Ding Liren is World Chess Champion get over it

Posted on May 2, 2023 by Tom Liberman

Ding Liren of China defeated Ian Nepomniachtchi in the 2023 World Chess Championship to become the World Chess Champion, to the displeasure of a vocal many. The reason for the unhappiness is that Ding is merely the third ranked chess player in the world behind Magnus Carlsen. Nepomniachtchi is the second ranked player.

Ding Liren and Nepomniachtchi finished up the most exciting chess championship in recent years with Ding Liren winning the fourth tie-break game. This after their fourteen round match ended with them tied at three victories each.

Carlsen decided not to defend the title he held for the last ten years and this is the crux of the issues against Ding, although anti-Chinese sentiment plays a role as well. What do I think about all this? Let me tell you.

Carlsen Refuses to Defend

Magnus Carlsen is one of those rare champions who truly dominates an individual sport. He is a Roger Federer or Tiger Woods like player. He won the World Chess Championship back in 2013 and defended it four times. He earned the title as the top-ranked player in the world in 2010 at the age of nineteen.

After ten years of holding the title, Carlsen decided not to defend it for a fifth time. He is widely considered the best chess player of all time.

The Championship Format

The world chess champion is decided in a peculiar way and I think that is the cause of much of the angst about Ding Liren. Unlike many team sports, there is not a championship tournament every year. Unlike many individual sports, the champion is not determined by a point rating system at the end of the season.

In chess, the champion remains champion for two years and then defends the title against a challenger who wins a tournament called Candidates. Magnus decided not to defend so it was decided the first and second place finishers in the Candidates tournament would play for the championship.

Nepomniachtchi won Candidates with Ding Liren finishing second. In a normal year this would result in a match between Nepomniachtchi and Carlsen, a rematch from the event two years ago when Carlsen thoroughly dismantled the challenger winning three games and losing none.

There are many people who, quite vocally, proclaim Ding Liren is not a valid champion. That the real champion is still Magnus Carlsen.

Ding Liren is the Champion

Poppycock! Ding Liren is the World Chess Champion for the simple reason he won the title. The Boston Bruins recently completed the best regular season in the history of the NHL. They lost in the first round of the playoffs. No one is going to claim the Bruins are the real Stanley Cup Champions.

If Magnus chose to defend, it’s likely he would have won but we will never know. What doesn’t happen, doesn’t happen. Any speculation on what might have happened is just that, speculation. There is no way to know. What we do know is they played under the rules and Ding Liren won.

Conclusion

Is Magnus Carlsen the best chess player in the world? Yes. He’s the number one ranked player and he will remain so until some future date. Is he the World Chess Champion? Nope, not anymore. He chose not to defend. It’s really that simple.

Ding Liren is the champion and to the victor go the spoils.

Tom Liberman

My Encounter with a Bad Logic Troll

Posted on December 30, 2022 by Tom Liberman

I read and comment on a lot of news stories and I thought a recent encounter with a bad logic troll might be of some interest to you, my loyal and vast audience. I follow chess fairly closely and commented on the recently completed Rapid and Blitz Championship which resulted in a pair of victories for Magnus Carlsen.

This comment resulted in me getting involved with a bad logic troll. I appreciate a good troll as much as anyone and I’ve engaged in the practice a few times myself. In this case I thought the use of logical fallacies worthy of an examination.

The Backstory

Magnus Carlsen recently declared he will not defend his world championship title in classical chess. This means when a new champion is declared later this year, he will no longer be eligible to win all three of the main chess championships in the same calendar year. A number of people are lamenting this fact and such thoughts led to my original comment.

One of the reasons Carlsen is not defending his title is such a defense occupies two years of his time. Carlsen preference is he’d like a yearly tournament to determine champion and I echoed that in my original comment. See the image above.

The Bad Logic Troll Arrives

Cue stage right, the villain has arrived! His or her original argument is a classical chess game, which lasts many hours, is unsuitable for a Swiss style tournament with many players. Now, at this point I already suspected a troll but I’m always willing to engage in conversation.

My Rebuttal

I replied, with a bit of snark you’ll notice when reading the exchange, there are Swiss style tournaments playing classical chess on a fairly regular basis. That one of these tournaments is called the Grand Swiss. The fact that Swiss style tournaments with a hundred or more players are not only possible, but happen, seems to win the argument.

End of story, right? Troll wrong. Tom right. Time for a whiskey and celebration. Not so fast. The bad logic troll now tries lying. He or she claims the Grand Swiss tournament is played over a long period of time and involves pools. Both of these things are false. Either it’s a lie or just made up to support her or his original assertions. We haven’t gotten to the bad logic yet although certainly the behavior exhibited by my foe is egregious.

My Reply

I reply with simple facts copied and pasted from the Grand Swiss wiki page. The tournament lasts thirteen days and is not a pool event. Irrefutable, you exclaim. Victory for Tom! There’s no way the troll is slipping out of this one. Ah, my naïve friend, you haven’t dealt with trolls, have you? Just you wait.

The Bad Logic Appears

The troll counters with an argument completely different than the one originally made and shows a not unanticipated lack of basic math skills in adding up the time between two dates. This is the bad logic. Rather than admit her or his first argument was clearly defeated by a superior intellect, that’s me if you’re not following along, the troll goes down a different path. It really doesn’t matter what argument follows. It’s always the same and it’s a logical fallacy called Moving the Goalposts. When the original argument fails, just try a new one.

Conclusion

What to do when encountering this fallacy? Well, I suppose you can continue to argue but the person with whom you are debating is not worthy of the effort. Cut your losses, move on. That’s my advice at least.

Smile with smug self-satisfaction knowing you’ve won the argument because they, by moving the goalposts, conceded the point.

Smug Tom Liberman

Is Hans Cheating a Predetermined Result

Posted on October 14, 2022 by Tom Liberman

Is Hans cheating? That question continues to roil the chess world, and beyond. Ever since Magnus Carlsen formally made an accusation that’s been speculated in the chess circles for over a year, it’s been a major news story. Is Hans Cheating? It’s not the question I will answer today. Sorry.

I’d like to discuss the notion of a predetermined result. The Is Hans Cheating question brings the problem into great clarity, for me at least. It’s a question that affects not only the chess community but our general perception of the world at large.

Do you have a strong opinion about Hans cheating? Will his future results change your opinion about that? No, they will not. Let’s discuss.

Hans can’t Win and he can’t Lose

If you, like me, tune into chess tournaments; there is vociferous debate in the chat rooms on the subject. Is Hans cheating? There are those who say he absolutely did not cheat against Carlsen and those that say Hans most certainly did cheat in that match and others as well. The debate rages during the current United States Chess Championship in which Hans is competing.

One of the interesting parts of the debate is Hans defenders frequently point out Hans can’t win. If he wins a game then his detractors assume he is continuing to cheat. If he loses then that means his past cheating is exposed because, with the new rules in place, he can’t cheat now.

The problem is these self-same defenders are guilty of the exactly the same thinking, only in reverse. If Hans loses a game, it’s because of the pressure he’s under and it doesn’t prove anything. If he wins a game then it shows he’s didn’t cheat in the past because he can still win under more stringent scrutiny.

In other words, whether you think Hans is cheating or not, you look at events through the proverbial rose-colored glasses and come to the conclusion that best suits your narrative. You will not, under almost any circumstance, change your mind.

It’s not just Chess

This is not just an issue with the Is Hans Cheating question. I see this every day in online debates. Both sides are completely unwilling to interpret any fact, any event, any argument in a way that persuades them to change their point of view. Everything feeds their predetermined decision. Nothing contradicts it. It matters not how many knots she or he must tie themselves into to achieve the desired result.

I suspect this is a human condition. Julius Caesar wrote: Men in general are quick to believe that which they wish to be true. I’d add only one caveat to Caesar’s insightful comment. Women too.

Conclusion

The only weapon against this enemy is critical thinking. As I watch the United States and the world drift toward totalitarianism, as I see people eagerly embrace leaders who demand absolute rule, as I watch in dismay as people gleefully talk about disenfranchising, hurting, even killing those who disagree with their views, I am ever more convinced we must start a critical thinking curriculum at the earliest moments of our educational system.

Will it happen? You tell me.

Tom Liberman

Magnus v Mamedyarov – the Finest Chess Game ever?

Posted on January 26, 2022 by Tom Liberman

The Jan 25th game between Magnus Carlsen and Shakhriyar Mamedyarov in the Tata Steel tournament lit up the chess world for the quality of play. The first image here is the computer evaluation of the game after it finished.

Today, I will make an argument the game is the finest ever played and Carlsen is the best player in the history of chess. Those who are far better at chess than I, might disagree and that’s fine.

As many know, I’m a big fan of chess. I’m going to try to explain this game with as few technical terms as possible so don’t be deterred by the fact it is a chess article.

The Computer Age

Chess in its current form originated about 600 years ago and the modern, or computer era, began somewhere around 1990 or thirty years ago. Modern players have the enormous advantage of consulting chess engines.

Input from computers broadened understanding of the game in a number of ways and modern players know chess on a deeper level than players from previous eras. It is relatively reasonable and somewhat generally accepted the best players today are far better than the champions of yore. If someone organized a tournament of all the great champions with the knowledge they had at the peak of their careers, modern players will win and rather handily.

That being said, it’s difficult to argue against the idea the champion of today is the greatest chess player of all time. That champion being Magnus Carlsen.

The Game in Question

Magnus recently defended his title and set a goal of reaching an ELO ranking of 2900. The Tata Steel championship is his first tournament since setting that target. He led the tournament when the game in question happened with his opponent trailing him by half a point.

The First Move

In this position the move the computer suggested for white is to move the queen backwards and to the right by one square, to d1 as it is called. Small queen moves in the middle games can be very difficult to spot. When the queen moves a single square it either changes the rows and columns or the diagonals it influences.
I won’t, as promised, get too technical here. Qd1 is not an easy move for any player to spot. It is very subtle and makes no significant threat or great improvement. Carlsen made it.

The Second Move

In this position the suggested computer move is for white to move his leftmost pawn one square forward. This is considered an anti-positional move. It allows black to push his own pawn one square forward, creating what is called a protected-passed pawn. This is something you generally want to prevent your opponent from achieving.

Carlsen again found this move despite it being against the general principles of chess.

The Third Move

This move is a backward move by the knight and is generally considered very difficult to find. Again, it is the computer’s first choice. The idea being that moving the knight back toward you king means it loses influence on many forwards squares. It often is done to reposition the knight to a better square in the future.

Again, Magnus found the move.

The Final Position

This is the final position of the game. To most viewers, even good chess players, it doesn’t seem particularly overwhelming. It is but that’s not so important to my argument today. In 27 moves Carlsen won an overwhelming victory against a player who played an excellent game. Flawless is the way the computer rates it.

Conclusion

My argument is that no other player in the history of chess makes the moves Carlsen made in this game. This makes it the finest game of chess to date. Certainly not a stunning brilliancy with multiple sacrifices. Just as good as a person has ever played. So far.

Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Daniil Dubov Works with Magnus Carlsen and Causes Uproar

Posted on December 12, 2021 by Tom Liberman

Chess talent Daniil Dubov is from Russia. In the recent World Chess Championship, the reigning champion, Magnus Carlsen, played challenger Ian Nepomniachtchi. Nepo, as he is generally called, is from Russia while Carlsen is from Norway.

After the match concluded, with Carlsen’s fourth title defense and fifth overall championship, the champ revealed his team which included Daniil Dubov. One of Nepo’s seconds, as they are called, Sergey Karjakin complained that Daniil Dubov somehow betrayed Mother Russia by working with a Norwegian against a Russian.

Several Russian chess officials agree with Karjakin and made it clear they consider Daniil Dubov somehow a traitor to Russian chess and his future on the National Team is now in some jeopardy.

It’s a Contract

Daniil Dubov initially worked with Carlsen during the previous championship match against Fabiano Caruana. He contracted with Carlsen to continue working through this cycle even before Nepo won the Candidates tournament.

This leads me to my first, although least vehement, argument against forcing Dubov to change over to the Nepo team or at least leave Carlsen’s. A contract was signed. It is far worse, in my opinion, for Dubov to break the contract or ask Carlsen to void it than to honor it. Dubov clearly enjoys a good working relationship with Carlsen and for the champ to pay Dubov to continue their work together is high praise indeed. An honor.

Individualism is more important than Nationalism

Frankly, this out-of-control nationalism, my country first business, is incredibly dangerous to the world. I’m against it almost always. We are not nations. Nor are we religions. We are not a race, a creed, a color. We are individuals. I am Tom Liberman first. I identify with my family, my city of St. Louis, my state of Missouri, my country of the United States, my community of Role-Playing Game enthusiasts, but I am first me. An individual.

Daniil Dubov gets to choose with whom he works and those who criticize this choice do so not out of so-called nationalism but raw intimidation. They hope to coerce Daniil Dubov into doing their bidding by appealing to his nationalism. Daniil Dubov stands up tall, well, not really all that tall, no offense, Daniil, I’m height-challenged as well.

He stands up for his desire to work with Carlsen and understands it does not in reflect, in any way, on his patriotism or love for Russia. Good for you, brother!

What’s best for Daniil Dubov

My last argument is the one that strikes directly to why this story angers me so much. He must do what is best for Daniil Dubov. Working closely with the World Champion, arguably the greatest chess player in the history of the game, is objectively good for Daniil Dubov.

There is no question Daniil Dubov is a potential World Champion himself. He plays a creative game with flair and style but must learn discipline and caution in order to achieve this goal. Working with Magnus Carlsen is clearly the best way for him to improve his own game.

Conclusion

I found myself heartily encouraged by the comments sections in various stories about this issue. A rarity. It seems most people, many Russians included, side with Daniil Dubov. They think he is correct to work with whom he pleases and it in no way defines his patriotism.

The general tenor of the comments is that Russian officials are foolish if they ban him from the National Team but if they do, it’s their loss.

Daniil Dubov, you have a fan in me.

Tom Liberman

Vishy Anand Shows a Chess Cheater Real Class

Posted on June 15, 2021 by Tom Liberman

What Happened

Chess India hosted a charity event, Checkmate Covid, to help those suffering from the results of Covid-19. In it a variety of celebrities played former World Champion Viswanathan, affectionately called Vishy by his many fans, Anand in a simultaneous exhibition.

One of those pitted against Vishy Anand was billionaire Nikhil Kamath. Kamath played a virtually flawless game after which Vishy Anand told an interviewer: Yesterday was a celebrity simul for people to raise money. It was a fun experience upholding the ethics of the game. I just played the position on the board and expected the same from everyone.

With just a few seconds left on his clock Kamath achieved a winning position and Anand resigned. Anand could have continued playing and flagged his opponent, that is to say, won the game because his foe ran out of time. Vishy Anand chose not to do so and that is the focus of my blog today. Why resign to someone who is clearly cheating, in a charity event of all things?

Who is Vishy Anand

Vishy Anand is the former World Chess Champion having defeated Alexei Shirov in 2000 after having lost two previous championship matches against Garry Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov. The two are often considered among the greatest chess players in history.

He then defended the title three times before losing it in 2013 to Magnus Carlsen who is also considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, player in history. During Anand’s championship defeats and victories, he never complained about a loss or bragged about victory. He is universally considered one of the classiest chess players in history, an assessment with which I agree wholeheartedly.

That is why this cheating scandal so angered the world. Not shocked. People cheat, even in charity events, everyone knows that. It’s just that Vishy Anand is such a fantastically kind and generous person, his fans and friends were absolutely outraged at the disrespectful behavior of Kamath. Chessnetwork, also a classy and kind fellow, posted a video about the transgression in which you can sense his rage.

Why did Anand resign when he knew full well Kamath was cheating? Because Anand was true to himself, a mantra of the Libertarian. You want to cheat? That’s on you. I only answer to myself. Anand realized he was in a losing position and resigned because that’s sportsmanship. It all but brings tears to my eyes and I’m not spewing hyperbole.

The Apology

Kamath issued an apology, if you can call it that, after figuratively every chess player in the world called him out. In it he blamed other people for being stupid enough to believe he, Kamath, could beat Anand in a chess match. It is ridiculous that so many are thinking that I really beat Vishy sir in a chess game, that is almost like me waking up and winning a 100m race with Usain Bolt.

Yeah, blame other people for their anger at your cheating. That’s the opposite of Anand. People are enraged and continue to be so, go figure.

Conclusion

Be like Vishy. That’s my conclusion. Be the better person. You’re not helping anyone else; you’re helping yourself.

Tom Liberman

Qualifying Mayhem in the Bullet Chess Championship

Posted on April 1, 2021 by Tom Liberman

What is a Qualifier?

What does the word qualify mean to you? That’s a question of great importance in regards to the 2021 Bullet Chess Championship. In the tournament a number of players compete to play for $25,000 in prize money. This group of competitors is broken into two parts.

One group, made up of those who are considered the best bullet chess players in the world, are prequalified into the Bullet Chess Championship finals.

The rest of the players are required to enter four qualifier events. In each of these, the top four players of a 20 round Swiss tournament advance to a knockout stage with the eventual winner gaining qualification for the Bullet Chess Championship.

That all makes a lot of sense. You don’t want the best players in the world knocked out before the final which is streamed on various outlets including Twitch. They are the personalities who draw the viewers.

So, that leads us to our question. What does it mean to qualify for a tournament? You’re probably wondering why I’m even asking this apparently simple question. I ask because the Bullet Chess Championship organizers apparently don’t know the answer. Read on.

Prequalified Players Enter the Qualifier

Here’s where the tournament organizers made what I consider to be an egregious error. The first group, those already with a place in the final tournament, played in the qualifying tournaments.

What? You rightly exclaim. That makes no sense. What if they win? Good question. During the first two qualifiers none of the exempted players made it into the top four of the Swiss so it was a moot point. However, in the third qualifier a fellow named Hikaru Nakamura, who is widely considered the best or near best bullet chess player in the world, won. As might be expected.

I assumed if a prequalified player made it into the top four, the next best player moves forward. Nope, the prequalified Nakamura went into the knockout and defeated both his opponents. The final was pointless. Whoever played Nakamura qualified because Nakamura is already qualified. If that sentence makes sense.

Why I think it is Horribly Wrong

In my opinion there is no way the prequalified players should play in a qualifier. It’s right there, in the word. Such players have an enormous advantage in that they don’t have any pressure on them. In addition, every game such a player wins or loses in the Swiss affects who makes it to the final four.

In the knockout stage it’s the same thing. No pressure, if they win in the semi-final then another player, desperately trying to qualify, is knocked out and the player who wins the other semi-final is automatically qualified for the finals even if they lose.

Conclusion

What moron thought this was a good idea, let alone a fair one? I’m a chess fan and I’m triggered!

Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Watching People Argue in a Chess Chat

Posted on October 6, 2020 by Tom Liberman

Chess Chat is as filled with acrimonious debate as any political forum and, while watching the first round of the Norway Chess Tournament an instructive moment occurred which I will wax on about today. Don’t be too distressed, the topic isn’t primarily chess, or chess chat, it’s how to have a productive debate.

In this case the chess chat included a hearty exchange, including nasty insults as per usual, between two interlocuters debating as to which chess format, blitz or classical was more interesting, or more to the point whether or not classical chess is boring. Of some note but not important to the point is that one of the debaters is essentially the chief sponsor of chess in the United States. He took the side that classical chess was more interesting while an unknown but equally belligerent opponent took the opposite view.

Don’t worry, the chess talk is finished. What is important to understand is the nature of the question being debated and how to arrive at an objective answer. One side of the debate posited that a particular thing was more boring than another thing of largely the same nature.

What is the first thing to understand in order to arrive at a conclusion to this debate? What is boring, how do we define boring in this context, it must be determined. We cannot have any meaningful answer until we do so. Now, there are a number of ways to do this, but what is vitally important to understand is that neither of the two challengers made any attempt to do so.

They simply wrote facts back and forth at one another. This many people watched that tournament, so many people watched the other tournament. The quality of play in this style is better than the other style. It was endless, pointless, and much to the dismay of most of the people in chat, hideously boring. No one got anywhere except to clog up the chess chat with their ranting and most certainly, no one’s opinions were changed. Meanwhile, there was some quite interesting chess being played that the two debaters completely ignored.

The lesson is simple enough, you can’t arrive at an objective answer without defining what it is you are debating. A lesson neither of the two debaters understood or, frankly, are ever likely to understand.

Thus ends the lesson, young Ionians. Go outside to practice your Phalanx maneuvers and we shall return to the problem on the morrow.

Tom Liberman

Thinking for Yourself in Chess and Life

Posted on August 18, 2020 by Tom Liberman

I was on Lichess watching the Magnus Carlsen v. Hikaru Nakamura match of the Magnus Chess Tour Finals when an interesting example of thinking for yourself, and the benefits therein, presented itself. It is often suggested thinking for yourself is better; but if someone else does the thinking for you, and always gives you good answers, why not just do what she or he says? I’ll tell you why.

Many of those watching the games rely on the computer analysis to tell them who is winning at any particular moment and what is the best move to make for either player. Others of us watch without the computer engine analysis and discuss what might be the better move and which player seems to have the advantage at any given moment.

It is clear those using the engine to tell them the best move and who is winning are clearly correct far more often than those of us simply watching the game and relying on our own calculations. Therefore, they are better off, right? Wrong.

Thinking for yourself is not only a great deal more fun, it not only makes you a better chess player, but it also actually gives you greater insight into the game being played at that moment. Here is what happened twice during the match I watched yesterday. Warning, if you’re not a chess fan this might get a little dull.

Basically, during a game there are moments when you can sacrifice a piece in order to gain initiative through tactics. When you are thinking for yourself, you are looking for such tactics. When you are relying on the computer to tell you the best move you largely are not watching for such moments.

In two games there was a potential tactic available for several moves which covered perhaps ten minutes of time allowing time for analysis. Those of us in chat not using the computer mentioned the sacrifice possibility multiple times and eventually, in both cases it was made.

This leads me to the purpose of this entire blog. When the sacrifices were actually viable, the computer engine immediately suggested them as the best move and those relying on the engine began to speculate if the player might see it. These fans thought it was almost impossible to see such a move. When the player made the sacrifice, they were stunned by the astounding ability of the player.

Of course, those of us not relying on the computer had long been speculating on the move and didn’t see it as all that impossible at all.

I guess the point is, yes, if you rely on almost perfect machines and aren’t thinking for yourself, you will win every chess game but once those engines are off, you have no idea how to play at all. You get no enjoyment from predicting the move a Grand Master makes. No thrill of seeing a brilliant sacrifice on your own. Your life is both diminished in enjoyment and your ability to make good decisions without help is irreparably damaged.

Turn off the engine, stop listening to other people, think it through yourself. It’s harder, yes, but more rewarding.

Tom Liberman

Candidates Chess Tournament Suspension is a Big Can of Worms

Posted on March 26, 2020 by Tom Liberman

The 2020 Candidates Chess Tournament being held in Russia was suspended on March 26th upon reaching the halfway point and this is a big old giant mess. As my few loyal fans know, I’m a chess nerd, so this is big news for me. The Candidates Chess Tournament is held every two years with the winner going on to play the current World Chess Champion for the title.

As most people are aware, there is a pandemic spreading across the globe at the moment and this caused Russian officials to suspend all air flights. This means the players in the tournament will have no way to leave Russia at the conclusion of the tournament. This being the case, it was decided to suspend the Candidates Chess Tournament and resume after the crisis ends.

This series of events is a nightmare. First of all, the tournament is an eight-player round-robin event. One of the eight, Teimour Radjabov, had strong concerns about going on with the event in the first place and asked the FIDE, the governing body, to postpone the event. They said they could not do so and he decided to withdraw. In his place a fellow named Maxime Vachier-Lagrave was allowed to participate. MVL, as he is affectionally called, is currently tied for first place.

So, where does that leave us? A mess, that’s where. Radjabov has a legitimate complaint that he should be allowed into the tournament because it was suspended as he asked for it to be, essentially, he was right and the FIDE was wrong. Meanwhile, MVL shouldn’t have been there in the first place and if he wins then all the other players have complaints. Even if MVL loses, he defeated other players that perhaps Radjabov would not have beaten and the entire standings are essentially compromised.

The winner of the tournament will be tainted, through no fault of their own but that of circumstance. If the winner of the tournament is tainted then what happens if that person defeats reigning champion Magnus Carlsen and become the new world chess champion? As we of the tribe are prone to say, Oy Vey.

Preparation is thrown into flux as well. Carlsen has a much shorter time to prepare for his opponent whereas his foe can use this delay to work on a game plan against Carlsen. Does the can of worms ever end?

I can’t even lay all the blame on the FIDE, yes, they should have postponed the tournament from the start but there were legitimate reasons to continue. Postponing would have been a difficult decision that brought its own problems as far as scheduling and preparation work as mentioned above. There weren’t any good answers.

Honestly, at this point, I say forget it. Let Carlsen keep the trophy for two more years.

Tom Liberman

Anand and Kramnik or Should I Stay or Should I Go?

Posted on August 1, 2019 by Tom Liberman

In the chess world, which I enjoy although about which I’m aware my loyal fans are somewhat less enthusiastic, there is an interesting dichotomy in the behavior of two former world champions, Vladimir Kramnik and Viswanathan Anand. Anand is still playing top level chess while Kramnik decided to give up competitive chess. Whose decision is right and whose is wrong?

It is certain one must be a good decision while the other is bad because they are in opposition to each other. Is it proper to continue to play chess competitively when you were once world champion but have little or no chance of once against ascending those dizzying heights? Kramnik is five years younger than Anand but decided he’d had enough, while Anand is still playing and doing extremely well at top-level events.

Surely, we must decide one of the two is correct while the other made a terrible mistake. That is our job, after all. It is all but impossible that both adults are capable of making the best decision about their own life and that I shouldn’t be telling them how to go about living.

It’s impossible that Anand enjoys playing chess and feels he is a role-model for the many young Indian players who are making their presence known with some great chess. Therefore, the best decision for him was to keep playing the game he loves. No, I must inform him that his once greatness is gone and now, he must retire to save his dignity.

It is likewise quite clear that Kramnik, younger than Anand, still has some great chess in him. That just because he doesn’t enjoy playing as much and wants to pursue other avenues in his life is no reason to quit so young. I am just the person to tell him how to go about leading his life.

It’s impossible for mentally capable adults to make better decisions about their life than I can make for them. Frankly, I think the governments of India and Russia should interject themselves into this matter and pass a law forcing Anand to quit and Kramnik to return to the game. Or, wait, forcing them both to quit, or no, forcing them both to keep playing. Or something. We need government oversight; we need other people telling us how to lead our lives. Yes! I’m outraged at one of them, I’m not sure which, but there is wrongness here and it must be addressed! Who better to do it than me? Than the government?

Tom Liberman

Wesley So and the Question of Pragmatism over Glory

Posted on July 6, 2019 by Tom Liberman

Today was an interesting day in the chess world when Wesley So decided on a pragmatic course of action when he had an opportunity for glorious victory. It was a complicated decision with a number of factors but I thought it was the correct choice; I am interested in what other people think. Let me explain.

There is a chess event called the Grand Chess Tour in which the top players in the world compete in a series of individual tournaments. The top four point getters in all the tournaments advance to a big money final. Each of the tournaments themselves have significant prizes for finishing in the top spots. Wesley So was invited to participate even though he had a relatively subpar chess season the previous year. He is considered one of the weakest players in the event. Weak being relative, he is a fantastic chess player by any standard.

In the first stop of the tour he did reasonably well, fourth out of ten players, and is having an excellent tournament in the second stop, this is where he made his pragmatic decision.

The current stop on the Grand Chess Tour, Croatia, has more points available to get into the finals than other events because of the format. It also has a somewhat different structure than other tournaments in that the players play eleven games in twelve days with only a single rest day after the sixth game.

Wesley So is doing exceptionally well. Going into the penultimate round he was in clear second place behind only World Champion Magnus Carlsen who is playing some of the best chess of his career. He was also a full point ahead of several players who were tied for third place. In a chess game you get half a point for a draw, 1 point for a win, and 0 points for a loss.

This situation means if he drew the game against Carlsen it almost certainly guaranteed Wesley So would finish the tournament in second place. This finish would gain him significantly more money and points than finishing tied for third or worse, a distinct possibility if he lost the game against Carlsen.

Wesley So was playing with the white pieces which is considered an advantage and generally speaking the player with white is the aggressor and the player with black is trying to draw the game, although this is certainly not absolute.

I know I’ve spent considerable time setting up the question but I think it’s important that we weigh all the factors, overall Grand Chess Tour position, individual event position, general fatigue, the state of Carlsen’s play, etc.

In any case, Wesley So played a relatively passive game and quickly settled for a draw with Carlsen. This almost guaranteed him second place in the tournament and also allowed him to rest up for the final round of a tournament in which fatigue certainly plays a role.

Many people are being critical of this decision, they think he had a chance to win the tournament and he should have gone all out, even though doing so against an in-form Carlsen was extremely dangerous. Wesley So weighed the benefits of drawing against the negative potential of losing and decided the former was the wiser course of action. I happen to agree with him but I can see the other point of view.

So, what do you think?

Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Carlsen versus Caruana and the Slow Death of Nationalism

Posted on November 9, 2018 by Tom Liberman

The death of nationalism is on display for the next few weeks at the World Chess Championship being held in London at the College in Holburn between reigning champion Magnus Carlsen from Norway and challenger Fabiano Caruana from the United States, by way of Italy. In past eras I, and most other people from the United States, would certainly be rooting for Caruana because of his nationality. In today’s world, the nation someone is from is becoming less and less important, thanks to globalization brought by the internet.

Let’s put this in perspective. The last time someone from the United States played for the World Chess Championship was in 1972 when Bobby Fischer challenged Boris Spassky. The pride of the United States was at stake and nationalism was running rampant. Everyone I knew was rooting for Fischer, this despite the readily apparent evidence that he was a complete and total jerk. Spassky, on the other hand, was a man to be admired for many reasons.

Nationalism is a big topic these days but many young people just don’t pay attention to that sort of thing anymore. They know Carlsen because of his internet presence. They are fans of his because of this. His nation of origin is still of some importance to a number of people but that bias is slowly fading.

Certainly, many people in the United States are hoping Caruana wins just as many in Norway are rooting for Carlsen to retain his crown. However, because we’ve gotten to know the two through their internet presence, the circumstance of their birth is of diminished importance. We will continue to see this trend until there are no more nations at all, just people doing things they enjoy with others who enjoy the same thing, chess for example.

I happen to live in the fashionable Central West End of St. Louis where the Chess Club and Scholastic Center of St. Louis is located. I’ve actually run into Caruana on several occasions while out and about. He seems quite a decent sort. Many people are cheering him on because of his genial nature. Others prefer Carlsen for the fighting spirit he has exhibited throughout his entire chess career. He is prudent but goes for the win rather than taking the easy draw. Carlsen has set a precedent many of the upcoming chess players eagerly follow which makes chess a better sport.

Nationalism isn’t going away tomorrow or next week but it’s going away. That frightens a particular group of people who identify their self with the country in which they happen to live. That’s a shame. The good news is; more and more people don’t really care where you were born or live, just that you play a style of chess they enjoy watching.

As for me? I won’t be disappointed if Caruana wins but I’d like to see Carlsen continue on as champion for as long as possible. He’s been a tremendous standard bearer for the new era of the game. Carlsen’s time will come eventually, maybe even in the next couple of weeks.

Tom Liberman

Kasparov and the Problem with Moral Codes

Posted on October 21, 2015 by Tom Liberman

There’s an interesting story in the world of chess that I think illustrates one of the problems with so called Ethical Codes.

Former chess champion Gary Kasparov has been forbidden to hold office in the chess federation, FIDE, for two years because of an accusation of attempted bribery during his recent campaign to become president of that organization.

Ethical Codes are created by organizations as a way to prevent behavior that they considered unethical. If an employee violates this code they are subject to punishment up to and including termination. The modern use of such codes in business is often related to justifying punishment rather than preventing unwanted behavior.

I’m not completely opposed to such codes. I think an organization has every right to create their own rules. I recently wrote about how the U.S. Soccer Federation should prevent Hope Solo from participating in the Olympics because of her troubling off-field activities. Likewise I spoke about the NFL’s sanctioning of Ray Rice for similar transgressions.

The problem in this case is that the FIDE is absolutely and totally corrupt. It is run by a man who routinely uses bribery to implement policy. To have such an organization stipulate ethical violations against a member for doing exactly what they themselves do is a rather tough pill to swallow.

When a code is applied unfairly it’s not really a code at all. It’s just a cudgel used to keep those who disagree in line and punish enemies.

What is to be done?

I’m opposed to removing such codes because I think any organization has the right to create their own rules. I’m also against a higher agency coming in and dictating how an organization applies it codes because this just means corruption moves up to that higher agency. The problem is not solved at all, despite the illusion of improvement, and in many ways made worse because the higher the agency the more people it has control over.

The only real solution is for members of the organization to see through the facade and elect better representatives or form their own group.

It’s not easy to convince those currently in power that misapplication of rules in a way that benefits them is, in the long run, bad for them. It is. If one person can misapply rules to gain advantages then soon enough someone will come to power who is not your ally and will use the same methods against you. It is far better to apply rules fairly and evenly and allow the best to succeed within the confines of your structure.

While that philosophy is comforting, the pragmatist in me realizes that reality is not. Kasparov is banned. The FIDE is corrupt. No solution appears imminent. Those in power and those who support them seem perfectly happy with the arrangement as it is. They have enormous bankrolls and there is no shortage of people willing to do anything for money. The Libertarian ideal is but a dream.

What can I do about it? I’ll write another book and hope the leaders at FIDE read it, understand it, and apply the principles of freedom to their organization. What else can I do?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition
Next Release: The Gray Horn

Fabiano Caruana and Nerd Poaching

Posted on May 16, 2015 by Tom Liberman

Over the last few years a very wealthy fellow by the name of Rex Sinquefeld has been making St. Louis the chess capital of the United States and his progress in that regard continued when he convinced the third highest rated player in the world, Fabiano Caruana to come play here at the St. Louis Chess Club.

The unarguably best chess player in the world, Magnus Carlsen, made the following comment on his Twitter account: … so they are indeed buying nerds.

I’m certain Carlsen was taking a humorous and good natured jibe at Caruana and Sinquefeld and I took no offense at the statement but I did want to examine the idea that Sinquefeld is indeed buying up all the world’s best chess players and loading Team United States to become a dominant player in the world. Is this a good thing? A bad thing? No thing at all?

The fact that an extremely wealthy person bought the land and a building which he turned into one of the finest chess clubs in the world is undeniable. That he lured Hikaru Nakamura to St. Louis with a contract that pays him well is a fact. That Sinquefeld also managed to convince the 7th highest rated player in the world, Wesley So, to come to Webster University to play college chess is undeniable. That Sinquefeld hired Susan Polgar away from her chess coach job at Texas Tech is a fact. That she brought her entire NCAA Championship team with her and won the title in 21013 cannot be denied.

None of these people was born in the United States and here they are leading the charge of U.S. Chess. What Sinquefeld set out to do and what he has accomplished are simple facts.

I’ve got an oar in this boat as they say because I live in St. Louis and belong to the local chess club Sinquefeld started. I love playing chess and having such luminaries around certainly makes things very nice for me. But is it good for someone to be able to essentially purchase the best players and thus championships?

It’s clearly been good for St. Louis. It’s clearly been good for Caruana, Nakamura, So, Polgar, Webster University, The Central West End (where the club is based), and a host of others. Money is willingly being exchanged for services and all parties seem satisfied. Of course what is good for one group is often times bad for another. Italy loses its finest chess player. Texas Tech loses its championship chess team, the Philippines loses its best chess player (So).

It is clear that this unbridled capitalism has victims as well as beneficiaries.

My bias is undeniable but I still think what Sinquefeld is doing is not only perfectly acceptable but largely beneficial. He is bringing tremendous publicity to the game of chess although certainly the amazing Carlsen is doing that as well. It’s a golden era for chess as computers have found new and exciting variations that liven up the game. The internet has brought players from all over the world together to enjoy the game they love.

What Sinquefeld is doing by assembling this group of players is good for chess in the long run but I do see the danger. There are competition laws for a reason. What if Sinquefeld were to pay all the top players in the world to join his club? What if he exerted such influence that anyone who didn’t join was colluded against? What if he then started charging exorbitant rates for appearance fees and tournaments because he controlled all the best players?

My argument is that he has yet to do those things and therefore I don’t have a problem. Absolute power leads to absolute corruption as they say. It bears keeping an eye on.

Welcome to St. Louis, Fabiano! See you down at the club.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Black Sphere
Next Release: The Girl in Glass I: Apparition

The Magnus Carlsen Story – He Just Wanted to Beat his Sister – I Get It

Posted on July 9, 2014 by Tom Liberman

I just read a really nice story about a fellow named Magnus Carlsen who is the best chess player in the world. He might well be the best chess player in the history of the world. He also seems like a pretty nice guy.

The story goes into how Magnus took up chess at the age of five because he father was keen to teach both Magnus and his older sister, Ellen. According to Henrik Carlsen, Magnus didn’t immediately pick up the game as have other chess prodigies throughout history. He learned the moves but didn’t fall in love with the game and insist on playing it all the time. Then something happened.

About three years after learning the game his older sister started to get good at chess.

Now Magnus was interested in getting better at chess because, as Henrik says in the story, he just wanted to beat his sister. That’s a motivation I understand thoroughly. You see, I have an older sister also. I pushed her down the stairs once. I dumped an entire glass of water in her bed once, yes, she was in it at the time. I tried to beat her at Risk and Monopoly but generally came out on the short end of that stick.

If you look closely at the picture you’ll quickly note that Carlsen has two other sisters. The woman in the middle is mom who is not a chess player. I have five sisters including the half-sisters and step-sisters. So I’ve got Magnus beat there. If we just count up sisters I should be a significantly better Risk player than Magnus is a chess player. At least that’s the logic with which I’m running.

There’s not really a point to my blog today other than a shout out to my metaphorical sibling Magnus. I get it, my brother!

Now to try and figure out why I didn’t become the greatest Risk player in the history of the world. There’s got to be a reason.

Anyone other guys out there with a female, older sibling care to tell some stories in the comments?

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery Fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Purchase The Broken Throne today!
See All my Books

Carlsen v. Anand – The King is dead, Long Live the King

Posted on November 22, 2013 by Tom Liberman

I’m a chess player so recent events in the world of chess have captured my attention. Perhaps most of the people who read my blog will be less interested. The World Chess Championship between former champion Viswanathan Anand and the new champion Magnus Carlsen just completed and it was an interesting match for a number of reasons that go beyond the world of chess.

Carlsen is the epitome of the young challenger while Anand filled the role of the aging champion of diminishing skills. Age is a factor in all sports including chess which is physically as well as mentally demanding. It is not easy to keep your focus during the entirety of a six-hour chess match. One moment of exhaustion can lead to a miscalculation and at the level of chess that Anand and Carlsen play this mistake is the difference between victory and defeat.

Going into the match Carlsen was the huge favorite. Not only is he twenty-plus years younger than Anand, 22/43, but he has also been the best chess player in the world for the last few years. His tournament play has him ranked first in the world and his rating is the highest in the history of chess. Anand, as he has grown older, has seen his play slip and is currently ranked 8th in the world.

The final score of the match was 6.5/3.5 with Carlsen winning three of the ten games played and the other seven ending in draws. The format was for a twelve-game match but the player who scores 6.5 achieves an unassailable position and Carlsen managed this after the tenth game, thus ending the match.

What I really love about a match of this nature, and of sport in general, is the competition between equals. Here we have two players, competing directly against one another, and one proves to be better than the other. There are no excuses, no controversies, no blown calls, no charges of cheating, just a pair of competitors doing their best. We can say Carlsen won and Anand lost but the reality is that when we have this sort of competition there are no real losers. The chess world wins, Carlsen ascends to the throne where he will in all likelihood reign for many years, Anand bookends a great career by losing to arguably the two best chess players the world has ever known. Anand lost his first bid at championship to Garry Kasparov who, until Carlsen, had the highest rating in the history of chess.

It’s a great time to be a chess player as well. Computers have opened up new lines of thought and play and there are a bevy of young competitors who will doubtlessly challenge Carlsen in the coming years.

The nature of life is that we have champions, that said victors grow older and make way, reluctantly with fangs bared and claws unsheathed certainly, to the young challengers. This test of fire hardens the new champion. This lesson in life is not just for champions but for each of us. We do our best at everything we try. We play by the rules and sometimes emerge the victor sometimes the defeated.

The only real losers are those who cannot be magnanimous in victory and gracious in defeat. Those who equate victory more highly than sportsmanship and simply doing their best. When we do our best; we have won.

Hail to you Viswanathan Anand, the vanquished champion.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Ideology
Current Release: The Spear of the Hunt
Next Release: The Broken Throne

You can do Anything if You Set your Mind to it

Posted on March 9, 2012 by Tom Liberman

The final day of my weeklong attack against Facebook Platitudes has arrived and I like to think I’ve save the best, and by that I mean most egregious, for last.

You can do anything if you set your mind to it.

I can do no better than to quote the magnificent Penn Jillette, “Eat the sun”.

I’m fairly certain I could simply call it a blog right there but I’m going to analyze the idea behind the platitude, the well-intentioned hopes, and the disastrous results.

There are two thoughts behind making this statement one of which is well-intentioned and the other is malicious. The first is to encourage a person to be adventurous and try things. This is excellent advice. Life is better if we enjoy it broadly rather than narrowly. There is much that is good in this world and being afraid to try things leaves us with a less than full life. It’s great to encourage a person to try things. This is just a poor platitude to do it.

Parents encourage their children with this platitude in the hopes the kids will leave their fear behind and experience life to its fullest. Again, excellent sentiment, I wholeheartedly approve.

The negative situation where I see this platitude thrown around is to blame people for failing to complete a particular task. It is often used when the failure is beyond the person’s control and is the tactic of a bully to deflect their own culpability in the events leading up to the failure.

You didn’t finish the job? Why not, you can do anything if you set your mind to it.

The bullies of the world take over when the achievers are not allowed to succeed. This is one of the central messages of Randian Objectivism and I’ll talk about it in another post.

Now let’s move onto why this idea is not only silly but dangerous.

If we tell children they can do anything they might actually believe us. A child that is told they can do anything is doomed to disappointment. They cannot do anything. They can accomplish more than they think they can, they can do amazing things if they plan and execute with realistic, objective thinking. But, this platitude sends a ridiculous message of entitlement. I’m going to talk about the sense of entitlement that pervades our culture in a later post. I really do think that telling kids they can do anything leads to adults who are unrealistic and entitled. This is bad for our nation. When we talk about greatness it is usually in reference to people who achieved after a great struggle. People who think they are entitled don’t bother with struggle. They quickly give up. Having to work for something is not a bad thing, in fact it is the opposite.

I’m playing a lot of chess lately and because I live in St. Louis, Missouri with its world-class chess club I get to see guys like Hikaru Nakamura play. Thanks to modern computers I get to watch a fellow with the monikor Chess Network play live on Twitch and actually get to play him now and again. I’m not of the opinion that I can beat either of them. However, I’m working on my game, playing better chess, advancing, and feeling pretty good about that.

This to me is the most important thing of all. We can’t raise a generation of people who have unrealistic expectations about themselves and about the world and hope to see western style democracy finish what the founding fathers started. So, don’t tell your children they can do anything. Teach them to think objectively, to plan, to try new things. And don’t just teach them. Show them. Be the example. It can be something as small as trying a new thing at the restaurant but not with peanuts if you are allergic to them! Be bold but understand the challenges and your limitations. Be prepared!

Tweet, Like, Stumble, Comment, Digg, Pinterest, and otherwise share if you think someone else might like to read this.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

Internet Chess and How to Improve your Life

Posted on February 21, 2012 by Tom Liberman

You wouldn’t think that playing internet chess would give insight into a better way to lead your life but that’s exactly what happened to me when I started to play. I’ve discovered that diversity and balance improve life and I’ll tell you why.

I played chess as a young lad. My father taught me the game and I played him many times over the years. When I got to Junior High School, as they called it back in the old days, I joined the chess team. On that team I played pretty regularly with the same group of people and the instructor.

Once I got to high school I started to play water polo and never really looked at chess again except for the occasional game with a friend.

Many years later my niece took up the game in a relatively serious way. She started to play tournaments and I decided that I’d take up chess again so as to give her an opponent.

There are a number of places to play chess on the internet. I currently play slow chess at Gameknot and fast chess at ChessCube and Chess.com. The grand-daddy of chess sites is ICC where the masters play.

Now, as to my point. As a lad I played a lot of chess, particularly in junior high school. My game got to a level where I thought it was fairly good but the thing I didn’t consider was not necessarily the quality of my opponent but their quantity and different playing styles. In my youth I largely played people who used the same style and I played them over and over again.

When I joined the internet chess community I was immediately exposed to a multitude of styles, a huge variety of openings, and a vast array of levels. I played openings I’d never heard of against opponent both significantly weaker than me and infinitely stronger.

What I learned is that playing that variety of players with their varying styles improved my chess game far more quickly and comprehensively than playing the same people over and over again.

Now, I’m going to get a little philosophical. I think this lesson can be taken to your life as a whole. If you experience the same thing over and over again it is difficult to improve in anything. If your job has you doing the same thing again and again. If you have discussions with the same people again and again, if you eat the same food again and again, you are limiting your life. Not only are you not experiencing a full life but your skills are stagnating.

Try new ways of doing old things. Even if the new way looks really stupid give it a try. You never know what you might learn. Look at life differently, sit at a different place in the conference room, talk to someone new for a moment, try a different menu item or a whole new restaurant.

I suspect that the more of anything we experience the better we get. If you want to maximize your skills at anything then I’d suggest immersing yourself in a wide variety of that thing. Not that it is easy. It takes time and effort but in the end you will improve yourself and your life dramatically.

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist

P.S. If you’re playing chess on the internet and you see this flag then get ready for a beating!

Teaser – Internet Chess

Posted on February 20, 2012 by Tom Liberman

You might think that playing chess over the internet doesn’t really have any application to real life problems but you’d be wrong! Tomorrow I talk about how internet chess has given me a new respect for diversity and being a well-rounded person.

Stay tuned for a full explanation.

I know it’s hard to wait a whole day for a blog about chess but you can do it! 🙂

Tom Liberman
Sword and Sorcery fantasy with a Libertarian Twist