Coronavirus check-in! It’s Easter Sunday of 2020, and here in the U.S. the coronavirus epidemic seems to be near its peak. That’s both good and bad. It’s good because “peak” means that the number of new cases and new deaths should start going down every day. In New York and California, the number of intensive care beds used already seems to be going down. On the other hand, peak also means that there is a whole lot of coronavirus out there. 800+ deaths in the US just yesterday. (And I suspect that reporting slows down on the weekend, so it could be more.)
One of my chess friends, whom I will just call R.R., is going to win a rather ghoulish bet. About three or four weeks ago, he was having a conversation with a friend who was a coronavirus skeptic. This friend thought that the media was blowing the epidemic all out of proportion. R.R. was getting a little bit mad, and he said he did something he often does in similar situation: He asked, “Do you want to bet on it?”
In the end they made three bets of $10 each. The first was whether there would be more than 100 coronavirus deaths on Easter Sunday in the United States. R.R. said yes, his friend said no. R.R. will win this one, because the number will likely be between 800 and 1000. The second bet was whether Disneyland would still be closed on May 1. R.R. said yes, his friend said no. R.R. will almost certainly win this one, too, because California’s shelter-at-home order runs through May 4. Finally, the third bet was whether Disneyland would be closed on December 31. R.R. said yes, his friend said no. I think that R.R. got a little bit carried away here. It’s basically unknowable at this point; the epidemic could come back big time in the fall (as Spanish flu did in 1918) or not.
Anyway, I’m delighted that R.R. will take $20 off his ignorant friend, but I’m still not sure whether the bet accomplished its purpose. The coronavirus skeptics are still saying, and going to keep saying, that the danger of the epidemic has been overestimated. Yes, one skeptic is going to have to cough up ten dollars, but the mass of them are not going to change their tune, and even that one skeptic will forget soon enough that he personally underestimated the threat by a factor of EIGHT (or more). Good grief!
Do any of you have interesting coronavirus stories, either happy or sad?
Okay, now to get to some chess content… I want to show you another example of not-learning, this time by the computer.
My chess activity since the epidemic began has consisted of playing way too many games against Fritz 17 on my computer. It’s somewhat addictive because Fritz plays terrible openings, and I get a huge advantage in most games, but my middlegame tactical play is just awful compared to the computer and I end up losing these beautiful positions. Then I get angry, and the angrier I get the worse I play, and it’s a vicious cycle…
As a nice case in point, a couple weeks ago I played a cool queen sacrifice on move 14 (which could not be accepted), got a position that Fritz evaluates at +7 pawns with best play, and then proceeded to lose. However, there was a happy ending. Fritz’s opening repertoire is so limited (and it has no ability to learn from its mistakes) that I got the chance yesterday to play the exact same queen sacrifice a second time… and this time I managed to bring home the victory.
Here’s how it went down (twice).
White: Dana. Black: Fritz 17. Time control: 40/10. Fritz’s rating set at 2025.
1. e4 d5 2. ed Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qe6+
As I said, Fritz’s repertoire is quite limited. It plays the same variation of the Center Counter (Scandinavian) Defense every game as Black (if I cooperate). So I am now unbelievably familiar with this variation, which I previously had never seen in my life.
4. Be2 Nf6 5. Nf3 h6?!
This seems unforgivably slow to me, in a position where Fritz has already wasted a tempo with his queen.
6. O-O Nc6 7. d4 …
I like to withhold this move until after Black plays … Nc6, so that I can gain another tempo with the threat of d4-d5.
7. … Qg4?!
FEN: r1b1kb1r/ppp1ppp1/2n2n1p/8/3P2q1/2N2N2/PPP1BPPP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq – 0 8
Fritz 17 is absolutely berserk. No human would play this move, walking right into a potential discovered attack. This move can’t be good. But I have had lots of frustrating games where I tried to chase its queen around, and did not get much to show for it. Finally, a couple weeks ago, I came up with the idea of striking on the opposite side of the board.
8. Nb5! Qd7
Okay, so the discovered attack won’t happen, but we have made the queen move again, and it’s blocking the development of the queen bishop so it probably “owes” us yet another tempo.
9. c4 …
A good and natural move. However, Fritz points out that the direct 9. d5! is even stronger. Of course Black can’t take because 9. … Nxd5 10. Qxd5! Qxd5 11. Nxc7+ wins a piece. After 9. … Nb4 10. Ne5 Qd8 11. Bc4 the same idea is still in play; even though the pawn on d5 seems inadequately defended, it’s not. If Black tries to drive off the knight with 11. … a6, then 12. d6!! is a killer, threatening 13. Bxf7 mate.
9. … a6 10. Nc3 e6 11. d5! Ne7?!
Everything is bad for Black. However, the next two moves kind of look as if Black is constructing a coffin for his king. Fritz (after the game) thinks 11. … Na7 is best. I would think that 11. … ed 12. cd followed by … Ne7 would avoid the combination played in the game, but on the other hand it opens up the e-file.
12. Ne5 Qd8
The computer’s passivity is somewhat surprising, because it usually errs in the direction of insanely aggressive moves, like 7. … Qg4. But evidently Fritz does not like 12. … Qd6 because of 13. Bf4, threatening Ng6.
13. Qa4+ Bd7
FEN: r2qkb1r/1ppbnpp1/p3pn1p/3PN3/Q1P5/2N5/PP2BPPP/R1B2RK1 w kq – 0 14
Now I get to have my moment of fun.
14. de! …
I didn’t say that my queen sacrifice was deep. It’s a two-mover; if 14. … Bxa4?? 15. ef mate! Very appropriate punishment for all of Black’s tempo losses and retreating moves: the Black king is checkmated by a pawn, while surrounded by his own do-nothing pieces.
Of course, computers don’t fall into things like that. In fact, Fritz probably saw this whole thing coming and decided it was better than the other options.
14. … fe 15. Qc2 …
The queen’s sortie accomplished two very useful things: it gave Black an extremely weak isolated pawn on e6, and it opened up the light squares on the kingside for White’s pieces to invade.
15. … c5 16. Rd1 Qc7 17. Nxd7 Nxd7 18. Bh5+ Kd8
FEN: r2k1b1r/1pqnn1p1/p3p2p/2p4B/2P5/2N5/PPQ2PPP/R1BR2K1 w – – 0 19
White’s position is so dominant that most chess books would probably say here, “… and White wins.” But believe it or not, I lost the first game after getting this position. I started going wrong right here, when I played 19. Bf7? Of course I wanted to attack Black’s crippled e-pawn, but this is the worst way to do it. The computer played 19. … Nf5 20. Bxe6 Nd4! The Black knight has achieved a very impressive outpost. I played 21. Qe4 Nf6 22. Rxd4+ ed 23. Qxd4+ Qd6.
Although Fritz still evaluates the position at +2.5 pawns for White, that is way down from the initial position after move 18, when the position is +8 pawns for White. This is a big enough change that we can say that White has done something seriously wrong. From there, although I won’t bore you with all the moves, my position kept going downhill. First I traded queens earlier than I should have, a serious mistake because king safety is Black’s biggest problem. Then, in the endgame with two pawns for the exchange, I made a bunch of mistakes in time trouble and lost.
So I’m only human. But being human, I can also learn. And one thing I realized here is that the Black knight has to be kept out of d4. So this time I played
19. Bg4! …
Better. Fritz says my advantage is now 5 pawns. Top marks (8 pawns) are reserved for the move 19. Qe2! The point of this move is that after 19. … Nf5 20. Qxe6 there is no time for 20. … Nd4 because of 21. Qe8 mate.
19. … Nf5?
After this it’s really easy. A good question is what happens if Black tries the other route to d4, 19. … Nc6. Then Fritz’s analysis goes 20. Be3 Qe5 21. Ne2 (note how determined White is to keep the knight out of d4) 21. … h5 22. Bh3 g5. On the surface it seems as if Black has whipped up a great initiative out of nowhere. But just in the nick of time comes a move that reminds us that White is boss: 23. Qd3! Black has no really good defense to the mate threat.
20. Bxf5 ef 21. Nd5! …
After this the finish is just brutal. Although material is even, Fritz evaluates the position at +8 pawns for White!
21. … Qd6 22. Bf4 Qc6 23. Qxf5 g6 24. Qf7 Bd6 25. Bxd6 Qxd6 26. Nf6 …
Here a human would resign. Fritz played
26. … Rf8
and I settled for winning a piece and getting a truly screwup-proof endgame with 27. Qxd7+ Qxd7 28. Nxd7. And White won.
The first time I played this variation with the queen sac, I was thrilled at finding the sac but disappointed with losing the game. The second time, I got to enjoy the sac again and this time win the game. But the sad thing is that, zombie-like, the position will probably come back again and again (because Fritz does not learn) and I will not learn anything more from it.
