Nick Saban on the Mindset of a Champion

The May 1, 2018 issue of Fortune profiled many individuals who are leaders in their respective fields. Coach Nick Saban, who has won five national championships in nine years with Alabama and six national championships overall (the most by any college football coach in the poll era, dating back to 1936), was the obvious choice for college football (if not for the entire sports world).

Bill Belichick and Nick Saban worked together for the Cleveland Browns in the early 1990s before becoming, respectively, the greatest pro football coach and greatest college football coach of this era (if not all-time). One of Belichick's most famous mantras is "Do your job"; Belichick urges each coach on his staff and each player on his team to focus on the specific responsibilities of his job and to depend on each other coach and player to also do his job. "Do your job" encompasses many concepts, including the idea that if one player is hurt or ineffective then his backup is expected to come in and not just perform adequately but rather perform at a high level.

One example of that from Saban's recent experience is the 2018 College Football Playoff National Championship Game versus Georgia. At halftime Alabama trailed 13-0 and Saban benched his experienced starting quarterback Jalen Hurts in favor of 19 year old freshman Tua Tagovailoa, who clinched the championship for Alabama with a 41 yard touchdown pass in overtime. Such individual and team success is not a fluke but rather a result of season-long preparation for such pressure-packed moments.

Saban told Fortune, "To me it takes a completely different mindset to stay successful as opposed to what you have to do to build something to be successful. All of us are sort of geared toward, if we have success, we're supposed to be rewarded for it, not necessarily that we have to continue to do things even better than we did before."

Saban explained that being a champion requires a different and special mindset: "I mean, it's like you make an A on a test and you say, 'I can take it easy for two weeks and make a C on the next test and have a B average' That's normal. It's special for somebody to make an A on the test and say, 'I'm going to try to make the highest grade ever in the class.' That's not normal. But yet, that's what you have to try to promote from a mindset standpoint to the people in your organization."

Vlastimil Hort Honors Bobby Fischer Without Humoring Fischer's Hateful Sentiments

There is a fine line to walk when attempting to appreciate a genius who possessed some unsavory or even loathsome traits. It is easy to veer to one extreme or the other--to completely refuse to acknowledge the work because one does not want to justify or publicize the person's flaws or, alternatively, to meekly explain away the person's flaws because the work is so magnificent. This troubling choice presents itself in many fields of endeavor.

Of course, for chess aficionados the classic example is Bobby Fischer, perhaps the greatest player of all-time but also a a deeply troubled--if not mentally ill--person. Fischer spewed hatred about the Jewish people and about the United States, going so far as to praise the horrific September 11 terrorist attacks that killed thousands of innocent people.

I found it disgusting when some Fischer sycophants laughed when Fischer made his hateful comments or just blithely dismissed those statements. It seems as if those people thought that by being "yes-men" to a mentally ill genius some of that genius' shine would be reflected back onto them, but instead they just came across as buffoons.

Grandmaster Vlastimil Hort, who knew Fischer for decades, struck a much better tone in his three part Chessbase series recounting his personal recollections of Fischer. Hort displayed great compassion and sympathy for Fischer the human being, as well as great appreciation for Fischer the chess player, but Hort never justified or dismissed Fischer's hateful statements.

Hort wrote early in part one, "I was lucky to meet three brilliant chess personalities, Robert Fischer, Garry Kasparov, and Mikhail Tal. For me, Bobby is definitely the strongest World Champion of all times." In part three, Hort discussed Fischer's post-World Champion days:

Bobby lives like a monk, sleeping on a mattress at his sister's place. Does he want to save the universe and mankind or does he want to flee from them?

Emanuel Lasker did not only write about chess, he also left philosophical works--which are, admittedly, not easy to digest. But from Fischer's Pasadena episode nothing tangible, logical or readable is known. Only racist statements. Did the Armstrongnism already affect his psyche much more than was thought?

His refusal to play against Karpov who had won the World Championship cycle 1972-1975 looked like giving up everything that makes the civilized world. My opinion? Against a Fischer in top form--as he was in Reykjavik--the Soviet challenger would not have had a real chance. The difference in playing strength was minimal, but the physical stamina clearly favored the American. "I want to break his ego." Playing every game until the bitter end, no breaks, no short meaningless draws would have been Fischer's strategy for the match. How many kilos would Karpov have lost during such a match? Efim Geller, Karpov's second: "We all make mistakes, but Fischer makes the fewest of us all!"

Later in that same piece, Hort wrote about the man who Fischer dethroned as World Chess Champion and later called his "frenemy," Boris Spassky and about Fischer's final days:

How did this late friendship come about? After Fischer had been arrested at Tokyo airport in July 2004 Spassky gave interviews to the press and dramatically offered to share a cell with Bobby should he be sentenced. To go to jail with him. Provided Fischer had made inner and outer peace with the state of Israel I would have joined them.

A speaker of the Iceland Ministry of Foreign Affairs: "Granting Fischer Icelandic citizenship is a purely humanitarian gesture, and by no means implicates support of Fischer's political views." How many years, Robert, would you have spent in jail should the gigantic claws of the USA snatched you?" Bravo Iceland!

In April 2009, I received an invitation from the Icelandic Chess Federation. Paul Benkö, William Lombardy, Fridrik Olafsson, Lajos Portisch, and Boris Spassky also came to Laugardælir to say goodbye to the brilliant maestro and to pay him the last respect. Only Viktor Kortchnoi did not accept the invitation. He did not want to give Bobby the license of being psychologically ill.

A small cemetery in the countryside, forgotten by civilization. A plain chapel. Small ponies trotting on the light-green grass so typical for Iceland, just behind the gravestone. Occasionally a curious seagull appeared. The earth was still frozen and we were shivering with cold. As the youngest of the group, I was last to speak. Which was difficult for me--we all furtively wiped tears from our eyes.

Hort's respect and sympathy for Fischer are evident, yet Hort in no way justifies or excuses Fischer's words or actions. Bravo Hort!

Here are links to the three articles:

Vlastimil Hort: Memories of Bobby Fischer (1)

Vlastimil Hort: Memories of Bobby Fischer (2)

Vlastimil Hort: Memories of Bobby Fischer (3)

Terrell Owens Decides to Not Attend Pro Football Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony and His Critics Lose Their Minds

Terrell Owens announced that he does not plan to attend the Pro Football Hall of Fame induction ceremony this fall and that has provided fodder for his many critics to crawl out of dark corners to pick on him yet again. Instead of delving into the media-created controversy or relying on second-hand accounts about Owens' thought process, here is Owens' official statement:

I am so grateful for all of the support my family, friends, and certainly my fans, have shown me throughout my entire career in the National Football League. When it was announced that I was going to be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the response received from my fans was overwhelming, and I am truly humbled. I am honored to be included among this group of fellow inducted individuals.

While I am incredibly appreciative of this opportunity, I have made the decision to publicly decline my invitation to attend the induction ceremony in Canton. I have already shared this information with the Hall. After visiting Canton earlier this year, I came to the realization that I wish to celebrate what will be one of the most memorable days of my life, elsewhere. At a later date, I will announce where and when I will celebrate my induction.

I would also like to thank the San Francisco 49ers, the Philadelphia Eagles, the Dallas Cowboys, the Buffalo Bills and the Cincinnati Bengals for the time I was granted with each organization. I am thankful for the relationships forged and the lessons learned while part of each team.

I wish to congratulate all past, current and future inductees. It is quite an honor to be part of such elite company. This honor is something that I will cherish forever.

Forget what anyone else says or has said about this issue. Owens' own words are measured and respectful toward the Hall of Fame, each of his former teams and his fellow inductees. Owens has the right to decline to attend the ceremony and he has made the public announcement of his intentions months in advance so as to not inconvenience or surprise the event's organizers.

Let's also make something else clear: Owens should have been selected as a first ballot Hall of Famer. It is obvious that he did not somehow become a better player or a more deserving Hall of Fame candidate three years after he became eligible for induction. The Hall of Fame voters--not just in pro football, but in other sports--have often revealed themselves to be ignorant and/or biased. If I were Owens or anyone else who was repeatedly snubbed for no good reason then I would be upset/outraged and that upset/outrage would not instantly disappear upon belatedly receiving the honor. The voters did not do anything for Owens and he does not owe them anything; Owens earned Hall of Fame status by virtue of his productivity and his durability.

What would I do if I were Owens? I would show up at the ceremony, speak about my journey to the Hall of Fame, thank those who helped me to achieve that honor and perhaps say something about the flaws in the voting process that result in deserving players either not being selected or having to wait for many years before being selected. I understand the perspective of those players who are already inducted in the Hall of Fame who feel like Owens should show up at the ceremony and publicly embrace joining the only team from which you cannot be traded or cut. It is a great honor to be selected as a Hall of Famer.

Does that mean it is wrong for Owens to not show up?

No.

If Owens feels hurt by being snubbed and/or if Owens prefers to celebrate this milestone achievement in some other manner, he has earned the right to do so. The Hall of Fame invited him to the ceremony and he politely declined. While Owens' decision is unprecedented, he has the right to make this choice and he announced his choice in a respectful manner.

Owens' critics should do some real soul-searching about why his words and choices elicit such a visceral reaction.

The Endless Fascination of Chess

People who have never played chess or who only play chess casually often are puzzled by the strong grip that the game has on its most avid adherents. How can something that is "just a game" be so captivating, enticing--possibly even addictive?

A few months ago, International Master Justin Sarkar wrote eloquently about this subject, stating, "Words can hardly even describe the impact of chess on me or where I would be without chess...The inherent beauty of the game and personal benefits in fighting my illness speak louder than the implicit demands and stresses of chess tournament play, to the point of it being more like a stress reliever and positive distraction than other things."

Prof. Lakshmi Narayana's article Understanding My Passion for Chess provides an in depth look into the mind/soul of a chess lover. Please take a moment to click the link and read the entire piece; here is a taste of his perspective to whet your appetite:

If I ask myself why do I have such a great passion for chess and analyze the reasons for my predilection I get the following answers:

Logic and Reasoning triumph and there is no element of chance in chess which is the reason for any philosophically inclined person to admire chess...

Another important quality of chess is the aesthetic element. It not only satisfies the sense of logic of humans but also their desire for beauty. Beauty according to Kant's Critique of Judgment is "A harmonious interplay of all the different faculties of human mind." This definition applies very well to the chess game...

Humans have the enduring need to reach their goals in the most perfect and elegant manner. Chess reflects this and fulfils this need. The feeling of empowerment is embodied in chess and gives the experience of a sense of mastery and control to the players. People love adventures. Each game of chess is one such adventure...

The world-class grand master of his times from Germany, Dr.Siegbert Tarrasch has said "Chess like love like music has the power to make men happy" (Tarrasch,1935). Similar to the experience of love which shakes one to the core and which opens a whole new world for one completely forgetting the outside world, chess also takes one to a whole new world of pawns and bishops, knights and rooks, kings and queens and their interplay and the patterns that develop will shake you to the core.

If someone tells you that chess is just a game and you should not waste your time with it, you can reply that life may be a game with uncertain rules and outcomes but chess is an oasis of logic, beauty and purity in an otherwise often chaotic world.

Chess Life Online Disrespects GM Anatoly Lein

Grandmaster Anatoly Lein often stated that he was underrated and unappreciated. Sadly, proof of this disrespect can be seen after his passing.

Chess Life Online, the official website of the U.S. Chess Federation, posted a brief obituary for GM Lein on March 2, 2018. The headline of the obituary refers to GM Lein as "Anthony Lein." The incorrect first name is also listed under a photo caption and in the article itself. Given this tragicomedy of errors, I can understand why the byline for the obituary is US Chess, instead of a person's name.

On March 5, a reader pointed out these errors, but CLO did not correct them. Today, I posted a comment about the errors. CLO deleted my comment but still has not corrected the errors--so it is abundantly clear that CLO knows about the mistakes at this point.

For those of you who may have missed it, here is the obituary that I posted about GM Lein:

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

It would be very nice if CLO posted an obituary worthy of GM Lein, instead of a truncated item with his name spelled incorrectly three times.

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.

Pondering the Dynasty that Belichick and Saban Could Have Built in Cleveland

Winning Super Bowl LII would have been a crowning achievement for Bill Belichick, who already owns more Super Bowl rings than any head coach (five: 2001, 2003-04, 2014, 2016) in addition to the two rings that he won as an assistant coach with the New York Giants. However, Philadelphia's thrilling 41-33 victory over Belichick's defending champion New England Patriots does not tarnish the impressive legacy that Belichick has already built.

Jenny Vrentas' recent Sports Illustrated piece titled Belichick and Saban: The Stories Behind Football’s Most Powerful Friendship details the deep and long-lasting bond that exists between Belichick--arguably the greatest pro football coach of all-time--and Nick Saban--arguably the best college football coach of all-time, winner of six national championships (2003, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2017).

One of the most overlooked football stories of the past 30 years is the tremendous quality of the coaching staff that Belichick assembled when he was the head coach of the Cleveland Browns. Not only was Saban on that staff, but Hall of Fame tight end Ozzie Newsome--who went on to build the two-time Super Bowl champion Baltimore Ravens--was also hired by Belichick. Numerous other members of that staff have made a significant impact throughout pro and/or college football as executives, head coaches or assistant coaches.

Vrentas describes how the Belichick-Saban connection formed in Cleveland, after the two had previously become acquainted a few years earlier as they each worked their way up the coaching ranks:

Belichick got his first head coaching job in 1991--at age 39, with the Browns--and interviewed 85 potential assistant coaches. But his first hire was the easiest: Saban, as his defensive coordinator. He assembled an all-star staff, including nine future NFL head coaches or GMs and three coaches who would go on to lead major college programs. "But I'm going to tell you," says (Chuck) Bresnahan, the Navy linebacker who joined Belichick's Browns staff as linebackers coach, "when Bill and Nick walked in the room, there was a different response from players, coaches, everyone. Things got quiet. You knew it was time for business.'"

Before Belichick and Saban worked together in Cleveland, they had spent hours together--in secret, without their respective teams at the time knowing about this--talking football strategy and breaking down plays together. They were two like-minded, single-minded football savants who were trying to figure out how to implement the ideal method of building a team. Vrentas writes:

Belichick was trying to install a system of coaching players, evaluating players, assembling a roster. Those conversations he and Saban had at West Point about defense? In Cleveland, it was "like, 500 times more of that," Belichick says.

Vrentas notes that Belichick and Saban have different tendencies, particularly on defense: by nature, Belichick favors a more conservative bend but don't break run-stopping scheme, while Saban prefers an attacking front supported by man to man coverage. Belichick and Saban shared the same cornerstone, though, as Vrentas puts it: "Be rigid in fundamentals and techniques, but flexible in scheme." Both coaches proved over time that they could adapt their preferred schemes to both their personnel and also the opposing team's personnel.

Belichick took over a Cleveland team that went 3-13 in 1990 and doubled that win total to 6-10 in 1991. By 1994, the Browns had the best scoring defense in pro football--allowing just 12.8 ppg--and, at 11-5, were a playoff team. They beat New England in the Wild Card round before falling to Pittsburgh in the Divisional Round.

Then, in the middle of the next season Browns owner Art Modell announced his plan to move the franchise to Baltimore, where the team was renamed the Ravens (the NFL returned the Browns franchise/logo to Cleveland in 1999); that decision turned the fans against Modell and wrecked the team that Belichick had built. Modell fired Belichick, who resurfaced as a head coach a few years later in New England--and the rest is history, as Belichick finally had an owner (Bob Kraft) who enabled Belichick to fully implement his vision of how to build a team. While Belichick built a dynasty in New England, the Browns have yet to win a playoff game since the 1994 season.

Vrentas references a talk that Saban once gave to 1500 high school coaches at Mississippi's annual coaching clinic. Saban repeatedly mentioned not just how much he had learned during his time with Belichick--including, most importantly, "He defines what everybody in the organization is supposed to do"--but he also referred more than once to his time with the Browns. Saban explained that one of his key defensive concepts at Alabama--"pattern matching," a zone coverage that morphs into man to man as a pass pattern develops--"started at the Browns."

Another thing that started with the Browns is what Belichick called three "critical factors" for each position: essential criteria for a player to perform in a given role. For example, cornerbacks must be able to (1) tackle, (2) play the ball in the deep part of the field and (3) play man to man effectively. Belichick also had specific height/weight/speed preferences for each position. Saban told Vrentas that Belichick's systematic personnel evaluation techniques had "the greatest impact for me" of anything that he experienced while working with Belichick in Cleveland.

Newsome borrowed the three "critical factors," renamed them "Triangles of Success" and used the concept while building the Ravens into perennial contenders and two-time champions.

Thinking about all of this history and all of these championships won--none of them in Cleveland, where the foundation for all of this success was built--I recall how relentlessly the Cleveland media (and, often, the national media as well) belittled and attacked Belichick both during his time with the Browns and for many years afterward. These self-styled experts made declarations about how Belichick was not suited to be a head coach--and then, after it became clear to even the stupidest sportswriters that Belichick is in fact a great coach, Belichick's critics had the nerve to still assert that Belichick had "failed" in Cleveland before learning how to win in New England.

No, the truth is that Belichick built the foundation for his success in Cleveland, but Modell and many media members were not smart enough to understand this. Smart football people, though, are still applying lessons from what Belichick was doing back when he was mocked for mumbling at press conferences, as if engaging in snappy repartee with people who don't know the game has anything to do with actually coaching well.

Terrell Owens' Belated and Deserved Selection to the Pro Football Hall of Fame

The Pro Football's Hall of Fame 2018 Class includes Bobby Beathard, Robert Brazile, Brian Dawkins, Jerry Kramer, Ray Lewis, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens and Brian Urlacher.

Each inductee has a life story worth telling but this article will focus on Terrell Owens. Owens overcame a troubled childhood--he was raised by his grandmother and did not know for several years that a man who lived across the street from him was in fact his father--to become a great, all-around football player. Owens was not only a tremendous wide receiver from the standpoint of catching the ball but he was a strong runner after the catch, a powerful blocker and a prolific touchdown maker. He finished his NFL career with 1,078 catches for 15,934 yards, a 14.8 yards per catch average and 153 receiving TDs. He ranks second in career receiving yards behind only Jerry Rice and third in receiving touchdowns behind Rice and Randy Moss. Owens is fifth in NFL history in total touchdowns (156) behind Rice, Emmitt Smith, LaDainian Tomlinson and Moss. Owens ranked fifth in career receptions when he retired in 2010 and he still ranks eighth now.

Owens was inducted after his third appearance on the Hall of Fame ballot. Some would say that first ballot selection ultimately does not matter because all that really matters is getting in but Owens clearly deserved to be inducted the first time around; making him wait two years as "punishment" for some imaginary, perceived sin is ridiculous and spiteful.

Instead of praising Owens for his work ethic, his willingness to play hurt (he had an MVP-caliber performance on a broken leg during Super Bowl XXXIX) and his exceptionally consistent production over a long career, the media repeatedly and unfairly targeted Owens for criticism. Brett Favre came from a humble country background but was hailed as a hero despite his alcohol/drug addiction, a sexting scandal and a reckless playing style that proved very costly in many key situations. Owens never got in trouble with the law or the league the way that Favre did and Owens was a clutch performer but the media always found excuses to portray Owens in a negative light.

That is not to say that Owens always said or did the right thing but the overall reality is that the media often took Owens' comments out of context and manufactured/exaggerated so-called controversies at Owens' expense, roasting Owens for figurative crimes while giving free passes to players who had literally committed crimes (including fellow 2018 Hall of Fame inductee Ray Lewis).

In 2009, when Owens had already more than put up enough numbers to deserve first ballot Hall of Fame induction, Michael Smith--then one of ESPN's supposed football experts, before becoming a SportsCenter host--was not sure that Owens is a Hall of Famer. Two years before Smith hesitated to give Owens his due, I declared that Owens should be considered a future Hall of Famer, refuting the commentators who tried to belittle Owens' strong resume. 

Owens' journey from deprivation and hardship to the Pro Football Hall of Fame is inspirational. I would rather have a guy who says "Who can make a play? I can!" and then does it, as opposed to a "gunslinger" who is going to sling interceptions with everything on the line. Favre was a great player and a deserving Hall of Famer in his own right but the media's hagiographic treatment of Favre while constantly belittling Owens shines a disconcerting light on how much personal bias influences the stories that are fed to us on air, in print and online.

Keith Jackson: Voice of College Football--and Many Other Sports

Keith Jackson, for decades the voice of college football (and many other sports), passed away yesterday at the age of 89. Jackson is well known for his colorful expressions such as "Whoa, Nellie" and "Fum-bullll!" but he was more that just someone who mouthed catchphrases: he was a versatile broadcaster whose career spanned more than 50 years and who covered events ranging from college football to the NFL to the NBA to Major League Baseball to various Olympic sports and more. Jackson did the first live sports broadcast from the former Soviet Union and he was part of the original three man Monday Night Football broadcasting team along with Howard Cosell and Don Meredith.

Jackson won countless awards, including an Emmy, and he was inducted into two sports broadcasting halls of fame but he will probably always be most remembered as the familiar, comforting and informed voice of college football. If you turned on the TV and saw that Jackson was doing a college football game then you knew two things: (1) It was an important game and (2) this was would be a mistake-free, professional and entertaining broadcast.

Perhaps the best thing that you can say about any sportscaster is that he did not make the broadcast about himself; the game's the thing and the best sportscasters know that. Jackson once described his broadcasting philosophy as "Amplify, clarify and don't intrude." He lived up to those words every time he spoke into a microphone.

International Master Justin Sarkar's Eloquent Explanation of the Benefits of Chess

There is a pernicious stereotype that obsession with chess causes mental illness and/or that great chess players are almost inevitably either crazy or at least extremely eccentric. For many people, World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer is the most famous example of the supposedly inextricable link between chess and insanity.

I am much more inclined to believe that Fischer's intense focus on chess during the first portion of his life kept him healthy/balanced (or at least as healthy/balanced as he was capable of being) and that after Fischer abandoned chess his life spiraled downhill. Dr. Joseph Ponterotto's Psychobiography of Bobby Fischer discusses how Fischer's mental health problems were much more likely caused/exacerbated by his family background (both genetic and environmental) than by his involvement with chess.

In the January 2018 edition of Chess Life magazine, International Master Justin Sarkar provides a concise and eloquent explanation of the powerful and positive impact chess has had on his life. Here is an excerpt:

I have a social condition--something on the autistic spectrum. I also battle with depression, which has been affecting me for some time. Among other things, it affects my memory, speed in doing things, and especially decision making, even with seemingly trivial things like choosing what to drink. Depression is a tough illness to face, especially when combined with my interpersonal communication struggles. People often seem to not quite "get it." Words can hardly even describe the impact of chess on me or where I would be without chess...

The inherent beauty of the game and personal benefits in fighting my illness speak louder than the implicit demands and stresses of chess tournament play, to the point of it being more like a stress reliever and positive distraction than other things.

-------------------------------------------------

Previous Articles About IM Justin Sarkar:

International Master Justin Sarkar's "Perfect Game"

Justin Sarkar Overcomes Obstacles, Obtains GM Norm

IM Justin Sarkar Obtains Third GM Norm

The Browns Need a New Coach and a New Quarterback

On the cusp of making (or, to be precise, matching) NFL history by going 0-16, the Cleveland Browns fired top football executive Sashi Brown and replaced him with John Dorsey, who did not hesitate to offer a very honest public statement about Sashi Brown's performance: "I'll come straight out with it. The guys who were here before, that system, they didn't get real players."

"That system" is a not so veiled dig at the analytics-driven decisions made by Brown and his cohorts. Dorsey has a valid point about the overall player evaluation process conducted by the previous regime but--to the extent that Dorsey is providing cover for Coach Hue Jackson, who currently sports a 1-30 record with the Browns--it is important to make it very clear that while the Browns do not have a playoff caliber roster they also most emphatically do not have an 0-15 caliber roster, either.

Sports llustrated's Andy Benoit makes a detailed and compelling argument that with proper coaching the Browns would be a lot better than 0-15:

The Browns have one of the NFL’s better offensive lines. They have a quality thunder and lightning backfield with Isaiah Crowell and Duke Johnson. They have an athletic first-round rookie tight end, David Njoku. Their receiving corps needs help, but with second-year man Corey Coleman healthy and Josh Gordon back, it's no longer in dire straits. Defensively, the linebacking trio of Christian Kirksey, Joe Schobert and (when healthy) Jamie Collins is one of football's fastest. The defensive line is adequate and getting better, given the flashes from 2017 No. 1 overall pick Myles Garrett. The secondary, a sieve in 2016 because of poor safety play, has improved after the arrivals of first-round rookie Jabrill Peppers and veteran corner Jason McCourty, as well as the progress made by 27-year-old CB Jamar Taylor. This is a roster that, frankly, should be somewhere between 4-12 and 6-10, not on the cusp of joining the winless 2008 Lions in infamy.

Cleveland's biggest problem is the players have not been put in position to succeed--most notably on offense, and specifically at quarterback. Second-round rookie DeShone Kizer has the tools to become a quality starter. He's physically capable of making 500-level throws at the deep-intermediate levels. He's tough in the pocket. He's athletic and mobile. Yes, he's raw, and his inconsistent precision accuracy is troubling (that issue rarely corrects itself). But quarterbacks with greater flaws have had successful NFL careers.

I made a similar point about Jackson's ineptitude last season:

A well coached team is disciplined and the players are always in the right position, even if the players lack the size, strength and/or speed to complete the play; the 2016 Browns are not just a bad team but they are a team that demonstrably lacks discipline and does not execute properly. CBS color commentator Solomon Wilcots repeatedly pointed out that the Browns should be double-teaming (San Diego tight end Antonio) Gates. The coach is responsible for the product on the field; if Jackson is giving the right instructions but the players are not executing then he needs to put different players on the field: the bottom line is that whatever happens on the field has either been taught by the coach or is being permitted to happen by the coach.

Hall of Fame Coach Bill Walsh, who built the San Francisco 49ers from also-rans into three-time Super Bowl champions, once explained how long it should take to build a good NFL team and how that process should work: "I am often asked how long it should take to turn an NFL franchise around. My short answer is: three years. Not every team will win the Super Bowl in its third season under a new coach (as we did in San Francisco in 1981) but it is reasonable to expect at least some signs of improvement by that time...There are reasons why some teams are able to remain competitive year after year while others never seem to get over the hump...My point is that it takes a concerted commitment from ownership, the front office, the coaching staff and the players for a team to succeed. It's the old 'a-chain-is-only-as-strong-as-its-weakest-link-theory' theory. If one of the four areas is weak, it's extremely difficult to overcome that flaw."

The Browns have been an awful team for the better part of two decades because the front office has been clueless, most of the coaches have been mediocre at best/incompetent at worst and the franchise has never prioritized the acquisition--and nurturing--of a top notch quarterback.

The Browns will likely go 0-16 this season but, with the right decision making process, they could be a playoff team in three years, provided that Dorsey (1) fires Coach Jackson and replaces him with a real NFL head coach, (2) acquires a very good/great quarterback and puts the proper structure/playmakers around that quarterback and (3) transforms the culture of the franchise from a culture that expects/accepts losing to one that demands winning results. Jackson may be a nice guy and a decent assistant coach but he has proven that he is not a championship-level coach--and the Browns should replace him with a coach who can ultimately win a championship. Likewise, as Benoit noted it is possible that Kizer could be molded into an adequate quarterback but it is unlikely that Kizer will ever be an elite quarterback. The coach-quarterback duo is essential to long-term NFL success, as proven by perennial contenders such as New England and Pittsburgh.

When Mike Ditka was hired to be the Chicago Bears' head coach, he met with the players and told them that he had some good news and some bad news: the good news was that the Bears would win a Super Bowl but the bad news was that most of the people in the room would not be with the team when they won. That is the attitude that Dorsey, his next head coach and their next starting quarterback must personify in order for the Browns to become a competitive NFL team instead of being a laughingstock.

Sedlar and Boor Tie for First in Dayton Chess Club Pawn Storm

Will Sedlar and Carl Boor had a hard-fought third round draw with each other en route to tying for first place in the Dayton Chess Club Pawn Storm with 3.5/4. Boor--a three-time Ohio Chess Champion (2002, 2007, 2011)--earned the USCF Senior Master title in 2012, becoming one of the few native Ohioans to accomplish this feat while spending the bulk of his playing career in Ohio. Sedlar, with a career-high post-tournament rating of 2395, is just five points away from becoming the next member of the exclusive club of Ohio USCF Senior Masters.

Just becoming a National Master in Ohio is no small feat. During the three decades that I have been an active USCF chess player, Ohio has typically had about 25-30 NMs at any given time and many of those NMs are from other places or spent significant time playing chess in other places. International Master Calvin Blocker, a 15-time Ohio Chess Champion, achieved a 2600-plus USCF rating in the late 1980s despite rarely playing outside of Ohio and he is without question the most accomplished native Ohio chess player. Boor's rise to Senior Master status while spending the vast majority of his playing career in Ohio is praiseworthy and Sedlar's dramatic ascent in the past few years is equally noteworthy. It takes a lot of determination and focus to achieve such heights in a sport that lacks much financial incentives or recognition outside of the chess community.

This was the 40th DCC Pawn Storm and that is also a milestone worth mentioning. Riley Driver has been running the Dayton Chess Club since the mid-1990s (with much help from his wife Sharon Driver) and he has done a lot of great work to promote chess at the local, state and national levels. Under his direction, the DCC has hosted numerous big events, including the Ohio Chess Congress, the Midwest Open Team Chess Festival and several Dayton Chess Festivals (which attracted numerous FIDE titled players), in addition to traditional DCC events such as the DCC Championship and the Gem City Open.

Sedlar has emerged as the dominant DCC Pawn Storm champion, as his November triumph marks his record 13th first place finish in the event (including five straight and seven of the last eight). Les Whorton and I tied for first place in the inaugural DCC Pawn Storm (March 2011) with a score of 4/5 and he and I remain tied for second place behind Sedlar with six DCC Pawn Storm wins apiece. Boor is now fourth on that list with four wins, followed by three players with three wins each (Yuri Barnakov, Oleksandr Chastukhin and Vladimir Tkatchouk) and three players with two wins each (Ron Burnett, John Lodger Hughes and Luke Xie).

Remembrances of Ohio Chess Champions John Stopa and Jim Harkins

This Labor Day Weekend, I will play in the Ohio Chess Congress for the 24th time; I have only missed the event five times since first participating in 1989. I am proud to have competed that often in the State Championship but it is also poignant to ponder the passage of time--and the passing of individual chess players who I have encountered over the years. Two-time Ohio Chess Champion (1950, 1985) James Schroeder passed away on July 8, 2017 and it has since come to my attention that two other Ohio Chess Champions recently passed away as well: John Stopa (July 7, 2017) and James Harkins (July 27, 2017). Stopa shared the Ohio title with Greg Serper and Boris Men in 1996, while Harkins won the championship three times (1964, 1968, 1973). Harkins tied for first in 1954 but lost the title on tiebreak points.

I played five USCF rated tournament games against John Stopa and two USCF rated tournament games against James Harkins. Ever since 2014--when I became a father and entered Law School--I have not been as involved with chess as I had been for the previous three decades. I feel out of the loop at times and I was stunned to hear of Stopa's passing, considering that he was just 64 years old and had seemed to be in good health the last time that I had seen him just a few months earlier. I did not have an immediate opportunity to write a proper tribute to him but I did post these remarks at his online memorial page:

"I had the privilege of playing five USCF rated games versus John. He was a strong player and a gentleman who always took time to analyze with me after our games. I recall him walking around tournaments recording the opening moves on the top boards. I got the sense that he was booking up on the competition, which is very smart. Rest in peace and my condolences to his family."

I wonder what happened to that pen and paper "database" that Stopa assembled over the years about Ohio's top players. Stopa literally wrote the book about Ohio's chess elite--or, at least he had the notes to write such a book--and it sure would be interesting to see the data that he collected over several decades.

Here is a hard fought draw that I earned against John Stopa five years ago. He and I each finished the tournament with 3.5/4 and shared first place with Charles Diebert.

North Market Swiss (Columbus, Ohio) January 5, 2012 (Round Three)
White:David Friedman (2083)
Black: John Stopa (2200)

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d3 a6 6. b4 Ba7 7. 0-0 d6 8. Bg5 h6 9. Be3 O-O 10. a4 Ne7 11. Nbd2 Ng6 12. Bxa7 Rxa7 13. d4 exd4 14. cxd4 d5 15. exd5 Nxd5 16. Qb3 Be6!? (...Nb6=)
17. Ne4 (White is slightly better) b6 18. Ne5 Nxe5 19. dxe5 Nf4 20. Bxe6 Nxe6 21. Rad1 Qh4 22. Qe3 Raa8 23. f4 Rfd8 24. f5 Ng5 25. Nxg5 Qxg5 26. Qe4 Rac8 27.e6 Rxd1 28. Rxd1 Rd8?? (...Re8 offers much more resistance than the text) 29. Re1? (Rxd8+ followed by e7 and Qe5 leads to a decisive advantage) 30. Qc4 g6 31. fxg6 fxg6 32. Qg4!? (Qe4 is much stronger) Kh7 33. Rf1 Rf8 34. Rxf8 Qxf8 35. Qd4 Kg8 36. Qc4 Qe7 37. Qe4 Kh7 38. h4 h5 39. b5 axb5 40. axb5 Kg7 41. g3 Kf6 42. Qf4+ Kxe6 43. Qe4+ Kf6 44. Qf4+ Kg7 45. Qd4+ Kh7 46. Qd3 Qc5+ 47. Kg2 Qf5 48. Qc4 Qd7 49. Qe2 I offered a draw here and John immediately accepted. He had four seconds left on his clock plus the five second delay, while I had about six minutes remaining.

Like John Stopa, James Harkins was an attorney by profession. Harkins was a fixture on the Cleveland chess scene since at least the 1950s. I used to travel to Cleveland fairly often to visit family members and play in chess tournaments, so I saw him at many events. It was clear that he was a highly respected person and competitor within the Cleveland chess community. I was fortunate enough to beat him the first time we played, when I was a class A player and he outrated me by more than 200 points, but I think that I benefited from premature resignation on his part; I remember looking at the game later and realizing that he still had play in the position, though perhaps he was frustrated and did not want to continue the struggle.

He obtained his chess revenge against me nearly 20 years later in our next--and, as it turns out, final--encounter:

Friday Action Classic (Cleveland Ohio) November 26, 2010 (Round Four)
White: David Friedman (2068)
Black: James Harkins (2039)

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8. Na3 b5 9. Nd5 Be7 10. Bxf6 Bxf6 11. c3 Bg5 12. Nc2 Rb8 13. Qf3 0-0 14. h4 Bh6 15. g4 Bf4 16.Nxf4 exf4 17. Qxf4 b4 18. Be2 bxc3 19. bxc3 Rb2 20.Qd2 Ne5 21. f3 Qf6 22. Rh3? (0-0-0) Bd7 23. Qc1 Rfb8 24. Nb4 This move wins an Exchange but subjects my K to a withering attack. Unfortunately, I did not have any better options, so I grabbed the material and hoped for the best. Rxe2+!? (...R8xb4 followed by Ng6 wins) 25. Kxe2 Bb5+? (...Nxf3) 26. Ke3? (Kf2) Bc4 27. g5?? (Rb1) Qe6-+ 28. Rg3 a5 29. Nc2 Nd3 30. Qg1 Qe5 31. Kd2 Qf4+ 32. Ne3?? (This loses quickly but Kd1 would only delay the inevitable after Rb2) Rb2+ 33. Kd1 Nf2+ 34. Kc1 Qxe3+ 35. Kxb2 Qd2+ 36. Ka3 Qxc3+

It will be great to reconnect with old friends--and perhaps make some new friends--at this year's Ohio Chess Congress but I will also feel some sadness and sense of loss because of the passing of several chess players who made rich contributions to Ohio's chess community.

Reflections About James Schroeder, Chess Master/Writer/Prison Chess Advocate

I was saddened to learn that James Schroeder--chess master, prolific writer and long-time advocate for prison chess programs--passed away on July 8 at the age of 89. IM John Donaldson wrote an obituary of Schroeder at Chess Life Online and, as one would expect from such a knowledgeable and proficient writer/historian, this account is thorough and in depth while also speaking from the heart. I only met Schroeder once but he had a strong impact on my chess career, so I would like to share some personal reflections both about that one meeting and also about what I learned about Schroeder over the years.

My first USCF rated chess tournament was the 1987 Gem City Open, held in Dayton, Ohio (I had scored 2/4 in a local high school tournament earlier in the year that was supposed to be rated but never was). Before the first round, I encountered an older gentleman (he was 60 at the time but to teenage eyes that was elderly) who was selling chess books. At that point, my personal chess library was very small (and the internet did not exist), so I was thirsty for any chess knowledge. The man introduced himself as James Schroeder. I had no idea at the time that he was a chess master and a well known figure on the Ohio chess scene.

I selected Modern Chess Openings, 12th Edition (MCO 12, the most recent volume at the time) and Basic Chess Endings by Reuben Fine. I figured that if I knew how to start a game and how to finish a game then I would be in good stead. The MCO 12 was in excellent shape but the Basic Chess Endings was a little beat up, so I asked Schroeder if he would cut me a deal since I was buying more than one book. He was aghast. He told me in no uncertain terms that this book was a classic, that it contained essential knowledge and that his price was reasonable considering the book's value. I was taken aback by his vehemence but I took his words to heart and bought both books. I went 0-5 in that tournament but I developed a habit of consulting MCO and Basic Chess Endings after every serious game that I played (unless the game did not reach an endgame, of course) and I believe that this practice played a major role in my later chess accomplishments--including my first "big" chess prize ($100 for best score among Class C players in the 1989 Gem City Open), a 5-0 score in the U2000 section of the 2004 Gem City Open and a record 10 Dayton Chess Club Championships.

On April 9, 2017, I sent a letter to Schroeder (he did not have an email address) in which I thanked him for his positive influence on my chess career:

Dear Mr. Schroeder,

You sold me my first copy of MCO (12^th Edition) and my first copy of Reuben Fine’s Basic Chess Endings at the 1987 Gem City Open in Dayton, Ohio. That was my first rated tournament and I went 0-5 to post a provisional rating of 1186. You beat Sergey Berchenko in the last round with Black to win the tournament and you later analyzed the game for the Dayton Chess Club Review, declaring that anyone who complains about having Black is a “fool” because unless you are playing a super GM you will always have at least one chance.

Those books you sold me, the game that you won against Berchenko and your sharp annotations made a deep impression on me. I went on to break Richard Ling’s record by winning 10 Dayton Chess Club championships.

I remember trying to bargain with you about the price of Basic Chess Endings because the book was well worn and you indignantly replied that it was a classic. You were right and more than 30 years later I still have that copy!

Anyway, I never had the chance to thank you and when I recently found your website I decided to send you this letter.

If you are still sending out copies of your book Confidential Chess Lessons and a list of books that you are selling I would love to receive both. I will soon be teaching my young daughter to play chess and I am sure that she could benefit from your book and from any books that you may still have in stock.

Thank you again,

David Friedman 

He wrote his reply on April 14. Considering that he sold me my first copy of MCO, it is ironic that one piece of advice that he offered was, "Never read an opening book." He also wrote, "Winning the Dayton Chess Club Championship 10 (times) is a great accomplishment" and he put in bold letters "NEVER STOP STUDYING THE ENDGAME." He added that he no longer writes Confidential Chess Lessons but he sent me some photocopied pages from the book; one passage, from an article titled "The Genius," begins "The object of the game is to cross the center of the board with your pieces and attack the opponent's position. I want to play this game to the best of my ability within the amount of time available. I am playing Amateurs, not Grandmasters; do not be afraid of anything. I must be confident and expect to win every game."

Schroeder is perhaps best known for his writing, his teaching and his advocacy for prison chess programs but it should not be forgotten that he was a strong player as well. IM Donaldson's obituary provides details about Schroeder's playing career and cites some wonderful games--including a draw against GM Lubomir Ftacnik and a flashy win against NM Jim Harkins (a three-time Ohio Chess Champion).

Schroeder won the Ohio Chess Congress in 1950 (scoring 5.5/6) and 1985 (scoring 5/6 to tie with IM Calvin Blocker in the prime of Blocker's career; this was the fourth of Blocker's record 15 Ohio titles). That set a record for most years between a player's first and last OCC titles (35), since broken by Ross Sprague (who won the OCC title in 1958, 1975, 1976 and 2005, with an astonishing 47 year span between his first and last titles).

James Schroeder's career as a chess player/writer/teacher lasted more than 70 years and impacted countless lives, which is quite a legacy.

Grandmaster Arthur Bisguier: A Personal Reminiscence

Grandmaster Arthur Bisguier passed away on Wednesday at the age of 87. Bisguier was a two-time U.S. Chess Junior Champion (1948, 1949), the 1954 U.S. Chess Champion, a three-time winner of the U.S. Chess Open (1950, 1956, 1959) and a three-time U.S. Chess Senior Champion (1989, 1997, 1998).

He earned the Grandmaster title during an era when only the elite players achieved that distinction, as there were only a few dozen Grandmasters in the world in the late 1950s. The young Bisguier was a swashbuckling exemplar of attacking chess; in his later years he adopted a more conservative style and he was still a dangerous tournament player well into his 80s.

I first met Bisguier in the 1990s at the Kings Island Open near Cincinnati, Ohio. He showed up at that tournament every year for many years--not to play, but to hold court in his own skittles room, where he analyzed players' games for free. For me, having my games analyzed by a legend was one of the most enjoyable aspects of playing in this event (and I had a fair amount of success there, one year beating three 2300s when I was not even rated 2100 and other years winning various class prizes).

Bisguier never put on airs and he never talked down to anyone. He would patiently analyze a game played by a 1200 with the same seriousness and attention to detail that he would apply to a game played by a 2100 and he would subtly adjust his explanations so that they would be intelligible to each player without making that player feel self-conscious.

The only thing that would exasperate Bisguier was if a player had an inaccurate scoresheet. Bisguier would say something to the effect of, "If you don't know what happened then I can't help you."

You could tell that he loved the game and that he enjoyed helping us to improve. Some players preferred to show their wins to Bisguier but I tended to show him my losses first (and then my wins, if there was enough time to do so), because I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to gain as much knowledge as possible about my weaknesses.

Bisguier would state with self-deprecation that our tactics were better than his at that point but that he could show us the correct plan for a given situation; in reality, his tactics were still quite sharp, particularly in an analysis session with no clock running.

Some of Bisguier's comments will always stick with me, especially "I want my pieces to do something!" and "Where is your sense of danger?" The former remark--which he said to many players--was an exhortation to not only develop our pieces but to develop them actively. I have often said something similar to my students, reminding them of the supreme importance of active and coordinated piece play. The latter remark, directed specifically to me on more than one occasion, reflected his astonishment at the recklessness of my play as I paid the price after disregarding some rather serious threats being made by my opponents. The ironic thing is that Bisguier, as a young man, was a very brash and bold player, though of course his play was far more accurate than mine. My sense of danger still fails me at times but I have avoided the wrong path on many occasions by remembering Bisguier's warning and thus playing a necessary prophylactic move instead of just ignoring my opponent's threats.

Sometimes, at the end of a long day of providing analysis and when everyone had shown all of the games that they wanted to show, Bisguier would regale us with one of his games from the 1950s--or the 1990s! He had an incredible memory and he was an engaging raconteur as he entertained us with slashing victories from his youth or his somewhat more subdued wins as he captured one of his three U.S. Senior titles.

One of my favorite Bisguier stories about his career (which I both read about and then heard about from him as well) is how he came to win the inaugural Church's Grand Prix; as I recall, he was between jobs in 1979, so he decided that he might as well travel the country and try to make some money playing chess. Bisguier said this so casually, as if anyone in his early 50s could just suddenly ramp up his chess tournament schedule to play almost every weekend in a different city while enjoying sustained success against younger players, many of whom were full-time chess professionals. According to an article in the March 1980 issue of Chess Life, Bisguier finished with 80.62 Grand Prix points to narrowly beat International Master Vitaly Zaltsman. In addition to the various tournament prizes that Bisguier won along the way, he received $3000 plus automatic entry into the next U.S. Chess Championship (Zaltsman won $1500 and the next 10 players on the list received between $100 and $1000 each). In that article, Bisguier noted with pride that during the year he had increased his rating to a new career-high.

I was always puzzled that players above a certain rating felt that it was beneath them to show their games to Bisguier and I thought that it was crass and foolish that some players mentioned his name while debating who was the "weakest" active Grandmaster, as if mere mortal chess players have any business trying to make such a distinction; Bisguier's rating slowly but surely dropped from 2500+ to his 2200 floor but his wisdom and understanding of the game remained undimmed--and he had forgotten more about chess than most of those who mocked him would ever know, regardless of whether or not their current ratings were 50 or 100 points higher than his. A player who peaks at 2300 has not accomplished a fraction of what Bisguier did and should speak of Bisguier with nothing but humility and respect. To paraphrase what Yoda said to Luke Skywalker, "When 80 years old you reach, play chess as well you will not."

It has been a few years since I last had the opportunity to play at Kings Island and more than a few years since Bisguier stopped coming to the event; I miss seeing him every year as fall turned to winter in Ohio but I cherish the memories of my many interactions with him and I am grateful that I had the opportunity to spend so much time with one of the legends of 20th century American chess.

Rest in peace, Grandmaster Bisguier, and may your family be comforted at this time.

Belichick, Brady and the New England Patriots Embody the Difference Between Winners and Champions

By now, you have seen it, heard about it and/or been subjected to endless "takes" about it: the New England Patriots came back from a 25 point third quarter deficit to beat the Atlanta Falcons 34-28 in overtime in Super Bowl LI. Bill Belichick now stands alone above NFL coaches with five Super Bowl wins and Tom Brady stands alone above NFL quarterbacks with five Super Bowl wins (Charles Haley won five Super Bowls as a linebacker for the 49ers and Cowboys).

I try to avoid engaging in hyperbole but considering the quality of the teams, the magnitude of the historical legacies at stake, the many great individual plays and the dramatic overtime conclusion, Super Bowl LI is the greatest Super Bowl ever.

Here are some of my thoughts and observations to place Super Bowl LI in a larger context:

1) Has any major sports figure more thoroughly forced the media to completely reevaluate his legacy than Bill Belichick? Cleveland media members mocked Belichick during his tenure with the Browns (fun fact: Belichick presided over the Browns' most recent playoff win, after the 1994 season) and after Belichick resigned following just one day as the New York Jets' coach the national media ganged up on him as well (Belichick believed that the Jets lacked the organizational stability necessary to build a championship team and history has certainly vindicated him about that).

When New England owner Robert Kraft was considering hiring Belichick, Art Modell--who backstabbed Cleveland's fans by moving the Browns to Baltimore in 1995, a decision that also sabotaged Belichick's final year with the team--told Kraft that hiring Belichick would be the biggest mistake he ever made. Modell thought like a media member (he was a Madison Avenue ad man before buying the Browns) and, like most members of the media, he would not have known a bubble screen from bubble wrap, but instead of accepting responsibility for his actions in Cleveland he preferred to make Belichick the scapegoat.

Kraft wisely ignored Modell and the media know-it-alls. Kraft not only hired Belichick but he had enough sense to stay out of his way (something that Modell never figured out how to do as an owner) and enable Belchick to rebuild the Patriots from the ground up. Go back and look at the headlines from early in Belichick's tenure in New England; the stupidity of the media is breathtaking. It is also pathetic that Modell, who had pledged that Belichick would be the last coach that he hired only to betray him, was not satisfied with firing Belichick but that he also tried to ruin his reputation among other NFL owners.

2) The Patriots proved the power of positive thinking. Shaquille O'Neal often says that if the general panics then the troops will panic but if the general is calm then the troops will be calm. The Patriots did not play well in the first half but you did not see Belichick or Brady losing their cool. They exuded a quiet confidence that there was a lot of time left in the game and that they could still win. Many media members love to talk about "halftime adjustments" or "in game adjustments" but the reality is that game-planning is done before the game, not during it.

If you have to come up with a new game plan at halftime then you are dead. If you listen to Belichick or Gregg Popovich or any other great coach you will notice that they almost sneer when a media member asks them about halftime adjustments. Belichick had a game plan that took into account the Falcons' tendencies and, as Belichick noted after the game, by the middle of the first quarter it was obvious that the Falcons were going to almost exclusively stick with man to man defense. The only "adjustment" the Patriots had to make was to stay focused, not panic after making some mistakes and execute the game plan that had been drawn up to counter man to man defense. There were no great halftime speeches and no "adjustments" drawn on a chalkboard.

The Patriots stayed calm, they stayed focused and they followed Belichick's mantra: "Do your job." This approach is a marked contrast to what we often see in the sports world. When challenges arrive, it is very easy to think negatively or blame your teammates or to abandon the game plan as opposed to focusing on executing it. When the Cleveland Cavaliers hit a rough patch recently, LeBron James blamed everyone but himself and he is reportedly actively involved in trying to arrange for the Cavaliers to trade Kevin Love to New York for Carmelo Anthony. Belichick and Brady did not whine that they needed "another playmaker" after Rob Gronkowski suffered a season-ending injury; instead, they won a Super Bowl with a bunch of wide receivers who no one would have ever heard of if those receivers had not had the good fortune to be coached by Belichick and thrown to by Brady. The 39 year old Brady did not complain about having to throw the ball over 60 times because the Patriots' running game could not get going. World Chess Champion Vasily Smyslov once said that in chess you must do things as they have to be done and then see what happens (Larry Brown might call this "playing the right way") and that is what Brady did: the Patriots had to throw the ball a lot to win, so he threw the ball a lot and did not complain or whine or make excuses.

It is also worth noting that when all was said and done, neither Belichick nor Brady announced that they were the best of all-time; they deflect praise and they speak about the contributions of the other members of the team. I can't help but think back to when James quit versus Boston in the 2010 playoffs and then announced at his press conference that he had "spoiled" the fans by being so great for so long--or to when James declared that he never lacked confidence because he is "the best player in the world." Muhammad Ali could get away with saying such things because he went in the ring by himself and proved in one on one combat that he was the greatest but it is a little different in a team sport--and when a team sport athlete makes such a statement it then becomes quite legitimate to ask why he has a losing record in the Finals: if you keep tooting your own horn then you can't complain when the critics point out your discordant notes. Brady and Belichick don't have to say anything because their resumes speak loud and clear: the Patriots are contenders every year and they have posted an unprecedented 5-2 Super Bowl record in a league that is designed to promote parity.

3) "Do your job." Julian Edelman's job is to catch footballs. Before Super Bowl LI, he warmed up by catching passes one-handed, first with his right hand and then with his left hand. A few hours later with the championship on the line, Edelman outfought three Falcons for the ball and cradled it in his hands just inches above the turf. How does one little 5-9 receiver beat out three players to make such a play? Edelman did his job. Losing teams get in trouble because some players try to do too much or because other players become so discouraged that they stop trying at all. The Patriots do their job until the clock strikes triple zeroes. As Belichick said after the game, it takes 60 minutes of effort and sometimes even a few minutes more than that (because of overtime).

4) The difference between winners and champions. In the first half, Brady did not look like the greatest quarterback of all-time. He made uncharacteristic mistakes and he even seemed rattled mentally and/or physically by the Falcons' pass rush. However, Brady kept battling and his confidence permeated throughout the team. There are two recurring themes in the Patriots' post-game quotes: (1) Coach Belichick prepared us for anything that could happen and (2) We never doubted that we could come back because we had Tom Brady running the offense. That kind of leadership cannot be quantified; indeed, other than height, Brady lacks just about any measurable you would look for in a franchise quarterback but you cannot measure mental toughness and work ethic and leadership.

In an interview aired on Fox before the Super Bowl, Kraft told Erin Andrews that the toughest part of any task is completing the last 5% of the job. I would add that the final 5% is what separates champions from everyone else: it is the difference between winners and champions.

The Atlanta Falcons are winners. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise; they had a great season and they played brilliantly in the NFC playoffs to advance to the Super Bowl. What the Falcons are not is champions: they were not able to complete the last 5% of the job. Perhaps they will find a way individually and collectively to develop that championship mentality; there have been other teams that fell just short only to eventually take the last step--but there have also been plenty of teams that fell just short and then collapsed, because the way that they fell short revealed something essential about their competitive spirit that just could not be fixed.

I love the unscripted drama of sports. No statistical model could have predicted what transpired down the stretch in the Super Bowl. I read a stat somewhere that at one point the Falcons were 99.8% favorites to win the game. Such statistical modeling fails to take into account the human spirit. I think back to the famous "Battle of 1816," when John McEnroe defeated Bjorn Borg by that score in the fourth set tiebreaker of the 1980 Wimbledon Finals. Borg had won four straight Wimbledons but it seemed like McEnroe was about to dethrone him. It would have been understandable for Borg to quit against his younger rival but, instead, Borg played an almost flawless fifth set to win a then-unprecedented fifth straight Wimbledon crown. That tiebreaker is often replayed but one time when Borg was asked about it he almost whispered with a knowing smile that it was the fifth set that mattered.

I have never had the opportunity to compete at the highest level of any sport but in my local and regional competitions I have attempted to apply what I have learned from a lifetime of studying the greatest champions. It took me nearly a decade to win my first Dayton Chess Club Championship. Perhaps my most frustrating failure came after I raced to a 3-0 lead by beating my main rivals, only to fall short by losing to two lower rated competitors. Such a setback is a cause for serious introspection; I had already won many tournaments and attained an Expert level rating but I had never won a chess championship, falling short both in the city high school championship and in the DCC Championship.

The next time that I played in the Dayton Chess Club championship after blowing that 3-0 lead, I was not deterred when adversity arose in certain games and I was not distracted by what anyone else in the tournament did, because I had finally figured out that what mattered was not accumulating rating points or being satisfied by beating the players who were the biggest threats on paper: what mattered was completing that last 5% of the job, winning that fifth set, beating out three players to catch a pass.

Being a champion is like being addicted to a drug; it took Michael Jordan several years to win his first NBA title and then he won six in the next eight years. After I won my first DCC title, I won three in a four year stretch en route to capturing a record 10 overall in a 20 year period despite rarely if ever being the highest rated participant. No "metric" would have projected that I would win 10 DCC titles--and that is what is great about competition.

Please forgive the personal interlude but trying to understand champions has been a lifelong fascination of mine and I have attempted to apply what I have learned both in my writings about champions and also in my modest endeavors to be a champion on a local/regional level. I also should make it clear that I consider my rivals for the DCC title over the past two decades--including but not limited to Earle Wikle, John Dowling, Chris Atkins, Ross Sprague, Les Whorton and Will Sedlar--to be champions as well and any time I describe my journey to become a champion I certainly mean no disrespect to the journeys that each of them took to become champions: when two champions square off someone has to lose but a true champion shows his mettle by bouncing back. McEnroe beat Borg in the 1981 Wimbledon Final to secure his legacy as a great champion; Belichick and Brady have responded to their two Super Bowl losses by adding two more Super Bowl wins to their resumes. It will be interesting to see what these Atlanta Falcons are made of and if they can complete the final 5% of the job or if they have already peaked. After the Super Bowl, Jimmy Johnson said that the Falcons will be back but as an NCAA and NFL champion he should know better: championships are not promised to anyone, no matter how talented or young or hungry.

Federer Outlasts Nadal to Claim First Grand Slam Title Since 2012

If you live in the eastern portion of the United States, you had to get up at 3 a.m. in order to watch Roger Federer face Rafael Nadal in the Australian Open Final. The lost sleep was worth it to see two of the greatest tennis players of all-time throw haymakers at each other for five sets. Federer, trailing 2-1 and down a break in the fifth set, rallied to win 6-4, 3-6, 6-1, 3-6, 6-3. Federer extended his record to 18 career Grand Slam singles titles, while Nadal remains tied with Pete Sampras in second place on that list with 14.

Federer and Nadal did not play perfect tennis but they played at a breathtakingly high level for sustained periods. The fifth set was captivating theater. Initially, the match looked like a rerun of most of the earlier matches in the head to head rivalry (which Nadal still leads, 23-12, including 9-3 in Grand Slams and 6-3 in Grand Slam Finals). Federer led two sets to one but Nadal stormed back to take the fourth set and after he seized an early break in the fifth set it looked like Nadal, as usual, would wear Federer down mentally and physically. Nadal is the only player who not only beats Federer but seems to break Federer down, resulting in mental mistakes and physical fatigue--but this time Federer found another gear: although Nadal may have slowed a bit down the stretch, it did not look like Nadal lost so much as Federer just beat him with splendid shotmaking.

The Federer fans--and they are legion, including many media members--will say that this victory clinched greatest player of all-time status for Federer; they have been singing that refrain for a decade and, as Federer aged, they became increasingly strident, pointing to every Federer accomplishment as proof of his greatness while saying that every Federer loss did not mean much because he was already past his prime.

The reality is that this match was marvelous to watch but it did not change much about the facts, even if some people will change their perceptions. As mentioned above, Nadal still owns a decisive lead in the head to head rivalry. Nadal beat Federer early (taking 12 of the first 18 matches that they played against each other, culminating in an epic 2008 triumph in the Wimbledon Final on what could be called Federer's "home court") and he has beaten Federer late (winning six of their nine matches since 2011).

Nadal still owns a better Grand Slam winning percentage (14/47, 29.8%; Federer's Grand Slam winning percentage is 18/69, 26.1%) and he has taken Federer's measure at Federer's best Grand Slam (Wimbledon) while Federer has not reciprocated at Roland Garros, where Nadal has won a record nine French Open titles (Federer's lone French Open win came without facing Nadal). Nadal owns the head to head advantage over Federer at the French Open (5-0) and the Australian Open (3-2), while Federer leads 2-1 at Wimbledon. They have never met at the U.S. Open. Nadal leads in ATP Masters/ATP World Tour Masters 1000 matches (12-4), best of five matches (11-4), clay court matches (13-2) and hard court matches (9-8).

Why would one match, as great as this one was, between a 35 year old Federer and a 30 year old Nadal weigh heavily enough to overcome that mountain of evidence pointing to Nadal's superiority? That just makes no sense. If anything, this match was an anomalous result between two players who are both past their primes, neither of whom had won a Grand Slam in years (2012 for Federer, 2014 for Nadal); the norm is for Nadal to beat Federer and to beat him in heartbreaking fashion by overpowering him. In the fifth set while trailing, Federer called the trainer over several times but if anything Nadal looked like the player who was a step slower than he had been earlier in the match. Federer may very well have aged better than Nadal and Nadal may not even be playing at 35, let alone winning Grand Slams--but when comparing two great players peak value matters more than durability, particularly when considering the fact that both players have had long careers by tennis standards.

Also, although Nadal's hard-charging style does not seem to be made for longevity--and he has always been less durable than Federer--who can dare say that Nadal cannot possibly win four Grand Slams in the next five years to tie Federer's record by the time that Nadal is the age that Federer is now? That seems unlikely--but no more unlikely than Federer emerging from a five year Grand Slam drought to outlast his greatest rival in five sets. Why have Federer's fans spent the past decade trying to close the greatest player of all-time discussion when Federer's greatest rival is still active? Reread that sentence carefully and the answer is not too hard to figure out.

Congratulations to Roger Federer for winning the Australian Open in dramatic fashion and kudos to both players for providing fantastic, high level tennis; hopefully, this is a rekindling of the rivalry and not the last, great spark.

Federer Versus Nadal: Once More, for the Ages

Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, two of the greatest tennis players of all-time, are just hours away from facing each other once again--perhaps for the last time--in a Grand Slam Final. Many commentators are touting this as the most important head to head match of their rivalry.

I disagree with the notion that this one match--out of nearly three dozen head to head matches and hundreds of other matches in their respective careers--is the most important match for either player. Both Federer and Nadal are well past their primes and the Australian Open is indisputably the least significant of the four Grand Slams (the top non-Australian players routinely skipped this event in the 1970s and 1980s).

I am not convinced that any one match can or should be singled out as the most important but if we are going to pick one Federer-Nadal showdown to elevate above all of the others then the choice has to be Nadal's five set victory over Federer in the 2008 Wimbledon Final. That Nadal triumph ended Federer's Open Era record 65 match winning streak on grass courts, it obliterated once and for all the notion that Nadal was only a clay court specialist and it paved the way for Nadal to supplant Federer as the number one ranked player in the world. That match is also arguably the greatest match in tennis history. There is no way that a match in Australia between two past their prime greats can come even close to matching the historical significance of the Wimbledon match that they contested when they were both at the peak of their powers.

Federer is such a media darling that it is easy to forget how thoroughly Nadal has dominated their head to head rivalry. Nadal leads Federer 23-11, including 9-2 in Grand Slams and 6-2 in Grand Slam Finals. Nadal beat Federer early in the rivalry (taking 11 of 17 matches prior to their 2008 Wimbledon showdown) and he has also dominated as both players moved past their primes (winning six of their eight matches since 2011). If Nadal beats Federer in the 2017 Australian Open Final then Nadal will join Roy Emerson and Rod Laver as the only players to win each Grand Slam at least twice (Federer claimed his sole French Open title by not having to face Nadal).

Federer holds the male record with 17 Grand Slam singles titles, but it is important to keep in mind that tennis professionals were not permitted to play in the Grand Slams until the Open Era began in 1968; otherwise, Rod Laver could very well have won 17 or more Grand Slams. Also, Federer has won 25% of his Grand Slam appearances (17/68), a lower percentage than Nadal's 30.4% (14/46); Federer is tennis' Emmitt Smith, a great player who set records based more on durability than dominance.

It must be mentioned in this context that Bjorn Borg, the Sandy Koufax of tennis, holds the record for percentage of Grand Slams won (11/27, 40.7%) and his simultaneous dominance of the French Open's slow clay plus Wimbledon's fast grass is unparalleled; Borg won both tournaments from 1978-80 and when he stopped playing Grand Slams at just 26 he held the modern record for most titles at both events, six and five respectively. Put Borg, Federer and Nadal in the same era with the same equipment and Borg would likely emerge as the best player based on conditioning, mental toughness and ability to dominate multiple surfaces.

Mary Carillo recently offered great insight about the Federer-Nadal rivalry: 

I have said and argued with John McEnroe and Ted Robinson during our French Open telecasts for many years that you cannot anoint Roger Federer the greatest of all time if he isn't the greatest of his own time. And it's not just on red clay. Nadal has the edge on hard courts as well. Like in boxing, it's all about the matchup. When Roger is playing at his luminous best he has no need to worry about the other side of the net. But if he is playing Nadal, even his best is often not enough.

People conflate [Federer's] beauty with supremacy and blur the line between high art and [Nadal's] impossible-to-ignore domination. I think Roger Federer is the most stylish, elegant and gifted tennis player I've ever seen. Roger is all that is right in this tennis world. Rafa Nadal is his perfect rival--powerful, explosive, gritty and gutsy.

Nadal has proven to be more dominant on more surfaces than Federer. Nadal owns a decisive advantage in their head to head rivalry. Nadal beat Federer in Federer's prime on Federer's best surface. I cannot imagine how this Australian Open Final would materially alter my opinion about Nadal and Federer; if Nadal wins, this is just a continuation of a well-established pattern of Nadal's superiority, while if Federer wins that would not change the fact that Nadal still owns a huge head to head advantage that he obtained when both players were at or near their primes.

Any Federer fan who hypes up this match as Federer's great opportunity to prove that he is a greater player than Nadal should be prepared to make the opposite declaration if Nadal wins; it makes no sense to act like this match matters if Federer wins but to give Federer a pass if he loses. Such thinking reminds me of a writer who years ago claimed that a Lakers-Rockets game seven would be the biggest game of Kobe Bryant's career (the writer hoped/expected that a loss would somehow define Bryant's legacy)--but after Bryant's Lakers won, this writer did not make any comment about this victory defining Bryant's legacy in a positive way.

Federer and Nadal have both defined their legacies already. This match will be one more chapter--and perhaps a poignant/nostalgic one if it turns out to be their last Grand Slam Final battle--but no one should make bold declarations about all-time rankings based on the outcome.

My prediction? Nadal wins in four sets. Either during the match or shortly thereafter, Federer will indicate that he was not at full strength physically. Nadal will be humble in victory and declare that Federer is still the greatest player; Federer's media fans will agree with Nadal and will state that Nadal's victory over an aging Federer is not really that significant (but if Federer somehow wins this match, brace yourself for a barrage of articles declaring that Federer is the greatest tennis player of all-time).

Cleveland Browns: "We're Not the Worst NFL Team Ever"

Fans like to declare "We're Number One" but in the aftermath of the Cleveland Browns' 20-17 victory over the San Diego Chargers all that Browns fans can honestly say is "We're Not the Worst NFL Team Ever." The Browns started this season 0-14--and had lost a franchise-record 17 straight games prior to beating the Chargers--but the dubious distinction of worst NFL team ever probably still belongs to the 1976-77 Tampa Bay Buccaneers team that went 0-14 in the franchise's first year and then lost the first 12 games in the franchise's second year; those 26 straight losses are an NFL record that ranks among the sports records least likely to be broken (just think about how awful this Browns team is and then realize that they would have had to lose more than another half season's worth of games to match the Buccaneers' epic futility). Or, perhaps the 2008 Detroit Lions merit consideration, as they remain the only NFL team to lose every game in a season since the league expanded the schedule to 16 games in 1978. In any case, the 2016 Browns have elevated themselves out of that conversation, because one win is infinitely more than zero wins.

Browns versus Chargers was one of the most exciting Browns games I have ever watched, but the excitement was perverse, not joyous--kind of like watching a train wreck unfold in slow motion. Until the clock hit triple zeroes, I had no idea what would happen. Even as Josh Lambo's game-tying field goal attempt sailed wide right as time expired, I still was not convinced that the Browns had won; I first had to make sure that no Brown had thrown a helmet in celebration or jumped offsides or called timeout to ice the kicker or committed some other folly that I cannot even imagine or conceive.

It felt strange to become so emotionally invested in the possibility that an awful team might hang on to beat a pretty bad team but being a sports fan sometimes involves suspension of disbelief or logic. Let's be honest: the Browns did not win because they had a great game plan or because they played so well; the Browns won mainly because they were playing a sorry team featuring lame duck Coach Mike McCoy. San Diego's Philip Rivers is a talented quarterback but this season he is the most intercepted passer in the league and after he executed a crisp touchdown drive on the first series of the game he did not do much of note the rest of the way. His Cleveland counterpart, Robert Griffin III, is a marvelously talented athlete who cannot stay healthy or consistently throw the football accurately, two attributes that are rather important for long term success as an NFL quarterback. This was a typical Griffin performance: he ran well, played with heart/determination--and did not finish the game due to injury (he has now been entered into the NFL's concussion protocol and I hope that he is OK not just in a football sense but also as a human being).

Trailing by three points with less than two minutes remaining in the game, the Chargers raced downfield into field goal range with no timeouts because the Browns refused to double cover tight end Antonio Gates, San Diego's most dangerous offensive weapon. The Browns are the anti-New England Patriots; Patriot Coach Bill Belichick identifies the opposing team's best weapon and comes up with a plan to neutralize that weapon but Gates had eight catches for 94 yards and a touchdown against the Browns. After the game, the CBS studio crew (most notably Bill Cowher) gave credit to Browns Coach Hue Jackson because he is an upbeat person who supposedly inspired the Browns to play hard. Look, most of the Browns players are paid more money for one game than the average U.S. citizen earns in an entire calendar year; playing hard is the least that these players can do--not to mention the old cliche "the eye in the sky don't lie": everything a player does is filmed and the habits and techniques that a player demonstrates on film will go a long way toward determining whether or not that player has an NFL job next season.

A well coached team is disciplined and the players are always in the right position, even if the players lack the size, strength and/or speed to complete the play; the 2016 Browns are not just a bad team but they are a team that demonstrably lacks discipline and does not execute properly. CBS color commentator Solomon Wilcots repeatedly pointed out that the Browns should be double-teaming Gates. The coach is responsible for the product on the field; if Jackson is giving the right instructions but the players are not executing then he needs to put different players on the field: the bottom line is that whatever happens on the field has either been taught by the coach or is being permitted to happen by the coach. Remember Mike Singletary's rant about how he would rather play 10 on 11 than put a player on the field who does not buy into the game plan? A lot of people made fun of the way that Singletary delivered that message but his underlying thought process was right on the money.

Speaking of cultivating the right mentality, it should be noted that the problem with the Browns starts at the top and predates Jackson joining the team. Case in point: I did not catch this during the telecast, but apparently the Browns played Kool & the Gang's "Celebration" after the game. I am a lifelong Browns fan. I am happy when my team wins and I am disappointed when my team loses. I hate to quote Mike Tomlin, the coach of the hated Pittsburgh Steelers, but I love the attitude behind his oft-repeated statement, "The standard is the standard." Tomlin's Steelers expect to win any time, any place, regardless of injuries or circumstances. The Steelers are not going to play "Celebration" after one win against a bad team during a season that will not end in a playoff berth, let alone a Super Bowl title (that is the standard that the Steelers set for every season).

I would say that after a regular season victory the Browns should act like they have done this before but the problem is, the 2016 Browns had not done this before. The ownership group, front office and coaching staff have plunged a once-proud franchise to the lowest point in its long history--but they won one game and avoided being considered the worst team ever. "Celebration," indeed.

The Browns face the Steelers next week. As Wilcots noted, the Browns have no realistic chance to win that game. This is just not right. Browns-Steelers is supposed to be a rivalry game, not a stepping-stone for the Steelers to possibly improve their playoff position.

I am happy that the Browns won; it sure is better than the alternative--but Browns fans will really celebrate when they believe that they have the right owner, front office, coaching staff and quarterback to be successful in the long run and when Browns-Steelers is a competitive contest, not a foregone conclusion to punctuate the most forgettable and lamentable season in Browns' history.

Carlsen Retains World Chess Championship in Spectacular Style

Magnus Carlsen, the 16th linear World Chess Champion, retained his title by defeating challenger Sergey Karjakin 3-1 in a Rapid tiebreak match after the two competitors tied 6-6 in 12 games contested at a Classical time control. While Karjakin did not quite crack the Carlsen code, he pushed the Champion to the brink; Carlsen did not enjoy a lead in the title bout until he won the third game of the tiebreak match after the first two games were drawn. In game two of the tiebreak match, Karjakin displayed remarkable composure and grit as he held off the highest rated player of all-time to draw an endgame that was objectively lost.

The tiebreak match had extremely high entertainment value, culminating in the decisive move of the fourth game that compelled Karjakin's instant resignation: Carlsen's 50. Qh6+!, a beautiful Queen sacrifice that forces checkmate in all variations. While the climactic combination was not necessarily difficult for a player of Carlsen's caliber, it was still an impressive finish considering the stakes and the small amount of time that each player had remaining to complete the game.

However, from a chess purist's standpoint this was a terrible way to decide the World Chess Championship. As Grandmaster Yasser Seirawan pointed out, there are separate World Chess Championship titles for Classical, Rapid and Blitz time controls, so it make no sense to decide the Classical title with a tiebreak match using Rapid time controls. As he asked rhetorically, will the Rapid Championship now use a Classical time control if a tiebreak match is necessary?

Granted, even if the match conditions were decided purely on aesthetic and sporting considerations--which will never happen in the real world, when economics and logistics inevitably play a role in determining such things--there is no perfect format. An automatic rematch clause if the Champions loses--a perk enjoyed by Mikhail Botvinnik from 1948-63--is a huge advantage. Enabling the Champion to retain his title in the event of a tied match is also a significant advantage. In 1984-85, we saw the perils of a format that forces one player to win six games with draws not counting: Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov battled for 48 games before the match was suspended with Karpov leading 5-3.

All of that being understood, the 2016 format--a 12 game Classical match followed by (if necessary) a four game Rapid match, a two game Blitz match and a one game winner take all "Armageddon" battle with White having five minutes and Black having four minutes plus draw odds--leaves much to be desired. I agree with Grandmaster Seirawan's suggestion that an 18 game Classical match would lead to better play because one victory would not necessarily be decisive; in a 12 game match players tend to be cautious and steer toward the tiebreaks as opposed to fighting it out and possibly losing the one game that could spell overall defeat. The boring and quick draw in game 12 of the Carlsen-Karjakin match made a poor impression, no matter how understandable it was strategically given the circumstances.

In the 2016 World Chess Championship, Carlsen proved that he is a great Champion and Karjakin demonstrated that he is a worthy challenger who may very well wear the crown one day. I commend both players for their performances under great pressure. I just hope that in the future the World Chess Championship match will last longer than 12 games and will be contested entirely at a Classical time control.