‘In fact it is now conceded by all experts that by proper play on both sides the legitimate issue of a game ought to be a draw…’ Those words were written by Wilhelm Steinitz, who became the first world champion after beating Johannes Zukertort in 1886. But their 20-game match saw 75 per cent decisive games, a quantity of bloodshed that would be unimaginable in the 21st century. By comparison, Magnus Carlsen has played five world championship matches, in which less than 25 per cent of the classical (slow) games were decisive. It is not a matter of style, but rather of skill – the fact is that modern players make far fewer mistakes.
Modern chess computers are qualitatively stronger than the human world champion, which means that matches between these engines produce an even lower percentage of decisive games. (The ‘Top Chess Engine Championship’ successfully mitigates this sterility by starting the games from various risky and unbalanced opening positions.) In correspondence chess, players are allowed to use computers freely, and may contemplate a move for days or even weeks. As a consequence, the level of play is even more rarefied, and frankly, far too much for my taste.
The 32nd World Championship organised by the International Correspondence Chess Federation has ended, after more than two years of play. Competing in this marathon event is presumably not for the fainthearted – access to powerful computing hardware is table stakes, and it must be marshalled with considerable patience and organisation. The title was won by Jon Edwards from the USA, who revealed in his absorbing commentary that he had spent thousands of hours trying to win one game (in vain, as it turned out). Edwards won two games and drew 14. But look below the surface, and even this was not quite what it seemed. One of those wins came from a trivial blunder, which must have been due to the opponent’s clerical error in registering a move. The other win came against a player who seems to have forfeited nearly all his games, since they concluded abruptly in otherwise satisfactory positions. Excluding those, the other 120 games produced exactly one plain vanilla decisive result – the game shown below. But what a splendid battle it was!
Sergey Osipov-Thomas Schwetlick
World Correspondence Championship, 2020-22
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 f3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Nc3 O-O 6 Be3 c5 7 Nge2 Nc6 8 d5 Ne5 9 Ng3 e6 10 Be2 exd5 11 cxd5 a6 12 a4 Bd7 13 O-O b5 14 h3 Nc4 15 Bxc4 bxc4 16 e5 Qe7 17 f4 dxe5 18 f5 Rab8 19 Qe2 Bxf5 20 Rxf5 A tempting exchange sacrifice, as the Nf5 will be very strong. gxf5 21 Nxf5 Qb7 22 Qe1 Nh5 23 Qh4 Qxb2 24 Rc1 Nf4 25 Qg4 Ng6 26 Ne4 Kh8 27 d6 c3 28 Kh2 Rb4 29 d7 Rd4 30 Rf1 Qb6 (see diagram) 31 Nfd6 A clever incursion, as 31…Rxd6 32 Bxc5 should win. 31…f6 32 Qe6 Rxe4 33 Nf7+ Rxf7 34 Qxb6 is another important variation. f5 32 Rxf5 Rxd6 33 Bxc5 Qd8 34 Bxd6 c2 35 Rh5 A striking concept, allowing the promotion and playing for mate. c1=Q 36 Qxg6 h6 37 Bxf8 Qf4+ 38 g3 This would be impossible without the ideally placed Ne4, which defends against checks on d2 and f2. Qfxf8 39 Rf5 Qxd7 39…Qg8 40 Rf7 Qb8 41 h4 and Black cannot hold out in the face of Ne4-f6. 40 Rxf8+ Bxf8 41 Qf6+ Kg8 42 Qxa6 Qd4 43 Qc6 Qb2+ 44 Kg1 Qb1+ 45 Kg2 Qb2+ 46 Nf2 White is a pawn up and the a-pawn is too strong in the long run. In a human game it’s a likely win, but in a correspondence game it’s almost a certainty. Black resigns
Comments