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.

Journey to the National Master Title, Part 4

The journey to the National Master title is not a straightforward path, but rather a bumpy road that must be navigated with determination. Tactical awareness is essential. My losses to lower rated players have been due to a lack of focus/lack of tactical awareness, while several of my wins have featured nice examples of tactical awareness.

In the March 26, 2023 East Market Swiss, I scored 3.5/4, gaining 11 rating points to lift my rating to 2024 while finishing in clear second place. In the first round, I blundered in a winning position against a lower rated player and had to settle for a draw, but I recovered to win my next three games, including a last round triumph versus Faris Gabbara, a veteran 2000-rated player who earned the National Master title in 1992.

I played a nice second round game as white against Andrew Zhu, who has gained over 600 rating points since April 2022 as he makes his journey to the National Master title (and probably beyond). Here is the position before my 30th move:

Material is equal, but the opposite colored Bishops provide attacking chances to whichever player can seize the initiative. Here I played 30.Bg7. Taking the Bishop leads to mate in four starting with 31.Qxh7+, so my opponent found the only move to prolong the game: 30...h5. White has a decisive advantage, and I finished the game quickly: 31.Be5 Qe7 32.Qe4 Qf7 33.Rf3 Bb7 34.Rxf7 Bxe4 35.Rg7+ Kf8 36.Rxe4 Rc1+ 37.Kf2 Rc2+ 38.Kg3 Rxa2?? A blunder in a lost position. 39.Rf4# 1-0

In the April 1, 2023 Indianapolis Super Tornado, I scored just 2/5 in the Championship section, dropping 36 hard-earned rating points and falling below the 2000 point barrier. In the first round, I won a Pawn on move 22 versus a talented junior and I had a commanding position, but the game ended with blunders by both players in mutual time pressure; I blundered last and worst, so I lost. In the second round, I misplayed the middlegame against another talented junior, and my 0-2 start dropped my live rating below 2000. I recovered to win my third round game, and then in my fourth round game I squandered a winning position against an Expert. My fifth round opponent blundered a piece on move seven. I blundered back my extra piece but still had a positional advantage, which I nursed to victory.

In the April 8, 2023 Columbus G/30 Open I started out 3/3 to push my rating back over 2000, but then I lost my last two games, both to players rated below 1750. The top three seeds in this tournament all took a serious beating; the top seeded player lost his first three games and dropped 67 rating points, the third seeded player lost 31 rating points and finished out of the money, and as the second seeded player I lost 16 rating points while finishing in a tie for third through fifth. My last round opponent, Paul Alexander, ended up winning the tournament with 4/5, beating each of the top three seeded players while gaining 184 rating points! My third round win versus rising young Class A player (now Expert) Matt Wang featured an uncommon mating pattern:

Here as Black (moving up the board) I played ...e4. White will be checkmated immediately after a7, and in three moves after Ka7 followed by ...Ne7/...Nc8/...Nb6.  This is not difficult to see in this position, but we got here after I let my opponent take my a pawn and then hemmed in his King by playing ...Kc7. I placed my N on the correct route to deliver checkmate instead of just winning prosaically by pushing one of my passed Pawns.

In the April 15-16, 2023 Cincinnati Open (FIDE Expert section), I scored 3.5/5 (three wins, one loss, and one half point bye) to gain 22 rating points and push my rating back up to 1994 while finishing in a tie for fourth through eighth. That was the last tournament that I played before U.S. Chess generated their official May 2023 rating list, so for the first time since April 2022 my official rating fell below 2000. I played my favorite move from the Cincinnati Open in my second round win versus strong Indiana Expert Mohamed Elshazly. After I sacrificed a piece for two Pawns and an attack, we reached this position:

I played Rxh7, which forces mate in 10 moves or less. My opponent resigned after ...Rxh7 28.Qe8+ Kg7 29.Rxe7+ Kh6 30.Qf8+ Kg6 31.Qg8+.

I concluded April with three straight first place finishes, gaining 40 rating points in the process:

1. In the April 22, 2023 Columbus G/60 Quads, I scored 2/3 (two wins, one loss) in the "A" Quad, gaining 11 rating points to lift my rating to 2005 while finishing tied for first-second.
2. In the April 29, 2023 DBTHS Swiss, I scored 3/3, finishing clear first and gaining 15 rating points to improve my rating to 2020.
3. In the April 30, 2023 East Market Swiss, I scored 3.5/4, finishing tied for first-second while gaining 14 rating points to lift my rating to 2034.
   

In 2023, I have scored 41 wins, nine draws, and 11 losses in regular rated tournament games with seven first place finishes in 16 events--but four losses to players rated below 1750 were costly, and as a result my net rating gain for 2023 is just 22 points, so I need to gain 166 points to reach my goal.

Ding Liren is the New World Chess Champion After Defeating Ian Nepomniachtchi in Rapid Tiebreak

Ding Liren defeated Ian Nepomniachtchi 2.5-1.5 in the Rapid Tiebreak to win the World Chess Championship title abandoned by Magnus Carlsen, whose reign lasted from 2013-2023 and included four successful title defenses. Carlsen is still the highest rated chess player (2853) in the world, followed by Nepomniachtchi (2794) and Ding (2789). Nepomniachtchi qualified for the 2023 World Chess Championship match by winning the Candidates Tournament for the second time in a row. Ding finished second in the Candidates Tournament after beating the highest rated American player (Hikaru Nakamura, ranked fifth in the world with a 2775 rating) in the last round, but Ding was elevated to fellow challenger status with Nepomniachtchi after Carlsen declined to participate.

The vast majority of games in the Classical portion of recent World Chess Championship matches were draws, but six of the 14 games in the Classical portion of the Ding-Nepomniachtchi match were decisive. Perhaps the key moment in the Classical portion of the match happened when Ding won game 12 to tie the score at 6-6. Nepomniachtchi enjoyed a promising position in game 12 but he lost the thread while trying to win, and then threw away the game with a major mistake that he played after using very little time on his clock. In retrospect, that was the turning point: Ding trailed from game seven until he won game 12, but after game 12 Nepomniachtchi did not win another game. The players drew the final two Classical games and the first three Rapid Tiebreak games, so Ding's first lead in the World Chess Championship came when he won the fourth game of the four game Rapid Tiebreak and immediately became the World Champion!

It is a heartbreaking result for Nepomniachtchi, who was a few accurate moves away from all but clinching the title in game 12, and it was a magnificent triumph for Ding, the first Chinese player among the 17 undisputed World Chess Champions since Wilhelm Steinitz assumed the throne in 1886 (unofficially, Steinitz' reign at the top of the chess world dates back to 1866, but there was not a formal World Chess Championship match prior to 1886).

In public, Ding has an unassuming, low key demeanor that can be misinterpreted. Every time Ding lost a game, armchair psychologists examined Ding's body language and proclaimed that he was a broken person who could not recover from such a devastating setback. This made little sense, because a person does not become the third ranked chess player in the world and qualify to play in a World Chess Championship match without having great mental toughness and strength of character. The in-game commentators provided valuable insights relating to the moves played, but it is disappointing that people who ask idiotic questions at press conferences receive media credentials. No one needs to ask Ding Liren how he ranks his self-confidence on a scale of 1-10, nor does anyone need to ask Nepomniachtchi if the match is over when there are three games left in the Classical portion (a question that sounded stupid at the time, and aged very poorly after Nepomniachtchi lost in the Rapid Tiebreak).

This match featured more decisive games than recent matches not because the players are better (or worse) than the players from other World Chess Championship matches, but because this match featured a fascinating clash of personalities and playing styles. Thus, when one player steered the game toward his type of position, he tended to win, and vice versa. In such a match, it is easy to nitpick and to criticize the players' moves; it is important to remember that even if a chess computer evaluates a position as objectively equal that does not mean that the path to maintain equality is obvious to a human: there are equal positions in which any sensible move retains the balance, and there are equal positions in which one player has to walk a delicate tightrope involving many "only" moves, some of which may not be intuitive or obvious to a human.

It should also be mentioned that deciding the World Chess Championship in a Rapid Tiebreak is similar to breaking a tie in a marathon with a series of sprints: a marathon and a sprint both involve running, but they are different sports. Classical chess--chess played at slow time controls--is one sport, and rapid chess is a different sport. There is actually a separate event to determine the world champion at rapid time controls. There is no perfect format for a World Chess Championship: a match extending until one player wins a set number of games with draws not counting led to the marathon 1984-85 Karpov-Kasparov match in which play was eventually suspended with the outcome undecided after 48 games, while letting the champion retain the title in a drawn match has its drawbacks as well. It would be nice to see a Classical match format lasting longer than 14 games.

All of that being said, the players signed contracts and agreed to the format, so it cannot be said that one player was at a disadvantage: both players knew that if they drew the Classical portion of the match then the title would be determined in a Rapid tiebreak (with a Blitz tiebreak to follow if the Rapid tiebreak was drawn).

Turning our attention back to the just concluded World Chess Championship, it is no secret that Nepomniachtchi often plays too quickly, and it is clear that this trait has been costly for him at times. I respect Grandmaster Anish Giri for candidly stating early in the match that when he mentions this flaw in Nepomniachtchi's approach he understands that Nepomniachtchi must be doing a lot of things very well to win back to back Candidates Tournaments. Giri said that he has greater flaws in his game to iron out than Nepomniachtchi has in his game, and that explains why he (Giri) has never played in a World Chess Championship match. Such humility and self-awareness are great traits for other commentators to cultivate.

Congratulations to Ding, and best wishes to Nepomniachtchi, who is young enough and good enough to still contend for the World Chess Championship.

Ding Liren Exploits Ian Nepomniachtchi's Blunder to Win Game 12 and Tie the World Chess Championship at 6-6

Even in today's era with computer-assisted preparation, top level chess does not have to consist primarily of draws if both players are willing to fight. Fighting chess creates winning chances for both players, and fighting chess also creates a state of heightened psychological tension that can result in blunders. As Viswanathan Anand once put it, success at top level chess is "a question of nerves." If we want to see perfect--or at least "ideal"--chess then we can watch two computers play against each other. As a strong amateur chess player, I enjoy playing fighting chess and I enjoy watching top level players who play fighting chess.

The 2023 World Chess Championship pitting Ding Liren versus Ian Nepomniachtchi has featured fighting chess in almost every game, and after 12 games the score is tied 6-6 with each player winning three games. The first player to score 7.5 points wins the match, and there will be tiebreaker games if the match ends in a 7-7 tie.

Nepomniachtchi won game two after a game one draw, and he has never trailed during the match. He enjoyed a one point lead from game seven until his collapse in game 12 today, when he built an advantageous position only to squander his edge by playing too quickly before committing a one move blunder that lost the game. Game 12 featured daring play by both players. 

Chess fans who complain about too many draws should not then make fun of top level players who blunder while playing enterprising chess. Taking risks to win also means that you can lose. I respect  Nepomniachtchi's fighting spirit, and as someone whose fighting spirit has led both to great victories and ignominious defeats I can empathize with how he must be feeling after game 12.

A drawn chess game may or may not feature highly accurate play, but a decisive game inevitably includes at least one mistake. There is a tendency for some people to assume that the level of play in matches featuring many decisive games is lower than the level of play in matches that have fewer decisive games. In 2018, Carlsen retained his World Chess Championship title with three wins in rapid play after he and challenger Fabiano Caruana drew all 12 classical games that they contested. One should not assume that the 12 classical games were error-free just because they were all draws, nor should one assume that Carlsen would win a match against the current match competitors based on his prior results. Each match takes on its own flavor.

Objectively speaking, based on chess ratings it is reasonable to suggest that Magnus Carlsen--who declined to defend his World Championship title--is still the world's strongest chess player. However, the notion that if he had played in this World Chess Championship match he would have made fewer mistakes than the current match participants is not supported by the evidence. It is easy to forget--and many people seem to have forgotten--that Carlsen made many mistakes in his World Chess Championship matches. For example, Carlsen missed a winning continuation in game one of his match versus Caruana and the game ended in a draw. Also, in game six of his 2014 match versus Anand, Carlsen made a ghastly blunder that should have cost him the game on the spot--but Anand returned the favor by overlooking the winning move.

In short, Carlsen is a great player and a resourceful fighter but even in his prime he did not play perfect chess, so it is not fair to the current World Chess Championship players to compare them unfavorably to a player who declined to participate. Chess can be a very tension-filled game because a chess player can play 50 correct moves in a row, build up an overwhelming position, and then throw away the game with just one mistake. Most other sports are not like that; if a basketball team takes a 20 point lead, the opposing team cannot come back on one play, and the same concept holds true for baseball, hockey, and football: a large lead cannot be erased by just one mistake.

Chess tests every fiber of your mind, body, and soul. That is one reason why chess is a great game, and that is why I have so much respect for uncompromising players who fight to win every game. Bobby Fischer used to say that a game was not drawn until he said it was drawn, a mindset that resulted in him winning the 1963-64 U.S. Championship with an 11-0 score before later winning 20 straight games against elite Grandmasters without yielding a single draw en route to capturing the World Championship in 1972. That stubborn attitude served Fischer well in chess, even if it may have been counterproductive for him away from the 64 square board. 

In some ways, Nepomniachtchi is fighting against himself as he tries to become the World Chess Champion. If he succeeds in this attempt despite his agonizing game 12 loss, he can truly say that he did it his way. If he falls short, he is young enough to make another attempt to reach the summit, and he can decide if his uncompromising approach may need some modification, at least in terms of the time he spends on each move before making very committal and potential risky decisions.

Ding is harder to read. He comes across as a low energy person, but rest assured that anyone who has qualified for a World Chess Championship match has a fierce fighting spirit regardless of his demeanor. I do not look at his facial expressions or body language and conclude that he is in psychological peril each time that he loses a game, because he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is strong enough to overcome adversity. 

Whoever wins this match is a worthy successor to Carlsen.

"You've Got to be Kidding": Ian Nepomniachtchi Says What We Are All Thinking During World Chess Championship Press Conference

The 2023 World Chess Championship pitting Ian Nepomniachtchi versus Ding Liren for the title vacated by Magnus Carlsen has featured some exciting games--including three wins by Nepomniachtchi and two wins by Ding--but the postgame press conferences have been marred by journalists in name only asking idiotic questions. 

After today's game 11 ended in a draw, the press conference moderator Keti Tsatsalashvili asked Nepomniachtchi, "Do you think that the most difficult part of the match is already behind, and now you just have to finish the job, or do you think that the most critical games are still ahead of you?"

Nepomniachtchi immediately turned toward her, looked her in the eye and said, "You've got to be kidding." She said, "Sorry?" and Nepomniachtchi repeated, "You've got to be kidding, no?" She said, "No, I'm not." 

Nepomniachtchi then said, "Indeed, (there are) three games (left in the match) and I should give my all to do the job, let's say. Of course it is not anything like it's over--obviously not. It's pretty much an unclear match, I think."

Keti Tsatsalashvili then turned to Ding to ask another question before thinking better of it, and asking the assembled media members if they had any questions.

Game 11 was a relatively short and uneventful draw, so media members who struggle to think of competent and relevant questions even after exciting, decisive games were completely baffled today. Thus, the topic of conversation shifted from the World Chess Championship match to how to detect and prevent chess cheating. Chess cheating is a relevant topic for the chess world in a broad sense, but it is not relevant to this match because there is zero reason to believe that any cheating is taking place, or could take place given the strict precautions that are in place.

Nevertheless, Leontxo Garcia of "El Pais" admitted that he needs help writing his game story for today, and thus he asked both players to comment about chess cheating in general and also specifically if they believe that any of the top 25 players in the world have cheated in over the board chess. Again, it is obvious that chess cheating is a relevant topic for discussion, but it is not obvious why that should be brought up after game 11--except for the fact that Garcia admitted that he needs help writing his game story (at least some people who struggle to do their jobs are candid enough to admit this).  

After Garcia sent the press conference spinning away from the World Chess Championship, Mumbled Name (perhaps he prefers to preserve his anonymity to the general public by not clearly identifying himself) from "Die Zeit" in Hamburg asked both players if they are aware that "500 meters from here Hans Niemann is playing in an open tournament. Do you know about that and what do you think about that?" Nepomniachtchi looked at Mumbled Name as if to inquire, "What is wrong with you?" before noting that he is aware that there is a strong chess tournament taking place nearby "but still, I don't get your question." Mumbled Name mumbled something about Niemann's presence overshadowing the World Chess Championship, and Nepomniachtchi retorted, "No, I don't think so."

The main thing overshadowing the 2023 World Chess Championship is the low quality of the media coverage.

Dreaming of Becoming a Journalist Covering the World Chess Championship

I recently asked Why Do People Who Ask Idiotic Questions Receive Media Credentials? but after further thought I decided that I just have to work harder to reach the incredible intellectual level of the brilliant people who are privileged to cover the chess world's most important and prestigious event. 

The questions below are modeled after some of the excellent, insightful inquiries made in recent World Chess Championship press conferences, because I realize that there is no way that I could independently think of such questions myself--seriously, I cannot imagine ever asking such questions, but maybe I can dream of reaching such a journalistic pinnacle!

1) "Is this match more enjoyable for you than your previous World Chess Championship match?" This is a great question to ask to a player who is leading 4-3 after losing the previous World Chess Championship match following a series of blunders.

2) "Are you familiar with (insert the names of players from an obscure game played a long time ago)? Did this game influence your preparation?" This is a great question because during the World Chess Championship match the players are very much inclined to provide all of the details and background regarding their preparation.

3) "Today is (insert the name of a holiday from a religion that neither player observes). On this holiday (insert elaborate description of how that holiday is observed). Do you plan to celebrate your victory by observing this holiday?" This may be the most brilliant question yet! During a World Chess Championship match, players cannot wait for the opportunity to engage in elaborate comparative religion discussions.

4) "Your opponent experienced tremendous time pressure today. How did that make you feel?" The sheer insight of this question renders me speechless.

5) "Did you choose today's opening for sentimental reasons, or did you have a strategic reason for your choice?" This question is the most brilliant question yet! Clearly, with the World Chess Championship title on the line, we must not ignore the very realistic possibility that the players are choosing openings for sentimental reasons.

6) "Every game in this match has featured a different opening. Do you plan to play a different opening in the next game, or will you repeat one of the openings you already played during this match?" Again, it is brilliant to expect the players to reveal specifically what they plan to play in upcoming games. Such a question is guaranteed to generate a fascinating answer.

7) "From 1-10, how do you evaluate your self-confidence now?" This brings to mind the time that a reporter thought that it would be brilliant to ask Chris Paul if he thought that his team would win their next playoff game. Paul replied, "What? I'm on the team. What do you expect me to say, that it's over?" Clearly, Paul failed to appreciate the brilliance of that question, but it is wonderful that this line of questioning has been brought back to life in the World Chess Championship.

8) "Do you get excited watching other people play online chess games?" After being asked this question by Mike Klein, Ding Liren pretended that he could not understand the question and kept asking Klein to repeat it. Obviously, the question was so brilliant that Ding wanted to hear it over and over again. What else would world class chess players be doing other than watching other chess players play online games and then getting excited about that? I mean, there is no way that Ding would ask Klein to repeat the question just to highlight how ridiculous the question is, right? After hearing the question several times, Ding stated, "I am not excited to watch the other games played online."

I am quite sure that I have never thought of such questions before, but the fine journalists at the World Chess Championship have inspired me to stretch my thinking into previously unexplored territory. I doubt that I will ever be asked to cover the World Chess Championship--I appear to lack the requisite intellectual requirements--but I think that I have proven that, if presented the opportunity, I am ready jump into the fray! 

Side note: I think that World Chess Championship press conference questions prefaced by "Mike Klein, Chess.com," are destined to be revered in the same way that NBA press conference questions prefaced by "Mark Schwartz, ESPN" have become legendary! All Klein needs to do to reach that status is to ask one player if he knows the mental state of the other player, and then keep asking different versions of that same question after the question has been answered. Schwartz won a couple of Sports Emmys for asking questions like that, setting the high bar that other journalists just hope that we can attain with a lot of hard work and deep thought. Schwartz and Klein specialize in asking the questions that all fans wish they could ask. Why would fans want to know about strategy when we could instead recklessly speculate about the mental and emotional states of other people?

Why Do People Who Ask Idiotic Questions Receive Media Credentials?

The World Chess Championship is a significant cultural, artistic, and sporting event. In the most recent World Chess Championship, Magnus Carlsen retained his title by defeating challenger Ian Nepomniachtchi, 7.5-3.5. Subsequently, Carlsen declined to defend his crown again, although he still plays in elite level over the board and online chess tournaments. Thus, the current World Chess Championship match--which began in Astana, Kazakhstan on Sunday--pits Nepomniachtchi, the winner of the most recent Candidates Tournament, versus Ding Liren, who finished second in the most recent Candidates Tournament.

Nepomniachtchi and Ding drew game one on Sunday, but in today's game two Nepomniachtchi sacrificed the Exchange and won in sparkling fashion after Ding played an unusual move order in the opening. Thus, Nepomniachtchi leads 1.5-.5 in a race to 7.5 points; there will be tiebreaker games if the match ends with a 7-7 score.

After each game, the players participate in a press conference, fielding questions from a moderator, from online questioners, and from credentialed media members attending the event.

I have worked as a credentialed media member covering sports events, so I have been "treated" to listening to idiotic questions asked by the likes of Andre Aldridge and Vincent Thomas. Mike Klein is a FIDE Master who has won a host of journalism awards. He should know better than to ask idiotic questions at a World Chess Championship press conference. His job is to ask questions that inspire the players to provide insights about the game of chess in general and about this prestigious event in particular.

Instead, today after game two Klein asked Nepomniachtchi who does he expect will be the first person to send him a congratulatory text message after Nepomniachtchi finally won a World Chess Championship game for the first time. In one question, Klein managed to combine a backhanded compliment--was it necessary to remind Nepomniachtchi that this was his first win in World Chess Championship play?--with a question that cannot possibly generate a meaningful answer. Nepomniachtchi replied that he will probably receive congratulations from his parents and from his friends, but that he is mostly avoiding social media to concentrate on the event. Klein followed up by noting that former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov liked the number 13 and then asking if Nepomniachtchi ascribes any significance to the number 13 since he obtained his first World Chess Championship win in his 13th World Chess Championship game. Nepomniachtchi replied, "No."

If Klein is trying to be funny, no one is laughing. If he thinks that he is asking insightful questions, no one with any modicum of intelligence would agree.

Grandmaster Irina Krush, a member of the World Chess Championship online commentary team (along with former World Chess Champion Viswanathan Anand), provided a welcome contrast to Klein's foolishness. She asked Nepomniachtchi if during the game he realized that a position similar to one of the game's opening positions had previously been seen in an online blitz game (Ding Liren-Levon Aronian). He replied that he was not sure, because during the game he was focused on figuring out the position's nuances. Nepomniachtchi went into some detail about his in-game thought process. Then, Krush asked Ding if he had been surprised by the recapture ...gxf6. Ding candidly admitted that he had been surprised, and that he had only considered ...Qxf6. He then stated what he had planned to play. Krush's questions were on point, and elicited thoughtful answers from both players. Chess.com can send Klein home, and cede their press conference time to Krush.

If the tone of this article seems harsh, part of the reason is that Chess.com is a repeat offender in terms of being an organization whose World Chess Championship reporters are woefully unqualified. During the previous World Chess Championship, "Sean from Chess.com" asked Nepomniachtchi if he had shaved off his famous "man bun" after a loss as an act of shame like samurais used to do. That kind of idiotic question does nothing to promote chess, the World Chess Championship, or the journalism profession. As a strong amateur chess player, a fan/historian of the World Chess Championship, and a journalist, I am saddened and offended by such nonsense.

Is it too much to ask of Chess.com that they hire competent journalists who are capable of asking questions that are not idiotic?

Side note: is it too much to ask of the various organizations that present awards to journalists that they honor people who are capable of stringing together coherent and insightful thoughts? Klein is just one of many people who have won so many journalism awards that they may actually have deluded themselves into believing that they are credible journalists.

UConn Defeats San Diego State 76-59 to Claim Fifth NCAA Title Since 1999

Few people expected to see the University of Connecticut (UConn) Huskies face the San Diego State University (SDSU) Aztecs in the NCAA Championship Game. Other than Huskies fans, few people are likely to remember much about UConn's 76-59 win. This was not high level basketball as much as it was one team outmatching the other from opening tip until final buzzer; SDSU made a second half run to cut the margin to 60-55 with 5:19 remaining, but UConn closed the game with a 16-4 burst to leave no doubt about their clear superiority. 

UConn's size, speed, and athleticism overwhelmed SDSU in the first half. UConn built a 16 point lead, and enjoyed a comfortable 36-24 halftime advantage. The Aztecs shot just 8-28 (.286) from the field while committing nine turnovers. Yes, SDSU had more first half turnovers than field goals made! The 60 combined first half points were the lowest total in an NCAA Championship Game since 2011, when UConn defeated Butler 53-41.

UConn's Tristen Newton scored a game-high 19 points, and he tied for game-high rebounding honors (10) with Adama Sanogo, who added 17 points and received the 2023 Final Four Most Outstanding Player award. Keshad Johnson paced SDSU with 14 points, while Lamont Butler and Darrion Trammell added 13 points each.

Since 1999, the Huskies have won five NCAA titles under the direction of three different coaches (Jim Calhoun: 1999, 2004, 2011; Kevin Ollie: 2014; Dan Hurley: 2023). 

UConn never trailed en route to a 72-59 win over Miami to advance to the NCAA Championship Game, and the Huskies won each of their NCAA Tournament games by double digits. As a fourth seeded team they were hardly a pre-Tournament favorite, yet in retrospect their championship run looks inevitable. Even though UConn had a dominant 2023 NCAA Tournament, it is difficult to picture this team even being competitive against NCAA champions from previous eras that had multiple future NBA All-Stars who stayed in school for three or even four years. 

In today's era, the best players play one year of college basketball--at the most--and then they receive highly paid on the job training in the NBA. Thus, the talent in college basketball is watered down, but the NBA is watered down as well, because the league is full of young players who do not yet really understand how to play--and who often miss games due to injuries or load management. Instead of watching Zion Williamson make multiple NCAA Tournament appearances, we watch him sit on the sidelines of NBA games in street clothes.

It never ceases to amaze me when anyone argues that college basketball is more fundamentally sound than NBA basketball. College basketball, even at the highest levels, is filled with young players who have not yet mastered the sport. The worst NBA team would beat either NCAA Finalist by at least 30 points, as I noted in my 2022 NCAA Tournament recap:

There are many reasons that the quality of play at the highest levels of college basketball is not as good as the quality of play in the NBA. The first, most obvious, and indisputable reason is that in no field of endeavor would it be reasonable to expect apprentices to outperform seasoned professionals: an apprentice craftsman is not superior to an experienced craftsman, and apprentice basketball teams/players are not superior to experienced professional basketball teams/players. The second reason is that there is very little continuity in major college basketball because the best players leave school after just one season; this is not to suggest that players should not be allowed to leave or that they should choose not leave: the point is that the best college-age basketball players in the world are, for the most part, playing in the NBA, not in college. The talent drain of young players going to the NBA means that every year the best college teams are rebuilding, which in turn means that rivalries--at least in terms of individual player matchups--cannot be sustained, and it also means that the best teams do not have a chance to build chemistry or work much on skill set development. Each college season consists of a breathless race to determine which group of talented freshmen can gel as quickly as possible to peak during the one and done NCAA Tournament before the best players jump straight to the NBA. This is the basketball version of fast food, not gourmet cooking, and that is why we see unwatchable games with wretched field goal percentages.

There is no question that the worst NBA team could beat the best NCAA team by at least 20-30 points. Not only are the NBA players more athletic, more talented, and more fundamentally sound, but they are coached better.

Tonight's telecast was the record 32nd--and last--Final Four of Jim Nantz' incredible career. Prior to Nantz' first Final Four in 1991, no broadcaster had worked more than six Final Fours. It is safe to say that Nantz' mark will stand for a long time. Nantz is a versatile broadcaster who will continue to work the Masters and the NFL, but for many sports fans he will forever be identified with and connected to college basketball's showcase event. 

Nantz prides himself on his thorough preparation:

Every basketball assignment Nantz has called for CBS (the number is somewhere in the vicinity of 575 broadcasts) includes a "game board": a white, wide, sturdy paper that is his colorful prep sheet of information and statistics about the players and coaches. Every one of them is treated as a treasured document. 

"No shortcuts," Nantz says, eyes down, pen to page and filling out the final board of his career. "Doesn't matter if it's a game like this or it's a regular-season game. The effort, the work behind it, has to be there. And otherwise you can't be comfortable. And I happen to enjoy this process." 

Nantz has never lost or thrown a single game board out. Every one from his career is archived, by year, at his Pebble Beach home in California. Last year, Hill stopped by Nantz's house, and while he was there, Jim pulled out his board from Dec. 22, 1990, the 10th game of Hill's Duke career--a game at Oklahoma.

When Nantz began doing Final Four games, I was still in college. It will feel strange next year when he is not part of CBS' NCAA Tournament coverage. Ian Eagle will do a great job, but the passage of time is relentless, and seems to accelerate the older that one gets.

Further Reading:

The NCAA Tournament Provides Drama, but Does it Provide Great Basketball? (April 2022)

Baylor Dominates Gonzaga to Win the 2021 NCAA Title (April 2021)

Separating the Grownups From the Kids in Basketball (November 2018) 

Heels Stomp Spartans (2009 NCAA Championship)

C(h)alm in the Clutch: Kansas Defeats Memphis in OT, 75-68 (2008 NCAA Championship) 

Early Entry Players Have Diluted Both College and Pro Basketball (March 2008)