Mediaboss Marketing

As Israel continues to fight the Iron Swords War that was imposed upon her, it is vital for us to understand the background and reasons for the outbreak of the war, and in doing so, address some fundamental questions: Why did it break out in October 2023? Who is behind it? And how was it kept under wraps so effectively?

In early 1979, with the end of the reign of the Persian Shah, Ayatollah Khomeini established the Islamic Republic of Iran. Khomeini became the countrys spiritual leader and instituted the fundamental principle of exporting the Iranian revolution. The intention was to spread the Iranian model first and foremost to the worlds Shia communities, with other regions to follow. This task was assigned to, among others, Irans Islamic Revolutionary GuardCorps (IRGC) and its Quds Force. One of the regimes primary objectives was to take over the large Shia community in Lebanon and through it the entire country, creating a direct and immediate front against the Little Satan Israel. The First Lebanon War in which started in 1982 provided Iran with the ideal conditions to implement their plan in Lebanon. The vacuum created with the removal of the Palestinian military forces in Lebanon allowed the proxy they established in the countrys Shia community to become the strongest military force in the state.

Irans penetration into the Palestinian arena was more complex, both in principle and in practice. In contrast to Hezbollahs natural religious and operational subordination as a Shiite movement to Khomeini and Iran, the Palestinian Islamist organizations (like the entire Palestinian population) belong to the Sunni stream of Islam. Hamas adhere to the worldview of the Muslim Brotherhood, historically positioned in rivalry with the Shiites. However, the end justifying the means, Iran decided to turn a blind eye to the Shia-Sunni divide to advance the exporting of the revolution and confront its ultimate enemies the United States and Israel. The bear hug extended by Iran to the Palestinians was quickly welcomed by the small Islamic Jihad factions, who eagerly accepted Khomeinis overtures and, in return, received generous economic and military aid as early as the late 1980s. Hamas was a harder nut to crack. Hamas declined to fully accept Khomeinis embrace, although it gradually showed willingness to accept funds, and then weapons, aid and training from Hezbollah, until it finally became a proxy of Irans second circle while retaining an independent sphere of operation.

That is the framework that forms the basis of the rationale behind the Iron Swords War. I will begin the concrete background that led up to the war with a personal anecdote: In late 2009, I was extended an invitation to visit the White House by General James L. Jones, who was serving as the United States national security advisor at the time. At the beginning of our meeting, the general caught me off guard with the following question: If the United States were to give Israel a yellow light, should Israel launch an attack on Irans nuclear facilities?

I was genuinely taken aback by the question. I said to General Jones, Why are you asking me? After all, it would seem more fitting to address this question to Israeli officials; Im a civilian expert on terrorism. Jones clarified that while he does indeed consult with the official authorities, he was interested in my personal view on the matter. If youre asking my opinion, I responded, even a green light from the United States shouldnt be enough for Israel to take such action. Now he was the one who was surprised. Really? he asked. You think that even if the United States were to give Israel the green light to strike Iran, Israel shouldnt attack?

Thats right, I replied, for three reasons: Firstly, although Im not an expert on the capabilities of the Israeli Air Force, I am inclined to believe that even if the entire air force mobilizes to strike Iran, its improbable that Israel could fully obliterate all its nuclear facilities. The Iranians have learned the lessons from Israels attacks on the nuclear reactors in Iraq and Syria, so they have dispersed their nuclear capabilities across various facilities throughout Iran, most of which are deep underground. I added that, In my assessment, Israel would be able to inflict significant damage on these facilities, but its unlikely to be able to destroy them all at the same time.

The second reason, I continued, is that I know what the Iranian reaction would be to such an attack by Israel. The Iranians would employ the entire massive arsenal of rockets that they built in Lebanon and transferred to Hezbollah for this very purpose an arsenal of tens of thousands of rockets (as of the time of our conversation in 2009). The launch of these rockets would cause unprecedented damage to the Israeli home front and economy.

The third reason, I said, is that while Iran possessing nuclear bombs would undoubtedly pose an intolerable existential threat to Israel, the existential threat to Irans neighboring countries would be even greater. I have no doubt that Iran would use its nuclear capability to escalate political subversion and terrorist activity in the Gulf nations, Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni countries. Their aim would be to overthrow the governments in these states and establish a pro-Iranian regime that would cooperate with them. If I were a Sunni leader in the Gulf, the prospect of Iran possessing nuclear military capability would certainly keep me awake at night.

Therefore, I concluded, Im not sure I understand why the United States expects Israel to put its neck on the line for all the countries of the region. If Israel attacks Iran, it would pay a huge price, all while acting on a yellow light from Washington. If the U.S. thinks it necessary to strike Iran, it should proceed accordingly, or, alternatively, establish an international alliance encompassing Sunni Arab nations and other global counterparts. In such an event, if Israel is invited to partake in this coalition and bear part of the burden, I believe that Israel should respond affirmatively to such a request.

About a decade later, this regional alliance began to take shape. Initially, it was the Abraham Accords that paved the way for an American initiative to forge closer ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia, striving towards normalization and peace. This would lay the foundation for a military coalition to deter and, if necessary, act against Iran. Irans biggest nightmare was about to come true, and soon. President Biden, aiming to leverage this achievement for the upcoming U.S. elections, exerted significant efforts to expedite the process.

Let us return for a moment to the Iranian quest for military nuclear capability. The Israeli prime minister of recent decades, Benjamin Netanyahu, has set a paramount goal for his governments: thwarting Irans nuclear aspirations. He pursued a dual and parallel strategy initially to try and prevent President Obama from signing the nuclear deal, and subsequently, from the moment it was signed, to exert pressure on the American leadership to withdraw from it. In the first regard, the prime minister failed; the agreement was signed. In the second regard, Netanyahu played a pivotal role in compelling President Trump to terminate U.S. participation in the nuclear agreement. In May 2018, President Trump announced, to Netanyahus delight, that the United States would withdraw from the deal. From that moment, the impediments obstructing Irans path to the bomb were eliminated.

In parallel, over the years, Israel under Netanyahus leadership embarked on various operations aimed at damaging, deterring, delaying, and preventing Iranian nuclear activities. According to foreign reports, Israel has employed a range of methods to this end, be they targeted killings, intelligence infiltration of Iranian systems, cyberattacks, sabotage, fires, or other misfortunes. In some instances, the damage was severe both physically and with regards to Iranian pride. The Iranians became enraged, bit their lips, vowed revenge, and in several cases even attempted to carry out terrorist attacks, most of which failed. But it appears that they adopted the maxim Revenge is a dish best served cold. Revenge was served on October 7, 2023.

Indeed, the background to the war is the Iranian desire to exact revenge on Israel. To retaliate with great force and in the most painful way. But the Iranians do not act out of an instinct for vengeance. Therefore, the Simchat Torah massacre cannot be understood only in terms of revenge. The war was driven by a strategic Iranian objective: to orchestrate a regional explosion that would destroy, once and for all, American and Israeli attempts to forge anti-Iranian coalitions and alliances with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations. Another round or another Israeli operation in Gaza would not be sufficient for this purpose. Israel had to be dragged into a war, and preferably a multifront one. However, Iranians were cognizant that this conflict must not spiral into an uncontrollable detonation. The strike on Israel was intended to be excruciating enough to lead to the occupation of Gaza, as well as escalation along other borders, but not to trigger Israel into behaving irrationally and taking action that would not be able to be contained regionally.

The Iron Swords War is therefore an Iranian war by proxy. The modus operandi that was employed was planned in Tehran. The massive rocket fire that served as cover for the infiltration of thousands of terrorists, the slaughter of civilians, the rape, the videos this was all made in Iran. How can we know this for sure? Because this is precisely, to the letter, the blueprint that Iran had planned for years for a Hezbollah attack on Israel from Lebanon. Only that instead of thousands of Hamas Nukhba Force members, the original plan comprised a significantly more severe blow to Israel by a much larger group of terrorists from Hezbollahs Radwan Force,who would infiltrate Israel while firing tens of thousands of rockets into the Israeli home front. Hezbollah and Iran made no secret of their plan. They publicized it in every possible outlet articles in the media, interviews, photographs, video clips in a bid to dissuade Israel and the U.S. from launching an attack on Iran.

The southern model, as mentioned, was an exact replica of Irans plan for the northern border. With all due (lack of) respect to Hamas, they do not and did not have the capacity to devise such an attack, prepare for it, train for it, arm themselves, gather intelligence and, most importantly, evade Israeli detection of a stealthy intelligence maneuver that will be written about in the history books without Iranian initiation, planning, and assistance.

It is true that the complacency, smugness, overconfidence, and tendency towards self-delusion among many in Israel were significant factors in the success of Irans plan, but without Iran itself, the war would not have erupted. The Iranian interest in thwarting Israeli normalization determined the general date of the outbreak of the war; the shortcomings in Israels military preparedness on the holiday of Simchat Torah dictated the precise date: October 7th.

The question arises as to why Iran chose its Palestinian instead of its Shia proxy to attack Israel. As mentioned, the Iranian monster has two main arms in its campaign against Israel the weaker Palestinian arm that comprises Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the strong Shia arm, Hezbollah. In its bid to drag Israel into a limited regional war, it had to make a choice between these two arms. Iran knew that activating the northern plan involving Hezbollah would inflict ten times more damage on Israel. The scale of rocket fire across all of Israels regions would be unprecedented, as would the widespread destruction and number of casualties on the home front. The deep penetration of the Radwan Force into Israeli territory and the massacre that would ensue in several localities might cause Israel to instinctively resort to utilizing all its capabilities without much regard for rational considerations. Moreover, the direct connection between Hezbollah and Iran would not leave Iran room for denial and might prompt an Israeli response directly on Iranian soil. This is exactly what Iran sought to avoid, and the reason it opted for its Palestinian proxy rather than the Shia. It is also the reason that it instructed Hezbollah to maintain (at least for the time being) a limited level of intensity in its attacks against Israel. Iran did not want to open a Pandoras box.

Israel walked right into the Iranian trap. The resounding blow it suffered from the less potent Iranian arm prompted Israel to vow the total destruction of Hamas. Iran knew that after Israels campaign in the Gaza Strip, even if Hamass military power was neutralized, the strong strategic arm Hezbollah would remain nearly unscathed. The Iranian deterrence against an assault on its nuclear facilities would be maintained, and Tehran would be redeemed. Observing Israels enraged response, the Iranian rulers smirked with satisfaction and pleasure Israel was acting exactly according to their plan. And as for the Iranians, they are prepared to fight to the last drop of Palestinian blood.

To prevent the possibility of Israel exposing the Iranian plot, the Iranians also devised a coordinated system of denials. This campaign began two days after the massacre, with Khameneis declaration that Iran was not behind the attack on Israel. A few days later, in a Friday sermon, Nasrallah asserted that Iran and Hezbollah were not made aware of the intention to carry out the massacre, and that it was a decision made by the leaders of the resistance. Adding to this narrative, at the beginning of November Irans supreme leader met with the chief of the Hamas political bureau Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. During the meeting, Khamenei conveyed to Haniyeh, We will not enter the war on your behalf. According to Iranian sources, this was due to Hamas failing to inform Iran about its plans to attack.

Immediately following the massacre, the three heads of the Axis of Resistance were already in sync with a unified message: This was a Palestinian, not an Iranian, initiative. A doubtful assertion, but seemingly one that has been accepted by Israeli intelligence and decision-making circles. In response to a question asked at a press conference on October 28 regarding whether Israel possessed information implicating Iran in the October 7 massacre, Netanyahu replied, Iran supports Hamas. I cannot necessarily say that in this specific operation they were involved in the micro-planning, but without their support, there is no Hamas. The prime ministers choice of words might have differed had he been presented with intelligence information linking Iran to the slaughter in the manner described above.

How can the dissonance between the analysis above and the assessments of Israeli intelligence and decision-makers be explained? Is it due to a lack of intelligence supporting this thesis, or could it be another misconception? It must be considered that the Iranians meticulously crafted the information security plan for the October 7 attack. They not only instructed those privies to the secret within Hamas to carefully guard their plans, but also took measures to prevent any information leaks through Hezbollah and Iranian channels. In other words, Israeli intelligence failed not only to discern the intentions and plans of the massacre through its intelligence channels vis-a-vis Hamas, but also to detect intelligence signals on the subject vis--vis Hezbollah and Iran. Consequently, theres a prevailing belief that the latter were not involved in the attack on Israel.

In 2019, I met with the deputy head of the Japanese National Security Council, a wise and seasoned man. The conversation turned to the Iran nuclear deal. I contented that at that point in time (towards the end of Trumps term), the president realized the mistake he had made and was vigorously striving to return to a framework for a new nuclear agreement. And the paradox is, I added, that the Iranians are also interested in the same thing a new nuclear agreement. But they are willing to give less than they gave in the previous deal, and Trump needs to receive more. He smiled and said, I think youre right. But the problem is that to reach the same goal, the Americans play poker (a tactical American game based on manipulation and deceit) while the Iranians play chess (a strategic game of Iranian origin based on long-term planning and calculating many steps ahead).

It would appear that before the outbreak of the October 7 war, Israel was playing poker employing cunning tactics, manipulations and trickery while Iran was engaged in game of chess, planning several moves ahead.

View post:
Israel's playing poker while Iran is playing chess | Boaz Ganor | The Blogs - The Times of Israel

Hastings is the chess worlds longest-running annual congress, now in its 97th year and played annually since 1920, with a few breaks for the second world war and Covid. Its vintage years were from the 1930s to the 1970s, when world champions and their challengers often took part. Caplin, provider of mobile etrading technology, has been its major sponsor since 2019.

The new director of the latest Hastings, GM Stuart Conquest, won the event twice as a player before organising the Gibraltar Open. His innovations this year have included online commentaries, daily round reports, an X page and evening blitz tournaments.

Grandmasters from India and China finished first and second, but the main story was the attempt by Englands teenage talent Shreyas Royal, who turns 15 on Tuesday, to score his third and final GM norm following on from his recent success at the London Classic.

Royal got very close. He finished half a point short, missing difficult wins in three of his last four games. His time should soon come for a new UK record, breaking the landmark set by David Howell, who became a GM at 16 in 2007.

The John Robinson Youth Chess Trust provided free entry for many other juniors. Scotlands best talent, Freddy Waldhausen Gordon, 13, missed an IM norm by just half a point, as he and Royal prepared for their opponents together. Oleg Verbytski, 10, from the Charlton club whose young players have a fine reputation, is rated only 1771 but won or drew against 2000+ opponents in every game apart from a narrow defeat by an IM.

For Hastings to make more progress towards its former eminence, the participation of some or all of Englands Olympiad quintet of 2700 and 2600 GMs is important. In its heyday, the top home players always competed, with occasional dazzling successes such as Sir George Thomas, better known for badminton, in 1934-35, and Hugh Alexander, codebreaker and FT chess columnist, in 1953-54.

With the help of the new 500,000 government grant for elite chess, a much stronger home entry should be a realistic target. This would also stimulate more high-ranking overseas GMs to enter, and that in turn would provide fresh opportunities for the rising generation of British talents like Royal and Gordon.

Puzzle 2554

Timofey Ilin vs Zhansaran Tsydypov, St Petersburg, 2016. White to move and win a puzzle to test your tactical skills.

Click here for solution

The rest is here:
Chess: Hastings plans to revive its vintage years - Financial Times

Please try our search feature or see the most recent news stories below. You can also browse StarAdvertiser.com by clicking the Sections button in the top-left corner of every page. Then select the news section you would like to browse.

The extraordinary challenges and pressure of this job have taken their toll, and on the advice of my doctor and after talking to my wife, its time I put more focus on my health and well-being, Hayes said in a statement. Read more

Investigators believe the blast was caused by natural gas, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives spokesperson Sara Abel said. Read more

The punishment was handed down in connection with an attempted battery charge dating to last year that the defendant pleaded guilty to in November and was in court to be sentenced for on Jan. 3 when he rushed the judge. Read more

The announcement comes as the agency undergoes a massive overhaul, attempting to improve its technology and customer service processes with tens of billions of dollars allocated to the agency through Democrats Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law in August 2022. Read more

Rossi, whose legal name is Nicholas Alahverdian, is charged with sexually assaulting a 21-year-old woman in Orem, Utah, in 2008, according to local prosecutors. Read more

The moped rider was not wearing a helmet, police said. No other injuries were reported from the collision. Read more

There were widespread school closing across eastern Nebraska on Monday ahead of the storm, where forecasters predicted 5 to 8 inches (12 to 20 centimeters) of snow. Read more

The Israeli militarys chief of staff said that its forces were determined to keep pressure on Hezbollah and that if those efforts fell short, Israel was ready to fight another war. Read more

Japanese meteorological officials warn that strong quakes could persist for another month. Read more

Pittsburgh-based Astrobotic Technology said there was a critical loss of fuel, further dimming hope for what had been a planned moon landing on Feb. 23. Read more

Forecasters warned of flash flooding caused by heavy rain. Read more

Chris Kirk wants to savor this moment for a couple of days. Read more

The Hawaii Convention Center is on track to achieve one of its strongest revenue-generating years since opening in 1998. Read more

The Star-Advertiser welcomes results of most events. Contact us promptly after games to ensure coverage. >> Call: 529-4321 / 529-4322. Read more

Listings are for Oceanic and Hawaiian Telcom analog/digital. Read more

Jahlani Tavai, Patriots linebacker: Started at linebacker and made six solo tackles all of them on Breece Hall and three of them for no gain in the loss to the Jets. Read more

Dennis Thurman, Dan Morrison and Jeff Reinebold are the top candidates to join the University of Hawaii football teams coaching staff, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser has learned. Read more

Three men were arrested on suspicion of breaking into and trashing the locker room at the Oahu Country Club in Nuuanu early Sunday morning. Read more

On a warm summer afternoon, Tina Taniguchi was on her hands and knees scraping dirt off an oblong depression in the ground. Thick brown hair peeked out from her coconut leaf hat. Splotches of mud stuck to her T-shirt and speckled her smiling face. Read more

Dozens of bills from the 2023 legislative session that failed to become law remain alive going into the Jan. 17 start of the upcoming session, including one that would eliminate the Hawaii Tourism Authority and create a new tourism entity. Read more

Excerpt from:
Tuesday Afternoon Chess Club - Honolulu Star-Advertiser

The exceptional feat of eight-year-old Roman Shogdzhiev, triumphing over five grandmasters in the World Rapid and Blitz Championships, earned him praise from his idol, GM Magnus Carlsen.

Carlsen's double victory in the recently concluded event in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, wasn't the sole headline-making story. Other noteworthy incidents included Polish star GM Jan-Krzysztof Duda's refusal to shake hands with Russian GM Denis Khismatullin, and the pre-arranged knight dance of GMs Daniil Dubov and Ian Nepomniachtchi.

A more positive story was the outstanding performance of the youngest players in the event, particularly eight-year-old Shogdzhiev, whose rapid result will go down as one of the most sensational in chess history.

"This is truly remarkable! The youngest grandmasters we have are 12 years old. This is a world sensation," NRK's lead commentator IM Torstein Bae said on Norwegian TV.

The Russian beat two formidable grandmasters and secured draws against three others. He can potentially claim to be the youngest player to beat a grandmaster in a rapid event, based on Chess.com's unofficial research. GM Awonder Liang holds the record as the youngest player to defeat a grandmaster in classical chess, accomplishing the feat at the age of nine in 2012.

Shogdzhiev's first grandmaster triumph came against Uzbek GM Jakhongir Vakhidov, an Olympiad champion, in round one. He continued with draws against experienced GMs Aleksey Dreev and Gadir Guseinov in rounds two and four.

His next victim was GM Johan-Sebastian Christiansen, who told Norwegian TV: "I had never even heard of him beforemaybe I should have. It's pretty crazy to be that good when you are eight years old. When I was at that age, I had barely learned the rules," he told NRK.

The final part of the game was recorded by ChessBase India.

"I should never in my life have lost that game, but I managed to mess it up in time trouble. Regardless, he played on an enormously high level and in a mature way," Christiansen said.

The 8-year-old even drew attention from Carlsen:

"Those kids are strong! It's very impressive," he told NRK. "It's fun to seemaybe we'll see him at the very top in a few years."

In an interview with NRK, Shogdzhiev's mother said her son started playing chess during the pandemic at the age of five. She said he is determined to work hard to fulfill his dreams.

"We were not aware of his talent. We have regular jobs and Roman wanted to play as a child. We wanted him to do something for his future and his mind and not play computer games or watch YouTube. To play chess is good for him."

And what's the future goal?

"To become world champion. And beat Magnus Carlsen!" The prodigy eventually got to meet his hero in Samarkand.

He finished the rapid on an astonishing 5.5/13 score and a rating performance of 2429, gaining 182 rating points. His performance wasn't much worse in the blitz where he beat strong GMs Kirill Shevchenko, Alan Pichot and Pranav Anand in addition to one IM.

Shogdzhiev is originally from Elista in the Russian republic of Kalmykia, known as the venue of several chess events in the nineties thanks to former FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov. The family has now moved near Moscow. Shogdzhiev already has several prestigious titles under his belt:

Shogdzhiev lost almost a hundred classical rating points in the Asian Under 8 Championship in December and, with a classical rating of 1802, is ranked only eighth in the world among players born in 2015 or later. However, he dominates in rapid (2224) and blitz (2198), ahead of another eight-year-old prodigy, Britain's WCM Bodhana Sivanandan, who dazzled in the recent European Blitz Championship.

Shogdzhiev wasn't the only kid to beat a grandmaster in Uzbekistan. 10-year-old FM Faustino Oro, the youngest ever to break 2300, beat Khismatullin in the World Rapid Championship.

The ChessKid sponsored prodigy also finished off IM Rudik Makarian with a stunning move.

View original post here:
8-Year-Old Roman Shogdzhiev Amazes Chess World By Beating 5 Grandmasters - Chess.com

The rise of artificial intelligence as well as chess engines, starting with Alan Turings Turochamp, projects like Wilhelm, endgame tablebases, all bring up fundamental questions not only about what it means to be a composer of an endgame study or chess problem, but on a fundamental level what it means to be human. Could machines replace humans? In the 1990s The Outer Limits became known not only for their science-fiction anthology episodes but also for the narrator delivering a short, often deeply philosophical, thought at the beginning and end of each story. As an example, the 1960s episode Feasibility Study was remade and included this ending narration: For centuries philosophers and theologians have debated what it means to be human. Perhaps the answer has eluded us because it is so simple. To be human is to choose.

Can humans indeed choose their own future, their own destiny? Are all choices predetermined? The question of free will is a philosophical one that remains unresolved. It is beautiful to believe that humans have a free will, that the outcome of each choice is not predetermined.

The same obviously cant be said about chess problems and studies. Here the author has a specific solution, or multiple such, in mind. In addition, there might be unintended solutions. However, all of those are predetermined by the stipulation and position. Any position on a chessboard is either won, drawn, or lost in a forced way. The practical side of chess profits from the perfect information not being available during the game, neither in positions where tablebases exist nor where they dont exist yet. A computer with perfect access to all information would not discriminate between moves that lead to an easy draw and to a for human difficult defense, provided both have at least one way to draw. Endgame studies, by definition, should only have one way to draw or win.

Noam Elkies, Internet 1991.

White to move and draw.

Noam Elkies wants us to imagine this position happening in a practical game. 1.f6 Qb3 allows both 2.f7 Qd1+ 3.Kh6 and 2.Kh6 Qd1 3.f7 but afterwards the play is unique. And yet, in one of those both timelines White is lost while in the other one it is a draw. How is that possible?

Speaking of the Turochamp inventor, one of the central figures in codebreaking in Bletchley Park, he also invented the Turing Test, which is supposed to tell the difference between a human and a computer. Should computers be able to pass the test, would those have to be classified as human? This seems doubtful, as some humans fail at the test as well, and they arent classified as robots. However, many forms of media, such as Mary Shelleys Frankenstein, see human qualities in the soul rather than in the physical body. This is mirrored also in a scene from the Star Trek movies when Captain James Tiberius Kirk names Mr. Spock as the most human soul he ever met. There certainly must be a quality to being human that transcends the physical body, and in spiritual texts it is called the soul. Such is the premise of that scene, of the deeper understanding that comes with it.

Nearly every religion has an origin story for humanity, and in fact worldwide not only religions but other myths as well have teachings about a great flood that came upon the Earth at one time. Not only this global story that was passed down for many generations but also our own age of technology poses many events that could end humanity. Another Carrington Event could destroy over a century worth of progress. One dangerous experiment that goes wrong, one conflict that reaches global scale, one accident even might cause the end of most life, including humans, on this planet. Nanomachines wreaking havoc, called Grey Goo? Improbable but not impossible. Furthermore, since many decades the idea is propagated that we might live in a computer simulation, that we all are just players in a big video game.

Would a reminder of our own mortality be enough to appreciate every day of life, at least if it is free of pain, of badness, if we find joy in small things? Would this get more to the essence of what it means to be a human? If so, we dont need to look even far into the past to see the fragility of peace, to see how broken a world we live in.

Yet, it is my dream, my hope, that humanity can set its differences aside one day. Just like on the chessboard, so also in life we should always treat each other with respect and as equals. This is, of course, shadowed by allegations and dramas that arise from Toiletgate to other high-level cheating accusations, we might always see top players that dislike each other.

In the small world of chess composition, not all composers like each other, but there are few who actively dislike each other. Cheating is brought to a different level here, where computer assistance not only is allowed but welcome, but in solo composing tourneys the assistance of other people is not allowed. I know personally no case where such a rule ever was provably broken. More easy to prove, especially thanks to access to computer databases with many tens of thousands of endgame studies, hundreds of thousands of chess problems, is when a work is anticipated. If many works of a composer turn out to be anticipated, accusations of plagiarism arent far. However, in some cases accidental recompositions were proven, and even the best composers werent able to avoid those in the past.

Vladimir Korolkov, Lelo 1951. 1st prize.

White to move and win

1.f7 Ra6+ 2.Ba3! Rxa3+ 3.Kb2 Ra2+! 4.Kc1 Ra1+ 5.Kd2 leads to a position very similar to one from a Selman study (the only difference is that here no black pawn is on g4, leading to slightly different play where Kd2 walks straight to g5). Korolkov wasnt aware of the other study and had the same idea independently.

John Selman jr., Tijdschrift v. d. KNSB 1949, 1st prize.

White to move and win

1.Nf5 Re1+ 2.Kd2! Rxa1 3.f7 Ra2+ 4.Ke1! Ra1+ 5.Kf2 g3+ 6.Ke3! Ra3+ 7.Kf4 Ra4+ 8.Kg5 Rg4+ 9.Kh6 Rg8 10.Ne7! Be6 11.fxg8Q/R+ Bxg8 12.Ng6 mate

This is different from using another endgame study as a base for an own composition where the inspiration is either obvious or mentioned by the composer.

Karen Sumbatyan, Oleg Pervakov & Vladislav Tarasyuk. Internet, 14 March 2019.

White to move and win

1.Be4 f5! 2.Bxf5 d3 3.Bxd3 Rxd3 4.b6! axb6 and now a position from a 1956 study by Grzegorz Grzeban is reached, as readers will recognize what happens. 5.c7 Rd4+ 6.Kb5 Rd5+ 7.Kxb6 Rd6+ 8.Kb5 Rd5+ 9.Kb4 Rd4+ 10.Kb3 Rd3+ 11.Kc2 Rd4 12.c8R Ra4 13.Kb3 wins. Of course the 1895 study by Barbier & Saavedra was the inspiration. It is funny that Black gets rid of f5 to set up the stalemate trap but loses because he has a pawn on b6 (otherwise 5.-Kb2 would draw).

Great minds think alike, it is said. This hints at a deeper connection between all humans, possibly between all life, in which universally the essence of being the soul might be originating from a singular place or event. Monotheistic religious texts would call this origin a god. Indeed also near-death experiences often report that all souls are one, that the separation of souls is merely an illusion, as is time and even the entire material world. Philip K. Dick already told us in 1974, at a speech in Metz, that the entire universe in his opinion is just what wed describe today as a computer simulation. However, as we all tangentially or more are able to influence what happens in this simulation, it seems to Yours Truly that we should all strive to improve the conditions of living for everyone, that we should try to be the best people we can be. Chess compositions, no doubt, bring great joy in composing, solving, or just replaying. The modern internet shows us with many Youtube channels, articles, solving competitions such as those organized each year by ChessBase as well as ChessBase India, to name just the native ones here and other mass events that a great interest even among practical player exists to transcend the confines of the battle of wits between two opponents and instead enjoy the beauty of the artificial composition. Endgame studies not only often could arise from games but indeed in some cases already did, and also the other way around this holds true, when composers are inspired by practical play.

Vladimir Kramnik Viswanathan Anand, Bonn 2008, World Chess Championship game 5.

Black to move.

At the end of a combination, it seems that Black is lost. 33.-Rc1+ 34.Bf1 Nxh2 35.Kxh2 Rxf1 sees White with two dangerous queenside passed pawns. However, instead of resigning, Anand played 33.-Rc1+ 34.Bf1 Ne3!! 35.fxe3 fxe3 and Kramnik resigned.

Yochanan Afek, Schach 2008, 2nd prize (after Kramnik Anand, Bonn 2008).

White to move and win.

The fifth game of the World Chess Championship 2008 had an incredible ending, as seen above, which inspired Afek to distill its essence into an endgame study that offers a rich battle. Whereas after the equivalent to 1.Nd6! cxd6 2.cxd6 the game ended, the study just begins. This is left for readers to solve, or replay at the end of the article.

On the other hand, there are monumental constructions that clearly show artistic ideas unachievable in practical play, as their positions would require rather cooperative than competitive play.

David Gurgenidze. Lenin MT 1970, 4th prize.

White to move and win.

With 1.h8Q? Rg6+ 2.f6 Rxf6+ 3.Kd5 Rf5+ 4.e5 Rxe5+ 5.Kc4 Re4+ 6.d4 Rxd4+ 7.Kb3 Rd3+ 8.c3 Rxc3+ 9.Ka2 b3+ 10.Kxa3 b2+ 11.Ka2 b1Q+ 12.Kxb1 Rc1+ 13.Kxc1 Bxh8 a draw is reached. This shows why 1.Ra8+! wins: After the staircase maneuver that shows four Novotny sacrifices by White, i.e. sacrifices that interfere the lines of the bishop and rook, Black is unable to clear the diagonal with tempo when White hides his king: 1.-Kb7! 2.Rb8+! Kxb8 3.h8Q Rg6+ leads to 10.c3 Rxc3+ 11.Ka4!, winning.

Chess composers, just like also practical players, might stem from all kinds of backgrounds. There are rather mysterious figures (there are rumors about one Russian composer that he is rich, owning private helicopters, but nothing ever was confirmed to your author), there are people who love chess composition but rather collect than compose (Tim Krabb, as an example, is a world-renown expert for curiosities, but has composed to my knowledge only a few works). There are generous botanical experts (Alain C. White), Schutzstaffel members whose friendships with jews are notable (Ado Kramer & Erich Zepler), nephews of war heroes (Wichard von Alvensleben, whose uncle of the same name rescued high-ranking political figures and their families from certain death), victims of war (Kubbel brothers Evgeny & Leonid, Troitzky) and purge (Platov, Arvid Kubbel), and even one incredibly talented puzzle inventor (Sam Loyd). The entire human condition is collected in the world of chess composition.

Sam Loyd, Checkmate Novelty Tourney 1903, 1st prize.

Mate in 3

How can checkmate even be reached here in three moves? Obviously Black has two flights for his king, and White has all pieces participating in the attack already (except the king which is safe on f1). This puzzle is nearly impossible to solve, but rightfully is regarded as one of the most beautiful compositions in history. As such I dont want to take the opportunity away for potential solvers to experience it. Those who give up can see the solution at the end, but be warned that this solution is one you cant forget so you have only this one chance at solving.

Obviously, the human condition also includes the ability to appreciate art. Many years ago, I read that a computer is unable to solve any chess problem in that sense. To elaborate on this: Certainly, it might be able to show you the lines that lead to the checkmate, if properly programmed it also can tell you the themes of the problem, but it will not be able to understand the context, the achievement of the composer, the significance of the variations of the chess problem or the aesthetical consideration of the endgame study.

Mark S. Liburkin, 64 1940.

White to move and win.

Life at its core can be seen as a challenge, a struggle, a battle. The same holds true for a game of chess, but in life our opponent might be the circumstances we were born in, the search for meaning, or even our own body or psyche that prevents us from achieving greater things. Spiritual knowledge would teach that life is worth living as an experience, with the goal of becoming a beacon of unconditional love. Religious texts would teach that life is just one important step to go to some higher plane a heaven or paradise. Materialism believes that life is strictly physical, there is nothing after death. There is however one fundamental truth in all of those beliefs: Time will not rewind. But is that really true?

The insinuation that time travel is possible is based on anecdotal evidence, in which however usually the people who claim to have traveled through time were unable to recognize such at the moment and only realized it later. One well documented case is that of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe who once met his older self (or his younger self, when he was older) during a journey. This is sometimes construed to be a doppelganger phenomenon, but by how the story unfolds, it more seems like a time travel occurrence. This story, set near Sesenheim in 1771/1779 and emotionally connected to Goethes girlfriend, is told by the great poet himself in his autobiography Aus meinem Leben. Dichtung und Wahrheit. However, Goethe himself mentioned that this book series is in parts fictional, so it is unclear if this encounter really happened or was just thought up for that manuscript.

The Mandela Effect is another interesting phenomenon that purports the possibility that past events are changed. Many of its supposed phenomena can be explained by faulty memories or mishearings, or in the case of Forrest Gumps chocolates talk also with a pre-release trailer. Was Mandelas death in prison reported by the people who put him there, hoping that his movement would collapse, and then widely picked up by newspapers, while him being still alive remained only a footnote, leading to the nomer of the effect? Or did he really die in prison, but was alive later as if that never happened? Most people in Eurasia and America wont have followed in detail what happened when in South Africa, but what do people remember who actually lived there? Was there any timeline you remember where Mandela was not your first President in the 1990s?

However, some mysteries cant be as easily explained, especially the Thinker statue.

William Langstaff. Chess Amateur 1922.

Mate in 2

I saw this problem first when it was discussed by Tim Krabb in his book about chess curiosities. What was the last move of Black? If he moved king or rook last, then 1.Ke6 checkmates in two moves. But if he moved the g-pawn last, that pawn can only have come from g7, so 1.hxg6 e.p. is the correct solution. Tim Krabb remarked that depending on what White moves, Black can claim either. So the en passant would be illegal, but after 1.Ke6 Black can also castle kingside 1.-0-0.

The Codex for Chess Composition has adapted various rules for retrograde analysis (see its article 16), one of which (partial retrograde analysis) resolved this issue by saying that both are partial solutions, depending on what Black played last. The uncertainty is resolved prior to and not after the key, but for each possible last move a solution must exist. As such, there is one solution, but it consists of two parts.

The uncertainty principle should not apply to chess puzzles. But the problem above shows that missing knowledge of the past can have a profound influence about the present. In a world where supposedly all the information we need is just a few clicks and keys away, psychological studies have been made to show that the reliance on search engines leads to a decline in the ability to memorize things. In addition, information is not always complete or widely available. Without resorting to illegal activities or physical media, most movies are only accessible in the deep web (not to be confused with the darknet, the deep web simply is the part of the internet that is not available to the public). Usually youll have to sign up to a subscription service with a monthly fee to watch them, or buy them from a digital storefront (which means that they can be taken away due to licensing reasons later). Many videoclips that relate to the Mandela Effect however are posted on public video sites under the fair use right. As such, you can easily verify that Darth Vader says No instead of Luke when revealing his connection to the hero. As a meme nearly half a century ago, it would have made sense to say Luke instead when quoting the sentence in a conversation, as this adds the necessary context to identify it being a Star Wars scene (and while were at confusing names, of course Star Wars also was one of the names for the Strategic Defense Initiative).

Fears about AI, the Mandela Effect, life itself show one thing: Nothing is certain. The future is not, the past also may not be. But in a world where nothing is certain, it is just even more important that we really are ourselves, that we try to be the best people we are, and that we try to enjoy life to the fullest.

For over two hundred million years, the dinosaurs reigned supreme on this planet. Then on what now is the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico, a piece of rock hit the Earth. An eon ended in the blink of an eye (provided that dinosaurs blinked). We humans long for security, stability, the knowledge that even the darkest night will be perforated by the morning sun. Let me end this paragraph with another quote from The Outer Limits, one that might be fitting: Life is, at best, an uncertain path. Perhaps, we should be grateful with what we have, for even these riches may disappear along the way.

Martin van Essen, Alexander Wohl & Yochanan Afek. Avni JT 2005, 1st prize.

White to move and win.

In an e-mail, Yochanan Afek confirmed that the co-author is the Australian International Master (for practical play) Alexander Wohl. The study has what in expert terms is called flow, this means it plays out smoothly. Here indeed the riches disappear along the way can you figure out how, or do you have to replay the solution?

Are we humans unique in our ability to create art? Are the other civilizations in the universe that might have similar forms of puzzles like we have in chess? For the European, the American, the Asian, the African, and maybe even for those who arent from our planet, the beauty of chess is an universal language. It is one thing that connects us, one thing that can bring us joy, awe, and ultimately make us want to share our experience with others, showing us that we all enjoy something unexpected but beautiful. Taking the words of another German poet, Friedrich von Schiller: The human only fully Is human when he plays.

But doesnt that apply also to a chess engine then? Well, it might calculate a move, play it, but it wont feel an emotional reaction to it. And maybe that is really what it means to be human, it might not be something we can explain in words, but something we deeply feel.

To be human is to feel chess.

PS: Reading a draft of this article, Andrew Buchanan, a retro composer and one of the three editors of The Hopper, a free problem chess magazine (when you read this article, their fifth issue with some joke problems should be published), mentioned the work of Sir Roger Penrose (the English Nobel Prize winning physicist) who showed positions such as the following one on his talks about AI.

White to move.

Humans easily evaluate this as a draw.

Yours Truly uses Deep Fritz 11, which would also draw this position, evaluating it at -28.13 pawn units but never capturing on a4 or b5 as that would lower the evaluation to a forced checkmate. The point made by Penrose is in that evaluation, as a human immediately would evaluate it as 0.00 pawn units. Of more interest is another Penrose position:

White to move.

Humans see 1.Bb4 immediately, engines want to play 1.Bxa5. It would be interesting to test this with modern engines with neural networks and Monte Carlo algorithms. It does not take long to evaluate 1.Bxa5 b4 as lost, but how long does it take to evaluate 1.Bb4 as a draw?

Roger Penroses love for chess might be rooted in his family: Jonathan Penrose, the brother of Roger, was a British chess grandmaster. His father Lionel Penrose, among numerous other achievements, was a chess theorist and study composer.

Lionel Penrose, 1234 (Dover edition) 1938.

White to move and win.

The solution is short but sweet so should pose no issues to the readers.

(Note: Many of the compositions in this article have been shown in this series before. However, your author considers them as among the most interesting chess compositions, and as such worth of being shown again in this end of the year special.)

The rest is here:
Study of the Month: To be human is? - ChessBase