the most unsportsmanlike [act] you can do in a competitive sport.'"

Each party issued a statement regarding the settlement:

Chess.com: "We are pleased to report that we have reached an agreement with Hans Niemann to put our differences behind us and move forward together without further litigation. At this time, Hans has been fully reinstated to Chess.com, and we look forward to his participation in our events. We would also like to reaffirm that we stand by the findings in our October 2022 public report regarding Hans, including that we found no determinative evidence that he has cheated in any in-person games. We all love chess and appreciate all of the passionate fans and community members who allow us to do what we do."

Magnus Carlsen: "I acknowledge and understand Chess.com's report, including its statement that there is no determinative evidence that Niemann cheated in his game against me at the Sinquefield Cup. I am willing to play Niemann in future events, should we be paired together."

Hans Niemann: "I am pleased that my lawsuit against Magnus Carlsen and Chess.com has been resolved in a mutually acceptable manner, and that I am returning to Chess.com. I look forward to competing against Magnus in chess rather than in court and am grateful to my attorneys at Oved & Oved for believing in me and helping me resolve the case."

It is not clear if Chess.com or Carlsen paid any money to Niemann as part of this settlement. The key elements of this settlement are (1) the public acknowledgment by both Chess.com and Carlsen that there is no evidence that Niemann cheated in any in-person games, (2) Carlsen stating that he will play against Niemann in future events, and (3) Chess.com fully reinstating Niemann. In short, this is a win for Niemann regarding his assertion that he has not cheated in over the board play, regarding his attempt to be reinstated at Chess.com, and regarding his participation in over the board events without concern that Carlsen would refuse to play against him or refuse to play in the same events with him.

It is worth emphasizing that Niemann's 2699 performance rating in the 2022 U.S. Championship--his debut appearance in that event, taking place under intense scrutiny in the wake of the anti-Niemann actions and statements by Carlsen, Chess.com, Nakamura, and others--matched his pre-tournament rating of 2699. A 2700 FIDE rating is considered the benchmark for elite status, so Niemann demonstrated--in an event with strict anti-cheating measures--that he can play at or near elite level in a major tournament against top Grandmasters. Niemann is relatively young and he is known for being a hard-working chess player, so it is reasonable to assume that he could push his rating well above 2700 (he achieved his peak rating of 2708 in May 2023).

There is a regrettable and growing trend to deny the meaning and value of objective truth/objective standards, and to base decisions on feelings as opposed to evidence, which has created what is often referred to as "cancel culture": a person or organization can be "canceled" because of how people feel about that person or organization regardless of whether there is any evidence that the accused person or organization violated any laws or committed any misconduct. That is what Chess.com and Carlsen attempted to do to Niemann: cancel him because of how they feel about him, regardless of what the evidence shows. It should be added that this type of flawed thinking regarding the meaning and value of objective truth/objective standards has also led to the popularization of the idea that people should be rewarded with scholarships and jobs based not on the objective merits of each applicant but on subjective determinations of equity and entitlement; discussion of that idea is beyond the scope of this article, but the implications of reorganizing society based on subjective feelings are significant: do you want your fate in the hands of the best qualified person to make a medical diagnosis, to decide a court case, or to fly a plane, or do you want your fate in the hands of a person who has subjectively been deemed worthy of receiving an unearned benefit in the name of equity/entitlement? America is founded on principles of equality, while Orwell's Animal Farm depicts what happens when a society is founded on the principle that everyone is equal but some people are more equal than others; when merit and objectivity are replaced with feelings and subjectivity, chaos ensues.

Here, the reality is that both Carlsen and Chess.com acted improperly because they defamed Niemann without evidence supporting their assertions, and because their actions harmed Niemann's status as a professional chess player. I am not a Niemann fan and I condemn his admitted online cheating, but unless or until past online cheating is considered disqualifying for over the board play one's online conduct and one's over the board conduct are separate issues. Further, Chess.com had already dealt with Niemann's prior online cheating, so the principle of res judicata (that which has been litigated before cannot be litigated again) should have applied in the sense that Niemann should not be punished twice for the same offense; he was punished for his proven online cheating, so it was wrong for Chess.com to ban Niemann after Carlsen's petulant behavior and unfounded accusations/insinuations.

Journey to the National Master Title, Part 6

In the June 10-11, 2023 Cleveland Open, I scored 2/5 in the U2100 section, losing 41 rating points--my worst single tournament rating loss since I dropped 45 rating points in the U2100 section of the 2018 Cleveland Open (I also lost 40 rating points in the U2100 section of the 2022 Chicago Open). It is odd that my two worst rating performances in recent memory both happened in the Cleveland Open, because overall I have done quite well in that event, winning a prize in four of my first six appearances there before these last two duds (I did not play in the event from 2019-2022). 

After the first three rounds of the Cleveland Open, I played in the Cleveland Open Saturday Night Blitz, scoring 5/8; I beat number one seed Wilson Spaqi (rated 2340) 2-0 in our mini match, and the only mini match that I lost was to National Master Jesse Ren, who won the event with an 8/8 score. I finished out of the money, but I added 16 points to my USCF blitz rating. Although blitz chess and regular rated chess are two different types of events--the former is like running a sprint, while the latter is like running a marathon--my ability to sandwich two wins against a strong National Master around tournament losses to players who each have ratings more than 200 points lower than my rating epitomizes the contrasting joys and frustrations of being a chess player: I know what it looks and feels like when my talent and preparation mesh, and I know what it looks and feels like when my talent and preparation do not produce the results that I expect.

There have been a few large rating losses in my career that were perhaps predictable/preventable in the sense that--because of factors unrelated to chess--I should have known that I would likely be in less than optimal form. However, my two worst tournaments of 2023--the Cleveland Open, and the April 1, 2023 Indianapolis Super Tornado, where I lost 36 rating points--were not predictable/preventable; I felt good mentally and physically before both tournaments, I prepared well, and overall this year I have played well: my winning percentage (.728) is the second best for any year in my chess career, and I have finished first in eight out of 21 events.

It is frustrating to have a bad result--particularly after putting so much work into chess for so long--but I understand a bad result to be a reminder that are always more things to learn, not only about chess from a technical standpoint but also about the psychology of chess (including overconfidence, relying too much on instinct and not enough on calculation, and so forth). I know some players who withdraw from a tournament if they lose their first game, but it is unusual for me to withdraw from a tournament; I prefer to fight until the end, which sometimes has resulted in me salvaging a tournament that started poorly and other times has resulted in me digging a deeper hole. In general, I agree with something that Grandmaster Alex Goldin told me over 20 years ago regarding why he does not believe in withdrawing from a tournament unless you are ill or there is some other kind of emergency: the best way to learn how to play better chess is to keep playing chess! Every game contains a potential lesson, and is a stepping stone for improvement, so withdrawing from a tournament just slows down the growth process. On the rare occasions when I withdrew from a tournament I did so because I felt that I was too upset or fatigued by previous losses to keep fighting any more, and that I needed to cut my losses and regroup for my next tournament.

One consistent pattern in my chess career is that I tend to bounce back strongly after a bad performance. After my disastrous Indianapolis Super Tornado, I won a prize in each of my next seven tournaments prior to my poor performance in the Cleveland Open. In my first tournament after the Cleveland Open, I scored 2/3 in the Dublin (Columbus, Ohio) G/60 Swiss, tying for second place while gaining eight rating points. In the last round, I beat Nicholas Bize, a talented young player who defeated me in the first round of the Cleveland Open. The Dublin G/60 Swiss had 56 participants in seven sections consisting of eight players each; I was the fourth seeded player in the top section--with each of the top three players outrating me by at least 100 points--so a second place tie was a good result, but the best part of the day was sharing the experience with my daughter Rachel, who participated in her third regular rated tournament. Rachel was the lowest rated player in the sixth section, so she had a good learning experience while losing all three of her games.

Rachel and I had a great time at the 6/24/23 Dublin G/60 Swiss

On June 29, Rachel and I played in the Cincinnati Chess Club's G/24 Swiss. That event only affected our USCF quick ratings, but any chess played is part of the journey to National Master even if it does not impact my regular rating. I scored 3/4 to finish in clear second place, losing only to Russell Velasquez, who took clear first with 4/4. Rachel lost all four of her games, but she had a great time, and she even played casual chess games before and after the tournament.

A free candy bar is just one reason to smile at the 6/29/23 Cincinnati Chess Club G/24 Swiss 

Rachel and I played in the "Chess for Change!" tournament at the Delaware Main Library on July 15. I scored 3/4 in the Open section and lost one rating point. I finished tied for third place, but out of the money as only the first two places received prizes. Rachel lost all four of her games in the U1200 section.

Below the 2400 level, many if not most games are decided by tactical oversights; that is how I lost in the third round versus Expert Ben Al-Shami (2112), and that is how I won in the fourth round versus Sanjay Medicherla (1610).

In the above position versus Al-Shami, Rxf8+ wins routinely. After Black recaptures, White plays Kf2, and if Black takes on b3 then Ke3 blockades Black's passed pawns so ...Bxa4 fails to Rc4 while any other sensible move enables White to play a5; since Black's King is cut off by White's Rook, Black will be forced to give up his Bishop for the a Pawn. However, I "improved" on this line by playing Kf2 first to gain a tempo--but, of course, that gives Black the opportunity to save his Queen by playing ...Be8. If I had beaten Al-Shami I would have clinched at least a tie for second place, and I would have played top seeded National Master Lokesh Palani on board one with an opportunity to win or share first place.

In the fourth and final round, I won a back and forth game that was also decided by a tactical oversight. In the position below (shown from Black's perspective) after my opponent blundered with Rb5??, I played ...Rd8+, forcing his King to abandon his Bishop. I soon collected the c Pawn, placed my Rook behind the passed a Pawn, and prepared to advance my passed d Pawn. My opponent then resigned with just one second left on his clock and a hopeless position on the board.

The Delaware (OH) Main Library Hosted the 7/15/23 "Chess for Change!" tournament                                     

On July 20, Rachel and I played in the Cincinnati Chess Club's G/24 Swiss. I scored 3.5/4 to share first place with top seeded National Master Justin Storn, who I drew in an exciting last round game that featured mutual time pressure blunders before my opponent forced a perpetual check. I was the third seeded player, and I beat the second seeded player (Ram Dake, who earned the National Master title in the early 1990s) in the third round. Rachel lost all four of her games, but she had a full night of chess: she played a practice game against me on site before the first round, and she challenged Ram Dake to a game after the fourth round ended!

Rachel and I had a great time at the the 7/20/23 Cincinnati Chess Club G/24 Swiss

In 2023, I have scored 54 wins, 10 draws, and 17 losses in regular rated tournament games with eight first place finishes in 21 events--but five losses to players rated below 1750 were costly, and as a result my net rating gain for 2023 is minus 26 points, so I need to gain 214 points to reach my goal. 

Djokovic Breaks Nadal's Grand Slam Singles Titles Record

In January 2023, Novak Djokovic won the Australian Open for a record 10th time, in the process tying Rafael Nadal's record for most career Grand Slam singles titles (22). Yesterday, Djokovic won his third French Open title, and he now is the sole record-holder for career Grand Slam singles titles. When Roger Federer, who now ranks third on that list, held the record he was almost universally declared to be the greatest tennis player of all-time, so it would be hypocritical for his fans and media supporters to not acknowledge that Djokovic and Nadal have both surpassed Federer in the category that they claimed matters the most. Djokovic has missed two of the past six Grand Slam singles events due to his refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and had he been able to play in those tournaments his lead over Nadal, Federer, and the rest of the pack would likely be even larger.

When Nadal passed Federer on the career Grand Slam singles titles list, Federer's fans and media supporters diminished Nadal's accomplishment by noting that 14 of Nadal's 22 Grand Slam wins are from the French Open. That is an odd critique--to say the least--considering that the French Open is one of the two most prestigious Grand Slams (alongside Wimbledon), not to mention that Nadal's eight "other" Grand Slam titles alone would rank him tied for eighth on the all-time list with (among others) Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, and Andre Agassi. It is also worth noting that Nadal beat Federer head to head in Federer's best Grand Slam event (Wimbledon) but Federer has never defeated Nadal in the French Open, and that Nadal enjoys a 24-16 head to head advantage over Federer, including 10-4 in Grand Slams and 12-7 in ATP Masters Series/ATP Tour Masters 1000.

Djokovic's best Grand Slam event (the Australian Open) is by far the least historically significant of the four Grand Slams, but he also has won seven Wimbledons (tied for second all-time with Pete Sampras and William Renshaw behind Federer's eight), and he is the only player who has won each Grand Slam singles title at least three times. Djokovic leads Federer 27-23 in their head to head matches, including 11-6 in Grand Slams.

Djokovic's Grand Slam winning percentage is .329 (23 titles in 70 events played), while Nadal's is .328 (22/67), and Federer's is .247 (20/81). It requires torturing logic to the breaking point to rank Federer ahead of either Djokovic or Nadal at this point. 

Bjorn Borg should be mentioned in this discussion as well. By the time Borg played his final Grand Slam event in 1981, many knowledgeable observers ranked him as the greatest player of the Open Era, if not of all-time. Borg's simultaneous dominance of the French Open clay and the Wimbledon grass remains unmatched four decades later; for three straight years (1978-80) he won both events, and by the end of his career he held the modern record for titles won at both venues (six French Opens, five Wimbledons). Nadal broke Borg's French Open record, while Sampras, Federer, and Djokovic surpassed his Wimbledon standard (Renshaw won his Wimbledon titles at a time when the reigning champion did not have to play in the main draw), but Borg remains the only player in tennis history to dominate both events at the same time. 

Many of Borg's important records have not been broken, including his Grand Slam winning percentage of .393 (11/28), his match winning percentage against top 10 players (.725), his four straight years with a match winning percentage greater than .900, his 10 consecutive titles won in 1979-80, and his 63 titles won prior to the age of 25. Borg retired at 25, so it is safe to assume that if he had played for even just a few more years he would have not only extended many of the aforementioned records but he would have set some other records that may still be standing.

Unlike Federer, Borg does not have a losing record against any of his main rivals. The only blemish on Borg's resume is that he failed to win the U.S. Open despite reaching the finals four times in 10 tries. Borg reached the U.S. Open finals in back to back years and three times in four years before retiring, so Arthur Ashe is among those who believed that Borg would likely have won a U.S. Open title had he kept playing. Like most of his top ranked contemporaries, Borg routinely skipped the Australian Open, so in essence he won 11 titles in three Grand Slam events while the great players who came after him won their Grand Slam titles in four events.

It is difficult to definitively state that one person is the greatest of all-time in any endeavor, but an objective analysis of tennis history demonstrates (1) there is little basis to put Federer above everyone else and (2) Borg deserves greater appreciation than he receives now. Borg, like many athletes who have been retired for several decades, is facing that battle to avoid being forgotten that William Goldman eloquently described in the classic book that he co-authored with Mike Lupica, Wait Till Next Year. Goldman concluded, "The greatest struggle an athlete undergoes is the battle for our memories. It's gradual. It begins before you're aware it's begun and it ends with a terrible fall from grace. Stripped of medals, sent to Siberia...It really is a battle to the death."

Djokovic is the man of the hour, and he deserves the praise he is receiving, while Nadal and Federer are all-time greats who also deserve praise--but Borg should be remembered and praised as well.

Journey to the National Master Title, Part 5

In the May 14, 2023 East Market Swiss, I scored 3.5/4, finishing tied for first-second while gaining three rating points to lift my rating to 2037. In round two in mutual time pressure, I made a good practical decision to concede a draw to a lower rated player in a balanced position instead of pressing too hard to win and possibly messing up my whole tournament. Unfortunately, that wisdom did not carry over to my next tournament.

In the May 27, 2023 "Emotional Chess" tournament (a Cincinnati Swiss System event run by Robert Chenault), I scored 3/4, finishing tied for second-fifth--but I lost in the first round to Ethan Cao, a rising young player who has gained over 500 rating points since December 2022. Ethan's brother Elton Cao is a former student of mine, and one of at least three players who I have coached who achieved the National Master title that I am still chasing (Noah Keating-Adams and Runya Xu are the two others that I can confirm have achieved the NM title). 

I turned down two draw offers versus Ethan Cao. The first time that Cao offered a draw (see diagram below, after Cao played Rb6+), the position was equal (according to Stockfish) even though Cao enjoyed a slight material advantage of Rook for Bishop plus Pawn. My extra Pawn was on the seventh rank supported by my Bishop, and my opponent was relegated to using his Rook to defend the promotion square because his King was too far away to help. His King could not switch places with his Rook because then I could create a second passed pawn with my 2-1 Kingside majority, and that second passed Pawn would generate enough counterplay to maintain equality.

In the above position, I played ...Kg7 instead of ...Ke7, which would have forced Cao to retreat his rook to the first rank. Why did I decline his draw offer, and why did I then play an imprecise move? After much introspection about this game and about other games versus lower rated players when I made mistakes and lost after declining draw offers, I have concluded that one issue I face is that when a lower rated player offers a draw in an equal or roughly equal position I tend to assume that the lower rated player is so intimidated that he will accept a draw at any time, giving me license to aggressively push for a win because I have "draw in hand." A second issue that I face is that I have such an innate aversion to drawing with lower rated players that I tend to overestimate my chances and play risky "hope chess" rather than either accepting the draw or else playing on in a way that does not involve unnecessary risk.

Here, I was way ahead on the clock, and ...Ke7 would have been a valid way to keep the game going without risking a loss. If Cao had returned his Rook to the first rank the result would have probably been a draw, but I could have kept playing for a few more moves to see if he cracked under time pressure. The flaw with ...Kg7 is that it allows Re6, followed by redeploying the King to e1 to free the Rook to undertake active operations; although White still does not have a forced win, it is not difficult for a player of my level to see the specific move Re6 or to understand in general how strong it is to place a Rook behind a passed Pawn--but this is what I mean by "hope chess": instead of calculating objectively, I hoped to use my King to support the ...g5 push to create another passed Pawn that I hoped would crack my opponent's defenses. Cao provided a reprieve to me by playing Rb1, enabling me to reestablish equality with ...Kh6. We shuffled our pieces around for a few more moves, I declined a second draw offer in an equal position, and I eventually played ...g5 to create a passed pawn. The resulting position was still objectively equal, but then I made the decisive mistake (see diagram below). 

 

I could have held a draw by playing ...Bb5, after which White cannot make any progress (nor can Black).  Instead, I played ...h4, hoping that my h pawn would divert my opponent's King enough to enable my King to reach f2 and win his Rook, but simple calculation demonstrates that this does not work versus correct play; after the Kingside Pawns were exchanged, my opponent forced a winning King and Pawn ending by giving up his Rook for my Bishop and my e Pawn.

I won my next three games, but each of my opponents is rated 1610 or less, so I did not gain many rating points for those three wins, and overall I lost 18 rating points to fall back to 2019. 

"Emotional Chess" was the second rated tournament for my daughter Rachel Sophia, who played in her first rated tournament on March 12, 2023. After scoring one win and three losses in her first tournament, Rachel scored one draw and three losses this time around. Her rating is now 557 after eight games. 

We both had a great time, and we both supported each other throughout the event. I probably need more support than she does, as Rachel remains even keeled no matter what happens. After she lost her first round game, Rachel stood by my board and watched intently as I went down in flames. After the game ended she looked at me and asked, "Are you OK, Daddy?" I assured her that I was fine, but just disappointed about the result. I said, "There are three more games to go, and three wins would still be a good score." We then ate lunch, played catch, and talked a little bit with Li Cao (Elton and Ethan's father).

Rachel drew her second round game. She had a winning position, but she and her opponent became a bit confused after a series of illegal moves, so they decided to agree to a draw. I asked Rachel who offered the draw and if she was satisfied with that outcome. Rachel made it clear that they both wanted a draw, and I have no reason to think that Rachel was conned or pressured into accepting a draw in a superior position. I refrained from making any immediate commentary or criticism, but later in the day I casually mentioned that in the future if she and her opponent are confused about the board situation then she can summon a director to make a ruling instead of just agreeing to a draw. 

Rachel packed a book and some toys to occupy her attention between rounds, but she also seemed to enjoy watching me play, and it was neat to have my own personal fan club. Rachel sometimes leaned on my shoulder during my games, much as she is in the picture below that we took before the tournament started. I asked her afterward what she enjoyed most about the tournament, and she immediately replied, "Chess and food!" We are looking forward to going to more chess tournaments together.

Rachel and I enjoyed the 5/27/23 "Emotional Chess" tournament

In 2023, I have scored 47 wins, 10 draws, and 12 losses in regular rated tournament games with eight first place finishes in 18 events--but five losses to players rated below 1750 were costly, and as a result my net rating gain for 2023 is just seven points, so I need to gain 181 points to reach my goal.

NFL Legend Jim Brown Has Passed Away at the Age of 87

The terms "legend" and "GOAT" (Greatest Of All Time) are overused regarding athletes. A legend is not just a great player; he is a transformative figure. The GOAT--if such a figure exists--possesses a combination of skill set strengths and accomplishments that are unmatched.

Jim Brown, who passed away Thursday night at the age of 87, earned the titles legend and GOAT. As long as football is written about and discussed, he will be a legend and he will be on the short list of GOAT candidates. Brown played nine dominant NFL seasons before retiring to become an actor and a social activist. Brown helped to found the Black Economic Union, and his Amer-I-Can Program operates predominantly in inner city areas, focusing on ending gang activities and helping young people to develop life skills. Brown was an active participant in the Civil Rights movement, and he joined Bill Russell, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and other prominent athletes at the 1967 Ali Summit in Cleveland after Muhammad Ali had been stripped of his heavyweight boxing championship for refusing induction in the U.S. military.

Unlike many self-proclaimed activists whose main activity is promoting themselves, Brown never took part in virtue signaling or empty gestures; he focused on obtaining results through self-improvement and building economic self-reliance within the Black community. He was a strong social justice advocate who also was proud to be an American, as he noted in 2018 when many athletes refused to stand for the National Anthem: "I am not going to denigrate my flag and I'm going to stand for the national anthem. I'm fighting with all of my strength to make it a better country, but I don't think that's the issue. Because what is the top side? Are you not going to stand up? This is our country, man."

Although Brown is best known for his football career and his social activism, he is also a member of the Lacrosse Hall of Fame, and he was such a dominant lacrosse player that the sport changed its rules regarding stick-handling in response to his play. At Syracuse, Brown lettered in football, lacrosse, basketball, and track. He served as both a running back and a placekicker in Syracuse's 1956 regular season finale versus Colgate, setting an NCAA single-game scoring record with 43 points (six touchdowns plus seven extra points). Dick Schaap resigned as a Heisman Trophy voter after Brown did not receive the award in 1956.

The Cleveland Browns selected Brown with the sixth overall pick in the 1957 NFL Draft. The Browns made 10 straight championship game appearances from 1946-55 (four AAFC, six NFL) and won seven championships, but they fell on hard times in 1956 with a 5-7 record after Otto Graham's retirement. Brown had a great rookie season in 1957, leading the NFL with 942 rushing yards in a 12 game season; he also led the league with nine rushing touchdowns as he won the Rookie of the Year award and the AP MVP award. The Browns finished first in the NFL East Division with a 9-2-1 record, but lost 59-14 to the Detroit Lions in the NFL Championship Game. In 1958, Brown earned his second AP MVP award after setting the NFL's single season rushing record with 1527 yards, shattering Steve Van Buren's 1949 record of 1146 yards. Brown led the NFL with 18 touchdowns scored, four more than second place finisher Lenny Moore. 

Brown won the rushing title in each of his first five seasons, and in eight of his nine seasons overall. No other running back has more than four NFL rushing titles. In 1963, Brown set a new single season rushing record (1863 yards) that stood for 10 years and was only surpassed once in a 14 game season. Brown's total now ranks 13th all-time, but the NFL season expanded to 16 games in 1978 and 17 games in 2021, so it is worth noting that his 1963 season ranks second all-time in rushing yards per game (133.1).

The Browns had a winning record in every season of Brown's career, but did not return to the NFL Championship Game until 1964, when they beat the favored Baltimore Colts 27-0. The Browns went 11-3 in 1965 but lost 23-12 to the Green Bay Packers in the NFL Championship Game. After the 1965 season, Brown scored three touchdowns in the 1966 Pro Bowl and won co-MVP honors as his Eastern Conference defeated the Western Conference 36-7. That proved to be Brown's final NFL game; he went to London to film the movie "The Dirty Dozen," and when rain delayed completion of the film Brown was late for the Browns' training camp. Cleveland owner Art Modell publicly threatened to fine Brown for every week of training camp that Brown missed, and Brown responded by announcing his retirement at age 30. The greatest running back--and, arguably, greatest player--in NFL history ended his career on his terms at the peak of his powers. Brown's acting career lasted from the 1960s until well into the 2000s in both movies and on TV, but he made his greatest impact during his post-NFL days as an activist battling to end gang warfare and create economic opportunities for the Black community.

When Brown retired, he was not only the NFL's all-time leading rusher with 12,312 yards--a record that stood for 19 years--but he was 2589 yards ahead the second ranked rusher, Joe Perry, who was 2321 yards ahead of the third ranked rusher (Jim Taylor). Only Peyton Manning (five) and Aaron Rodgers (four) have won more AP NFL MVPs than Brown (three, tied with Johnny Unitas, Brett Favre, and Tom Brady). Brown is the only non-quarterback who has won more than one AP NFL MVP. Brown earned nine Pro Bowl selections plus eight All-Pro First Team selections. 

You do not have to be a football savant to see and appreciate Brown's physical gifts, but it is important to understand that he was a student of the game. When Bill Belichick coached the Cleveland Browns in the early 1990s, he brought Brown in to provide counsel to the team's running backs. Belichick praised Brown's ability to clearly and succinctly provide valuable tips about leverage and reading the defense. Belichick also called Brown the greatest football player ever "without question."

In 1999, the AP named Brown the greatest football player of the 20th century, and at the 2020 NCAA National Championship Game he was recognized as the greatest college football player of all-time. Brown ranked fourth on ESPN's SportsCentury list of the 50 greatest American athletes of the 20th century, trailing only Michael Jordan, Babe Ruth, and Muhammad Ali.

I never interviewed Brown, but I met him and shook his hand at the 2004 National Sports Collectors Convention in Cleveland during a special dinner celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Browns' 1964 NFL championship. I am too young to remember Brown's playing career, but as a lifelong (and long-suffering) Cleveland Browns fan it was great to not only meet Brown but also meet several other Browns legends, including Leroy Kelly and Gene Hickerson. The 2004 National Sports Collectors Convention is also the event where I met and interviewed Dolph Schayes. 

During his nine season NFL career, Brown never missed a game--and that was not because he was never injured. He never showboated, and he was a highly productive player for winning teams. Although some of his numbers have been surpassed, his dominance of the running back position has never been approached, and it is difficult to imagine that it ever will be. As great as he was as an athlete, Brown wanted to be remembered as an activist. "I was fighting for freedom, equality and justice every day of my life," Brown said in a video made 10 years ago. "I was always active to create equal opportunity and to use whatever money or power I had to affect social change."

Remembering Denny Crum and His Great, Exciting Louisville Basketball Teams

Denny Crum, who passed away yesterday at the age of 86, is one of the greatest coaches in college basketball history--and perhaps the most underrated of the elite coaches. He was the face of the University of Louisville's college basketball program from 1971-2001, posting a 675-295 record that included two national titles (1980, 1986) and six Final Four appearances. Crum was inducted in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in 1994.

Only Mike Krzyzewski, John Wooden, Dean Smith, Roy Williams, and Tom Izzo have more Final Four appearances than Crum, who is tied with Adolph Rupp and ahead of (among others) Bob Knight, Lute Olsen, and Jim Boeheim (this list does not include vacated Final Four appearances by Rick Pitino and John Calipari). Crum is one of 15 coaches who won at least two NCAA Division I basketball titles; there are only six coaches who won more than two titles (Wooden, Krzyzewski, Rupp, Williams, Jim Calhoun, and Knight).

Crum played for Wooden at UCLA, and then won three national titles while serving as an assistant coach for Wooden. Bill Walton, the center and dominating force for UCLA's 1972 and 1973 championship teams, was recruited by Crum, whose Louisville team lost to UCLA in the 1972 Final Four. Crum's Cardinals lost to Wooden's Bruins 75-74 in overtime in the 1975 Final Four as Wooden went on to win his 10th NCAA title before retiring after that campaign. Crum declined an offer to replace Wooden, determined to build his own legacy separate from UCLA.

Crum's best Louisville team was the 1980 squad that posted a 33-3 record en route to winning the NCAA title. Louisville beat UCLA, then coached by Larry Brown, in the championship game (the Bruins' tournament appearance was subsequently vacated by the NCAA). Six players from the 1980 Louisville championship team made it to the NBA, including Darrell Griffith, the 1980 Wooden Award winner, the 1980 Final Four Most Outstanding Player, and one of college basketball's greatest dunkers. Griffith won the 1981 NBA Rookie of the Year Award, averaged at least 20 ppg in four of his first five NBA seasons, and became the NBA's first prolific three point shooter while leading the league in three point field goals made in 1983-84 and 1984-85. Another future NBA player from Louisville's 1980 championship team, Derek Smith, is credited with popularizing the high five. As a young basketball fan, I loved watching that Louisville team and Griffith was one of my favorite college basketball players.

George Mikan's prime predated my childhood by three decades; he seemed like a prehistoric figure to me--his highlights only available in grainy black and white footage--so I can only imagine how long ago 1980 must seem to today's young basketball fans, but as someone who saw and vividly remembers Griffith and his teammates flying through the air I can say without hesitation that those players and that team would do just fine if teleported into 2023. In fact, I would argue that college basketball teams from that era were better than today's college basketball teams, because in the 1980s the best basketball players went to college and stayed for at least two seasons. College basketball talent today is watered down; I am not talking about the merits of NIL and early entry into the NBA Draft for individual players, but just noting the reality that college basketball today is not played at the same level that college basketball was played when the best players played college basketball--a point that should be obvious, but is either ignored or else disputed by those who insist that college basketball is the best, purest form of the sport.

Crum's 1986 championship team went 32-7 and featured four future NBA players, headlined by "Never Nervous" Pervis Ellison who--like Griffith--won the Final Four Most Outstanding Player Award. The Cardinals started the season 15-7 before winning 17 straight games, culminating in a 72-69 victory over Duke in the national championship game. Louisville was ranked as low as 18th in the AP poll during the season. Ellison was the third leading scorer (13.1 ppg) of a well-balanced attack that season, but the slender 6-9 freshman peaked at the right time with double doubles in each of Louisville's last three NCAA Tournament games, including 25 points and 11 rebounds versus Duke.

Some coaches are best known for recruiting, while others are highly regarded for their strategic acumen. Crum was strong in both areas: he coached 13 players who became first round NBA draft picks (including Griffith and Ellison, who was the number one overall selection by Sacramento in the 1989 draft), and he was respected for his play calling. Crum's teams often featured athletic guards and forwards who played at a fast pace, and that made his teams exciting and fun to watch. 

Time stops for no one. It is difficult to believe that 43 years have passed since Darrell "Dr. Dunkenstein" Griffith thrilled basketball fans, but the memories of his high-flying exploits and the feats of Denny Crum's other exciting teams are indelible to those of us who watched those long ago games.