Journey to the National Master Title, Part 3

The March 12, 2023 East Market Swiss will always be one of the most special tournaments of my chess career. That is not because I shared first place, but rather because it was my eight year old daughter Rachel Sophia's first rated tournament. I taught Rachel how to set up the pieces when she was two years old, and she learned the basic rules well enough to play a chess game before she was three years old, but up until this point she had been more interested in playing casual games than in playing tournament games. A while ago, I explained to her the differences between tournament chess and casual chess, and I left it up to her to decide if/when she would like to play in a rated tournament.

I showed the East Market to Rachel during FaceTime, and perhaps seeing the playing site in advance helped her decide to take the plunge. I told Rachel that I lost all five games in my first rated tournament, so the goal at the beginning is to have fun and learn as opposed to focusing on the final result. Rachel is probably better at enjoying a game without focusing on the final result than I am anyway, so she may not have even needed that message!

Rachel's only concern about playing rated chess is that it is difficult for her to both record the moves and use the clock (she is fully capable of doing both, but prefers not to do both during the same game). I understand that there are two valid perspectives about this: one perspective is that a child should wait to play tournament chess until the child is able to follow all of the tournament rules, while the other perspective is that the value of early immersion in the tournament environment is more important than writing down the moves. I have been both a player and a coach, and my perspective is that this should be dealt with on a case by case basis with young children. The reality is that most young children who keep score produce scoresheets that are riddled with inaccuracies and missing moves, so unless a child is already proficient at keeping score I think it is more beneficial to practice that skill in between tournaments, and to use tournaments as an opportunity to practice playing skills and clock management "under fire." Rachel is eight years old and the East Market Swiss is not a national championship or a FIDE rated event, so from my perspective Rachel is sufficiently prepared because she knows the rules of tournament chess and can play a game with a clock without any assistance. However, I checked with East Market tournament director Lou Friscoe before the event to make sure that he would be OK with Rachel not keeping notation, and he said that would be fine. 

Rachel lost her first two rated games, but her round three game was a long battle in which both sides had winning chances. Rachel won after noticing that her opponent had run out of time. She politely pointed this out to tournament director Lou Friscoe, who declared Rachel the winner because she still had sufficient checkmating material left on the board. Rachel lost her fourth round game, but overall we both enjoyed the whole day's experience, from listening to music during the car ride to East Market to having pizza for lunch at East Market to playing video games between rounds to going to Book Loft after the tournament ended. All of Rachel's opponents were gracious, and each provided me with a copy of his scoresheet (which matters more to me than Rachel now, but may be significant to Rachel later if she becomes interested in going over her games or just looking back on how she played during her first rated games). Rachel's four game provisional rating is 685.

             Rachel and I enjoyed the 3/12/23 East Market Swiss

 

Playing tournament games while also wondering how Rachel is doing is a new experience for me. The end result--three straight wins followed by a last round draw with the second seeded player--was good, but I had some concentration lapses at times. I was the top seeded player, so even a 4-0 performance would not have netted a large rating point gain, but winning the tournament and gaining three points while Rachel also won a game is about the best that I could have expected.

I played in two other over the board chess tournaments since I wrote Journey to the National Master Title, Part 2, scoring 3/4 in the February 26, 2023 East Market Swiss to tie for third place while losing three rating points, and scoring 3/4 in the February 18, 2023 G/45 Open (in Columbus) to tie for second place while gaining five rating points. Overall, I scored eight wins, one loss, and three draws in those three tournaments, with one first place finish. With a rating of 2013 after these three events, I need to gain 187 points to reach my goal.  

In 2023, I have scored 22 wins, seven draws, and four losses in regular rated tournament games with four first place finishes in nine events--but two losses to players rated below 1700 were costly, and as a result my net rating gain for 2023 is just one point so far. The good news is that my official rating supplement rating has been above 2000 each month since April 2022, my longest such streak since 2017; I have established a beachhead above 2000, and the next step is to surpass the 2100 level.

Jim Boeheim's 47 Season Syracuse Coaching Career Ends Unceremoniously

Jim Boeheim's Syracuse coaching career is over. The circumstances surrounding his departure are bizarre and murky, but it is clear that he will not be returning because the university issued a statement noting that Associate Head Coach Adrian Autry will be Syracuse's coach next season without indicating if Boeheim retired, if the parties mutually decided that Boeheim would not return, or if Syracuse fired Boeheim without wanting to say so explicitly (it is also not clear why the statement capitalized "Associate Head Coach" but did not capitalize coach).

At a press conference after Wake Forest beat Syracuse 77-74 in the ACC Tournament, Boeheim stubbornly refused to answer a simple question: Is he retiring or not? Boeheim said that whether or not he retires "is up to the university." That is not how retirement works; that is how firing works: the employee decides whether or not to retire, while the employer decides whether or not to fire the employee. Boeheim also said, "I gave my retirement speech last week and nobody picked up on it." 

One gets the impression that Boeheim did not want to leave and Syracuse did not want to admit to firing him, so the parties are just acknowledging the breakup without applying a label to it. I cannot recall another coach of Boeheim's prominence whose coaching career ended in such a disjointed fashion; there have been successful coaches who received a farewell tour and there have been successful coaches who were fired after sticking around too long, but it is unusual for a successful coach to just abruptly disappear while hinting that he is not ready to go.

Before Boeheim became a coach, he played for Syracuse alongside future Hall of Famer Dave Bing, who told me, "Jimmy was one of those players who was just totally underrated. He came to Syracuse as a non-scholarship player and he did not get a scholarship until his sophomore year. We roomed together as sophomores and juniors and became very good friends and talked basketball quite a bit. It was evident to me way back then that Jimmy would become a good coach. He was a steady player. He was smart in that he knew how to get open and he was a good shooter. Whenever I drove to the basket he was smart enough to get to the open spot and he could put it down. He had a very good senior year."

Boeheim was inducted in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame as a coach in 2005, two years after he won his first and only national championship with a squad headlined by Carmelo Anthony. Boeheim led Syracuse to the Final Four five times in four different decades (1987, 1996, 2003, 2013, 2016). He posted a 1015-441 record, ranking second all-time on the Division I wins list behind Mike Krzyzewski. Boeheim played a significant role in the Big East's emergence as a dominant college basketball conference in the 1980s, and he later served as an assistant coach for Team USA's Olympic gold medal winning teams in 2008, 2012, and 2016. 

However, there is a less glamorous side to sustained high level success in college sports. Danny Tarkanian, an attorney and the son of Hall of Fame coach Jerry Tarkanian, insists that it is not possible to have great success at the top level of college basketball while running a clean program, as I discussed in my review of his book Rebel With a Cause: The True Story of Jerry Tarkanian:

He asserts that no current big-time collegiate sports program can survive without violating the NCAA's rules, quoting former American University Coach Ed Tapscott (p. 112): "The crime in the NCAA is not in breaking the rules. It's in getting caught. We have our own MAD--Mutually Assured Destruction. There's a threshold of dirty linen we can all build up, and know that all of us agree tacitly not to disclose it. Because none of us could succeed without breaking the rules."

Sam Gilbert, a so-called "booster," provided a host of improper/illegal benefits to UCLA's basketball players from the mid-1960s until the early 1980s, during which time Coach John Wooden led UCLA to an unprecedented run of 10 championships in a 12 year span, including seven in a row (1967-73). The NCAA did not take any action against UCLA during Wooden's run of championships, but in 1981--long after Wooden had retired, and after the Los Angeles Times conducted an in depth investigation--the NCAA determined that UCLA had committed over a decade's worth of violations. The NCAA did not vacate any of Wooden's championships, but only vacated UCLA's 1980 Final Four run, while also placing the basketball team on probation for two years. Coach Wooden denied having knowledge of Gilbert's activities, and it was never proven that Coach Wooden knew, but Coach Wooden also admitted that during that time he had "tunnel vision" and "trusted too much."

In 2015, Boeheim joined the long list of coaches punished by the NCAA for violating NCCA rules. The NCAA suspended Boeheim for nine games, and vacated 101 of his wins from 2004-2012. That is the third most wins ever vacated for a single school.

An even more disturbing scandal involving the Syracuse basketball program became public knowledge in 2011. Bernie Fine, Boeheim's right hand man for 36 years, was not criminally charged, but credible allegations of child abuse cost him his job at Syracuse. In a recorded conversation with former Syracuse ball boy (and Bernie Fine accuser) Bobby Davis, Fine's wife Laurie indicated that she knew that her husband's behavior with minors had been inappropriate. Boeheim publicly defended and excused Fine well past the point that it was acceptable or reasonable to do so, to the extent that two of Fine's accusers sued Boeheim and Syracuse for slander. Before the case proceeded to trial, Boeheim and Syracuse paid an undisclosed settlement to resolve the matter, with the university issuing this statement: "Coach Boeheim regrets that he made those statements and that he questioned the integrity of Bobby Davis and Michael Lang. Since then, he has publicly committed to focus his charitable efforts on providing assistance to victims of sexual abuse, which he continues to do. We are glad to announce that we have resolved the defamation case that Mr. Davis and Mr. Lang brought, and look forward to putting this behind us."

On February 20, 2019, Boeheim drove a car that struck and killed Jorge Jimenez, who had been standing at the side of the road next to a disabled car. Boeheim had been speeding on an icy road prior to the fatal accident, but after a police investigation the authorities declined to press charges against Boeheim. In 2020, the Jimenez estate filed a civil suit against Boeheim and Syracuse, alleging that Boeheim's negligent driving caused Jimenez' death. I found no public record of that case being resolved yet.

Boeheim's fans will understandably focus on Syracuse's 2003 NCAA title and nearly five decades of sustained on court success, but there are other aspects of Boeheim's career and life story that do not get nearly as much attention as the shortcomings exhibited by other similarly prominent figures who are regularly excoriated by media members who specialize in practicing selective outrage.

Reflections on the Passing of Broadcasting Legend--and All-Star Catcher--Tim McCarver

It is natural and common for a sports fan to fervently insist that the golden age of sports coincides with his childhood. My earliest sports memories date back to the mid-1970s, and many of my fondest sports memories are from the 1980s. For me, the period from the mid-1970s through the late-1980s is the golden age of sports, and that time period is memorable not only because of the splendid athletes who were in their primes--including but not limited to Julius Erving, Pete Maravich, George Gervin, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, the Magic Johnson-Larry Bird-Michael Jordan triumvirate, Mario Andretti, Bjorn Borg, Pete Rose, Eric Davis, Reggie Jackson, Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Walter Payton, and Bo Jackson--but also because of the insights provided by TV analysts such as Hubie Brown, John Madden, and Tim McCarver. On the play by play side, Al Michaels, Dick Enberg, Dick Stockton, and Marv Albert were the cream of the crop.

Brown coached the Kentucky Colonels to the 1975 ABA title, Madden coached the Oakland Raiders to a win in Super Bowl XI, and McCarver played for two World Series champions in the 1960s. All three understood what it takes to win at the highest level of sport, and all three had the gift of conveying that understanding to viewers within the flow of the game. When Brown, Madden, or McCarver did an NBA, NFL, or MLB game respectively, you knew that it was a big game--and you knew that you were going to be blessed with intelligent analysis.

Brown still occasionally works NBA games for ESPN/ABC, but he has not been a lead analyst for many years. Madden passed away on December 28, 2021. McCarver passed away yesterday. Michaels now does Amazon's Thursday night NFL games and he is still excellent, if perhaps not quite at his peak. Enberg passed away in 2017. Albert and Stockton retired in 2021, though they both appeared as guests during the NBA's 75th Anniversary Celebration Game.

Intelligent sports commentary has never been plentiful, but a gaping void exists in the NBA, NFL, and MLB that may never be filled. That is not to say that there are not some very good commentators working today--but will any of the commentators who are in their primes now be considered all-time greats?

McCarver served as the national TV analyst for a record 24 World Series on three different networks (ABC, CBS, Fox). Joe Buck, McCarver's play by play partner for 18 years, said on Thursday, "I learned really fast that if you were in his inner circle, he would be a fierce defender of you and for you. He taught me how to deal with criticism because he had been criticized his whole broadcast career. And sometimes it was because he was a teacher of the game. If some player or manager didn't manage or play the way he thought the game should be played, he let a national audience know it. He was always the first one in the clubhouse the next day. If that person had something to say back to him, he would engage and stood his ground, but it was fair. He taught me a lot about the game, but he taught me as much or more about how to broadcast on a on a national level." In 2012, McCarver received the Baseball Hall of Fame's prestigious Ford C. Frick award for broadcasting excellence.

McCarver's deep understanding of baseball strategy was always evident during his broadcasts, but perhaps the most famous example of his combination of knowledge and prescience happened during game seven of the 2001 World Series. As the left-handed Arizona batter Luis Gonzalez stepped to the plate to face the Yankees' legendary closer Mariano Rivera, McCarver declared, "The one problem is, Rivera throws inside to left-handers. Left-handers get a lot of broken bat hits into shallow outfield, the shallow part of the outfield. That is the danger of bringing the infield in with a guy like Rivera on the mound." Not long after McCarver uttered those words, Gonzalez won the game--and the World Series--with a bloop hit to the shallow part of the outfield. 

I never understood people who criticized McCarver for talking too much. His job was to explain what was happening on the field, and he did his job very well. I have always followed basketball and football more closely than I followed baseball, but prior to the 1995 baseball strike I was an avid baseball fan who very much enjoyed listening to McCarver's insights (and I still enjoyed listening to McCarver call the World Series after 1995, even though I did not follow MLB as closely as I previously had).

Before McCarver won three Emmys as MLB's premier TV analyst, he earned two All-Star selections, a second place finish in the 1967 NL MVP race, and a pair of World Series rings with the St. Louis Cardinals (1964, 1967). McCarver is the only catcher post-1900 to lead either league in triples (13 in 1966). He was the preferred catcher for two different Hall of Fame pitchers (Bob Gibson with the Cardinals, and Steve Carlton with first the Cardinals and then the Philadelphia Phillies).

McCarver played in four different decades (1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s), and he served as a broadcaster from 1980-2019. He exemplifies the term "baseball lifer."

Journey to the National Master Title, Part 2

No one said that the journey to National Master would be easy. I scored 3/4 in the January 22, 2023 East Market Swiss, finishing tied for second-third but losing 12 rating points to fall to 2002. My only loss happened in the first round, when I was up a Pawn against a much lower rated player and had more than 25 minutes left in a G/45 time control but I inexplicably blundered into mate in one, the latest and most extreme example of the extent to which blundering has been the main obstacle to achieving my goal. Such mistakes are difficult to explain and foolish to excuse: the bottom line is that I have to hold myself to a higher standard, and not lose focus regardless of opponent/game situation/any other circumstance.

I scored 2.5/5 (one win, two draws, one loss, one half point bye) in the U2100 section of the February 4-5, 2023 Cardinal Open, losing 16 rating points; as a result of that subpar performance, I fell below the 2000 rating level for the first time in nearly a year. In the last round of the Cardinal Open, I faced William Stewart (1969), and a win would have not only kept my rating above 2000 but also enabled me to have a small net rating gain for the event.

After Stewart played 33 Rxh6 (see diagram below) I played the correct ...Bxc4+, but after 34 bxc4 I blundered with 34 ...Qb7, mistakenly believing that I had a checkmating attack on the Queenside. I subsequently lost the game after I missed an opportunity to force a draw by perpetual check.

Instead, after 34...gxh6 35.Qh5+ Kg8 36.Qg6+ Kh8 37.Nxg5 fxg5 38.Qxh6+ Qh7 White's attack is over and I am up a Rook for two Pawns. If White tries 37.Rh1 then ...Qh7 forces White to trade Queens or else retreat, again ending the attack in my favor. 

I bounced back from that final round disaster to score 3-0 in the February 11, 2023 DBTHS Swiss, an event run by the revived Dayton Chess Club. That performance pushed my rating back up to 1996. The next day, I scored 3.5/4 to take clear first in the East Market Swiss, gaining 11 rating points to restore my Expert level rating (2007, five points higher than before the Cardinal Open).

I played in four regular rated over the board chess tournaments since I wrote Journey to the National Master Title, Part 1. I scored 10 wins, three draws, and two losses in those tournaments, with two first place finishes. With a rating of 2007 after those tournaments, I suffered a net loss of seven points, and I need to gain 193 points to reach my goal. 

Overall in 2023, I have scored 14 wins, four draws, and three losses in regular rated tournament games with three first place finishes in six events--but the three losses (including two losses to players rated below 1700) were as costly as they were avoidable. Each loss at my rating level represents a 24 point swing (counting the points lost plus the points that would have been gained with a win), so the two lapses in concentration versus significantly lower rated players are the difference between being rated 2055 now and being rated 2007. 

I have two tournaments remaining in February 2023, so I have ample opportunities to demonstrate that I have learned my lesson. Hopefully Part 3 of this series will not include any losses to lower rated players!

Tom Brady Retires After Turbulent Final Season

Tom Brady announced that he has thrown his last NFL pass, and this time there does not seem to be any hesitation or doubt on his part. I placed Brady's career in historical context the first time that he retired, and I wrote about his first game back after his brief retirement, so this article will focus on Brady's final season. Brady did not play poorly in 2022, but his performance dropped off significantly from his 2021 campaign when he finished second in AP NFL MVP voting after leading the league in passing yards (a career-high 5316), passing touchdowns (43), completions (485) and attempts (719). In 2022, Brady again led the league in completions (490) and attempts (733)--setting single season league records in both categories--but his yardage plummeted to 4694, and he threw for a modest (in this passing friendly era) 25 touchdowns. He received no MVP votes, and he was not selected to the Pro Bowl.

Most significantly, Brady's team posted a losing record (8-9) for the first time in his 22 seasons as an NFL starting quarterback (the New England Patriots went 5-11 in Brady's rookie season, but he only appeared briefly in one game during the 2000 season). Brady won a Super Bowl in his first season in Tampa Bay after the team went 11-5 during the regular season, and the Buccaneers improved to 13-4 in 2021 before losing to the eventual Super Bowl champion L.A. Rams in the Divisional Round of the playoffs, but the 2022 Buccaneers were flawed and limited in ways that even prime Tom Brady may not have been able to overcome--and the very good but not consistently great 45 year old Tom Brady was not able to lift this team above .500, though the Buccaneers snuck into the playoffs thanks to winning the divisional title in the league's weakest division.

Did the 2022 season tarnish Brady's legacy? No, not any more than Brady winning a Super Bowl in 2020 tarnished Bill Belichick's legacy. By definition, legacy includes a person's entire body of work viewed in the largest possible context, not one slice of that body of work viewed in a narrow, distorted context. Brady was a brilliant and durable performer for over two decades, and he generally played his best in the games that meant the most, resulting in seven Super Bowl titles--an individual record for NFL titles that not only figures to stand for a long time, but that outpaces the lifetime totals of all NFL franchises except for Green Bay, Chicago, and the New York Giants. Brady's legacy is that he consistently performed at a high level individually while also playing a major role in team success as he led the New England Patriots to six Super Bowl wins and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers to one Super Bowl win. Similarly, Belichick's legacy as a championship-winning coach and as a mentor to other highly successful coaches--including, most notably, Nick Saban, one of Belichick's assistant coaches with the Cleveland Browns in the early 1990s--is unaffected by whatever has happened or will happen in the final stages of his long career.

Brady was far from being a stumbling, ineffective player in his final season but even if he had been it would be wrong to say that he would be remembered that way. When we think of Willie Mays, Johnny Unitas, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and other legends who played well past their prime years, we may be aware to some extent that they were not at their best in those last seasons but it would not be true to say that their careers are defined by those seasons: Johnny Unitas as a San Diego Charger is a footnote in the book of his career, not a chapter heading.

Only Brady knows what effect his final season had on his personal life, and only he knows whether or not he regrets not retiring as a champion in 2020, but his football legacy was not impacted in any way by the turbulent waters that he and the Buccaneers navigated in 2022.

Djokovic Ties Nadal's Career Grand Slam Singles Titles Record

Novak Djokovic just won his record 10th Australian Open singles title, tying Rafael Nadal's record for career Grand Slam singles titles (22), and matching Nadal's feat of winning at least 10 titles at the same Grand Slam; Nadal holds the record for victories in a single Grand Slam event with 14 French Open titles.

It is interesting to recall that Roy Emerson was the first player who dominated the Australian Open, winning six singles titles there to hold the event's record until Djokovic surpassed him in 2019. Emerson also held the career Grand Slam singles title record (12) until Pete Sampras won his 13th in 2000. Emerson was an all-time great, but even at his peak he was not given much consideration in the greatest player of all-time conversation for several reasons, including (1) he won all of his Grand Slam titles as an amateur before the Open Era (when professionals were permitted to compete for Grand Slam titles), (2) half of his Grand Slam wins came in the least important Grand Slam (Australian Open), (3) outside of the Australian Open he won six of the 45 Grand Slam singles events that he entered (.133), and (4) Rod Laver dominated their head to head rivalry when they were both amateurs before the Open Era and then when they were both professionals during the Open Era. A good case could be made that Laver was the greatest tennis player prior to the Open Era.

For most of the history of the Australian Open, the top non-Australian players often skipped the event. Bjorn Borg played there once. Jimmy Connors played there twice in a Grand Slam singles career extending from 1969-1992. John McEnroe played there five times in his career, but only twice in his first 12 years on the professional tour.

Djokovic has been more productive on more surfaces for a longer period of time against stronger competition than Emerson, but Djokovic is similar to Emerson in the sense that the other great players of his era have won more often in the more prestigious Grand Slams. 

Comparing Djokovic's career Grand Slam totals in four Grand Slam events to the Grand Slam totals of other greats who spent most of their careers only playing in three Grand Slam events ignores historical context, particularly because 10 of Djokovic's 22 Grand Slam wins came in the Australian Open. In short, I would not rank Djokovic as the greatest player of the Open Era, let alone of all-time--at least not on the basis of Grand Slam success or dominance. 

Djokovic has won 22 of the 69 Grand Slam singles events that he entered, a winning percentage of .319, but without the Australian Open--by far the least historically significant Grand Slam--he has won eight out of 51 (.157), which is more comparable with Ivan Lendl's career numbers (eight out of 57 overall, .140) than with the career numbers posted by the players who usually headline the greatest player of all-time conversation (no disrespect intended toward Lendl, who is actually a very underrated great player).

Nadal has won 22 of the 67 Grand Slam singles events that he entered (.328), while Federer won 20 out of 81 (.247). Federer's fans argue that his long career lowered his winning percentage, but that is not the whole story. Federer's Grand Slam career started slowly--he did not win a title in his first 16 Grand Slam appearances (and that excludes two other times that he lost in the qualification rounds before even reaching the main draw). Then, in his prime he could not beat Nadal at the French Open before finally also losing to him at Wimbledon; at no point was Federer's Grand Slam winning percentage as good as Nadal's at a similar point in his career.

Federer has now dropped from joint second place to third place on the career Grand Slam singles titles list with 20 wins, but I doubt that will lower the volume of those who insist that he is the greatest tennis player of all-time. Federer's adoring fans have consistently been immune to facts, logic, and numbers; they supported him even though Nadal dominated him head to head throughout the overlapping portion of their careers, they supported him after Nadal conquered him on his best surface (in 2008 on the grass at Wimbledon), and they supported him after Nadal surpassed him in career Grand Slam singles titles--even though the primary reason for Federer's alleged superiority was supposed to be Federer's overall dominance of all surfaces and all Grand Slams.

Bjorn Borg, the Sandy Koufax of tennis, should be front and center in any greatest player conversations, but his name is too often not mentioned, the same way that great players from the past in other sports are also being forgotten. Borg holds the career Grand Slam singles winning percentage record (11/28, .393), and he accomplished that despite skipping the Australian Open in nine of the 10 years that he played in at least one Grand Slam. The supposed brevity of Borg's career is sometimes criticized, but he won at least one Grand Slam for eight straight years, a longevity record that stood from 1981 until Pete Sampras matched that mark in 1993. Federer later tied the record as well (2010), and only Nadal has broken it (10). Borg's reign at the top of Grand Slam tennis is actually one of the longest, at least in the Open Era.

If Federer's fans ever become intellectually honest, they will have to concede (1) Federer never achieved the simultaneous two surface dominance that Borg did when Borg simultaneously held the modern career records for French Open singles titles (six) and Wimbledon singles titles (five), and (2) Federer's career Grand Slam singles totals--the last straw that his fans desperately clung to--have been surpassed not only by Nadal but also by Djokovic (albeit with the caveat that Djokovic's Grand Slam career is not as impressive overall, for the reasons stated above).

Journey to the National Master Title, Part 1

The title of this series of articles is not meant to be presumptuous; although I am confident that I will obtain the National Master title, I understand that it is not 100% certain that I will obtain the National Master title, and that is the reason that "journey" is included in the title: whether or not I make it to the desired destination, I intend to chronicle my experiences during the journey.

I am inspired in part by a series of Chess Life articles Larry Remlinger wrote over 30 years ago about his quest to obtain the International Master title. Remlinger returned to chess as an adult after a long hiatus following his success as a junior player, while I have been playing tournament chess continuously for over 35 years, but the larger concept of his series of articles and my planned series of articles is the same: discussing the challenges faced by an adult player attempting to attain a specific rating goal or title status.

The Journey Begins

I learned to play chess when I was around eight years old, but my game took its first significant leap at age 13 after meeting Earle Wikle and his mentor Dr. Harold Wright when they organized a chess club at my junior high school during the 1984-85 school year. Wikle was by far the best chess player I had met up to that time; learning from him and playing unrated training games against him elevated my skills and helped me understand what it would take to become an Expert.

I joined the Dayton Chess Club (DCC) and the U.S. Chess Federation (USCF) in 1986. After playing in various unrated DCC events in 1986 and 1987, I played in the Greater Dayton High School Individual Championship in February 1987. I scored 2/4, but for some reason lost to history the event's results were never submitted to the USCF and thus the event was never rated. I played in the Greater Dayton High School Individual Championship each year from 1987-89, but never won a prize. Those were the only scholastic tournaments of my career (scholastic tournaments were much less common in the 1980s than they are now). After failing to reach the winner's circle as a junior, I take some consolation that I am two for two in senior (age 50+) tournaments, with third place finishes in the Ohio Senior Championship in 2021 and 2022.

Although the USCF's online records only go back to late 1991, my personal records (including printouts of old crosstables from my earliest tournaments) enable me to track my rating progress for all 3338 regular or dual rated games that I have played.

Officially, I played in my first USCF rated tournament in July 1987, scoring 0/5 in the Gem City Open to obtain a provisional rating of 1186. I won my first rated game on October 25, 1987, defeating Daniel Burns (1593) in round four of the Roosevelt Open.

At the end of 1987, my record in rated games was two wins, 12 losses, and one draw, and I had increased my rating to 1408. My first non-provisional rating was 1398.

By the end of 1988, my rating was 1533. Tien Chou held his first Miamisburg Tornado tournament in January 1988, and the timing was perfect for me, as there were not many local rated events at that time. Playing in the Miamisburg Tornado every month helped me to gain experience and rating points. Chou, a strong Expert who later achieved the National Master title as an "older" player (i.e., in his late 40s or early 50s), provided me with printouts of Sicilian Najdorf analysis, and he was always willing to analyze together after we played a rated game. I was very proud when I became strong enough to not only give him a good game but to even score an occasional draw or win against him. Chou won the 1988 Dayton Chess Club Championship.

I made tremendous progress in 1989, peaking at 1895 by the end of December. The monthly rating supplements issued by the USCF at that time listed the top 50 players in the country by various age categories. One of those categories was 17-18, and I narrowly missed qualifying for that list in 1989, which would have been quite a feat for someone who was almost 16 by the time he played his first rated game. 

After gaining over 800 points from June 1987 through December 1989, it seemed that I would make Expert (2000) soon--but then my rating dropped, and I spent two years in an up and down cycle before surpassing 1900 for the first time in January 1992. It took me longer to go from 1800 to 1900 than it took me to go from 1186 to 1800, and that foreshadowed the challenges I would face before surpassing the 2000 and 2100 rating levels.

Achieving the Expert Title

I finally made Expert on May 13, 1995, scoring 3/4 in the Springfield Tornado to tie for second through fourth while pushing my rating from 1981 to 2012. I first surpassed the 2100 level on June 10, 2000, scoring 2.5/4 in the OSU June Tornado to increase my rating from 2096 to 2114. In that tournament, I defeated Steve Wygle (2279) and drew with Chuck Diebert (2200), but I lost to Felikss Grankins (2224), who took clear first with 3.5/4. I did not maintain a 2100 rating for very long, and after I dropped below 2100 I did not break that barrier again for over a decade, though I did reach 2085 in December 2009, and I pushed past 2050 on multiple occasions only to then fall back below that mark.

I returned to 2100 in style, scoring 4/4 to tie for first place in the June 12, 2011 North Market Swiss, finishing with a rating of 2101. For the rest of 2011, my rating fluctuated right around 2100. After I dropped below 2100 on October 9, 2011, I did not cross the 2100 barrier again until August 11, 2013, when I scored 4/5 in the U2100 section of the Cleveland Open, tying for second-eighth, and finishing with a rating of 2112, just two points short of setting a new career-high. I fell below 2100 in my next tournament (the 2013 Indianapolis Open), and I did not surpass 2100 again until February 23, 2014, when I scored 4/4 to finish clear first in the North Market Swiss, increasing my rating from 2087 to 2129 (new career-high). I peaked at 2190 on May 2, 2015 after scoring 6/6 to win my record 10th Dayton Chess Club Championship. I maintained a 2100+ rating until March 13, 2016.

On August 27, 2016, I scored 3/4 in the Cincinnati Tornado and pushed my rating to 2109. I maintained a 2100+ rating for two months, peaking at 2150. My rating has been below 2100 since October 29, 2016. After 2016, the highest rating that I have reached is 2080 when I scored 4/4 to take clear first in the October 15, 2022 Cincinnati Tornado.

USCF Titles/Wins Against Masters/FIDE Rating

The USCF awards titles based on attaining a minimum performance level in at least five tournaments. I earned the Class C and Class D titles simultaneously in December 1991, the Class B title in May 1992, the Class A title in September 1992, and the Candidate Master title in November 1997. I have obtained three of the five norms for a Master title, but in order to earn that title I not only need two more norms but I must surpass the 2200 rating level (regardless of how many norms you obtain, you cannot receive a title without also reaching the minimum rating level for that title). 

The USCF's online records credit me with 77 wins versus players rated at least 2200, but the correct total is 79; I won two games in the early 1990s against players whose official ratings were over 2200 at the time I played them, but whose live ratings were a bit below 2200 by the time those wins were rated (in those days, official ratings often lagged a bit behind live ratings, and tournaments were often not rated quickly or in sequential order). Both of those players who I beat subsequently maintained a 2200+ rating for at least 60 games (and one of them became a Life Master), so by any reasonable standard those wins should be tallied as wins against Masters because my opponents proved to be Master level players before and after I beat them. I wonder how many players who have yet to become a Master have won 79 games against Masters?

My peak FIDE rating is 1974, and my current FIDE rating is 1793. My current journey is focused on reaching 2200 USCF, but if/when I complete that journey I intend to then focus on a FIDE rating journey.

Lessons Learned Thus Far 

The formula for becoming an Expert is straightforward--not easy (which is why fewer than 5% of all chess players reach Expert level), but straightforward: improve your tactics, reduce the frequency of your major blunders, develop a basic opening repertoire (at least one primary opening move as White, at least one Black defense against e4, and at least one Black defense against d4/c4/Nf3), and cultivate the ability to play basic endgames competently on a consistent basis. It is a great idea to annotate your games and create notebooks of those annotated games, but I must admit that I did not do that consistently until I had already become an Expert.

Some very strong players (2500+) insist that a player should always play in Open sections and never play in lower rated sections, while other very strong players (2500+) insist that a player should demonstrate dominance at each Class level before playing in Open sections. I have concluded that either method is valid, provided that the player is studying the right way, and cultivating the right in-game habits. My advice would be that if psychologically you can deal with losing a lot of games then perhaps it may be better to just play Open sections, but if the inevitable losing is going to discourage you too much then stick to Class sections while making sure that you have a plan to advance out of whatever your current Class is. 

Statistically, a player who outrates you by 100 points scores 60% against you. That means, for example, that if you are rated 1700 and you can figure out how to score 50% against 1800s then you can become an 1800 (assuming that your winning percentages against other categories of players are not below par). I have found it most helpful--for myself, and for my students during the two decades that I taught private lessons--to focus on advancing 100 points at a time, because changing the margin from 4/10 to 5/10 against slightly stronger players is attainable in the short term, but trying to jump from 2/10 to 5/10 versus significantly stronger players is a bit much for a short term goal.

At the 1987 Gem City Open, I bought two important books from National Master James Schroeder: Modern Chess Openings, 12th Edition (MCO 12) and Reuben Fine's Basic Chess Endings. After every subsequent game that I played for many years, I looked up the opening in MCO 12, and if the game reached an endgame then I looked up that endgame in Basic Chess Endings. I know that there are many excellent online opening and endgame resources available now, but I still think that those books have value for players who are trying to advance from the Class ranks to Expert and beyond.

I honed my tactics by spending many fun hours playing five minute chess at the Dayton Chess Club, battling the strongest players who were willing to play me (some would only play me with time odds, and I took pride in becoming fast enough and good enough that they eventually stopped giving me odds). After every five minute game that I lost, I asked my opponent to briefly explain what I did wrong. Of course, today players can play chess at various time controls on their own schedule on the internet, and can then use an engine to find out what they did wrong.

FIDE Master Ken Smith once declared that until a player reaches at least Expert level his first name, middle name, and last name must be tactics! I agree with Smith that tactics are critically important for advancing through the Class player ranks to become an Expert, but I would emphasize the difference between tactical sharpness and tactical awareness. Tactical sharpness means being able to solve a tactic, while tactical awareness means noticing without prompting that a tactical opportunity exists; the difference between these two skills explains why there are some players who have very high online tactics ratings but much more modest ratings for game play: during a game, no one will tap you on the shoulder and say, "There is a tactical opportunity here"--but when you are solving tactics you have already been "told" this.

I reached an 1895 USCF rating mainly on the strength of tactics (and a decent knowledge of opening theory for a player below Expert level), but a major reason that my progress stalled at that stage was my lack of endgame understanding specifically, and positional understanding generally. Working on those weaknesses helped me to become an Expert, and further refinement of those skills resulted in me maintaining a 2100+ rating for an extended period.

I believe that the main reason I have yet to reach the 2200 level is that I blunder more frequently than Masters do (and I also make "worse" blunders: a Master does not play flawlessly, but rarely makes one move that is bad enough to lead to immediate defeat). Identifying the problem correctly is one thing, but solving the problem is quite another matter! 

Throughout my chess career, I have tended to blunder more often than a player of whatever level I was at that time, but I have also tended to be able to play "above" my rating (which explains those 79 wins against Masters). It is well documented that as players age they tend to blunder more frequently, so my challenge is not only to correct a decades-old weakness but to do so while fighting Father Time.  

Blundering is a problem for chess players of all levels; the general recommendations to address a blundering problem are to (1) slow down, (2) to look at all possible checks/captures before moving, (3) and to practice emotional regulation during the game (avoid overconfidence, but also avoid lack of confidence that could result in hesitation to enter tactical melees).

It is possible that I have yet to objectively identify why I have not reached the 2200 level, but I am pretty sure that I have figured out the issue even if I have yet to figure out (or at least successfully implement) the solution.

The Talent Question (also known as "The elephant in the room")

The subject of natural talent can be controversial, and can lead to very heated discussions. The funny thing about natural talent in chess is that my observation is that people tend to think that natural talent is necessary to reach whatever their level is, or perhaps one level above or below their level (depending on their rating, and how big of an ego they have). For example, many Grandmasters will insist that any motivated person of reasonable intelligence can reach at least 2400 USCF, if not International Master (2400 FIDE, which is typically equivalent to at least 2500 USCF). I can't prove it, but I seriously doubt that this is true. 

Statistically, it seems implausible that any person who works hard enough can attain a level of success that is only attained by far less than 1% of all people in that field. As a society we should strive to create equal opportunities for as many people as possible, but we should not be deluded to believe that equal outcomes are possible for everyone (unless the most talented are artificially held back, while the least talented are artificially boosted). 

Based on my chess journey, and my observations of many players of various strengths over the years (including students who I trained and whose development I witnessed firsthand), I think that a reasonably intelligent person who does not have any special chess talent can reach 1800 USCF without having to devote so much time to chess that one's life is not balanced. Beyond 1800, I think that you need some combination of natural chess talent and hard work over an extended period of time. I suppose that it is theoretically possible that a very hard working person with no special chess talent could become a Master, but I don't think that I have ever met such a person. The Masters who I have met seem to me to have more innate chess talent than most non-Masters; it is possible that what I am observing in Masters is not innate talent but rather skills developed through hard work, but my experiences as a teacher influenced my thinking on this topic: I showed the same tactics to many different students over the years, and I found that some students could discern the answer before I had even set up all of the pieces (they could tell that the remaining pieces were not integral to the solution) while other students could not solve the same tactics even after receiving guidance and hints. Obviously, higher rated players can solve tactics more easily than lower rated players, but what I noticed by tracking the progress of many different players over the years was that the players who ultimately attained the highest ratings (at least three of the players who I coached eventually became Masters) consistently solved tactics more quickly than other students. 

Put more concisely, you can tell early on which students are going to be really strong--or, at least, which students have a chance to become really strong if they keep playing chess.

When Dr. Wright first met me, I was not a strong player, but after observing me for a short time he predicted that I would reach at least Expert level and possibly become a Master. Dr. Wright explained to my Mom and me that he made that prediction based on my natural inclination to coordinate my pieces in attack and how quickly I learned and retained new information. My point is not to brag--it is obvious that there are many players who have much more natural chess talent than I do--but to point out that chess talent can be recognized quickly, based on how a player processes the game. Many beginners keep moving their Queen around until they lose their Queen, but for some reason it seemed natural to me to try to get all of my pieces out. It took practice to learn how to develop my pieces without losing material, but I grasped the basic concept intuitively. Players who have more talent than I have are able to grasp more sophisticated concepts in a similarly intuitive fashion, even though they need practice to refine those concepts. 

I have spent enough time watching Grandmasters analyze to conclude that they think about the game in a fundamentally different way than most chess players. I don't think that this is just a matter of being highly trained; they are "seeing" the game differently. The analogy I often make is that most Grandmasters reached the Expert and Master levels when they were little kids; to them, playing Expert or Master level chess is as simple as the basic reading and math concepts that most of us learned when we were eight or nine years old. For most people, playing Expert or Master level chess is hard to do, but for that select group of people who become Grandmasters it is, quite literally, child's play. 

It may not be politically correct to speak about talent, but talent differences exist whether or not they are spoken about--and it is important for a student (and a coach) to understand what goals are reasonable. That being said, I never discouraged one of my students (or anyone else) from setting ambitious goals; if a student told me, "I want to be a Master," my consistent response was, "The first step to attaining that goal is reaching the next 100 point rating level. In addition to focusing on that short term goal, if you have an ambitious long term goal then you must develop the study habits and playing habits of players who reached that level. There is a difference between playing chess for fun, playing chess to reach 1800, playing chess to reach 2000, and playing chess to reach 2200, and your study habits and playing habits must align with your goal."

After reaching Expert in my early 20s and later attaining a rating just 10 points short of Master, I think that setting a goal of becoming a Master is reasonable for me. For other players, 1800 or 2400 may be reasonable goals. Each chess player has his or her own journey, and it is more productive to focus on your journey as opposed to comparing it to the journey of someone else whose talent, work ethic, and life experiences may be much different.

The Journey Continues

I entered 2023 with a 2012 rating.

On Saturday January 7, the Dayton Chess Club held its first rated tournament since COVID-19, and I scored 2-0 to win the top rated quad and gain eight rating points (I won my third game by forfeit because my opponent did not show up). 

On Sunday January 8, I scored 2.5/4 in the East Market Swiss, finishing out of the money and losing six rating points. My only loss happened in round two when I blundered against a much lower rated player, permitting him to play a winning Exchange sacrifice that I could have prevented had I correctly assessed the danger.

The first game after a loss--particularly a loss against a lower rated player--can be difficult psychologically. I know players who withdraw from a tournament rather than dealing with that psychological challenge. I rarely withdraw from a tournament, and I don't recall ever withdrawing after just one loss.

I finished the East Market Swiss with two very interesting games.

In round three, I blundered a piece for two pawns against Joshua Keegan (1821), but I fought back during my opponent's time pressure and managed to reach a position where I had King, Bishop, and Knight versus King. This was my 3337th regular or dual rated game, and this was just my second opportunity to execute this checkmate. The first time happened 18 years ago, and in that game I was in time pressure; I forced my opponent's King to one of the "right" corners (i.e., a corner the same color as the squares controlled by the Bishop), but then I stalemated him when I had mate in four! This time, I avenged that failure by checkmating my opponent--but not without some drama. My opponent stopped keeping score, as he only had two seconds left (plus the five second time delay), but he attempted to make a mark on his scoresheet for each move played after the last pawn was captured. When he thought that 50 moves had been played, he stopped the clock and summoned the tournament director, Lou Friscoe. By rule a player cannot make a 50 move draw claim without having a complete scoresheet including all of the game's moves. The TD made the correct ruling, and I asked, per USCF rules, to have two minutes added to my time because my opponent's incorrect claim stopped play. I could have also added two minutes earlier in the game when my opponent made an illegal move, but I deferred because neither of us knew how to reset his clock; this time, I substituted my clock for my opponent's clock, and after adding two minutes I had 8:28 left while my opponent still had two seconds (because he kept making his moves in five seconds or less). I spent about three minutes before making my next move. By that point I had trapped my opponent's King in one of the "right" corners, so I made sure that I neither stalemated him nor let him out of the corner. My opponent was understandably not pleased after I delivered checkmate, but a few minutes after the game ended he approached me and we had a brief, amicable conversation about the game.

Soon, round four began, and I faced Tom Britt (2200) in what turned out to be another very interesting game. I have known Britt for more than 30 years, and during that time he has not only taught me a lot but we have also contested some exciting games. This one was no exception. I sacrificed a Pawn as Black in an Old Indian Defense, but soon not only regained my Pawn but ended up a Pawn to the good. Britt skillfully steered the game to a drawish Rook and Pawn ending where my extra Pawn was not enough to win, and thus we split the point.

With a 2014 rating after that tournament, I need to gain 186 points to reach my goal. The first step, as noted above, is to reach the next 100 point level; after surpassing 2100, I can then focus on reaching 2200.

I don't have definite plans regarding how often I will write about my journey to the National Master title. If I do poorly in my next event, perhaps I will not write any more articles about this topic (just kidding--I think). My two goals for this chess journey journal are (1) focus my thoughts about chess development in a way that will help me attain my goal, and (2) provide some insights about chess that will hopefully be interesting and useful to other chess players.

Four-Time Super Bowl Champion Running Back Franco Harris Has Passed Away

Franco Harris, a four-time Super Bowl champion with the Pittsburgh Steelers who was briefly the NFL's second all-time leading rusher behind only the incomparable Jim Brown (before Walter Payton surpassed both players during the 1984 season), passed away yesterday at the age of 72. Harris was the key participant in the most famous play in NFL history, the "Immaculate Reception," but his career was characterized not just by one great moment but rather by sustained greatness as he accumulated eight 1000 yard rushing seasons and earned nine Pro Bowl selections plus the Super Bowl IX MVP.

Harris made a big impact as a rookie in 1972, rushing for 1055 yards while averaging 5.6 yards per attempt and scoring 10 rushing touchdowns. He ranked second in the league in yards per attempt, third in the league in rushing touchdowns, and sixth in the league in rushing yards en route to winning the AP Rookie of the Year award and finishing eighth in MVP voting. The Steelers improved from 6-8 in 1971 to 11-3 in 1972, qualifying for the playoffs for the first time since 1947; the Steelers won at least 10 games in six of the next seven seasons, capturing four Super Bowl titles along the way (1974-75, 1978-79).

Although the 1972 playoff run did not culminate in a Super Bowl title, it was still quite memorable. In the Divisional Round, the Steelers faced 4th and 10 while trailing the Oakland Raiders 7-6 with 22 seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. Terry Bradshaw threw a deep pass to running back Frenchy Fuqua, who collided with defensive back Jack Tatum as the ball arrived. The ball flew back through the air before Harris caught it just inches above the turf and raced to the end zone for the game-winning touchdown. Raiders fans insist to this day that the play was illegal under the rules at the time--which would be correct if the ball hit Fuqua before Tatum touched the ball (an illegal "double touch" by the offense until that rule was changed in 1978)--but the point here is not what the officials called but rather that Harris put himself at the right place at the right time to make the game-winning play. Local sportscaster Myron Cope is credited with terming the play the "Immaculate Reception." 

The Steelers lost 21-17 in the AFC Championship Game to the soon to be 17-0 Miami Dolphins, but Harris' arrival signified the beginning of the Steelers' dynasty that dominated the NFL for the next several years. Before Harris joined the team in 1972, the Steelers had never won a playoff game. The Steelers went 14-5 in the playoffs with Harris (he missed one playoff game due to injury, a 24-7 loss to the Raiders in the 1976 AFC Championship Game). Former Steelers defensive lineman John Banaszak declared, "For me, Franco was one of the greatest money backs of all time. When the game was on the line, when the games got more important, when the championship was on the line the better Franco Harris was."

Harris' numbers back up Banaszak's statement. Harris set the Super Bowl single game rushing record (since broken) with 158 yards as Pittsburgh defeated Minnesota 16-6 in Super Bowl IX. He scored at least one touchdown in three of Pittsburgh's four Super Bowl wins, and his 354 career Super Bowl rushing yards remains the all-time record nearly 40 years after he retired. Harris retired as the NFL's career postseason rushing leader with 1556 yards, a total that has only been surpassed by Emmitt Smith (1586 yards).

Harris was a big, powerful runner who did most of his damage between the tackles, but he also had breakaway speed (he had a 75 yard run as a rookie, and he also had a 71 yard run in 1979). He never won a regular season rushing title, but he ranked in the top 10 eight times, including a second place finish in 1975 when he accumulated a career-high 1246 yards and only trailed O.J. Simpson (1817).

The 50th anniversary of the "Immaculate Reception" is this Friday, and the day after that the Pittsburgh Steelers will host the Las Vegas Raiders. Prior to Harris' passing, the Steelers had already planned to retire Harris' number 32 during that game (it is very surprising that his number had not been retired a long time ago). It is sad that Harris did not live long enough to celebrate that anniversary and see his jersey being retired.

The first football season that I remember clearly is 1978, and the first Super Bowl that I remember clearly is Super Bowl XIII, when the Pittsburgh Steelers won their third Super Bowl in five years by defeating the Dallas Cowboys, 35-31. Harris did not put up gaudy numbers in that game (20 carries for 68 yards), but his fourth quarter 22 yard touchdown run pushed the Steelers' lead to 28-17. That Super Bowl featured many dramatic plays and moments, and ranks high on the list of most memorable Super Bowls of all-time.

As a Cleveland Browns fan, I did not like Harris or the Steelers, but I respected their greatness, and I feared them as an opponent; it seemed to me as a kid that he saved some of his best performances for the Browns, and the numbers support my recollections: for example, his two top rushing performances in the 1979 regular season (153 yards and 151 yards) both came against the Browns.

As a child, sports superstars seem bigger than life, and indestructible. When I think about sports in the 1970s, many players dance across my mind, including Julius Erving, Pete Maravich, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, a host of my favorite Cleveland Browns (including Brian Sipe, Greg Pruitt, Mike Pruitt, and Ozzie Newsome), Bjorn Borg, Mario Andretti, and Pete Rose, but if I had to name one team that defined the 1970s I would probably pick the Pittsburgh Steelers--and it is impossible to think of the Pittsburgh Steelers without picturing Franco Harris. I can still see in my mind's eye his hip pads sticking up out of his yellow pants as his big thighs broke tackles and piled up yardage. 

I never rooted for Harris and the Steelers, but I have many childhood memories of watching in awe at their excellence. With Harris' sudden and unexpected passing, it feels like a part of my childhood is gone, or at least somewhere beyond reach.

Baker Mayfield Leads the L.A. Rams to Improbable Comeback Win Over the Las Vegas Raiders

The L.A. Rams' 17-16 Thursday Night Football win over the Las Vegas Raiders is one of the most improbable comebacks in sports history--and that is not hyperbole, it is demonstrable fact: according to the Elias Sports Bureau, the Rams' game-winning 98 yard drive was the longest go-ahead touchdown drive that began in the final two minutes of an NFL game in the past 45 seasons.

The reigning Super Bowl champion Rams stumbled into the game with a 3-9 record en route to what will likely be the worst season ever by a Super Bowl winner; the only other Super Bowl winners to lose at least nine games in the next season are the 1987 New York Giants (6-9 in a strike-shortened season), and the 1999 Denver Broncos (6-10). On Thursday against the Raiders, the Rams were down to their third string quarterback Baker Mayfield in the first quarter, because injured second string quarterback John Wolford only played the first series. Mayfield had just joined the Rams on Tuesday after being waived by the Carolina Panthers, who had demoted him to third string. 

The Raiders are not a powerhouse, but they had just won three straight games, and after a 36 yard field goal by Daniel Carlson increased their lead over the Rams to 16-3 with 12:25 remaining in the fourth quarter no one expected Baker Mayfield to transform into Tom Brady; just four days earlier, Brady led his Tampa Bay Buccaneers to a 17-16 Monday Night Football win over the New Orleans Saints after trailing 16-3 with 5:21 remaining in the fourth quarter--but Brady is a seven-time Super Bowl champion and that was his record-setting 44th comeback in the fourth quarter or overtime, while Mayfield's NFL resume is shorter and much less distinguished.

Mayfield does not fit either of the main prototypes for an NFL quarterback: he is not a big, strong, and tall quarterback who stands in the pocket until the last second, absorbing a bone-crunching hit before delivering an accurate 50 yard bomb, nor is he an elite runner who can threaten defenses with both the pass and the run. He is an undersized quarterback with good arm strength who uses his mobility to buy time to throw, but prefers not to run (he has never rushed for more than 165 yards in a season). 

Mayfield's best qualities are leadership and toughness. There is no question that his teammates rally around him, believe in him, and genuinely like him. There is also no question that he is tough, as shown by his willingness to play through injury (see below), and by his overall durability (he appeared in at least 14 games in each of his first four seasons).

When A.J. Cole's 65 yard punt rolled to the two yard line with two minutes left in the fourth quarter and the Raiders leading 16-10, Mayfield faced the daunting task of leading the Rams 98 yards for a touchdown with no timeouts. The drive did not begin well: Mayfield had two incompletions, and then his third pass was intercepted, but the interception was nullified by a pass interference call (the pass would probably have not been intercepted but for the pass interference against intended receiver Van Jefferson). After the automatic first down because of the penalty, Mayfield was sacked on first down, but the sack was wiped out by an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on Jerry Tillery, who knocked the ball out of Mayfield's hand after the play was over and the Rams were trying to hurry up to run the next play.

Mayfield hit Ben Skowronek with a 32 yard completion, placing the Rams at the Raiders' 40 yard line. Mayfield then completed two short passes to advance the ball to the 23 yard line before spiking the ball with :16 left in regulation. On the next play, Mayfield connected with Jefferson for the game tying touchdown. The Rams took the lead with a successful extra point kick, and they guaranteed the win with an interception on the Raiders' first play from scrimmage after the ensuing kickoff.

Mayfield is 0-22 in his career as a starter when his team trails by at least 13 points, but this was the second time he has led a 13-point comeback after coming off of the bench; he overcame a 14-0 deficit in his NFL debut in 2018.

That debut took place when Mayfield played for the Cleveland Browns. Mayfield's departure from Cleveland has engendered resentment and mockery from at least some Browns fans. I am a lifelong Cleveland Browns fan, but I am not a Browns fan who feels any animosity toward Mayfield. The Browns have been a dysfunctional franchise ever since returning to the NFL in 1999, and some of the team's best moments during that dreadful period have come with Mayfield at the helm. In 2018, Mayfield set an NFL single season rookie record (since broken) with 27 touchdown passes, leading the Browns to a 7-8-1 record. A seven win season may not seem impressive, but that was the Browns' best record since 2007, which says a lot not only about Mayfield but also about the decrepit state of the franchise. Mayfield threw 22 touchdown passes in 2019 and became the first Browns quarterback to start all 16 regular season games since Tim Couch in 2001, but Mayfield's interception total increased from 14 to 21, and the Browns' record slipped to 6-10.

In 2020, Mayfield tossed 26 touchdowns and just eight interceptions as the Browns went 11-5, qualifying for the playoffs for the first time since 2002. Mayfield again started all 16 regular season games. The Browns then defeated the Pittsburgh Steelers 48-37 in the Wild Card game, posting the third highest single game playoff scoring total in franchise history while notching the team's first road playoff win since 1969 and first playoff win overall since January 1995, when Bill Belichick coached the Browns. The Browns' playoff run ended with a 22-17 loss to the defending Super Bowl champion Kansas City Chiefs.

Mayfield led the Browns to a 3-1 record to start the 2021 season, but he had partially torn the labrum in his left shoulder in the second game, and that injury limited his effectiveness for the bulk of that campaign. Mayfield showed his toughness by playing in 14 out of 16 games, but the team should have protected him from himself and given him the opportunity to fully recover. Mayfield finished with 17 touchdowns and 13 interceptions, the Browns went 8-9 as the schedule expanded to 17 games, and the team traded Mayfield to Carolina after the season.

In sum, Mayfield had a very good rookie season, he led the Browns to their first playoff win in almost 30 years, and he fought through a painful injury to try to help the team win in 2021 (that may not have been the smartest thing to do, but no one can question his heart or his toughness). The Browns' problems--as evidenced by the team's 5-7 record this season--run much deeper than Mayfield's real or perceived shortcomings; he deserves a lot of credit for any success that the Browns had during his stint with the franchise, and not much blame for problems that existed for decades before he arrived and, sadly, persist after his departure.

I am neither a Rams fan not a Raiders fan, but I enjoyed watching Mayfield show his doubters and critics that he can still play. In terms of quarterback evaluation, I trust Super Bowl-winning coach Sean McVay a lot more than I trust any of the coaches or talent evaluators for the Cleveland Browns or Carolina Panthers (who have had four coaches but just one playoff appearance since losing the Super Bowl after the 2015 season). If McVay thinks that Mayfield can contribute to a winning program he is probably right, and on Thursday night Mayfield did his part to justify McVay's belief in him.

Hans Niemann Ties for Fifth in U.S. Championship, Files $100 Million Lawsuit Against Carlsen, Chess.com, and Nakamura

Hans Niemann tied for fifth place in the 14 player round robin 2022 U.S. Chess Championship held at the Saint Louis Chess Club located across the street from the World Chess Hall of Fame. He scored 7/13, 1.5 points behind first place finisher Fabiano Caruana, the 2016 U.S. Chess Champion who drew the 2018 World Chess Championship match against Magnus Carlsen before losing 3-0 in the Rapid Tiebreak.

Niemann's performance rating of 2699 in the 2022 U.S. Chess Championship exactly matches his pre-tournament over the board rating of 2699. Keep in mind that 2700 is often denoted as the minimum rating level for an elite chess player. There has been a lot of reckless speculation about Niemann cheating at over the board chess, but there is no evidence that Niemann has cheated at over the board chess, and there is no evidence that Niemann cheated in the U.S. Championship, which is the most prestigious tournament of the year in American chess.  

Some of Niemann's accusers/critics have suggested that Niemann play strong players under controlled conditions to "prove" that his high over the board rating is legitimate and to prove that he is not cheating. If the U.S. Championship is not a sufficiently secure event and proving ground then that means there are few if any secure events left in over the board chess. Niemann's performance in this strong 13 player event is compelling evidence that his rating is a legitimate reflection of his playing strength and not due to cheating. Does this one tournament result definitively prove that Niemann never cheated at over the board chess? No, but the burden of proof is not on Niemann to prove that he is not cheating or has not cheated; the burden of proof rests with his accusers. However, the notion that Niemann playing over the board in controlled circumstances would reveal him to be a cheater lost credibility in the wake of Niemann's U.S. Championship performance in his first appearance in that event, and anyone who asserted that Niemann would be exposed when playing against America's top players looks uninformed.

In related news, Niemann has filed a $100 million federal lawsuit against World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen, Chess.com, Grandmaster Hikarua Nakamura, Danny Rensch (an officer of Chess.com), and the Play Magnus Group (one of Carlsen's companies). You can read Niemann's 44 page complaint here. Niemann asserts five causes of action: Slander, libel, violations of the Sherman Act, tortious interference with contract and business expectancies, and civil conspiracy. 

Each count refers to a specific legal term of art with a specific legal meaning and a specific burden of proof necessary in order for Niemann to prevail. In non-lawyer terms, Niemann is asserting that the named defendants conspired together to defame Niemann in both written word and spoken word, that the named defendants conspired together to prevent Niemann from earning a living as a chess player, chess streamer, and chess coach, and that they interfered with specific contracts that Niemann already had in place to participate in chess tournaments and chess matches. Niemann's allegations are serious, but they are also difficult to prove in court. Niemann filed his lawsuit in the Eastern District of Missouri, presumably because this situation began in St. Louis when Carlsen withdrew from the Sinquefield Cup after losing to Niemann. Disputes over jurisdiction are a major aspect of litigation, and it will be interesting to see if one or more of the named defendants moves for dismissal based on improper subject matter jurisdiction and/or improper personal jurisdiction. It is also possible that one or more of the named defendants moves for summary judgment, which would be the assertion that even if Niemann's allegations are viewed in the most favorable light by the court he would not be able to meet the burden of proof on one or more of the causes of action.

I decline to speculate on how the court might rule on such motions, but this will be an interesting case to follow, and a case that potentially could have a significant impact not only in terms of the outcome of the litigation, but also on the chess community's methods of detecting chess cheating and the chess community's response when a player is suspected of cheating in the absence of credible evidence or a confession.

There is No Evidence That Hans Niemann Has Cheated in Over the Board Chess

It is interesting that people who actually know the strengths and limitations of using chess engines to analyze chess games while looking for signs of cheating find no evidence that Hans Niemann has cheated in over the board chess. International Master Ken Regan--who has a doctorate in complexity theory and is widely considered the leading expert regarding how to detect chess cheating--examined every game played by Niemann over the past two years and determined that the evidence does not support cheating allegations against Niemann.

In Let's Check: the elite are better than you know, Albert Silver provides a detailed description of the Chessbase tool "Let's Check," pointing out how it can (and has) been manipulated to make Niemann look like a cheater. The reality--as noted in the "Let's Check" article--is that, of all the participants in the Sinqufield Cup, Niemann's moves had the least correlation with the best moves selected by the top chess engines. In layman's terms, when Niemann beat Magnus Carlsen--after which Carlsen whined like a crybaby sore loser and withdrew from the tournament--Niemann played at a solid Grandmaster level while Carlsen played an awful game. One can speculate about why Carlsen played so poorly, but the larger point is that Carlsen lost because he played poorly and not because Niemann played at such a high level that only a supercomputer could match his moves.

It is worth noting that Carlsen not only declined to defend his World Champion title but he is also losing to other young, rising players in addition to losing to Niemann. The evidence suggests that it is more likely that (1) Carlsen is declining in playing strength, (2) Carlsen is keenly aware that he is declining in playing strength, and (3) Carlsen is disconcerted about his declining playing strength. That is not to say that Carlsen is not the best player in the world; the evidence also shows that Carlsen is still the best player in the world. The point is that the margin by which he is ahead of everyone else seems to be shrinking, and as Carlsen ages he is becoming more prone to having concentration lapses that cause him to lose to younger (and perhaps more ambitious) players. It is clearly not Carlsen's goal to break the record for longest time holding the World Champion title, so the only new thing left for him to achieve is reaching a 2900 rating, which seems statistically unlikely (as Carlsen has freely admitted). Thus, Carlsen's motivation and concentration may no longer be at peak value, and he has a host of young, highly motivated, and intensely focused players nipping at his heels.

There are many people whose lack of knowledge and understanding does not inhibit their propensity to make bold, unfounded allegations, but it is very important to uphold the principle of innocent until proven guilty. A person is not guilty of a specific offense because of something else that he did in the past, or because you don't like him, or because his behavior seems odd to you, or because his success seems implausible to you. A person should only be found guilty if there is credible evidence indicating guilt.

There is no credible evidence indicating that Hans Niemann cheated at over the board chess. Magnus Carlsen and all of Niemann's other accusers owe Niemann an apology--and could very well owe him money if Niemann decides to file a defamation suit. It should be noted that it can be expensive and difficult to prove defamation in court, so if Niemann chooses to not file suit that does not lend any credibility to what Niemann's accusers said about him: the burden of proof rests with the accuser, not the accused, in our legal system.

It will be interesting to see if FIDE's investigation of this matter results in sanctions against Carlsen and others. I predict that Carlsen will be reprimanded for his reckless statements, for withdrawing from the Sinquefield Cup, and for throwing a game to Niemann in the Generation Cup, but I doubt that FIDE will go beyond that, because Carlsen wields so much power and influence in the chess world.

National Chess Day at the World Chess Hall of Fame Fischer-Spassky Exhibit

In 1976, President Gerald Ford issued a Presidential proclamation establishing National Chess Day, celebrated on the second Saturday of each October. In 2022, the second Saturday fell on October 8, and I spent the entire weekend in Saint Louis, home to the World Chess Hall of Fame and the Saint Louis Chess Club. I arrived in Saint Louis late on Friday night, and I was happy to take some pictures of the exteriors of the World Chess Hall of Fame and the Saint Louis Chess Club in anticipation of touring both just a few hours later:

I had read about and seen pictures of the world's largest chess piece, but it was cool to actually stand in front of a 20 foot tall King weighing 10,860 pounds! The massive King stands guard in front of the World Chess Hall of Fame. Across the street, the Saint Louis Chess Club is undergoing a major expansion, as noted by the sign declaring "Our Next Move Coming Soon!"

The World Chess Hall of Fame opened at 10 a.m. on Saturday morning, and I was the first customer in the door. To the right of the entrance is the Gift Shop, but I stopped in there last so I would not have to carry my new treasures throughout the museum. The lobby had a display with several free chess posters, including one featuring the world's largest chess piece and another about the Fischer-Spassky exhibit.

The Fischer-Spassky exhibit--officially titled "1972 Fischer/Spassky: The Match, Its Origin, and Influence," and on view from August 18, 2022-April 30, 2023--is the main reason that I made this trip at this time. I had always wanted to visit the World Chess Hall of Fame, but there was no way that I was going to miss seeing this particular exhibit. Bobby Fischer left behind a mixed legacy, but purely from a chess standpoint he is my favorite player of all-time; his games have a clear, simple logic that belies the depth of his ideas, and playing over his games gives me the same sense of peace that I suspect that music aficionados feel when listening to the works of the all-time great composers. Fischer was an artistic genius and a fierce competitor--the only player both willing and able to win all 11 games in a U.S. Championship after 10 wins had already clinched the title. The mental illness that caused Fischer's retreat from the chess world and his descent into seclusion and paranoia is a personal tragedy for Fischer and a human tragedy for the world that was deprived of the full flower of Fischer's genius.

The World Chess Hall of Fame has three floors. Right now, the Fischer/Spassky exhibit takes up almost all of the display space on each floor. Before entering the main room on the first floor, there is a staircase, and next to the staircase is a television playing several videos of Fischer on a loop. The videos include Mike Wallace's "60 Minutes" interview with Fischer before the 1972 World Championship Match plus Fischer's appearances on the Bob Hope Show and on the Tonight Show featuring Johnny Carson.

The main room on the first floor focuses on Fischer's youth, and his rapid development into a world class chess player. Fischer was born in Chicago on March 9, 1943, and he spent part of his early childhood in Phoenix with his mother Regina and his older sister Joan. The family moved to Manhattan in 1949 before settling in Brooklyn in 1950. New York City was the epicenter of American chess at that time, and it is interesting to speculate about how Fischer's chess career would have turned out had he not spent his formative years in that environment.

One of the items on display is a copy of My Seven Chess Prodigies, a 1975 book written by John W. Collins, who mentored the young Fischer. In the book, Collins wrote, "Geniuses like Beethoven, Leonardo Da Vinci, Shakespeare, and Fischer come out of the head of Zeus, seem to be genetically programmed, know before being instructed." The book's inside front cover is inscribed with this message from Collins to Fischer, dated 24 June 1978: "For Bobby, With best wishes and the hope you will enjoy these maxims--Jack."

Fischer's participation in the Hawthorne Chess Club--based in Collins' home near where Fischer went to school--played an important role in his development. The exhibit includes a picture of Fischer playing against Collins at Collins' house, plus the actual furniture from the picture:

 

The exhibit includes a large display about Spassky's development from young player to World Champion. It should be remembered that Spassky was a great player in his own right, and not just an obstacle in the path of Fischer's rise to the top. 

Here is a collection of various medals that Spassky won:

The medal in the middle with the biggest ribbon is Spassky's board one gold medal from the 1970 Chess Olympiad, and the medal in the upper right with the blue ribbon is his 1969 World Chess Championship medal, awarded after he dethroned Tigran Petrosian.

Here is the trophy that Spassky won after capturing the 1955 World Junior Chess Championship:

Various video monitors include archival footage of events leading up to the match and recaps of the action during the match. Older visitors (or students of American mainstream media) will recognize Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, and other prominent broadcasters of that era leading the coverage. On the third floor, there is a video monitor that includes interviews with Fischer biographer International Master John Donaldson, Grandmaster Yasser Seirawan, and Grandmaster Maurice Ashley.

The 1972 World Championship Match between Fischer and Spassky nearly ended before it began because of Fischer's numerous demands about a host of issues, from the prize fund to the noise made by cameras in the playing area to the size of the squares on the chessboard. Fischer showed up late in Iceland, lost the first game after a risky sacrifice that is still being analyzed/debated 50 years later, and then forfeited the second game after refusing to play in the main playing hall because he felt it was too noisy. Game three took place in a back room, and Fischer beat Spassky not just for the first time in the match but for the first time ever. Spassky only won one more game the rest of the way, as Fischer cruised to a 12.5-8.5 triumph. 

The whole exhibit is fascinating, and I spent most of the day methodically working my way through each item on display. There were three items that I was most looking forward to seeing, and they remain my three favorites: the replica of the table used in the match, the board and pieces used in Fischer's famous game three win, and the famous "red book" of Spassky's games that Fischer took with him everywhere while he prepared for the match (you can see the "red book" during Mike Wallace's interview of Fischer).

The chess table used in the match was handcrafted, and by contract only three tables were ever made: the original one is in Iceland, and one of the two identical replicas is on display in this exhibit. The board in the chess table can be popped out and swapped with a different board. Which board was used for a given game was determined by Fischer's mood that day! The board on display in the exhibit was signed by both Fischer and Spassky. Naturally, I went as close as possible to take a picture of the board, and I asked one of the workers to take a picture of me in front of the table:

Here are the board (signed by both players) and pieces used in Fischer's game three win, which will be forever remembered for Fischer's unorthodox 11th move (...Nh5). The pieces are set up as they were positioned after move 11:

The red book is in the center of a display case featuring various books and note cards that Fischer used to prepare for not only the World Championship match but also for the Candidates Matches:

Here is a close up of the "red book." Note that you can see some of Fischer's handwritten notes in the margin!

I also enjoyed looking at LeRoy Neiman's artwork about the match. His first encounter with Fischer involved almost bumping into him in the cafeteria in Iceland. Fischer was holding a chess book in one hand and his food tray in the other hand! Neiman captured that moment in his inimitable style:

Neiman described Fischer as a "rare bird," and he displayed great respect and compassion for Fischer's combination of genius and eccentricity; when the sound of Neiman making artwork annoyed Fischer during the match, Neiman kept changing his drawing implements until he found one that did not bother Fischer. That might be my favorite non-chess moment of the entire match; while others described Fischer as difficult or worse, Neiman understood what it means to be a genius at work striving for ideal conditions.

One wall on the top floor is a permanent touch screen display that includes a digital version of each inductee's plaque from the U.S. Chess Hall of Fame and from the World Chess Hall of Fame (the only physical plaques on display are for the inductees from the past two years, and those plaques are perched above the staircase after you reach the top floor). Part of the top floor has items from after the 1972 World Chess Championship Match. Spassky continued to compete in the World Chess Championship cycle, though he never again challenged for the title, while Fischer went into seclusion before reemerging in 1992 to play a 30 game match versus Spassky. 

The sad story of Fischer's final years is recounted, and there is a poignant video of Garry Kasparov visiting Fischer's grave in Iceland. Kasparov lamented the unfulfilled dreams to promote chess that died with Fischer's disappearance from mainstream chess, and Kasparov also expressed regret that he never met Fischer. One wall includes photos and items depicting how Rex and Jeanne Sinquefield have transformed St. Louis into not just the capital of U.S. chess but a world chess center.

My last stop at the World Chess Hall of Fame was the Gift Shop, where I bought a variety of items not only for myself but also for my daughter Rachel. 

After taking a break to eat, I made my first visit to the Saint Louis Chess Club. The U.S. Championship and the U.S. Women's Championship are being held there now, but the playing rooms are not open to the public. However, the main area on the first floor is open, and several of the top players came into the main area to analyze their games. I sat next to Grandmaster Awonder Liang and Grandmaster Sam Sevian as they went over their third round draw, and then I watched Grandmaster Levon Aronian and Grandmaster Ray Robson analyze their third round draw.

The "Saturday Night Main Event" is a Quick Rated tournament (G/10, two second increment) held each Saturday night at the Saint Louis Chess Club. I was the fifth seeded player, and I finished with 2.5/4. I won pretty easily in the first round and in the fourth round, but I was held to a draw by a 1300 in the second round and I lost to a 1787 in the third round. Four-time U.S. Blind Chess Champion (2018-2021) Jessica Lauser, who participated in the tournament, told me afterward that a Saint Louis 1300 is not a regular 1300. Based on my limited four game experience, I have to agree; it is known that a pool of local players who do not play much outside of their community can produce players who are either underrated or overrated compared to the national rating pool. I could have played better, but I am happy that I can say that I played in a rated event at the Saint Louis Chess Club. I previously played at the Marshall Chess Club, so I suppose that the Mechanics Institute is the most famous active U.S. chess club where I have not played.

I FaceTimed with Rachel right after the tournament ended, and she was impressed when I showed her the world's largest chess piece. "It is practically as tall as the building next to it!" Rachel exclaimed.

On Sunday, I went back to the Saint Louis Chess Club. The Club was not open yet, but I watched Nick Polson and FIDE Master Gabriela Antova playing speed chess on one of the chess tables outside of the club. The only other spectator was none other than Rex Sinquefield himself. I thanked him for what he has done and is doing for chess. Later, I took a picture of myself alongside him and Joy Bray, who is the general manager of both the World Chess Hall of Fame and the Saint Louis Chess Club:

Polson is one of the co-authors of a paper analyzing the statistical likelihood that Magnus Carlsen will achieve a 2900 rating. Polson told me that he presented his findings directly to Carlsen. I wondered how Carlsen reacted to the conclusion that he has less than a 5% chance of achieving this goal. Polson said that Carlsen is very realistic and objective about his rating, and that Carlsen was mainly interested in understanding what he needs to do to improve his odds. Polson told me that the K factor for players with 2700-plus ratings is not correct, and I had an interesting conversation with him about ELO ratings in general.

Polson also played some blitz games against Grandmaster Varuzhan Akobian. I told Akobian that I owe him a thank you because studying his games on the black side of the Czech Pirc helped me achieve some nice wins in rated tournament games. Akobian played the Czech Pirc in one of his blitz games versus Polson, and I joked that he was playing it in my honor since I had just mentioned the opening. 

After Akobian finished playing blitz, I took a picture with him:

I went back to the World Chess Hall of Fame to get a few more items at the Gift Shop and look at the Fischer/Spassky exhibit one more time, and then I went inside the Saint Louis Chess Club to follow round five action in the U.S. Chess Championship. I also played several blitz games. The afternoon went by very quickly, and soon it was time to make the drive home.

A lot has been said and written about Rex Sinquefield, the Saint Louis Chess Club, and the World Chess Hall of Fame--and everything wonderful that you have heard is true! I encourage anyone who loves chess to go to Saint Louis and experience this chess wonderland for yourself. Both facilities are first class operations, with employees who are friendly and helpful. Sinquefield is very down to earth and accessible. Most of the time that I was at the Saint Louis Chess Club on Saturday and Sunday he was seated in the main club area watching the U.S. Chess Championship games on the TV monitors. At first I was surprised that he did not have a chess version of the "luxury suites" that you see wealthy people sitting in at basketball games and football games, but after spending the weekend in Saint Louis I am not surprised: Sinquefield is not a very wealthy man who dabbles in chess; he is a chess lover who happens to be very wealthy, so he does not isolate himself from the chess community that he has built but instead he immerses himself in it.