Question: Why wasn’t Rashid Nezhmetdinov a Grandmaster?
Answer: By most accounts, Rashid Nezhmetdinov should be a Grandmaster (if for no other reason than having won the Russian Championship over a talented field in 1950, 1951, 1953, 1957 and 1958.) It wasn’t until 1950 that the Grandmaster title was first awarded by FIDE and only 27 players including the world champion at the time (Botvinnik), those who had qualified or were seeded into the inaugural Candidates tournament and a further dozen players who were awarded the title for past achievements. Unfortunately for the 40 year old Rashid Nezhmetdinov, …https://qr.ae/Txa7tB
Question: Which Indian GM can replace Vishy Anand?
Answer: In a recent interview, Viswanathan Anand likened the the proliferation of chess Grandmasters in India to a “snowball effect.” This common analogy couldn’t be more fitting for how the Anand Effect has so rapidly increased the popularity and skill level of chess in his native India. Just as a snowball rolling down a snow-covered hillside will pick up more snow, gaining more mass, surface area, and momentum as it rolls along. So has the contributions of India’s first chess Grandmaster given birth to a national super force in chess.
After learning chess from his mother at the age of six, Viswanathan Anand took immediate interest in the game. With the continued support of his family, Anand’s ascent in the Indian chess world was brilliant. National level achievements came just eight years later when Anand scored a perfect 9/9 at the 1983 Indian National Sub-Junior Chess Championship. A year later Vishy won the FIDE Asian Junior Championship and was awarded his first International Master norm. One year later, Anand returned to the FIDE Asian Junior Championship to win the event for the second straight time and pickup his final IM norm to become the youngest International Master in the history of India. In 1987, he became the first Indian to win the World Junior Chess Championship and the age of 18, Viswanathan Anand became India’s first Grandmaster.
Question: What was Bobby Fischer’s playing style at chess? And what was his approach to the game based on the openings he played? And how was it, that such a narrow opening repertoire, made him so machine like?
Answer: Bobby Fischer played chess the manner in which chess aficionados trust it ought to be played. Meaning, on principle, he for the most part didn’t play to avoid defeat. He’d frequently risk losing a game just to play a move that he felt was correct—and his instincts at the board were frequently right.
Fischer separated himself from the other grandmasters by regularly stringing back to back triumphs against first rate competition. Examples of this uncompromising style can be seen when Fischer, at the age of 20, won the 1963/64 US Championship with 11 wins in 11 rounds, the only perfect score throughout the entire history of this prestigious tournament. By 1970, Fischer had become the most dominant player of the modern era by winning the 1970 Interzonal Tournament by a record 3½-point edge and winning 20 sequential games, including two remarkable 6–0 scores, in the Candidates Matches.
1. e4 {At the age of 13, Paul was already a much stronger player than his father Alonzo. So, to keep things interesting, Paul played this game with only one rook.}
Position after 1. e4
1… e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 {A young Paul Morphy was a fan of the Italian Game.}
Position after 3. Bc4
3… Nf6
4. Ng5 d5
5. exd5 Nxd5
6. Nxf7 {The famous Fried Liver Attack!}
Position after 6. Nxf7
6… Kxf7
7. Qf3+ {Paul Morphy develops his queen by simultaneously
attacking the exposed king on f7 and the pinned knight on d5.}
7… Ke6
8. Nc3 {Again, developing with threats against the pinned knight.}
8… Nd4!? {What is normally considered a mistake, instead raises eyebrows when played at rook’s odds.}
Position after 8… Nd4
9. Bxd5+ Kd6
10. Qf7 {Threatening Ne4#!}
Position after 10. Qf7
10… Be6 {Alonzo Morphy makes a crucial mistake. Better was:} (10. .. Qe7 11. Ne4+ Kd7 12. Nc5+ Kd8 {and Paul Morphy is forced to start trading pieces.})
11. Bxe6 {Sometimes the only reasonable response to the fork is to eat off of it.}
11… Nxe6
12. Ne4+ Kd5
13. c4+ {Throwing the kitchen sink at black’s king is preferable to agreeing to a draw by repetition (Nc3+ kd6 Ne4+.)}
Position after 13. c4+
13… Kxe4
14. Qxe6 Qd4?? {The move that seals the deal. What looks to be a strong move for the queen in actuality steals the king’s escape route. If only Alonzo had played Kd3 instead. But then we never would enjoyed this game’s spectacular finish.}
Position after 14… Qd4
15. Qg4+ Kd3
16. Qe2+ {Attacking the king and his escape route on c4.}
16… Kc2
17. d3+ {A cute little discovered check keeps black’s king on the run.}
Position after 17. d3+
17… Kxc1 {Of course with perfect play, black could have survived longer. However, the opportunity to be checkmated by O-O doesn’t occur very often.} (17. .. Kb1 18. O-O Bc5 19. Be3+ Kxa2 20. Bxd4 Bxd4 21. Qc2 b5 22. b4+ Ka3 23. Rb1 bxc4 24. dxc4 Bb2 25. Qxb2+ Ka4 26. Ra1#)
Paul Morphy was a 19th-century New Orleans chess prodigy who was the de facto world chess champion during much of his short life. He rarely lost when he played throughout Europe and the United States. He was also a lawyer who graduated from what is now Tulane Law School. As a student, he was said to have memorized the Louisiana Civil Code in English and French.
Question: Is it possible for the chess grandmaster to make a fatal mistake?
Answer: Alexander Alekhine, the strongest chess player of his time, was found dead, next to a chess board in his hotel room, on the morning of Sunday, March 24th, 1946. The cause of death was stated as “Angina pectoris, aggravated by choking on a piece of meat.” If his cause of death is to believed, then we must admit that Alekhine made a fatal mistake at the chessboard.
See the photo of Alexander Alekhine deceased at his chessboard (Sunday, March 24th, 1946) by clicking on the link below:
José Raúl Capablanca‘s chess delivered and still creates an irresistable masterful impact. In his games an inclination towards straightforwardness prevailed, and in his seemingly effortlessness brilliance there was a one of a kind delight of veritable simplicity. Indeed, his style, one of the most perfect, most completely clear in the whole history of chess, still dumbfounds chess engines with his rationale. Perhaps the greatest natural talent in chess history, I find Capablanca’s recorded games, even a century later, nearly sufficient for building a modern curriculum on chess.
