Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing User Profile Chessforum
Member since Dec-08-08 · Last seen Dec-19-14
Favorite players: Nakamura, Shirov, Aronian, and Kamsky.

Sicilian Dragon, White Dragon, Dutch Dragon, Bird's Dragon. If it's a Dragon, I'm there.

>> Click here to see SamAtoms1980's game collections. Full Member

   SamAtoms1980 has kibitzed 1363 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Dec-08-14 SamAtoms1980 chessforum (replies)
SamAtoms1980: Predictably, the inaugural College Football Playoff gets under way with a healthy share of controversy. Six teams were worthy but there was only space for 4. The following would be my ideal version of a college football playoff: (1) Alabama vs. winner of (5) TCU / (4) tOSU ...
   Dec-04-14 Wesley So (replies)
SamAtoms1980: Holy $#%&, I just saw the Hagubit report on CNN. That typhoon looks menacing. Stay safe guys!
   Sep-02-14 Adams vs M Maki Uuro, 2004 (replies)
SamAtoms1980: Go Greek or go home.
   Aug-18-14 Fischer vs Taimanov, 1971 (replies)
SamAtoms1980: They kept giving me full credit for moves that RJF didn't actually play. When it was over, I had 152 points. During the game it seemed like Taimanov was just sitting there as Fischer rolled up the board and ran him into oblivion. And yes, I saw 62.Bxg6, the winning balance that
   Dec-28-13 Santa Claus (replies)
SamAtoms1980: Thank you Santa, this really was a pleasant surprise.
   Dec-23-13 Kibitzer's Café (replies)
SamAtoms1980: <kevin86> I think your position needs a white queen on e1, or some other square in the lower-right-hand corner. Then the only way the position can be legal is if it is upside down.
   Dec-18-13 Joachim Claus
SamAtoms1980: Dear Santa, Only posting this because we might as well have ALL your relatives at this party.
   Dec-11-13 Glucksberg vs Najdorf, 1929 (replies)
SamAtoms1980: Now THAT is an ending.....
   Dec-11-13 H Zieher vs H Huenerkopf, 1982 (replies)
SamAtoms1980: Hmm, I saw 27....Rb1+ 28.Kxb1 Rb8+ and I also saw 27....Qa3. The hardest part was putting the two ideas together.
   Dec-10-13 A Brinckmann vs G Schories, 1933 (replies)
SamAtoms1980: A lot of possibilities, but 22.Qg8+ Bf8 23.Nxg6 was what I eventually decided. I was afraid that I had missed something but the only thing I missed was the fact that there was nothing I'd missed.
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Kibitzer's Corner
Premium Chessgames Member
  SamAtoms1980: Hi, all!

I've decided to reopen my forum, which, instead of focusing strictly on chess problems or other aspects of the game, I will intend to use as an all-purpose blog. To start this off, however, I have a problem that I would like to show. This is actually an original by me that was composed a couple of years ago. The problem is for White to play and self-mate in three.

click for larger view

Solution to be posted one week from now.

Premium Chessgames Member
  SamAtoms1980: White doesn't look remotely close to being mated, but watch what happens when his knights go:

1.Nc5+ Kxb5 2.bxa4+ Kxc5

Now after 3.Ke4, thanks to a couple of pins, Black has only one legal move, 3....Nd6#.

Premium Chessgames Member
  SamAtoms1980: Heh, I did say that I'd be using this page as a blog, didn't I? It's looking like I might have lied. It simply turned out that life didn't give me a lot of opportunity to frequent this particular corner. Indeed, I've only returned here because I just did something that I hardly ever do --- solved yesterday's mate in two from Bill Cornwall's weekly chess column in the L.A. Times.

Most of the time the problem in that feature is beyond me, but the more miniature they become, the better I am. So I'll throw it up here to give others a chance to partake:

click for larger view


On a related note, it would be nice if that weekly column were archived somewhere online. I've tried looking for it but without any luck. I'd take particular interest in the Game of the Week --- those that happen to be in this database, I could gather them all into a collection, like little acorns.

Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Great sui-mate in your February post.
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: There's no way that's a mate in 2. Are you sure you set the position up right?
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: 1.Bb8
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: 1. Bb8 Ra7
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: I see your point.
Premium Chessgames Member
  SamAtoms1980: Whoa! They're biting!

<OhioChessFan: Great sui-mate in your February post.>

Thanks, glad I'm finally getting recognition from somewhere. I've sent this to Steve Giddins, who I thought lived for these kind of problems, and to the guys at Chessbase who do the Christmas puzzles, and who I thought lived for these kind of problems. Nothing. I guess it's like so many other areas, you have to already be established in the field in order to break in.

Now, with regards to the above mate in 2 problem, 1.Bb8 is in fact not the key, but OCF's refutation of Ra7 actually does provide a clue to the true key. I'll reveal it together with the newspaper column, on 8/3.

But my real reason for coming back here was to give some thoughts on Carlsen/Anand Part II. It's coming up some months from now, and although I never got a chance to look at the discussion in the Candidates' Tourney thread, no doubt people were shocked by Anand, at age 44, winning the tourney ahead of all the contenders of the younger generation. Contenders including Aronian, who seems to own Anand. Yet it really isn't like this sort of thing has never happened. A century ago, Lasker was easily defending his title at the age of forty-five, and indeed held the crown past fifty before finally getting dethroned by Capablanca. And before him, Steinitz held the title to the age of 58 before ceding it to Lasker. Not only that, but he had successfully defended that title two years earlier, at 56, and the chess world was utterly electrified by Lasker's victory over Steinitz, according to the 1981 book "Grandmasters of Chess" by Harold Schonberg.

So what does all this have to do with Carlsen/Anand. Well, Anand's peak may simply be landing later than that of the typical grandmaster. After all, look how long it took Anand to win the title. And furthermore, don't be surprised if Anand ends up giving Carlsen a run for his money. Carlsen might have blown Anand away in last year's match, but Carlsen was challenging for the title, and Anand's was the heavy head wearing the crown. Now it's going to be a different dynamic. Carlsen could have his hands full in this upcoming match.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: 1.Bc7?
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Nice.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: Well, after I was spoon-fed it. I'm not good at problems.
Premium Chessgames Member
  SamAtoms1980: <Shams: 1.Bc7?>


1.Bc7 is the key, threatening 2.Bg8#. If Black plays Rxh8, he allows 2.Kf2#, and Rook moves along the a-file give the h7-bishop a square to screen off, as follows:

1....Ra6 2.Bg6#
1....Ra5 2.Bf5#
1....Ra4 2.Be4#
1....Ra3 2.Bd3# (or Bh7-any since it is blocked by the black pawn) 1....Ra2 2.Bc2#
1....Rxa1+ 2.Bb1#

The only line the bishop cannot block is the rank from a7-h7 since the bishop starts on that rank, which is why the key has to be 1.Bc7.

Premium Chessgames Member
  SamAtoms1980: AP college football rankings came out today. We are #11, behind:

(1) Florida State
(2) Alabama
(3) Oregon
(4) Oklahoma
(5) Ohio State
(6) Auburn
(7) UCLA
(8) Michigan State
(9) South Carolina
(10) Baylor

At first, I thought #11 was somewhat high for the Stanford Cardinal, given unresolved questions concerning our roster. Then I realized that most of the top 10 above us have similar unresolved questions on one side of the ball or the other. Florida State was an ass-kicking machine last year, and is a prohibitive favorite to make the playoff. However, having to beat two other elite teams in the postseason will make it difficult for them to repeat.

Other ranked teams on our schedule:

(3) Oregon
(7) UCLA
(15) Southern California
(17) Notre Dame
(19) Arizona State
(25) Washington

Of the above six teams we play five of them on the road. May fortune be with us.

Premium Chessgames Member
  SamAtoms1980: They have a weekly problem on the British Chess Problem Society website ( This week's is a mate in two by Herbert Ahues. I solved this one myself:

click for larger view

HINT: Either Nf5 or Ne2 would be mate, if only those moves didn't block coverage of the squares f2 and g4 respectively.

Premium Chessgames Member
  SamAtoms1980: OK, I'm going to go ahead and give away the key to the above problem:

1.Rf1 threatens 2.Nf5#
1....e3 2.Ne2#
1....Qc8 Qd6#

I was intending to leave it open for another couple of days, but the following turn of events brought me here sooner.

It must have been a couple of years ago, that I was making a collection out of the 100 "classic" games that come with the Chessmaster 2000, a program I received in early childhood. The information for all the games can be found in the manual, a link to which is here:

At any rate, on my first pass through, I was able to find and collect 97 of those games (I must not have had premium powers at the time). Only three games were missing: Liptai-Spassky (no. 70) and the two Chessmaster-Sargon games (no. 99, 100). Naturally, I submitted the scores of those games to the database for addition. In the months that followed, I checked the database periodically to see if they were in, but they didn't turn up.

But then just now, for the first time since rewinning premium access on Christmas, something possessed me to look for Liptai-Spassky again, but now I could go through the Opening Explorer. Sure enough, around move 14 I'm led to a 1962 game, Liptay-Spassky with precisely the right score. Wait. <Liptay>. No wonder I hadn't found it in the database. I'd always looked for a game with Liptai, as his name was spelled in the Chessmaster manual. And here it was given as Liptay-Spassky all along. Laszlo Liptay is no small fry either; he is officially an IM. I felt like I'd fallen out of the doofus tree and hit every branch on the way down.

But hold on. I look at the game ID in the CG database. 1,713,xxx and something. It couldn't have been here that long. On a hunch, I check for the two Chessmaster-Sargon games and they're also present under 1,713,xxx. Looks like CG recently got around to adding those three submissions, and did them all together. THANK YOU! Now my CM2000 classic game collection is complete.

Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Better late than never. Rf1 is a sort of closing the corral fences in around the Black position.
Premium Chessgames Member
  SamAtoms1980: Predictably, the inaugural College Football Playoff gets under way with a healthy share of controversy. Six teams were worthy but there was only space for 4. The following would be my ideal version of a college football playoff:

(1) Alabama vs. winner of (5) TCU / (4) tOSU
(2) Oregon vs. winner of (6) Baylor / (3) FSU

Finals - winner of upper three-team group vs. winner of lower three-team group.

It'll never happen, but I think a variable-size playoff is the way to go. Include all who could conceivably beat 2-3 elite teams to win the title, probably based on W-L but accounting for extreme variations in strength of schedule (e.g. if a Group of Five team or even this year's FSU suffered a loss then they would be dropped out).

Of course, the whole idea of <teams who could contend for the title> would be, currently is, has always been and will always be a hotbed of debate, and rightly so. The last basketball tournament provided a crisp object lesson, when 7-seed UConn and 8-seed Kentucky drove out of the depths of their brackets to play for the title.

Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Practical concerns like scheduling, travel, etc are why a variable playoff wouldn't work. The mundane aspects of life have a way of getting in the way of good ideas.

A free online guide presented by
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies