Anatoly Lein, 1931-2018: Grandmaster, Coach, Author

Grandmaster Anatoly Lein--one of the top chess players in the world in the 1960s and 1970s and an accomplished chess coach/author--passed away yesterday. Lein's beloved wife Barbara passed away on February 16. Lein was born in the former Soviet Union in 1931 and achieved prominence there--earning the International Master title in 1964 and the Grandmaster title in 1968--before emigrating to the United States in 1976. Although Lein was perhaps past his prime by the time he arrived in this country, he nevertheless made an immediate and huge splash on the chess scene, sharing first place that year in both the World Open and the U.S. Open. Lein lived in New Jersey for many years, working as a chemical engineer, before relocating to Cleveland, Ohio in the 1990s. Cleveland remained his home for the rest of his life.

Lein won the U.S.S.R. Armed Forces Championship in 1962. He followed that up with a first place finish in the 1963 Russian championship and he was a member of the Soviet Union's team that won the 1965 European Championship. He also coached the Russian junior team to a gold medal and he won two gold medals as a member of the Russian adult team. Lein was a seven-time participant in the prestigious Soviet Championship Final, a field which was dotted with World Champions past, present and future. Lein scored wins in tournament games against World Champions Mikhail Tal and Vassily Smyslov. Some of Lein's many big tournament first place finishes include the 1971 Moscow Championship, Cienfuegos 1972, Novi Sad (1972 and 1973) and the 1973 Capablanca Memorial.

After emigrating to the United States, Lein participated in four U.S. Championships (1977, 1978, 1980, 1981). He also represented the United States in the 1978 Chess Olympiad, helping the team win a Bronze medal. Lein won the New Jersey State Championship in 1993 and 1995. In 1999, Lein added the Ohio Championship to his list of titles, scoring 5/6 in the Ohio Chess Congress to tie for first place with International Master Calvin Blocker.

Lein was inducted in the U.S. Chess Hall of Fame in 2004.

FIDE (the International Chess Federation) has published chess ratings since the late 1960s (the ratings became "official" in 1971) and according to their calculations Lein peaked in 1969 as the 24th highest ranked player in the world. Lein was ranked in the official top 50 in the world as late as 1979 (when he was 48 years old, an advanced age for top level chess) and after dropping as low as 194th in the early 1980s he had a revival in late 1985/early 1986 during which he surged back to 53rd in the world. Lein was still among the top 300 players in the world when he was in his early 60s.

According to Jeff Sonas' historical chess ratings, Lein peaked in the late 1960s as the 26th highest rated player in the world and he maintained top 100 status until past the age of 50, ranking among the 60 highest rated players of all-time in the 50 and over age group.

In addition to his accomplishments as a player and as a coach, Lein wrote or co-wrote several chess books, including Sharpen Your Tactics, In the World of Tactics, The Latvian Gambit: A Grandmaster View and Kasparov v. Karpov 1990 (a book that he was particularly--and justifiably--proud to have co-written with Garry Kasparov, Efim Geller and Viktor Chepishny).

I first met Lein in the early 2000s, when he was still playing in large events such as the Chicago Open. I took some chess lessons from him in the mid-2000s and some of the concepts/methods/approaches that I learned from him played a role in helping me get within 10 points of attaining the U.S. National Master title. My understanding and appreciation for top level chess increased immensely as a result of the time that I spent with him and I will forever feel privileged that I had that opportunity.

Lein could be both proud and self-deprecating, often in the same sentence: he would say, "I used to be a Grandmaster, but now I am a Grandpatzer." He had keen insight about the current chess scene. For instance, Lein told me that Anish Giri was a player to watch prior to Giri receiving much media attention. "This boy has real talent," Lein commented, after looking at some of Giri's early games--and that statement meant something coming from Lein, who often thought that even some of the most famous chess players were overrated.

Lein was an avid reader who could converse intelligently on many subjects. I enjoyed not only learning chess from him but also hearing his stories about his various experiences in the world of elite Grandmasters, as well as his observations about life.

I know that Lein felt underrated as both a player and a teacher but I always told him how much I appreciated his accomplishments and the time that he spent with me. This article can only provide a mere glimpse into what made Lein special but I hope that it serves as a worthy tribute and as a source of information for those who do not fully know chess history and Lein's rightful, prominent place in that history.

Djokovic Once Again Bests Federer in a Grand Slam Final

A significant amount of the coverage leading up to the U.S. Open Final focused on Roger Federer as an ageless tennis deity who has remade his game and even developed a new shot (which--with his characteristic humblebrag modesty--he calls "SABR," meaning Sneak Attack by Roger) that supposedly is an unstoppable weapon. That is all well and good, except that this coverage has been rendered largely meaningless by a story that should be the headline grabber but likely will not capture as much attention as all of the praise that has been heaped on Federer: the real story is two-fold, namely (1) Novak Djokovic defeated Federer in the U.S. Open Final in four sets and (2) Djokovic is clearly the best player in the world, even if he has not named a shot after himself or convinced writers that it is their sworn duty to wax poetic about his every breath, move and statement.

Much of the mainstream media coverage of tennis defies logical analysis. It does not make sense to assert that (1) Federer is as good as he has ever been and (2) that he is the greatest player of all-time while relentlessly ignoring Federer's struggles versus Rafael Nadal and Djokovic. If Federer is as good as he has ever been and if Federer truly established himself years ago as the greatest player of all-time then he should still be winning Grand Slams. Otherwise, it is only logical to assert--at a minimum--that even if Federer achieved greatest of all-time status at some point in the distant past he has since been supplanted by Nadal and Djokovic. Logically and conceptually it simply does not compute to say that Federer is the greatest of all-time and that he has developed a new shot that makes him better than ever but that the successes of Nadal and Djokovic are irrelevant in terms of the greatest player of all-time debate--and this does not even take into account the fact that a very good case could be made that Bjorn Borg is better than all three of them.

There is no question that Federer is very durable. That durability has enabled him to amass some impressive career numbers, including his record-setting 17 Grand Slam singles titles. However, Federer has appeared in 66 Grand Slam events and his .258 Grand Slam winning percentage is not even close to the record Grand Slam winning percentage posted by Borg (.407). Borg never lost in the first round of a Grand Slam, he lost in the second round just once and he made it to at least the quarterfinals in 20 of his 27 appearances (.741). Federer has lost in the first round of a Grand Slam six times, he has lost in the second round once and he has advanced to the quarterfinals in 46 of his 66 appearances (.697).

Federer's head to head struggles versus Nadal are well documented, with the tally currently standing at 23-10 in Nadal's favor, including 9-2 in Grand Slam matches and 6-2 in Grand Slam Finals. Nadal has not been nearly as durable as Federer, though Nadal has been durable enough to win at least one Grand Slam for 10 straight years (2005-14), breaking the mark of eight set by Borg and later matched by Pete Sampras and Federer. Nadal is tied with Sampras for second on the all-time list with 14 Grand Slam singles titles but Nadal's Grand Slam winning percentage (.326) is much better than Federer's or Sampras' (.269). Injuries have limited Nadal at various points in his career and especially since the French Open in 2014 (Nadal's last Grand Slam singles title) but Federer has suffered an even longer drought, with his last Grand Slam winning coming at Wimbledon in 2012 (Federer's only Grand Slam title since 2010).

The Djokovic-Federer head to head rivalry is now tied at 21-21, but Djokovic enjoys the edge in Grand Slam matches (8-6) and Grand Slam Finals (3-1). Federer won five of their first six head to head encounters but Djokovic has captured 20 of the next 36, including each of the past three times that they have met in a Grand Slam Final. Djokovic has won 10 Grand Slam titles in 44 appearances (.227) while losing twice in the first round and twice in the second round and reaching the quarterfinals 34 times (.773, a percentage even better than Borg's).

If Federer had defeated Djokovic in the U.S. Open Final then this would have been cited as yet another piece of evidence that Federer is indisputably the greatest player of all-time--but Djokovic's win against Federer seemingly does not in the slightest way dent Federer's claim to that title. When Nadal beat Federer like a drum, Federer's fans made the excuse that Nadal was a clay court specialist. Now, Djokovic is beating Federer on hard courts (U.S. Open), on grass courts (Wimbledon) and on clay (2012 French Open, 2015 Italian Open) but nothing can seem to loosen Federer's supposedly secure grip on the mythical greatest of all-time title.

If Federer were washed up and just playing out the string then one could make the case that at least some of his losses to Nadal and Djokovic should not count when determining the pecking order among these three players--but the reality is that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have been in or reasonably close to their primes from late 2008 to the present. During that time, Federer has been ranked number one in the world for 65 weeks, Nadal has been ranked number one in the world for 141 weeks and Djokovic has been ranked number one in the world for 164 weeks. During that same time span, Federer has won five Grand Slam singles titles, Nadal has won nine Grand Slam singles titles and Djokovic has won nine Grand Slam singles titles. It is difficult to make a reasonable case that Federer is better than Nadal and, considering Djokovic's recent success (three Grand Slam wins in 2015 while appearing in each of the four Grand Slam Finals), it is at least arguable syllogistically that Djokovic is better than Federer as well; after all, if Federer is as good as ever and Djokovic is beating Federer on multiple surfaces than Djokovic is not only better than Federer now but he is better than Federer has ever been.

Just once, it would be refreshing to see a Federer supporter in the media write an article making a point something on the order of "As Federer advanced through this tournament I was reminded of why I like his game so much and why he is so highly regarded but after Federer lost to (Djokovic or Nadal) I was also reminded that, while Federer excels in wiping out the lesser lights, he has never established clear superiority over the other two great players of his time." Federer's SABR turns into a butter knife when he faces Nadal or Djokovic and it is difficult to picture Federer having the necessary mental or physical energy to contend with the relentless Borg in his prime.

Why is Rafael Nadal Not Praised Now the Way that Roger Federer Was Praised in 2006?

Rafael Nadal earned his 13th Grand Slam singles title by defeating number one ranked Novak Djokovic 6-2, 3-6, 6-4, 6-1 in the U.S. Open final. Nadal is authoring one of the greatest calendar year performances in the Open Era: he has a 60-3 match record in 2013 and he has won 10 titles, including two Grand Slams (French Open, U.S. Open). Nadal is 22-0 on hard courts this year, further refuting the notion that he is just a clay court specialist. Injuries forced Nadal to miss the 2013 Australian Open during a seven month break from competition but, even though his durability is a constant concern, he has won at least one Grand Slam in nine straight years--a remarkable record, surpassing the standard of eight set by Bjorn Borg and later matched by Pete Sampras and Roger Federer.

The second ranked Nadal did not officially take over the number one spot but it is obvious that Nadal is the best player in the world. Nadal now needs just one more Grand Slam win to tie Sampras for second place on the all-time list and Roger Federer's record of 17 does not look quite as safe as it did at the start of 2013. The 27 year old Nadal owns a .361 Grand Slam winning percentage, capturing 13 titles in 36 appearances. Borg ranks first all-time in this category (11/27, .407), while Federer (17/58, .293) and Sampras (14/52, .269) are far behind Nadal and Borg. Federer's peak Grand Slam winning percentage--achieved after he won Wimbledon in 2009--was .366 (15/41).

When David Foster Wallace gushed over Roger Federer in an August 2006 essay, the 25 year old Federer had won eight Grand Slam singles titles in 29 appearances (.276 winning percentage) and had amassed six first round losses--yet Wallace and others openly and enthusiastically touted the notion that Federer had already established himself as the greatest tennis player of all-time. The first dubious aspect of such a wide-ranging declaration is that it is unfair--if not impossible--to compare Open Era players with players from earlier eras; the rules, conditions and overall context were just too different. If Rod Laver had been permitted to play in the Grand Slam events during his prime years then he likely would have set unbreakable records--but we cannot know for sure what he would have accomplished, so all that can be intelligently said is that Laver deserves to be prominently placed in any discussion of the greatest tennis players ever: he should not be punished for "only" winning 11 Grand Slams, nor can he be credited with all of the Grand Slams that he almost certainly would have won.

The second dubious aspect about declaring Federer to be the greatest player of all-time is that he has never established the simultaneous Wimbledon/French Open dominance displayed by Bjorn Borg. When Borg made his final Grand Slam appearance in 1981--at just 25 years old--he held the modern male record for both Wimbledon titles (five) and French Open titles (six) and he had won the "Channel Slam" (capturing Wimbledon and the French Open in the same calendar year) a still-unmatched three times in a row. Sampras and then Federer dominated Wimbledon during their primes and Nadal has dominated the French Open but no one has ever mastered grass and clay at the same time the way that Borg did.

By the time that Sampras broke Roy Emerson's record for most career Grand Slam titles, many commentators touted Sampras as the greatest player of all-time but Sampras' relative ineptitude at the French Open--he only made it to the semifinals once in 13 trips to Roland Garros--disqualifies him from being favorably compared to Borg, Federer and Nadal. Federer won one Channel Slam (2009)--albeit without facing Nadal that year in the French Open--and Nadal has captured two (2008, 2010). Nadal owns a 21-10 head to head advantage over Federer and Nadal built that lead from the beginning of his career, when Federer was at the height of his powers. Nadal and Djokovic have faced each other more often than any other Open Era rivals, with Nadal winning 22 of their 37 matches. Nadal leads Federer 8-2 in head to head Grand Slam matches and Nadal has beaten Djokovic eight times in 11 Grand Slam matches.

The Borg-Nadal comparison is intriguing; Nadal owns more total Grand Slam wins, more French Open wins and a pair of U.S. Open titles (Borg reached four U.S. Open finals but never captured the crown) but Borg has a better career Grand Slam winning percentage and he established himself as his era's best grass court player and best clay court player. It is reasonable to assume that if Borg had kept playing then he would have won at least a couple more French Opens and perhaps even finally bagged the elusive U.S. Open title. Borg and Nadal are very similar in terms of athletic ability and fighting spirit.

While Borg-Nadal is difficult to call, it is very hard to understand how anyone who supported Federer's greatest player of all-time candidacy circa 2006 would not be even more strongly in favor of Nadal now: Nadal has achieved more at a younger age than Federer did, Nadal has a much better Grand Slam winning percentage, Nadal has consistently dominated Federer head to head and Nadal does not have a problematic individual matchup or surface. The only advantage that Federer has ever held over Nadal is that Federer has been healthier/more durable, which will make it even more remarkable if Nadal wins four more Grand Slams to tie Federer's mark.

The U.S. Open is Still Club Fed

Roger Federer convincingly defeated Andy Murray 6-2, 7-5, 6-2 to claim his fifth straight U.S. Open title and end a frustrating 2008 season on a high note. Federer now owns 13 Grand Slam singles titles, one short of Pete Sampras' all-time record. Federer is the first male player to win at least five titles in a row at two different Grand Slams; he also won five Wimbledons in a row, a streak snapped this year by Rafael Nadal, who beat Federer in the French Open final, snatched the world number one ranking from Federer and won the Olympic gold medal in singles, a feat that Federer has never accomplished (Federer won the Olympic gold medal in doubles this year, alongside partner Stanislas Wawrinka).

One Grand Slam title and two other Grand Slam Finals appearances contsitutes a very good year for most tennis players but for Federer 2008 was disappointing because his air of invincibility was shattered not only by Nadal but also by lesser players who toppled Federer in other events. Federer was slowed early in the year by mononucleosis, so his U.S. Open win raises the possibility that he can regain the number one spot in 2009--but I don't think that will happen. Nadal is a younger player who has won more Slams than Federer did at a similar age and Nadal has a winning head to head record versus Federer. Nadal's Wimbledon-French Open double is something that has not been accomplished since Bjorn Borg pulled off that double from 1978-80. The obvious X-factor in this equation would be if Nadal suffered an injury but if that does not happen it seems unlikely that Federer will reverse the natural course of history: a younger rival has already surpassed him and the two questions now are whether or not Federer will break Sampras' record and just how many Slams Nadal will end up winning; Nadal could very well put Sampras and Federer in his rear view mirror in the next four or five years.