Practical Chances and a Romantic Opening Shootout

In keeping with the new focus of this blog, I decided to carry out a small experiment regarding opening theory. As a way of judging the merits of several romantic opening lines, such as the Pierce Gambit, Frankenstein-Dracula variation, and Halloween Gambit, I have performed a series of Engine-Engine matches using HIARCS (I use a Mac).

In these matches, I varied the time allotted to the engines for making moves, in order to determine in a quantitative fashion if a particular line offers practical chances and pressure, but can be defused with accurate defense. In the complete article below, I explain my motivation, methodology, and my results. This is a preliminary analysis, and future posts will continue this work, for example by looking at engine evaluations and comparing them with the results.

Still, a few interesting results were apparent. In particular, I was interested in several lines in the Pierce gambit, which starts with 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4 g4 6.Bc4 gxf3 7.O-O Nxd4! (Strongest test against the Pierce) 8.Bxf4 (the Knight is immune due to threats of Qg5 followed by Bc5 or Qg2) Bc5 9.Bxf7?! Kxf7 10.Be3

According to my analysis, the line with 9.Bxf7 Kxf7 10.Be3 is inferior for White, as others have suggested in the past. Notably, Ian Simpson at his excellent blog and site, The Gambiteers Guild, suggests that this might be playable for White, if it wasn't for 10...Qf6 11.Nd5 Qe5 12.Rxf3, when White's compensation falls short. In fact, 12.c3 instead should lead to at least an even game, with some pressure and practical chances for White. Some of the computer lines that I generated from this line are both amusing and instructive.

Select read more to see the complete article, with results, discussion, and my methodology. Think I missed something, or have an opening you'd like analyzed this way? Please feel free to share in the comments below.

Hello to a New Journal, Farewell to a Friend

The Journal of Chess Research is a new scholarly or academic journal that will feature scientific articles and studies centered around chess. In some ways, this project is a more formalized and serious version of this blog itself (with a much more impressive board of editors and potential authors). The journal itself was featured in another chess publication, Chess Life (official magazine of the USCF) in a recent issue. You can also read more about this project at their website or at Susan Polgar’s excellent blog. 

            Speaking of excellent blogs, one of my favorite chess authors and friend, Michael Goeller, is hanging up his hat with regards to the Kenilworthian. You can read about his decision to do so, and a reflection on his amazing blogging journey, at his final post, The End of Chess Blogging. His articles were always interesting, well written, well researched, and very enjoyable to read. For at least one reader (myself), his writing will be sorely missed.

            I may be reaching my own end of chess blogging; work commitments to both teaching and research continue to prevent me from making consistent posts. I will be sacrificing time that could be used for Science on the Squares in order to revive my other blog, Just Me and Eubacteria, which is more in-line with my professional interests. Towards this end, I have removed some of the content from this blog, scrubbing out broken links and images where I can. I may occasionally post a game or analysis here or there, but regretfully these posts will be few and far in-between.  

A Scientific Approach to Chess

For a blog about Chess and Science, you might expect more articles about the intersection between the two. Indeed, I have occasionally written here about research articles that have involved chess (such as studying the physiology of players during a game, the Einstellung effect), even including my own efforts in exploring mutual information in chess. Usually, chess is used as a vehicle in science to study physiology, memory, or decision making in general. However, I think it is worth exploring a truly scientific approach to Chess.

In its essence, Science is about gaining useful knowledge in a systematic way to solve problems. Chess players engage in a similar activity all the time, if even subconsciously, studying games and reading literature to build a model of the game in their mind that can be applied to making decisions at the board. Likewise, scientific knowledge about the natural world has informed incredible advances in technology for a wide range of industries.

Below I suggest different ways in which the scientific method can be applied to different aspects of chess. I encourage any interested readers to take up the challenge of performing chess research, following the principles featured in the rest of the article. I intend on making this blog a vehicle for such research, and welcome submissions of original research to this blog (or at least posts that link to your analysis). Perhaps Science on the Squares can become the first real scientific journal of chessology (or chessonomics?)

Do you think that such a method will prove useful and yield insights? Is it too slow and laborious? Have you made any discoveries in Chessology? Please share your thoughts and comments below, or contact me directly. 

Back in Blogging Action

A quick news update: After a long hiatus, I am back in blogging action at Science on the Squares. In fact, I will be resuscitate all of my other blogs and social media accounts, after a long hiatus due to a career transition (I am now an Assistant Professor in the Biology Department of Kingsborough Community College.)

I have attempted to repair many aspects of this blog, fixing broken links and images. (If you find something I missed, please let me know). Due to my new position, I will be posting here probably only once or twice a month. However, I have setup a more static chess website at http://djcamenares.x10.mx/chess/; as of posting it is still under construction.

In the next few posts, I will finish posting a series of Chess Words puzzles that I had intended to upload. I will not continue the other puzzle series, for now. You can also look forward to some analysis on the Grivas Sicilian, which is already present at my static page. (In particular, a fun gambit line 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qb6 5.Be3?!) Stay Tuned!

Adjournment: An indefinite hiatus for SOTS

It is with regret that I must inform my readers that this blog is going on indefinite hiatus.

Over the past few months (just about 16 weeks, to be more exact), I have found blogging on this site to be a very enjoyable experience. During this time some of these pages gained some recognition as well: through connections formed from this blog, I was offered to write a few book reviews for chesscafe.com. I owe a special thanks to Michael Goeller, a friend and author of the amazing Kenilworthian blog, for his help and occasional reposts.

Unfortunately, as foreshadowed in some recent posts, I simply do not have the time to make this blog all it could be. Rather than be reduced to posting (exclusively) biweekly the Freeze Chess, ChessWords, and Scrambled Chess problems (of which I have quite a few), I decided to simply put the entire operation on hold.

I am currently in a period of significant transition in my life. I am nearing the end of my doctoral studies in biochemistry. In fact, the end to this chapter might come rather quickly, in the order of few months. A great deal of effort might be required to ensure a quick and successful conclusion to some final experiments (not to mention polishing the writing of my manuscript and thesis).

On top of that, my impending graduation necessitates that I intensify my career search. I have been searching for gainful employment for several months. In fact, this blog is partly a piece on the board in that larger struggle, a way to showcase my writing (as well as didactic) abilities in advance of a scientific publication. For my readers that have some connections to science (or otherwise are / or know somebody looking to hire a newly minted PhD), I would be very interested in hearing from you! My resume can be viewed at my LinkedIn profile. 

Hopefully, after I am settled in the next phase of my life, I can return to this blog and resume posting interesting chess stories and analysis, as well as commentary on science. The transition period is bound to be an interesting one, and I look forward to recounting the experience (as well as relating experiences from my graduate career) on these pages.

While I will not be making any new posts for awhile, there is some other work that needs to be done to update some older entries. In particular, I will be fixing some broken links and images in the near future. Also, you should be on the lookout for my favorable review of Dan Heisman's excellent The Worlds Most Instructive Amateur Game Book I recently completed (but not yet featured) for chesscafe.com. When I return, you can expect that I will finish my inconceivable moves series. As a sneak peek, I think that 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e5!?* and 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qb6 5.Be3! are both marginally playable. I actually have did some preliminary analysis for the latter line (which is essentially a gambit variation in the Grivas Sicilian) at my older blog at chess.com, which you should definitely check out if you haven't already :)

*Intending 3.Nxe5 Qe7 4.d4 Nc6!? (not 4…d6 5.Bb5+ ouch!) 5.Nxc6 Qxe4+

My Worst Blunder of 2012

In 2012, I played quite a few chess games. I was active on Chess.com, playing 41 turn-based correspondence style games (with a 28-8-5 Win-Loss-Draw record), as well as countless blitz games. The story was similar with my over-the-board (in person) play; I had numerous casual blitz and slow games at the Stony Brook Chess Club as well as the Bayshore Chess Club this year. Finally, I participated in 3 different Chess tournaments this year: The Long Island Open (where I placed second in the U1700 section), the Manhattan Open, and the Empire City Open (The last two were played in the New Yorker Hotel, in Manhattan. The facade of the building is shown below). My overall record in these events is 11-5-2 (18 games total, six in each event).

From this collection of games, I could choose several that have egregious blunders, as well as good moves, with varying levels of instructive value. To me, at least at time of writing, my worst blunder of 2012 is clear. This, surprisingly, wasn't even a chess move, but rather my failure to use two half-point byes in the Empire City Open.

Read on the find out why, and see what I learnt about tournament Chess in the process. Have you had tournaments where you wished you took a bye?

To my regular readers, I apologize for the delay in posts, and the fact that there was no Scrambled Chess Sunday Puzzle this past week. In addition to playing in the Empire City Open, I celebrated New Years with my beautiful and wonderful girlfriend at Hunter Mountain. Unfortunately, I became sick the next day! Once I recover and finish some work obligations, you can expect more regular posts and progress.

Book Review: Thinking with Chess

You can find another one of my book reviews at Chesscafe.com. (Previously, I reviewed Walter Browne's "The Stress of Chess".)

This time around, I took a look at "Thinking With Chess", by Dr. Alexey Root. This book is more or less a teaching guide for chess coaches or parents. My review is entitled "Teaching with Challenges", named because the most interesting and valuable part of Dr. Root's book are the challenges. These are essentially mini-games used to exercise a particular chess skill.

Image taken from www.brooklyncastle.com

The book is put together nicely, but unfortunately I couldn't bring myself to give it a great rating because of the limited amount of material (the size of the book). This is reflected in the concise nature of the review; there was simply not a whole lot to talk about! (My apologies to Dr. Root for any offense, but I'm just trying to deliver an honest opinion.)

Did you read this book? If so, what did you think? What is your favorite book on chess instruction?