Recently, I was having dinner with my friends. When the conversation switched to chess, they started asking me why there was a need for arbiters in chess. According to them, the rules of the game are fairly simple, while chess players are gentlemen, so you should not expect any mischief.

Well, I am glad that the public has this idealistic notion of chess players as guys wearing suits with flawless manners! However, in reality, anyone who has been in the circuit long enough knows that the atmosphere at chess events is not all roses. 

In the XVI century, Ruy Lopez de Segura suggested in his chess treatise "Libro de la Invencion liberal y Arte del juego del Axedrez" placing the chessboard so that the light shines into the opponent’s eyes and irritates him. This is one of the first examples of psychological warfare advice in chess history. Below we will consider some other well-known methods.

Humming and singing, especially when playing blitz. You will probably not get away with something like this at an official event. However, when I was a kid, there were plenty of amateurs around who would hum or sing during the game, distracting you and never bothering to stop, no matter how loudly you objected. One particularly notorious guy of this sort was some grandpa with a long white beard, a crossover between Gandalf and Dumbledore. His singing was driving me mad! 

Finger drumming. This mostly happens naturally due to nervousness, but can be quite triggering for the opponent. 

Holding on to the chess clock after making a move to make it hard for the opponent to press the button. This tecnique is particularly popular in blitz games in the park where mechanical clocks are used. By not allowing the opponent to press the tumbler right away, you can gain quite a few precious seconds. Obviously, this is foul play that should not be tolerated. As a kid, I remember being the victim of this and not being able to do anything about it since the offenders were adults who were much older and stronger. 

Harassment. Gender, race, age, playing strength and many other factors can become the subject of harassment from the opponents. You should be prepared for anything. 

Asking disrespectful questions before the game: “What color do I have? I didn’t have time to prepare”; “How do I spell your name?”. The idea behind such behavior is to trigger the opponent by showing how little you care about the game and that they are not worthy of knowing. Sometimes, this can be done unintentionally. For example, in Qatar Masters 2014, the reporters noticed that Vladimir Kramnik used to check his opponents' name tags before the round. Anish Giri even humorously showed his name tag to Kramnik preemptively! The self-joke seems to have backfired on Anish, as he was destroyed over the board. Amusingly enough, Yu Yangyi used the same trick on Kramnik himself, glancing at Big Vlad's name tag before the round! As a result, the Chinese Grandmaster won the game and eventually the tournament! 

Kicking your opponent under the table. This infamously happened in a Candidates match in 1974 between Viktor Korchnoi and Tigran Petrosian.

Not offering a handshake before the game (especially in pre-COVID times). One of the most famous examples of this sort is Short-Cheparinov, 2008.  In the World Championship match in 1978, Anatoly Karpov refused to shake Korchnoi's hand before Game 8. The Chief Arbiter informed the head of the Soviet delegation afterwards that they should have informed him in advance about such a decision. Raymond Keene, Korchnoi's second, wittily remarked that Karpov's demarche saved Korchnoi from the necessity to go to the WC after the start of each game to wash his hands.

Staring right at the opponent’s face when it is their move. In many cultures, such staring is considered a sign of hostility. 

Placing pieces sloppily or knocking them down and pressing the clock. 

Standing up and hovering over the board just behind the opponent’s shoulder when it is their move. 



Standing behind the opponent when it is his move is one of the most notorious psychological warfare practices in chess

Smoking over the board. Smoking was banned for the first time at a major chess event, National Open, USA, in 1976. Since 1990, FIDE has officially banned smoking in all events.  



It was impossible to imagine Mikhail Tal  playing a chess game without smoking one cigarette after another

Writing a move down before actually making it in order to check out the opponent’s reaction (currently prohibited). An even more interesting case was top-10 player Wesley So getting defaulted for writing motivational messages to himself on the scoresheet during the US Chess Championship in 2015. Obviously, there was no evil intent behind this, but it could still be irritating for the opponent. 

Showing up for the round drunk and wearing smelly clothes. This is not something you would be able to pull off at a major event. However, in open tournaments, there are quite a few cases when a certain player comes to the round after partying all night and neglecting personal hygiene. This could be extremely unpleasant for some players to face. 

Sporting a killer dress. According to the legendary Nona Gaprindashili, female chess players pay a lot of attention to the looks of the opponent. A fancy new dress or a fabulous ring/brooch can make them lose concentration ("I prefer risk, 1974, p. 154). I have heard the same statement from many other female players. Sometimes the chess duel is decided by who has the better dress/handbag/makeup. 

Loudly munching food at the board. Prohibited by FIDE rules, but happens more often than one might think. 

Arriving late for the game. Pretty much anyone who has played tournaments has been through this. There is always some nervousness associated with whether the opponent is going to come at all. Also, sometimes, especially in short time controls, there is a moral dilemma whether to start the clock or to wait for the opponent to arrive. You should be prepared for this and decide in advance how to act under such circumstances. 


Talking to a friend during a game, making the opponent think that the current position is being discussed (prohibited). One of my worst memories regarding this was playing an open event where my opponent's friend would come up to your board and stare. After making a move, my opponent would leave and, accompanied by his friend, leave the playing hall, not even hiding their conversation. When I called for an arbiter and asked her to do something about this since it was clear that they were cooperating and possibly even checking out the positions on some sort of device, she snapped back at me, pointing out that "They had to leave the are so they could smoke! Smoking is prohibited in the schoolyard". Needless to say, she didn't even bother issuing a warning to that guy. Feeling insulted and shocked, I ended up losing despite having a decent position. 

Inviting hypnotizers, strong seconds, etc. in order to impress and frighten the opponent. Wars between hypnotizers were all the rage during Korchnoi-Karpov-Kasparov times. Nowadays, many chess players have personal sports psychologists, but these shows of bringing them to the round and trying to negatively affect the opponents seem to have become part of the past. 

Dismissing draw offers and not saying a word in return. Playing on in a dead drawn position just to make the opponent more tired and frustrated.

Banging the moves on the board and slamming the door over and over again. For example, Vishy Anand complained that in the World Championship match in New York, 1995, Kasparov was clearly putting psychological pressure on him by slamming the door with a loud bang each time he left the playing hall. According to Vishy, at that time he wasn't prepared for such psychological warfare and didn't know what to do. 

Breaking the “touch-move” rule. This one we have reviewed in a standalone blog post. 

Screwing the pieces into the chessboard when placing them. This is usually done to signal that you are making a powerful move that is supposed to be devastating for the opponent. 

Saying "J'Adoube" repeatedly and adjusting pieces over and over again. This can be highly distracting and irritating. 

Obviously, the list is by far not exhaustive. I recommend following the rules of fair play and avoiding using these techniques. However, it is important to be prepared to face them from time to time and make sure that they don’t affect your peace of mind.

I don't believe in psychology. I believe in good moves. 

Looking for a way to beat your opponent without wearing stinky socks, spewing insults and knocking pieces over? Check out Magnus Chess Academy, a one-stop chess app developed by a team of world-class experts led by 5-time World Chess Champion Magnus Carlsen! 

What kind of dirty tricks should you be prepared for over the chessboard? Let's check out the must-know list!

How do you classify chess players? And how would you reply if someone asked you what your chess personality is? 

One simple classification revolves around the elements at which the chess players excel:

Positional players tend to like closed positions where they can create plans, maneuver pieces around, make favorable trades, employ prophylactics, exploit weaknesses and gradually grind the opponent down in the endgame. Example: Magnus Carlsen. 

Tactical players have an excellent combinational vision. They usually go all out, aiming for the opponent king's throat. Tacticians enjoy having active pieces and an advantage in development and are quite good at sacrificing material for the initiative and handling material imbalances. Example: Shakhriyar Mamedyarov. 

Calculators are similar to tactical players, but they are more concerned about tricks that allow one to win material and/or set traps. The name speaks for itself: they are unstoppable in murky positions where a single miscalculation can be fatal. Also, they usually have somewhat less chess intuition than positional and tactical players, but they are good at crunching the lines, similar to what a chess engine does. As a result, one some occasions, they can make weird-looking moves, but in other cases, they will discover possibilities that other players won't spot. Example: Ian Nepomniachtchi. 

Of course, the higher-rated the players are, the more likely they are to be universal, feeling comfortable in any type of chess struggle. Still, even for the very best GMs, you can make an argument for putting them into one of the categories above. 

Yuri Averbakh was the only GM in chess history to reach the 100th anniversary.

Coming up next is an alternative classification, even if it is less widely used. According to GM Yuri Averbakh, there are six main types of chess players depending on how they approach the game. Below I will offer an interpretation of each type.

Killers – these people take the result of the game personally and use chess as a means of “breaking a man’s ego”. Notable examples of this type offered by GM Averbakh are Bobby Fischer, Garry Kasparov, Mikhail Botvinnik, and Viktor Korchnoi.

Fighters – they enjoy the process of struggling with the opponent and don’t lose heart even if their position is inferior because they can potentially reverse the tide. Some of the best examples that come to my mind are Arkadij Naiditsch and Valentina Gunina.

Athletes – according to GM Averbakh, for those chess is a sport, just like tennis or soccer. They do their best to win but don’t take the results personally and act like normal humans after the game is over. Yuri believes that Jose Raul Capablanca and Boris Spassky are fine examples of such an attitude.

Gamblers – they love taking risks and competing with others at everything. In a way, this category resembles athletes, if you ask me. Anatoly Karpov is a supreme example: he is a very adventurous and competitive person everywhere – in chess, politics, other board games, and in business. The same goes for Magnus Carlsen. 

According to Averbakh, all the world chess champions belong to one of the above-mentioned categories.

Artists – for them, creating a masterpiece or making a fantastic move on the board is more important than the actual outcome of the game. Arguing with Averbakh's claim cited above, I would place Vladimir Kramnik in this category. Coming from an artistic family, he also seems to value the act of creating a masterpiece above the outcome of the game. 

Researchers – chess is fuel for thought for them. They enjoy studying endgames, openings, and philosophical issues of chess and normally like correspondence chess more than head-to-head matchups. They are searching for “truth”, i.e., optimal play in every position. GM Yuri Averbakh places himself into this group. The same goes for me.

Now, what category do you belong to? Are you happy about it, or do you feel like changing your approach toward the game?

This blog post is brought to you by the Magnus Chess Academy Team. Make sure to sign up to enjoy the app as soon as it gets released!

P.S. Is there a way to test yourself and find out what your chess personality is? I appreciate Chess.com's idea of creating a special site that allows you to answer a series of questions and find out who your chess role model is. However, I am not a big fan of the implementation, namely, of how the questions are formulated and of some of the tasks presented. IMO, it is more of an entertaining experience than a real "scientific" test. 

In this video, you can see GM Hikaru Nakamura taking the chess personality test. Spoiler alert: he didn't get himself as the role model! 😁

How would you describe yourself as a chess player in one word? 

As a kid, I was a big fan of watching intellectual games on TV and competing in such contests myself. Jeopardy!, Who Wants To Be a Millionaire, What? Where? When?, The Weakest Link, Brain Ring, and so on. I am less fond of them since nowadays when you can search most things online, storing too many relatively useless facts in your head is probably not the way to go. Ironically, this topic reminds me of a conversation between Dr. Watson and Sherlock Holmes in Arthur Conan Doyle's "A Study in Scarlet":

"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has difficulty laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."

"But the Solar System!" [Dr. Watson] protested.

"What of the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently: "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."

Nowadays, the argument made by Holmes is more alive than ever.

Dr. Watson and Sherlock Holmes as portrayed by Martin Freeman and Benedict Cumberbatch. Image from Popsugar.co.uk

Anyway, I still enjoy trivia questions that get your brain working instead of merely recalling the information you already know. You know, the challenges for nerds HRs ask potential employees of top IT and consulting companies. 

What if I asked you to estimate the median lifespan of the classical World Chess Champions who have already passed away? How would you approach this task? Ponder this question for a bit and see if you can reach a conclusion. 

I am by no means an expert in the field of longevity, so the musings presented below should not be treated as the "solution". 

Overall, there were only 16 classical World Chess Champions. A quick count reveals that ten of them passed away, while six are still alive. 

At 63, Vasily Smyslov played a Candidates Match against Garry Kasparov. Smyslov holds the longevity record so far when it comes to World Chess Champions - 89 years. Not in Yuri Averbakh's league, but still quite respectable! 

If you continue relying on knowledge, you can come up with a reasonably accurate estimate if you know the biographies of the champions well. I wouldn't remember the exact age at which most of them died, but I can easily come up with assessments such as "should be 80+ for Botvinnik" , "Smyslov had the longest life of them, almost hitting 90", or "Tal didn't reach 60". In a matter of seconds, I would tell you that the answer is probably between 60 and 70 years.

If you don't know the biographies of the players well enough to juggle lifespan numbers, the challenge becomes much more formidable. What factors do you think are relevant here? Once again, probably neither of us is a longevity expert, so we have to invent them on the go. 

Country of origin. If you have ever looked at the list of countries sorted by life expectancy, you will realize that the place of living has a tremendous effect on life expectancy. The numbers in the table range from 84+ in Japan to 53+ in Central African Republic. The World Champions had diverse backgrounds. Half of them were from the USSR, and the rest were mostly from developed countries. Overall, this is a tough factor to assess unless you have expert knowledge, but my guess would be that the country of origin is more of a plus than a minus in their case. +

Date of birth. This is also a huge factor to consider. Most of the late World Chess Champions died in the XXth century. The only exceptions are Vasily Smyslov and Bobby Fischer. Overall, this factor is more of a minus since life expectancy has been known to increase rapidly over the last century. +

Education. Nowadays, to become a professional chess player, you typically have to give up on your university studies or even ditch high school. However, historically it was not the case. At some point, Mikhail Botvinnik passionately argued that a person without a college degree would never become a World Champion! A few World Chess Champions of the past had Ph.D. degrees, and my guess would be that they were more educated than their average contemporaries. And since the level of education has a positive correlation with life expectancy, this should give the number in question a boost. +

Gender. In some countries, the gap is more pronounced than in others. However, throughout most of the world, females tend to outlive males by a few years. Since all the World Chess Champions were men, this factor works against them. -

Income. Before Bobby Fischer, chess players usually had a day job since playing chess was not a lucrative occupation. However, there are all sorts of privileges that come with being a World Champion. In the USSR, for instance, they received extensive support from the government. Therefore, I would claim that, compared to their average contemporaries, World Chess Champions were better off and hence more likely to live longer. +

Occupation. This one is a tough cookie. Chess is an intellectual activity that is supposed to prolong your lifespan. However, this mainly refers to playing chess as a hobby. Pursuing it competitively is a different matter. Boris Spassky once pointed out that playing a WCC match takes three years off your life expectancy. Of course, this was not a serious claim, but it drives the message home. Professional chess players have to deal with extreme stress, jet lag, and a passive lifestyle, not to mention staying late at night since to be fresh for the round that usually starts at 3-4 p.m., one has to wake up late. I am torn on this one and can't announce it to be a definite plus or minus. ?

Family status. All the late World Champions were married. The record-holder in this respect used to be Mikhail Tal, who was quite a ladies' man and ended up being married thrice. This made him untrustworthy in the eyes of the Soviet authorities and played a key role in limiting his trips abroad. Later, Garry Kasparov matched Tal's record, also marrying three times. Since, on average, married men tend to live longer than single, this is a plus. +

Mikhail Tal generally had fragile health. His bohemian lifestyle didn't quite help with longevity. Petrosian and Tal both died at 55. 

Here is the trickiest part. How do we factor in everything we have just assessed? Based on the country of origin and date of birth, I would guess something like 60 years. Considering gender, education, income, family status, and occupation, I would probably throw in another 10 years or so. Hence my bet would be around 70. 

Are you interested in Magnus Carlsen's take on his greatest predecessors? Check out the Magnus Trainer app. Among other lessons, you will find biographical articles about the best chess players of all time, presenting intriguing facts and the masterpieces they have created over the board. 

Now it's time to see how accurate your (and mine!) estimates were. Here are the nitty-gritty statistics:

Wilhelm Steinitz (Prague, May 17, 1836 – August 12, 1900) – 64

Emanuel Lasker (December 24, 1868 – January 11, 1941) – 72

José Raúl Capablanca (19 November 1888 – 8 March 1942) – 53

Alexander Alekhine (October 31, 1892 – March 24, 1946) – 53

Max Euwe (May 20, 1901 – November 26, 1981) – 80

Mikhail Botvinnik (August 17, 1911 – May 5, 1995) – 83

Vasily Smyslov (24 March 1921 – 27 March 2010) – 89

Mikhail Tal (November 9, 1936 – June 28, 1992) – 55

Tigran Petrosian (June 17, 1929 – August 13, 1984) – 55

Robert James "Bobby" Fischer (March 9, 1943 – January 17, 2008) – 64


Now let's take a look at the numbers: 89, 83, 80, 72, 64, 64, 55, 55, 53, 53.
The median life duration for a World Chess Champion is 64 – the number of chess squares on the board! Coincidence? I don't think so. 

Despite the difference in methodology, approaches #1 and #2 have provided relatively close and reasonably accurate estimates. 

Out of six World Champions who are still alive, two have already passed this threshold. Boris Spassky, the oldest living WC, is 85. Anatoly Karpov is 71. Garry Kasparov is expected to turn 60 next year. Viswanathan Anand, who has just returned to the top-10 in the world, is 52. Vladimir Kramnik, who is competing in the Chess Stars event today, is 47. Magnus Carlsen, playing in the European Chess Club Cup, is 31. 

Let's wish the legendary World Champions to exceed the current median age of 64 by far! Records are meant to be broken. 

If you were asked to guess the average lifespan of a World Chess Champion, what would you say? 

On International Chess Day, Magnus Carlsen left everyone dumbfounded by announcing that he would not be defending his World Champion title. This historical decision will tremendously impact his life and the chess world in general. Let's breathe out and discuss some possible scenarios that could await us. 

As a chess fan and admirer of Magnus Carlsen's games, this is the scenario I would love to see most. There is a certain chance that getting rid of the burden of having to defend the title will positively affect Carlsen's play. He will no longer have to function in siege mode, preparing for one challenger after another. Then he could qualify for one of the next Candidate events by rating. Get sucked in and, knowing his competitive spirit, aim to win the tournament. Then maybe Carlsen will be willing to fight for the chess crown again, especially if the format changes. This would be a highly unconventional path that should help Carlsen become the GOAT in the eyes of most of his contemporaries. And, more importantly, in his book.  

Please show me the chess GOAT in this picture! 🐐

Talking about the GOAT status, most experts were expecting Magnus to play it safe. He would probably beat Nepo again. Then in a couple of years, maybe defend the title again versus a peer or one of the relatively inexperienced young guns. This would amount to a record seven titles. By that time, he would have been on top of the rankings for like 15 years. Coupled with other spectacular achievements, this should have been more than enough to shush all the critics and catapult Carlsen to the #1 spot on the all-time rankings of chess legends. Well, I guess the pundits were wrong! Magnus has his own ways, and that's one of the qualities that makes him such a dominant champion. 

From what I have noticed, most people tend to underestimate how tough it is to keep winning matches one after another. 

For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that Carlsen has an 80% chance of beating the challenger in a match. That is 4 to 1 odds, which most of us would find insanely good. However, under such circumstances, the probability of winning two matches straight is already 64%. Three matches – 51.2%, which is essentially a coin toss. Four matches – 40.96%. Still not bad, but more likely not to happen than to occur. Five matches – 32.768%, less than one-third. This is where Carlsen is currently at. To break Lasker's record, Carlsen needs seven titles, so let's keep crunching numbers. Six matches – 26.2144%, down to almost one out of four. Seven matches – 20.97152%. As you can see, even if you are a huge favorite in each individual match, the odds keep decreasing rapidly if you have to go through a chain of trials. 

I spend hours playing chess because I find it so much fun. The day it stops being fun is the day I give up.

This option is the evil twin of the scenario described above. Switching to playing chess less professionally could have a negative impact on Carlsen's motivation and focus. Without clear goals in sight, other "distractions" could take over his life – poker, fantasy football, bullet, alcohol, dating – who knows what! Also, part of the reason why most opponents are intimidated by Carlsen is his dominance as a World Champion. Will they give him the same level of respect over the board once he concedes the title?

 Also, there is an inevitable change of guard happening. Carlsen was successful in crushing the older generation (Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, etc.). For them, it was natural that he was the guy to replace them at the top. Now, he was also able to beat into submission his peers and GMs aged 25 or so. Most of them seem to have become complacent and more interested in retaining/securing a top-10 spot or recording a best-selling Chessable course than realistically shooting for the #1 spot. The young guns, however, have a different mindset. It is not even personal. For them, it is just a rule of life that to climb to the top, they will have to overcome everyone already there. And as history tells us, this is what will happen eventually. In other words, they don't have this piety towards Magnus and will probably have even less fear of him once he loses the crown. 

While we are at it, I don't believe that the "go for 2900" goal is effective enough. First of all, it is not process-oriented. Secondly, it seems shallow and lacks a purpose behind it. Whenever chess players bring up rating goals, they usually have something very specific in mind. "I need 2800 to qualify for the Candidates tournament". "I have to become 2750+ to get invitations and make a living as a pro player". "Getting to 2650 should be good enough to represent my country along with my friends". "If I hit 2500, I will become a Grandmaster and will be able to make an efficient transition to coaching and writing books". What will change in the world or in Magnus's life if Carlsen pulls off an inhuman feat of chess strength and reaches 2900? We will probably see some articles in mainstream media. I will check out his PM bio section and change 2882 to 2900. And that's about it. 2900 is just a random number! 

Anyway, I fully understand that Carlsen has won pretty much everything there is to win in chess, apart from the Chess Olympiad gold and the World Cup. Hence, it is painstakingly difficult for him to come up with new competitive goals for himself. 

There were some speculations that Magnus would try to postpone his decision and wait until the FIDE elections in August were over. If the Baryshpolets/Nielsen ticket wins, Carlsen should be able to tweak the World Chess Championship format whatever way he likes. 

However, it looks as if Carlsen has made up his mind and is unlikely to reconsider his decision in the nearest future, regardless of who becomes the next FIDE President. Also, there are a few other "ifs" in this narrative, which makes the outcome rather unlikely.

Let's combine this scenario with the one where Magnus reconsiders his decision due to financial concerns. For people who don't care too much about the game itself, it is inconceivable how Carlsen could let go of a more or less "guaranteed" paycheck of another €1.2 mln or so. Well, first of all, WCC matches require a few months of preparation and a large team. If you factor in the expenses, you may as well be left with peanuts. Secondly, if you are someone who doesn't care too much about money and you have reached financial independence, you would probably not do something you don't enjoy just because it allows you to deposit some more cash into your bank account. You have no actual use for that money anyway!

It's nice to be financially secure. Apart from that, I don't really care too much about money. 

Generals are always prepared to fight the last war. It is tempting to think by analogy, recalling the period when Garry Kasparov was no longer the official FIDE World Champion, yet most people perceived him as the best player in the world. 

Compared to Garry Kasparov in 1993, Magnus Carlsen has arguably more resources for an efficient split from FIDE. There are plenty of voices out there chanting that FIDE needs Carlsen more than he needs FIDE. Suppose the general public keeps seeing Magnus as the clear #1 in the world. In that case, there is a possibility that Magnus will, officially or unofficially, compete against other challengers, putting his reputation on the line. 

I find this scenario rather unlikely because smart people tend to learn from the mistakes of others. Carlsen's former mentor, Garry Kasparov, was rather vocal in criticizing himself for the decision to split from FIDE, which resulted in a period of mayhem. Even nowadays, some people still ask whether there are different federations in chess, similar to boxing, and which title exactly Magnus owns. 

Summarizing, I believe there is a chance that Magnus will play some unofficial commercial matches against the players he finds worthy challengers. Still, I doubt that he will go as far as Fischer in 1992 and try to portray those as World Championship matches. 

What if the aliens that reportedly abducted former FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov challenge the Earth to a chess game, Mortal Kombat-style? Magnus Carlsen will probably lead the team of our realm's champions, and we will have to keep our fingers crossed that this will be enough for our planet to win the contest! 

Under such circumstances, people will stop caring about the puny title of the World Champion. Instead, Carlsen could potentially become the best chess player in the Galaxy! 

Don't miss your chance to learn from Magnus Carlsen while he is still the World Champion!

How will Magnus Carlsen's decision to concede the World Chess Champion title affect his life and our world in general? 

What Does the Future Hold for Magnus Carlsen?

There is no such thing as chess talent. Some people just have f…ed up brains, and this is it!

International Master Vyacheslav Osnos, the coach of Grandmaster Viktor Korchnoi

This column was inspired by my recent conversation with a mother of a 11-year old girl who is into chess and studies it with a personal coach. Just like many other parents out there, the lady wanted to know whether her daughter has enough talent for chess to keep going. Her question was simple as pie: “How do I know if she is gifted chesswise or not?”

You may be wondering the same about your kids or even yourself. Indeed, how can you tell that you or your children have what it takes to become strong chess players?

You improve in chess faster than people around you. Having a natural talent in a certain field essentially means that you grasp things easier there than most people. It is similar to studying in school or at university. Some of us have to read the same page a few times to understand what it is all about, while others take a glance and can work out the details themselves. In any chess club where kids train in a group, there will be students who make impressive progress and those who lag far behind.

There are a couple of crucial disclaimers that I should make here. First of all, a lot depends on the environment. One thing is to be able to outshine the kids in your typical suburban chess club, where most of your competitors won’t progress beyond 1600 FIDE before quitting. However, if you were to enroll in the Kasparov-Botvinnik chess school and be pitted against the likes of Vladimir Kramnik or Alexei Shirov, you may easily become demotivated and decide that your chess talent is so-so. Everything is relative. 

Can you imagine what it feels like to be coached by Garry Kasparov and Mikhail Botvinnik in a class featuring Vladimir Kramnik, Alexei Shirov, Vladimir Akopian, Sergei Tiviakov, Konstantin Sakaev, Konstantin Landa, and other top players?

Secondly, especially for kids, experience plays a critical role. Some parents become discouraged if they see that some other kids are ahead of their children. However, you must consider how long and under what circumstances the people have been training. For instance, your 7-year-old children may be making their first steps in chess, and the kid you are comparing them against may have been training with a couple of coaches and playing competitively since he was four. Now, regardless of how talented the kids are, the early bird may be currently miles ahead of your kids. However, it doesn’t mean that they can’t surpass him in the future. Of course, he has a better start, but nothing is assured. Quite a few prodigies reach their ceiling and get burned out at an early age, especially if their chess studies are mainly imposed by parents. This smoothly brings us to the second item, which is of utmost importance.

You genuinely love playing chess and studying the game. There are some kids who have an immense natural talent for chess, yet they are not interested in developing it. Basically, they do only the exercises the teacher gives them. Their scores might be close to perfect, but they are unwilling to take that extra step into the unknown. Of course, it is also essential to find the right approach to studying chess that fits you best. Some kids become demotivated to study chess just because they don’t like the coach, the format, or other class members. 

To become truly good at chess, you should be immersed in the game and willing to study on your own for hours and hours. It is a good sign if you or your children jump at the opportunity to squeeze in a few more puzzles, check out a Magnus Trainer lesson, or play a couple of blitz games when you have the time for it. Becoming a professional chess player requires the right combination of talent, hard work, and environment. And, as Garry Kasparov once put it, the ability to work hard is a talent by itself. Focus, focus, focus. 

Finally, if you love what you are doing, your time is not wasted anyway. Even if you don’t become a top pro, the chess journey will still be memorable and worth it. 

You are ambitious and have a fighting spirit. Let us start from afar and travel to Ancient Rome. According to a popular anecdote, one of the ways how Julius Caesar used to decide if the recruit would become a good legionnaire was to check how the latter reacted to danger or insults. If his face became red, it was a good sign, showing that he was prepared to fight. If he turned pale, it was perceived as an intention to run away, which is not recommended for someone who serves in the military forces. There is a similar thing in chess. People who don’t care about losses, for whom chess is “just a game”, hardly ever make it to the top. However, overdramatizing defeats is no good either. There are GMs who collapse after a tough loss: they can’t sleep; they have to resort to alcohol to soothe their mental wounds; their performance drops. In contrast, there are true warriors who become enraged after a loss and bounce back. Kasparov, back in his heydays, or Carlsen as of today, are such examples. They may lose a game, but they usually come back in style and prove that they are legendary champions. 

It is normal for kids, and not only kids, to cry after bitter losses. For instance, Bobby Fischer was doing this all the time when he was young. However, what is important is what happens next. If your son becomes dismayed and says he will never play chess again, this is a bad sign. Conversely, if his eyes shine furiously, and he says he will strike back and recover his rating, it is a sign that he may have a future as a chess player. 

The three points above are probably the most important ones. Also, they have the advantage that you don’t even have to be proficient in chess to “diagnose” yourself or your kids using this short list. Now let’s mention a few more specific, purely chess-related items. 

Magnus Carlsen is arguably the finest positional chess player of all time. 

Do you have a natural positional feel? Of course, every skill needs to be developed. Still, some kids seem to intuitively feel where the pieces belong on the board. While some of their peers make random moves or ardently chase an irrelevant pawn in the middle of nowhere, these future Capabancas, Karpovs, and Carlsens are busy fighting for the center, occupying key outposts, targeting weaknesses in the opponent’s camp, and so on. They might not even be aware of what exactly they are doing, yet here they are! As long as you invest enough time and effort, this skill alone should generally take you at least to master level.

Ian Nepomniachtchi is absolutely amazing when it comes to spotting chess tactics.

Are you a tactical wizard? This is a different breed of kids. They blurt out long sequences of moves, calculating them in the blink of an eye. They are very inventive and effortlessly come up with mind-blowing tactical strikes, original defensive resources, and cunning traps. Similar to what has been said about being a strategy expert, it is possible to become a master if you are gifted at tactics. 

Vasyl Ivanchuk is rumored to remember thousands of chess games.

How good is your chess memory? Whether we like it or not, chess is a game of patterns. Gifted players memorize them easily. Once they see a tactic, an opening setup, or a middlegame plan, they add the information to their memory banks and are able to use it in their own games. Also, modern chess is demanding in terms of the amount of computer-generated theory that you have to remember. Not being able to recall the one and only continuation at the critical moment of the game can lead to a quick and painful loss against a well-prepared opponent. Therefore, even though there are still some strong GMs who don’t remember their games and opening lines well enough, most chess pros have an admirable chess memory.

Naturally, similar to the previous items, this ability can be developed somewhat. With proper training, most people should be able to memorize a 15-move line or play one game blindfolded. However, you will probably need a much bigger talent to look at a dozen pages of analysis before the round and remember all the data or give a blindfold simul on ten boards or more. 

Fabiano Caruana takes physical training extremely seriously and is known as a great calculator who can endure chess marathons without losing focus.

What about your health? Competitive chess is a grueling sport that requires maintaining full focus for hours. Even though laymen who have never played a serious event themselves tend not to view chess as physically challenging, you surely know that you should be fit and exercise a lot to play chess at the top level. Chess is an inclusive game that is quite popular with special people, but it is still demanding if you plan to pursue this activity professionally. 

Overall, to become a Grandmaster, you must be multi-faceted. Especially if we are talking about super GM level, where you will likely require all the positive traits mentioned above. When comparing Carlsen to other top players, some of his colleagues noted that he is untouchable due to being extremely well-rounded. In most aspects of chess, his scores would be in the 80s or 90s on a scale of 100. There may be people out there who, let’s say, have 90 in a field where he has 85, but Carlsen will likely have 90 in an area where they have only 70. 

Don’t hesitate to see how talented you are at chess by taking on Magnus Carlsen, Judit Polgar, Wesley So, and other remarkable opponents in the Play Magnus app! 

How do you know whether you or your kids have the talent required to become a strong chess player?

What thoughts are running through your brain when you get paired against someone rated a few hundred points above yourself? Are you an “eternal student” type of person, meekly expecting to lose, but to get a free lesson in return? Or do you spend your evening before the round trying to find a drawish line for White which is supposed to help you earn a much-desired draw? If so, I believe you are hurting your chess future! 

A true champion does his best to win every game. If he loses, he takes the medicine and learns the lesson. Players of a weaker spirit think in a different fashion. They rely on ratings and titles and start making calculations: “this guy is a GM, so a draw would be nice”; “that dude is 2200, so I have to beat him for my IM norm”. In fact, this shortcoming is typical even of average GMs, while only the very top guys have this ambition to excel and to take risks. 

In 1988, Garry Kasparov was giving a simul to six promising US juniors. In one of the games, Daniel Edelman (2360) started repeating moves against his opponent with White, clearly hoping for a draw. Garry was disgusted and shocked by such behavior: "You have White; you have to play. That is my opinion, sorry. When I was young, I would never have missed a chance to play the World Champion." Kasparov offered Daniel a chance to continue the game, but in the end the conflict was settled, and a draw was agreed. Since I have never heard about Edelman, I decided to check out his chess bio. It turned out that the guy has “only” reached IM level and the rating peak of 2420 over the course of many years. Now that’s not what one expects when being a 2360-rated junior, right? However primadonnish Kasparov’s outrage has been, one can’t deny that he was right in the sense of discovering a glaring flaw in Daniel’s psychology. Judging by what we know about his further chess career, lack of fighting spirit probably wasn’t Edelman’s only problem in chess. 

Unfortunately, all the videos of this accident seem to have been removed from YouTube. You can see the footage in the "American Gambit" (1989) documentary. 

Some people think that if their opponent plays a beautiful game, it’s OK to lose. I don’t. You have to be merciless.

Great champions are well-known for dominating their contemporaries. When Kasparov was in his prime, quite a few other top GMs had this aura of hopelessness right from the start of the game when facing him. For most of them, even making a draw was considered a good result, and very few dared to dream about defeating Gazza. On a psychological level, this is not particularly surprising when you realize how devastating the scores of most super GMs were against the 13th World Champion. Here are some of Kasparov’s stats in classical chess against the world-class players of his era:

·       8 wins, 0 losses, 5 draws against Evgeny Bareev

·       15 wins, 0 losses, 14 draws against Alexei Shirov

·       9 wins, 0 losses, 8 draws against Boris Gelfand

·       7 wins, 0 losses, 2 draws against Judit Polgar

·       3 wins, 0 losses, 8 draws against Valery Salov

Similarly, people from Carlsen’s generation, +-5 years, seem to be utterly intimidated by him. This reminded me of a joke that a much older person, chess legend Vladimir Kramnik, made when he finished second in one of the tournaments, right behind Carlsen. He stated that he had essentially won the event since Carlsen was in a different league compared to others. And this revelation was coming from a man who whitewashed Kasparov in a WCC match! Unsurprisingly, a common belief these days is that Carlsen’s peers will probably not be able to wrestle the crown away from him unless he decides to walk away undefeated. In contrast, the young and upcoming chess prodigies don’t seem to idolize him as much as players of the older generations. Even though they are still considerably weaker that Magnus, you can see how passionate they are to show their best when facing him. No chickening out into a draw from most of them. 

I am trying to beat the guy sitting across from me and trying to choose the moves that are most unpleasant for him and his style.

One may point out that the experience of the top players who face each other repeatedly in closed event is very much different from what most of us deal with. This is partially so, but the point still stands true. Besides, even if you play at the club level, you typically have your own “bosses” around, such as nemeses who keep crushing you over and over again in friendly blitz, or people who win the championship of your city year after year, and so on. If you want to overcome them one day, you should believe in your ability to give them a run for their money when you meet over the board. 

I can’t count the times I have lagged seemingly hopelessly far behind, and nobody except myself thinks I can win. But I have pulled myself in from desperate [situations]. When you are behind there are two strategies – counter-attack or all men to the defenses. I’m good at finding the right balance between those.

Another related topic that comes to mind is the “every Russian schoolboy knows” advice to play solidly in an event where the caliber of opponents exceeds your out. Some old-school coaches believe that, especially when reaching GM or super GM level, you should first learn how to handle the pressure and to make draws, and only then aspire to beating the rating favorites. However, I believe this tip works best for people who are relatively faint-hearted and easily dismayed by losses. On a separate note, even some very top GMs have this “glass jaw” issue: if they suffer a painful defeat, they have trouble pulling themselves together. Also, this approach can be detrimental to the young talent’s development in the sense that they get used to 50% being a great result. Consequently, some of them grow up too cautious and not ambitious enough. And if the audience was applauding them for being able to hold their own against the chess elite at age 15, when they hit age 25 or 30, they still hug that coveted 50% mark, but the applauses are no longer there. In my opinion, people who want to unlock their potential fully shouldn’t be afraid to take risks or discouraged by losing streaks. If you can’t cope with a few losses in a row, you will probably not stick around for long in competitive chess anyway. 

So far, we have mostly been discussing the psychological aspect of this issue. However, even in purely chess terms, it is much more preferable to play for a win than for a draw, not to mention feeling doomed and marking time before an unavoidable loss. Stronger chess players don’t like being pushed around, challenged. They enjoy being feared and love seeing the opponent naively try to exchange as many pieces as possible, usually making one small concession after another along the way. Then, when the underdogs reach a drawish or worse endgame, the favorites capitalize on their experience and grind it out rather effortlessly. I have seen this a gazillion times in my tournament practice.

While learning from other people’s mistakes is what we should all strive for, most of us learn the lesson better when it is a firsthand experience. For me the moment of truth was a game against an experienced candidate master rated 2200+. I was a kid back then and felt intimidated by the opponent’s rating and patronizing look. The fight fizzled out into an endgame where I was slightly better due to having a bishop pair (two bishops and a few pawns vs. his bishop and knight with some pawns). I was so proud of myself that I offered him a draw. This is the worst thing you can do in such a situation! The veteran gave me a stern look and played on. I felt insulted and disappointed and collapsed quickly, pushing pawns on the side where I was weaker, allowing him to create a passed pawn and eventually promote it. From that moment on, I have been going for the throat of any opponent, including top GMs when I was Black. And, I have to tell you, they didn’t like that, since when the opponent goes all-out against you, you can’t expect an easy walk in the park like the one I described above. 

Self-confidence is very important. If you don’t think you can win, you will take cowardly decisions in the crucial moments, out of sheer respect for your opponent. You see the opportunity but also greater limitations than you should. I have always believed in what I do on the chessboard, even when I had no objective reason to. It is better to overestimate your prospects than underestimate them.

Bottom line: I suggest you put up a fight in every game. You will enjoy chess more this way, and opponents will be afraid of you, even if they are higher rated. However, of course, playing for a win doesn’t imply being reckless or pressing the position too much when it doesn’t allow it. Also, there are certain situations when a quick draw is useful, for instance, when you are ill. Still, the “play for a win in every game” rule applies to most situations in chess.

The Play Magnus app does have an “offer draw” feature. However, when you challenge Magnus Carlsen, Judit Polgar, Wesley So or other character there, I highly recommend that you do your best to knock them out! 

“Not winning a tournament is not an option for me unless it’s no longer theoretically possible – then of course winning becomes impossible. But up to that point, not winning is just not an option.” – Magnus Carlsen. 

The question whether there is rating inflation in chess or not is one of the most hotly debated topics in the chess community. Some players accept it as a universally acknowledged fact that the ratings keep growing year by year and hence assume that top masters from the past would have been rated higher today than they were back then. This belief is further enforced by interviews of former world-class players who are currently inactive. Some of them like fondly recalling their glory days when there was a limited number of 2600s in the world, and only a couple of 2700+ GMs. By mentioning this fact, they proceed to make a claim about the ratings having inflated. But is this true if we consider objective playing strength, not ranking? 

Jose Raul Capablanca was a merciless chess machine who hasn’t lost a single tournament game from 1916 to 1924. 

In his article titled “Would Carlsen have beaten Capablanca?” , GM Daniel Gormally tried to explain to the audience that chess standards have risen a lot over time. As a result, if we used a time machine to bring any of the masters from the past into the modern day, they wouldn’t stand much of a chance. The article attracted an incredible amount of attention from the readers and was received rather poorly. Let’s see what Daniel opined about Capablanca:

But what about Capa? How would he compare strength-wise to the players of today? I think he would come off rather badly. The difference in terms of knowledge and understanding between the players of today and the players of the 1920s and 30s is enormous. I know people who think Capablanca would struggle to break a 2500 rating if he came back today. I'm not sure if I completely agree with this, because Capablanca's raw chess talent is much higher than a 2500 player, but chess is also a game of information. It's difficult to see how Capablanca would have coped with the greater knowledge and sharp chess theory of today's chess elite. Sure, give him six months, and he might be able to bridge the gap, but it really is a huge leap. It's like trying to compare Jesse Owens to Usain Bolt, he'd be left many yards behind.

Here is what Dr. GM John Nunn had to say about one of the participants of the Karlsbad-1911 super tournament featuring such legendary names as Alekhine, Rubinstein, Nimzowitsch, Tartakower, Spielmann, Marshall, etc. In fact, they were all contemporaries and rivals of Jose Raul Capablanca to one extent or another. The quote is from “John Nunn’s Chess Puzzle Book”:

In order to be more specific about Karlsbad, take one player: Hugo Süchting (1874-1916). At Karlsbad he scored 11.5/13.5 or 'minus 2', as they say these days - a perfectly respectable score. Having played over all his games at Karlsbad I think that I can confidently state that his playing strength was not greater than Elo 2100 (BCF 187) - and that was on a good day and with a following wind. 

Let me quote one more passage from the same source:

Returning then to the question as to how Süchting scored 11.5 points, the answer is simply that the other players were not much better. If we assume Süchting as 2100, then his score implies an average rating for the tournament of 2129 - it would not even be assigned a category today.

This assessment seems quite reasonable to me. I also had an impression that the winners of the tournament used to play at below IM level by modern standards. However, when you tell that to typical chess fans, they start puffing, rolling their eyes wildly and accusing you of blasphemy! The same people also love whining about the “overrated” top players nowadays and claiming that someone like Morphy would have beaten them all. They seem to fail to acknowledge the difference between the terms “talent” and “playing strength”. Paul Morphy was definitely an extremely talented individual who was miles ahead of his contemporaries in terms of chess skills. However, back then the overall level of chess in the world was so low that he had no chance to become a proficient player by modern standards. After all, our knowledge about all aspects of chess has increased tremendously since that time, especially in the last few decades of computer revolution. That being said, some ex-World Champions remain objective and admit that. For instance, when people start bugging Garry Kasparov who is the better player: Magnus Carlsen or Garry in his prime, Garry always points out that the next generation tends to surpass the achievements of the previous ones and offers analogies such as that modern students know more about science than Isaac Newton, but it doesn’t diminish his discoveries. It’s just that you can’t directly compare chess players (or scientists) who have lived in different eras. 

Another reason why people tend to overestimate the prowess of the players of the past is that we typically remember only the best masterpieces of their lifetimes. And if you check out all the games, you will realize that they have been blundering left and right on their offdays. Even with game collections, it is not that simple. I recall a funny conversation with IM Vladislav Akselrod on this matter. One of his students asked him whose games to study as an example of attacking chess. Vlad’s first instinct was to give him a tip of advice that dates to the Soviet days: “Study Alekhine’s games since he was an exceptional tactician!”. However, when Vlad himself opened a book of Alekhine’s selected (!) games…at this point he made a vivid grimace as if he had tasted something sour! As a result, he decided that, with all due respect to Alekhine’s greatness, nowadays there are probably better role models for aspiring competitive chess players. 

What about the statistical evidence? In the paper titled “Intrinsic Chess Ratings” by Kenneth W. Regan and Guy McC. Haworth (May 18, 2011), the authors posed two important chess questions:

1.     Has there been ‘inflation’—or deflation—in the chess Elo rating system over the past forty years?

2.     Were the top players of earlier times as strong as the top players of today?

They have arrived at the following conclusion:

…there has been little or no ‘inflation’ in ratings over time—if anything there has been deflation. This runs counter to conventional wisdom, but is predicted by population models on which rating systems have been based [Gli99]. 

The results also support a ‘no’ answer to question 2. In the 1970’s there were only two players with ratings over 2700, namely Bobby Fischer and Anatoly Karpov, and there were periods as late as 1981 when no one had a rating over 2700 (see [Wee00]). In the past decade, however, there have usually been thirty or more players with such ratings. Thus the lack of inflation implies that those players are better than all but Fischer and Karpov. Extrapolated backwards, this would be consistent with the findings of [DHMG07], which (like some recent competitions to improve on the Elo system) are based only on the results of games, not on intrinsic decision-making.

Since Elo ratings were introduced in 1971, only three players were able to set new all-time records.

If you talk to players whose careers have spanned decades and who are still active, they will probably acknowledge that the standards have risen dramatically. In the past, Mikhail Tal used to say that he would have crushed his former self from the days when he was the World Champion since his understanding of chess has improved a lot. And that was before the computer age, which has revolutionized chess! To give you a more recent statement, last month I have stumbled upon an interesting quote by Sergei Tiviakov in the “Chess for Life” book by Matthew Sadler and Natasha Regan, published in 2016:

What areas of your game have improved and worsened? 

In general, my level of chess playing has become better. I am playing a better level of chess than before. But the problem is that the general level of playing chess in the world has increased much more than my level of chess. In comparison, I am falling behind. Sometimes I look at my older games and I’m really surprised how poorly I played before. In general, I think I’m playing better than before.

Sergei is one of the most experienced players on the circuit, who has played a few thousand tournament games, winning dozens of events and visiting a plethora of countries. At one point, he had a streak of 110 consecutive games undefeated. He knows what he is talking about, and I can totally relate to what he is saying.

When I and my friends were starting on “serious” chess and received ratings of about FIDE 2000, we had no opening files and could play pretty much anything we wanted from scratch. Our “preparation” was finding a scoresheet from the previous round and checking out what first move your opponent made. We were rather clueless about endgames, even very basic ones, such as the Lucena position in rook endgames. Our defensive skills were pretty much negligible. Nowadays, thanks to chess engines, databases and other modern technology, kids learn to play like engines from the very start. They know sharp lines up to 15-20 moves and have much more middlegame experience due to being able to spam online training games against a diverse field of opponents. They prepare carefully with databases, engines and opening trees, relying on statistics to pick the optimal weapons against the opponents. They are much more resistant since engines teach you how to sacrifice material for the sake of getting counterplay, or to defend stubbornly in general even when things look bleak. I could go on about this for a long time, but my informal assessment is that someone rated 2000, let’s say, 20 years ago, would probably be 1700 or so by modern standards. That is, if we are talking about a time machine type of scenario. 

COVID-19 has had a tremendous impact on chess ratings as well. Namely, the improving players didn’t get much chance to compete during the last couple of years. As a result, nowadays in open tournament there are many kids rated like 1500-1600 who tear apart experienced 2000+ players. This, in its own turn, affects players with higher ratings as well, since if you were farming those 2000 guys before, now their ratings will probably plummet to 1800-1900, and you would be expected to score much more points against them than previously. I have seen GM discussions on FB on this topic, and we are talking about active professionals who are close to their peak in terms of strength, not some washed-up has-beens who need to come up with excuses to justify their poor performances. 

Anyway, no matter what the research findings, logical arguments and empirical experiences of the leading GMs and computer scientists are, I still realize that I am fighting an uphill battle here when trying to prove my case. The eyes of most chess fans will remain dazzled by the very best masterpieces of the good old times and by the scale of the personalities of the maestros. 

Wondering how to improve faster than the chess world in general? Try out Magnus Trainer, a one-stop app created by World Champion Magnus Carlsen and his star-studded team of experts! 

Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you must have heard about “rating inflation” in chess. Is it a scientific fact or a popular myth that deserves debunking? 

Rating Inflation in Chess: True or False? 

Before playing a friendly game of chess in a casual setting, make sure to discuss what set of rules you will be following. For instance, some people believe it is acceptable to take moves back before the opponent has replied (or even after!). The “a move counts as one only once you release the piece” rule is even more widespread in amateur games. 

As you probably know, in tournament play, takebacks are not allowed, and the “touch-move” rule stands tall. That is, you have to say “J’adoube” if you wish to adjust the piece. Otherwise, you have to move it if you touch it, as long as it is legal. In blitz, Russian-speaking players often use the frivolous saying, “If you touch, you have to marry!”, to remind the opponent about the touch-move rule. 

Even though these rules are well-known to any serious tournament player, the temptation to break them is too large, especially when there is a lot at stake! Let’s recall a few such accidents. 

In 1961, GM Eduard Gufeld played 15…Qa5? in a decisive game of the Netherlands-USSR student match against Alexander Jongsma, allowing a well-known Nd5 trick with a discovered attack. According to GM Genna Sosonko’s memoirs, when one of Alexander’s peers decided to find him in the playing hall and inform the lucky guy about such a “present”, Alexander returned to the board only to allocate the queen on b6! Twenty years later, Gufeld confessed to his opponent that he had indeed played Qa5 in that game before taking a move back…

One of the most famous touch-move controversies transpired in the Judit Polgar vs. Garry Kasparov game at Linares’1994. An interesting recollection of the events is given in Judit’s “From GM to Top 10” book. There is no universal agreement on what happened there, but a widespread belief is that Garry did release the piece only to pick it up and put the knight on a different square. Judit instantly realized it and looked at the arbiter, but he either hadn’t noticed anything or, according to some theories, was on friendly terms with Kasparov and didn’t enforce the rule on him. Anyway, Polgar must have decided that it is not worth it to mess with Kasparov, who at that time could easily make sure that you would stop getting invitations to top tournaments. She didn’t protest and ended up losing the game. Interestingly enough, some reporters forgot to turn the camera on and recorded this footage, which led to a scandal! Ah, the good old days when there were no live streams…

You can challenge Judit Polgar at ages 5, 7, 9, 12, 17 (she played in Lineres’1994 at this age!) and 29 in the Play Magnus app. Judit will pretend not to notice if you touch one piece and move another, but please don’t take advantage of her generosity!

In 2003 GM Vladimir Malakhov allowed GM Zurab Azmaparaishili to take back a move after an obvious lapsus manus. Azmai said something like, “I have to trade first, of course!” and his intelligent opponent didn’t object, although he could have easily gotten a free point. As a result, Zurab won the game and the gold medal of the European Chess Championship, while Vladimir ended up being the runner-up. 

In the 2009 World Blitz Championship, Magnus Carlsen blocked with the wrong rook against Alexandra Kosteniuk and, in the heat of battle, tried to amend the situation quickly. Alexandra, a seasoned chess warrior even back then, stopped the clock and gave him a “no-no” look. Carlsen left the board in disgust, not bothering to offer her a handshake. As of this day, he still hates losing but has matured and acts as a role model in terms of sportsmanship. 

In the World Cup’11, David Navara assumed he had touched his king by accident in the game against Alexander Moiseenko. According to the video, he actually didn’t. Alexander decided not to call the arbiter, and Navara agreed to a draw in the game instead of checkmating his opponent. During the press conference, he explained that he didn’t want the match to be decided this way and felt guilty for accidentally touching a piece and not moving it. Both GMs went on to receive a special “Fair Play” prize. 

In 2016, Garry Kasparov repeated the same knight trick, this time about Hikaru Nakamura, who took it surprisingly light-heartedly and didn’t bother calling the arbiter.

Psychological Warfare in Chess

What Is Your Chess Personality?

How Long Do World Chess Champions Live?

What Does the Future Hold for Magnus Carlsen?

How Big is Your Chess Talent?

Play for a Win in Every Game

Rating Inflation in Chess: True or False?

The Infamous Touch-Move Rule

Learning from the Best – Focus on the Virtues