The Marshall Spectator
In This Issue:
From The Skittles Room
King's Kibitzes, by FM Alex King
An Annotated Game from our Recent Simul with IM Shawn Rodrigue-Lemieux
Illustration: Marshall Monday, by George Skelcher
Recent Member Game Contest
Marshall Chess Foundation Announcement
Chess Toons
En Passant
Problem of the Week
Editor's Note
Welcome back, fellow chess players, to this edition of the Marshall Chess Club's fortnightly bulletin, The Marshall Spectator.
Looking ahead, we have a number of interesting events on the calendar for our fully vaccinated membership.
On Tuesday February 14, David McNulty will give a lecture commemorating the book The Knights of the South Bronx. The talk will focus on ways in which teaching chess can also be a way to teach life skills.
April is National Autism Awareness Month. The Marshall Chess Club will host a panel called 'Chess on the Spectrum' on April 25, 2023 with Dr. Joel Sneed, Pranav Shankar and IM Justin Sarkar.
Following the panel discussion, IM Justin Sarkar will conduct a simul, the proceeds of which will be donated to Autism Speaks.
For more details about these events or to register in advance please visit our website. We look forward to seeing you soon.
In the last few weeks, we have had a surfeit of rated chess events at our historic club.
The FIDE Premier that concluded on January 8th had 28 players registered and was won by IM Kevin Wang, who scored 4.5 out of 5 winning the $800 clear first-place prize. The remaining prize funds were split between GM Djurabek Khamrakulov and Daniel Johnston, who scored 4 out of 5 and took home $300 each for their performance.
The Under 2000 Premier that concluded on January 8th had 45 players registered and featured a 5-way tie for first place among Elias Stern-Rodriguez, Sahana Aravindakshan, Kevin Stern, Luis Casenas and Suvan Baranwal who won $152.40 each for their 4 out of 5 performance. Charles Ho won a $168 class prize for his 3.5 out of 5 score, while the remaining class prize was split between Takki Tanaka, Benjamin Davar and Leah Yang who won $56 each for their 3 out of 5 score.
The Wednesday Under 1600 that concluded on January 11th had 21 players and was won by Alvaro Lopez who scored 5 out of 6 and won the first place prize of $167. Gary Chan and Paulo Paz scored 4.5 out of 6, winning $83.50 each, while Dmitriy Guller won the class prize of $67 for his 3.5 out of 6 performance.
The Wednesday Under 2200 that concluded on January 11th had 34 players on the wall chart but only one clear first-place winner. It was Aleksandr Gutnik who scored 5.5 out of 6 and won $283 for his performance. George Berg finished in clear second place, winning $170 for his 5 out of 6 score, while Jose de Villa and Andrew Lavaia won classes prizes of $113 each.
The Michael Rohde Action on January 12th had 32 players registered but only one clear first-place winner. It was IM Michael Song who scored a perfect 4 out of 4 and won $146. Tyrell Harriott finished in 2nd place, with a 3.5 out of 4 score winning $73 for his effort, while Miles Lee, Aditeya Das and Ethan Klein shared in a class prize winning $24.33 each for the 3 out of 4 performance. Nikhil Kalyanraman and Alexander Wang also scored 3 out of 4, splitting a class prize and winning $36.50 each, while Alexander Wang also won the upset prize for his win over Brian Wilmeth – a 400 point difference!
The Women and Girls Open on January 13th had 7 players registered and was won by Dhruthi Rao who scored a perfect 3 out of 3 and won $24 for her performance, while her sister Shruthi Rao won the 2nd place spot with a performance of 2.5 out of 3 winning $12 for her efforts.
The Friday Night Blitz on January 13th had 26 players registered and concluded with a three-way tie for first between FM Marcus Miyasaka, Nirvaan Bharany and Kiren Nasta who scored 7 out of 9 and earned $75.83 each. Gautam Narula won a class prize of $32.50 for his 6.5 out of 9 performance, while Grant Rheingold and Aditeya Das scored 5.5 out of 9 and earned $16.50 in the process.
The Saturday Game 50 Open on January 14th had an eye-popping 52 players registered to play and was won by two grandmasters, Aleksandr Lenderman and Michael Rohde, who scored 4 out of 4 and took home $234 each for their perfect performances. The remaining class prizes were won by Swarup Dhar and Graham Smith, who scored 3 points and won $104 each for their effort.
The Saturday Under 2000 Morning Action on January 14th had 34 players registered to play, and concluded with a 4-way tie for first place between Kai Phoenix Chen, Joshua Appelbaum, Kory Chen and Leo Xiaohang Shen who scored 3 out of 4 points and won $59.50 each for their effort, while Alexander Soll won the class prize of $102.50 with a solid 2.5 out of 4 performance.
The Sunday Game 50 Under 1600 on January 15th featured 21 competitors on the wall chart and was won by Eli Roane who scored a perfect 4 out of 4, winning $120. The remaining prize money was split between Holly Kolvenbach and Adurami Lasile, who scored 3 out of 4 and took home $70 each as a prize.
The Sunday Game 50 Open on January 15th had 49 players registered and featured an unusual 5-way tie for first between IM Kevin Wang, GM Michael Rohde, Jason Jiang, Kylan Huang and Ilya Zarembsky who scored 3.5 out of 4 winning $92 each. There was also a three-way tie for the remaining class prize between Hunter Ku, Anna Radchenko and Kenji Goto who scored 2.5 out of 4 and won $46 for their effort.
The Rated Beginner Open on January 15th had 39 players and a three-way tie for first place. Fayzan Ahmed, Jaelynn Rivera and Teddy Widom scored a perfect 3 out of 3 earning $123.33 each for their excellent performance.
The Sunday Beginner Online on January 15th had 11 players registered and was won by Zikun who scored a perfect 4 out of 4, winning $41.25 in the process, while there was a three-way tie between Joshua, Theo and Yoni for the remaining class prize money.
The Monday Under 1800 that concluded on January 16th had 17 players registered to play and was won by Matthew Grasso who scored 5 out of 6 and won the first-place prize of $125. There was a three-way tie for second between former board member Cameron Hull, Aaron Asbury and our own executive director Lance Yoon. They each scored 4 points out of 6 and took home $41.67 for their efforts. Alex Morano won the class prize of $50 for his 3.5 out of 6 score.
The FIDE Monday that concluded on January 16th had 20 players compete and was won by our own board member Evan S Rosenberg who scored 5.5 out of 6 and took home $180 for his efforts. Two players scored 4 out of 6, Daniel Johnston and CM Rachel Miller, winning $105 for their performance, while there was a three-way tie for the remaining prizes between Richard Herbst, Alberto Arnedo Ruiz and George Berg who each scored 3.5 and won $20.
The MLK Action on January 16th had 69 players registered, but only one clear first place winner. IM Kevin Wang scored 5.5 out of 6 and won the first-place prize of $512. There was a three-way tie among GM Michael Rohde, Nathaniel Shuman and Grant Rheingold who won $149.33 each for their 5 out of 6 score. There were no fewer than nine other players who shared in class prizes with a score of 4 out of 6. Elias Stern-Rodriguez, Nirvaan Bharany, Quan Tran, David Pozo and Suvan Baranwal won $38.40, while Rohan Lee, Phineas Weingarten, Daewoo Jeong and Leo Shen won $48 each for their efforts.
The Michael Rohde Action on January 19th had 36 players registered and was won by Tyrell Harriott and Daniel Wang, who both scored a perfect 4 out of 4 and took home $120 each for the performance. Kiren Nasta scored an impressive 3.5 out of 4, winning $80 in the process, while Elian Garcia also won an $80 class prize together with the upset prize.
As always, you can see all recent results by visiting our results page and you can see who has gained the most rating points in our recent events by clicking here.
— Greg Keener, Editor of the Spectator
King's Kibitzes: The Human Centipawn
Last week, on my 34th birthday, I won the following 10+5” game on Lichess:
NuttyOnion (2175) - OjaiJoao (2656)
Lichess, 2023.01.19
1.d4 g6 2.Bf4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c5 4.e3 Nf6 5.h3 O-O 6.Nf3 Qa5 7.Be2 Nd5 8.Qd2 Nxf4 9.exf4 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Nc6 11.Nxc6 dxc6 12.O-O Rd8 13.Bd3 Bf5 14.Rad1 Bxd3 15.cxd3 Rd7 16.Qc2 Rad8 17.Rfe1 e6 18.Ne4
18…Rxd3 19.Rxd3 Qxe1+ 20.Kh2 Rd5 21.Rxd5 exd5 22.Nc3 Bd4 23.Nd1 Kg7 24.f5 Qe5+ 25.g3 Qxf5 26.Qe2 Qe4 27.Qd2 h5 28.Ne3 Bxe3 29.fxe3 Kg8 30.Qf2 c5 31.Qd2 d4 32.exd4 cxd4 33.Qc1 Qe2+ 34.Kh1 d3 35.Qc8+ Kh7 36.Qf8 Qf1+ 37.Kh2 Qf2+ 38.Kh1 d2 39.Qd8 Qf3+ 40.Kh2 d1=Q 41.Qxd1 Qxd1 42.Kg2 Qe2+ 43.Kh1 f5 44.g4 f4 45.gxh5 f3 46.hxg6+ Kxg6 47.Kg1 Qg2#
During the game I thought that White’s decisive mistake was probably 18.Ne4, the move leading to the above diagram. I was already feeling comfortable and in control before that, but only after harvesting White’s ripe d-pawn with 18…Rxd3 did it seem likely that I was winning.
Before my usual post-game analysis workflow of downloading the game and analyzing it manually with Stockfish in Chessbase, I checked Lichess’ “server analysis” of the game. I don’t put much stock in this type of automated analysis - I criticized it in my December column - but sometimes I glance at it anyway. This time what it said made even less sense than usual: my opponent had committed no mistakes.
This begs the question: how can you lose a game without making a mistake? (A normal loss, that is - setting aside technical losses like flagging or forfeitures.) If you subscribe to the traditional view of an “advantage” that accumulates in a smooth, continuous fashion, then it is perfectly reasonable that one could accrue a few centipawns here, a few centipawns there, and eventually, solely on the basis of these small donations, mount a successful campaign. Let’s call this the “human centipawn” model, since frankly I’ve been waiting years for a chance to deploy that pun.
The problem with this model, as I discussed in my November column “The Myth of the Advantage”, is that a chess game does not have a smooth, continuous range of outcomes, but rather three discrete outcomes - win, draw, and loss. That is why these are the only three evaluations used by tablebases; indeed, they are the only evaluations which actually exist, in an objective sense. Let’s call this the “categorical” model.
Let’s examine the supposed “inaccuracies” in my game. Here are the first two:
Naturally we ignore Stockfish’s naive critique of mainstream openings like the Modern and the London. Similarly easy to dismiss are the last two “inaccuracies” of the game:
A move which goes from -16.0 to mate in 19 is the same as a move which goes from -3.0 to -4.7: it may not be the most tenacious defense, but it is not a categorical mistake - the position was already losing. But again, this begs the question: what was White’s real mistake?
Here are the remaining “inaccuracies”:
7.Be2 is obviously above suspicion, which leaves 11.Nxc6 through 18.Ne4 as the potential culprits. Perhaps 11.Nxc6 went from drawn to lost, or perhaps 11.Nxc6 was still drawn, and it was instead 18.Ne4 as I thought during the game, or instead one of the intervening moves, that finally tipped into the lost category. Manual analysis is required in order to establish more reliable numerical evaluations:
This is Stockfish 15 on my laptop after having analyzed the position before White’s 11th move for 30 seconds or so. It has produced a definitive result: 11.Nxc6 is a categorical mistake, because it goes from a position which is definitively a draw (-0.61 is not significantly less of a predicted draw than -0.00 is) to definitively a win (-2.03 is not significantly less of a predicted win for Black than -10 is). So 11.Nxc6 is the clear culprit - or at least a clear culprit. Here is my full manual analysis:
From 11.Nxc6 through 18.Ne4, Stockfish’s evaluation dips in and out of what I call the “indeterminate zone”, between -1.00 and -2.00, where in my experience a draw is not significantly more strongly predicted than a win for Black, and vice versa. So it’s possible that there are further categorical mistakes within that sequence - perhaps e.g. my 12…Rd8 was a categorical mistake that returned to a draw, after which e.g. White’s 16.Qc2 returned to a win for Black - but there is insufficient evidence to determine this definitively, at least not within the constraints of my available software, hardware, and analysis time. But it is definitively indicated that after 18.Ne4 Black was winning and remained so for the rest of the game.
Let’s say that none of those yellow-highlighted moves were in fact categorical mistakes, and that 11.Nxc6 was in fact the only categorical mistake of the game. Then the true final tally of the analysis should read:
White - 1 mistake
Black - 0 mistakes
Or let’s say that instead all of the yellow-highlighted moves were in fact categorical mistakes. Then the analysis report should read:
White - 4 mistakes
Black - 3 mistakes
In either case, or any case in between, there are no “inaccuracies”, nor is there any need for a “blunders” category, since a “mistake” already implies a decisive mistake. And in either case, the quality and course of the game are wildly mischaracterized by the Lichess server analysis. If Black made 0 mistakes, then Black’s “accuracy” is 100%. If White made even 1 decisive mistake, I don’t know how one would propose to calculate his accuracy, but it’s certainly not “93%”. That’s an A grade! Would you rate your significant other at 93% faithfulness if they cheated on you only once in 47 opportunities? Percentages make no sense in this context.
This is just one example of how the “human centipawn” model can be dangerously misleading, and how it can produce completely different results from the categorical model. I continue to urge you, dear reader, to consider the virtues and the crucial insights of this latter model, and try employing it in your own analysis and study. As I recently put it in a tweet, “...while actually playing a game, players are necessarily limited to their subjective perception. But when analyzing or studying, we have the luxury of being informed by objective truth.”
— FM Alex King, Spectator Columnist and Categorical Imperator
An Annotated Game from our Recent Simul with IM Shawn Rodrigue-Lemieux
Going into the simul I fully anticipated the World Youth Champion IM Shawn Rodrigue-Lemieux to mow us all down quickly. There were only 15 boards, Shawn loves hyper bullet (30 seconds for each player), and has beaten top 10 players in the world online, including Alireza Firouzja and Hikaru Nakamura.
Having this game graciously annotated for the Marshall Spectator by Shawn has provided a more complete picture of the game for me. The variations that he saw instantly at moves 20 and 29, while playing 14 other chess games, escaped my attention completely during the game.
Pictured: IM Shawn Rodrigue-Lemieux (left) and NM Sarathi Ray (right).
IM Shawn Rodrigue-Lemieux vs NM Sarathi Ray
Simultaneous Display at the Marshall Chess Club
(Play through the game here.)
Annotations by NM Sarathi Ray and IM Shawn Rodrigue-Lemieux. Annotations by IM Shawn Rodrigue-Lemieux are italicized.
1. a3 The pre-simul lecture about 1.a3 reaching main line openings with colors reversed was very interesting!
1... Nf6 Staying flexible
2. g3 d5 3. Bg2 c6 Setting up a barrier against the fianchettoed bishop
4. Nf3 Nbd7 5. O-O SRL: 5. d4 was probably a more accurate move in hindsight, in order to prevent Black from playing e5.
5... e5 Achieving the ideal pawn center but behind in development.
6. d3 Bd6 7. c4 O-O 8. Nc3 h6 9. b4 d4 10. Nb1 c5
SRL: Here we reached a position where Black is slightly better, due to their space advantage in the center. White usually tries to get some play on the queenside to complicate the position.
11. Qb3!? This move surprised me and I took my first pass here. I expected a developing move of the minor pieces instead.
11... a5 12. bxc5 SRL: This move was an important positional mistake from me, since it allows Black's Knight to occupy the powerful c5-square.(12. b5 was definitely a better option, since Black doesn't have the c5-square for the Knight.
12... Nxc5 13. Qc2 Bf5 14. Bd2 a4?
This move unnecessarily allows White to exchange pieces. With my space advantage I should not allow that. (14... Qe7)
15. Bb4 Qe7 16. Nbd2 Rfc8 17. Rab1 Bh7 (17... e4 which is what I wanted to play, does not work out tactically. 18. Nxd4 exd3 19. Nxf5 dxc2 20. Nxe7+ Bxe7 21. Rbc1 and it looks like white will win the c2 pawn.)
18. Bxc5 SRL: This was another dubious decision from me, since my a3-Pawn is now very hard to defend. Giving up the Bishop pair was unnecessary. I wanted to put pressure on the b-file as quickly as possible, but this plan backfired. 18. Ne1 is a safer choice, in order to prevent Black from playing e4.
18... Bxc5 19. Rb5 b6 20. Rfb1 Ra7
A prophylactic move to get off the h1-a8 diagonal. SRL: 20... e4! would've been a devastating move, since e3 is on the way. 21. Ne1 (21. dxe4 Nxe4 opens the diagonal for the Bishop and White will lose material.) 21... e3 and Black wins because of White's weak King.
21. Ne1 Re8 Since all the white heavy pieces are massed on the queenside, I wanted to break open the center.
22. Ne4 White stops that plan mechanically, though his pawn structure is compromised. What I failed to appreciate at the moment is that the e-1 knight will get a nice home on d3 after all the exchanges.
22... Bxe4 23. Bxe4 Nxe4 24. dxe4 f6 25. Nd3 White has the better minor piece so my only chance was to try for counter play with my soon to be passed a-4 pawn.
25... Bxa3 26. Rxb6 White goes for active counter-play, but this may be risky with Black's passed a-4 pawn. (26. Ra1 I expected this defense and though it can get complex, white seems to emerge slightly better in my opinion because of his better minor piece. 26... Rc8 (26... Bd6 27. Rxa4) 27. c5 Bxc5 (27... bxc5? 28. Rxa3 c4 29. Ra1 +-) 28. Rxa4 +/=)
26... Bc5 27. Rc6 Bd6 28. c5! Getting something going on the queenside.
28... Bc7 29. Qc4+ Qf7!
SRL: A very strong move by Black, and I simply underestimated it. I was expecting this sequence: 29... Kh7 30. Ra6 Rea8 31. Rxa7 Rxa7 32. Nb4 after which, White is much better. The Knight will jump to d5 and control many important squares.
30. Qxf7+ Kxf7 31. Nb4? Rb8 My opponent said he overlooked Rb8.
SRL: As soon as my opponent played this move, I knew that the game was over and that there was nothing I could do. Simply a superb game from Black!
32. Kg2! A nice move, preparing to complicate the situation in a defensive try, but first removing the king from possible checks. At least that is what I thought White's intention was.
32... a3 33. Rb6! A great move to be practical and complicate the situation.
33... Bxb6 34. Nc6! I did not see this coming. Here I took my second pass. I am not great in sharp positions, and this could easily go wrong. White will get an exchange back, but my bishop is also attacked. With knights and far advanced pawns, there are a lot of tricks possible.
34... a2 35. Ra1 Ra4!
I thought this was the best way to emerge from the complications with an edge.
36. Nxb8 Bxc5 Eliminating the dangerous pawn. Now my plan was simply Bb4 and Bc3.
37. Nd7 Ba7 0-1
I have to give a website called ChessMood credit here. There I learned about bishop vs. knight domination and finding backward moves. 37... Bb4 38. Nb6 Ra6 39. Nd5 Bc3 It looks like the Bb4/Bc3 plan still works but 37...Ba7 is much more elegant. White graciously resigned here.
Shawn mentioned that out of all the simuls he’s done, I was the only person who ever beat him! After having some tough losses, that compliment was very much appreciated.
— Sarathi Ray, Marshall Chess Club President
Marshall Monday
— Original illustration by Marshall Member George Skelcher
Recent Member Game Contest
The Spectator is thrilled to continue a contest for our current members. If you have played a recent game at the Marshall Chess Club that you think may be appealing to a wider audience, please submit it with your annotations to td@mashallchessclub.org. We will select the most interesting game based both on the quality of play and annotations and publish it here for our readership to enjoy.
Congratulations to Ilya Zarembsky for submitting the best annotated, recently played game and winning a free tournament entry.
We look forward to reading your submissions and sharing your recent brilliancies with our readership.
Ilya Zarembsky (1934) ½ – ½ Jonathan Pagan (2194)
January 16 Sunday G/50, Open section
(You can play through the game here.)
1.g4 (aka The Grob)
There are two main reasons I wanted to share this draw against the strong expert Jonathan Pagan: first, to pay my respects to the playful and adventurous spirit of IM Mike Basman, who died last fall and was The Grob’s great champion in modern times:
And second, to give an example of an approach to opening study that I enjoy: play anything and everything without advance preparation or regard for soundness, in recognition of the unfortunate truth that there is no better teacher than direct and bitter experience. To that end, one of my New Year’s chess resolutions is to play each of 1.a4 through 1.h4 at least once in a classical rated OTB game – I invite you to join me in resolving to do the same!
1…e5 At this juncture, I found myself out of book. But I’ve heard it said that a flank attack is often best countered in the center, so it occurred to me that perhaps a center attack is, conversely, best countered on the flank?
2. h4 Nc6 3. Nc3 Bc5 4. e3 I don’t know that this move is “thematic”, as they say, but it felt cozy and comforting to put a pawn in between f2 and Black’s bishop on c5
4…d6 5. Bh3 I thought I was SO cool playing this bold flourish instead of the humdrum 5. Bg2. However, I do wish I had noticed that I left my h4 pawn hanging.
5…Qxh4
Understandable, have a nice day.
6. Nf3 Qd8 It looks a bit silly at first glance to just go back to the starting square, but I think this was best, as the Queen is just exposed or in the way everywhere else. The move I expected given my opponent’s strong rating.
7. d4 Bb4 8. dxe5 For some reason – maybe because one naturally expects a retreat in the face of a charge like 7. d4 – I only looked at 7…Bb6 and 7…Bb4 came as an unpleasant surprise. I don’t think I can allow Black to play e4.
8…Nxe5 9. Nxe5 dxe5 Here I think Black missed a bit of an opportunity by not inserting Bxc3+ before recapturing on e5.
10. Qxd8+ Kxd8 11. Bd2 This move felt like a bit of a “hee, hee” and I now felt pretty good about my chances of securing a draw – my goal from Qxh4 onwards.
11…c6
Jonathan took a long think here and came up with what looked to ME like a strong plan/structure. I was surprised to discover that the engine hates this move, thinks the position is already equal if I immediately respond with 12. g5, and wants Black to play 11…h5! So preoccupied was I with the ongoing d-file developments that I didn’t even begin to see or consider that move either during the game or while writing up these annotations. I try not to check the engine until doing a pass on my own first.
12. O-O-O Ne7 13. a3 Ba5 14. b4 “Aaaah! I dunno! Ok, I guess let’s try to capture some space!” I might have had some vague sense that it was better to try to keep the bishops on the board.
14...Bc7 15. Ne4 Ke8 Oof. A nice quiet move that drained my confidence about getting that draw a good amount.
16. Bc3 Nd5 17. Bb2 b5 (a super natural move, but I think Black missed something close to a win here with Nf6, a super difficult move to see – not only is the Knight going backwards, but it’s doing it RIGHT after coming forward!) 18. g5
This felt great to play. I think after this the game is a draw.
18…a5 19. Bxc8 Rxc8 20. Bxa5 Ra8 21. Nc3 A bit speculative and optimistic.
21...Ne7 22. Rh3 The plan all along before I got distracted – the pawn on h7 is tricky to defend
22...h6 23. gxh6 Rxh6 24. Rxh6 gxh6 25. Rh1 Bxa5 25…Ng8 was probably worth trying, as passive as it feels. The pawn on a5 isn’t going anywhere.
26. Rxh6 Ng6 27. Ne4 Rd8 28. Nc5 The engine points out that 28. Rh5 would have been best here, as Black does not have 28…Rd5.
28...Rd5 29. Nd3 All part of an intricate and deliberate dance and not at all just another random Knight move. Also, a “bad mistake”, according to the engine.
29...e4 30. Nb4 Bxb4 31. axb4 Rf5 32. Rh2 Here I almost snatched defeat from the jaws of, uh, draw, by blundering material on h4 for the second time in one game.
32…Rd5 Any Knight move is met by Rh4. My opponent, quite low on time at this point, offered a draw, which I happily accepted. ½ - ½
— Ilya Zarembsky, Marshall Chess Club Member
Marshall Chess Foundation Announcement
The Marshall Chess Foundation is pleased to announce the launch of its website which describes our mission and the programs we are currently funding. Those programs include:
Supplying Chess Equipment
The Foundation supplied sets, boards and clocks to schools in South Africa and
Nairobi
The Foundation supplied sets and boards to the Beacon Library in NY
The Foundation funded The Gift of Chess to purchase
and distribute 1,000 boards and sets to prisons across the country
Education
The Marshall Chess Foundation funded chess programs especially in underprivileged schools. Some of our 2022 efforts include:
Chess at Harlem Academy, the only independent school in Manhattan serving promising, low-income students in kindergarten through eighth grade.
Chess program at St. Ann's Academy, Bridgeport Connecticut in partnership with DIG USA.
Harlem Grown, a non-profit organization that teaches children to grow fruits and vegetables, identified three Harlem schools interested in creating chess programs. The Foundation funded that effort.
Supported bilingual coaching for young immigrants.
Sponsored private lessons for talented juniors and women.
Tournaments
For many years, the Foundation has sponsored the guaranteed prize fund for the
annual Marshall Chess Club Championship. This has benefited the Marshall
Chess Club financially and attracted many strong players to contend for the title
of Marshall Chess Club Champion.
Additionally, the Foundation is exploring opportunities to sponsor FIDE norm
tournaments in the United States.
To learn more about the Marshall Chess Foundation, please visit our website. The website can also be reached via the Marshall Chess Club website, then selecting “Information” and scrolling down to the Marshall Chess Foundation link.
Your tax-free donation will help the Marshall Chess Foundation continue and expand its current programs as well as support new programs that are consistent with our mission to be part of the growth of chess in the United States.
— IM Sal Matera, Marshall Chess Foundation President
Chess Toons
En Passant
– As of the time of writing, Nodirbek Abdusattorov leads Tata Steel going into the second rest day and kept a one point lead after drawing his eighth round game against Levon Aronian.
– Chess is still Booming! Traffic on Chess.com has nearly doubled since the beginning of December. On December 31, Chess.com had seven million active members online in a single day for the first time. On January 20, they had ten million active members on the site.
– Grandmaster Karsten Müller, an endgame expert, found some instructive positions from the much anticipated Tata Steel even in Wijk Aan Zee in the Netherlands and shared his analyses.
Problem of the Week
A. Selesnieff 1917
White to move and draw.
Here again, as in last issue's problem, the mirror image of White's keymove is available. But there is another move down the road whose mirror image isn't. In addition, the keymove here seems quite unintuitive at first glance. A real gem.
----------------
P. Weyl, 1916 (after S. Loyd)
White to mate in three
Solution to Weyl, 1916: 1.Qh5 Kd5 2.Qe8. 1.Qf7 fails as after 1...Kf3 there is no 2.Qi4.
—Alexander George, Marshall Chess Club Members
Editor's Note
As always, if you have any feedback, comments, or would like to submit an article please contact us directly at td@marshallchessclub.org.
Enjoy, and thanks for reading!
The Marshall Chess Club
Address: 23 West Tenth Street New York, NY 10011
Contact: 212.477.3716; td@marshallchessclub.org
Hours: Monday 1pm-Midnight; Tuesday - Closed, Weds-Fri 1pm-Midnight; Sat/Sun 9am-Midnight
