The Professionals

2 Replies

What does the title of this post mean to you?

  • A crime-action TV series broadcast in the UK from 1977 to 1983 and featuring Cowley, Doyle and Bodie from the unit CI5
  • the sort of people who do bad things without getting emotional, such as Bond villains like Dr Kaufman in Tomorrow Never Dies (1997), “I’m just a professional doing a job”
  • trained, skilled and experienced members of a set of respected occupations including doctors and lawyers
  • members of a chess team who get paid to play chess.

Yes, today’s correct answer is the last of these. We turn the spotlight on professional chess players in English chess, or more precisely in the London League. But first, some context. Arguably the strongest national chess league in the world is the German Bundesliga, founded in 1980 and home to many of the world’s top players. The nearest domestic equivalent is the 4 Nations Chess League (4NCL), founded in 1993. This is the UK’s premier chess league competition. Many of its teams are sponsored, enabling them to bring in top players. This is expected, and no one gets worked up about it. Professionals have to make a living somehow and being paid to play for a team in a league is just one more source of income.

The London League was the strongest league in the UK before the advent of the 4NCL and remains its strongest amateur league. This happened naturally. England’s capital city is the most populated in the UK and has the largest concentration of chess players of all abilities. Most of these don’t – or can’t – make money from chess and play for enjoyment.

Then along came Wood Green. This is a chess team composed almost entirely of professionals and managed by the controversial Brian Smith, formerly Secretary of the League. Although some professionals turn out for other clubs, Wood Green are the only team that could be described as a professional team. They have won the League title for as long as anyone can remember.

A look at the latest Division 1 league table for 2022/23 makes the point. This is up to date as of today. 11 teams have between them played 39 matches out of a total of 55.

[ninja_tables id=”233″]

Wood Green are the only team to have won all their matches. They stand out as consistently higher-rated on average, at around 2400 each match. Most of the other teams are in the range 2000 to 2200. The lanterne rouge goes to Imperial College, rated just under 1800 and already certain to be relegated. The overall average is 2079.

It’s interesting to note the narrow rating range of only 24 points across 7 matches for Wood Green – much lower than for any other team. This arises from a core squad (see table below for more details) where a small number of players turn out for most matches. To be exact, 7 players out of a squad of 14 have each played in at least 5 out of 7 matches. You would expect this from a paid team. If turning out for the team is a source of income, you would naturally prioritise that over other non-paid chessplaying opportunities.

[ninja_tables id=”236″]

The presence of one professional team in a league of amateur teams has both positive and negative points. On the positive side, the professional team is a benchmark for others to aim at. Matches against Wood Green provide an opportunity to play a GM or an IM, which is a valuable experience in itself. As long as you leave your ego out of the equation, losing (which usually happens) is manageable and you can learn a lot from the way the strongest players approach the game.

Against that, the league is not as competitive as it might be, because one team always wins and everyone else is playing for second place. This devalues the status of champions. Is a title worth having if you can buy it for money? And it’s easy to say how players / teams on the outside can resent the one team with the most resources. Compare the Premier League in English football. Many people resent Manchester City, unquestionably the strongest team of the past decade, because their financial resources have enabled them to buy many of the world’s best players. It’s not a level playing-field.

Finally, a note on payment. I don’t have any inside knowledge of the financial arrangements in operation at Wood Green. About 15 years ago, the going rate for a GM or IM in the London League was £100 a match plus expenses. That may have gone up since then with inflation. I’m assuming that what is now paid is still a flat rate rather than relating to performance. In some sports you get a bonus if you win rather than draw or lose. But in the London League, most Wood Green players win most of their games, so this is normal. I imagine the manager is prepared to take the occasional hit as long as the team gets the result – as it always does.

Death by correspondence

Leave a Reply

Over the board, if you choose a dubious opening, you may score a quick win but against a well-prepared opponent you will end up in a bad or losing position more often than not. That’s the value of mainline openings: they are sound at all levels, and if you know some theory and the general plans and where your pieces and pawns should go, you will reach a decent middlegame where you can start to play chess. And that’s all you can ask from an opening.

In high-level correspondence chess, where the moves are backed by engine analysis, it’s a different matter. The top engines operate at the 3500 rating level. In so far as you can ascribe emotional states to a machine, they are ruthless: they will exploit any mistake, no matter how small.

So I have discovered, to my initial surprise, that some mainline openings are no longer playable in correspondence chess. Let me give two examples with illustrations from games played by Rodney Barking.

The King’s Indian Defence

Since February 2022 Barking has started 218 correspondence games. 173 are finished and 45 are ongoing. Of the finished games, Barking has won 57, drawn 111, and lost only 5. Of the losses, 2 were down to carelessness: Barking played out a linear conditional sequence but got the moves in the wrong order at the point of implementation and lost material. This will not happen again.

The other 3 losses, where Barking was simply outplayed over the board, were all on the Black side of the King’s Indian Defence. Despite relying on the magisterial 2-volume set King’s Indian 1 and King’s Indian 2 by GM Gawain Jones (published 2022), Barking was simply pushed off the board. In this opening Black concedes a significant space advantage. As the engines show, White’s best strategy is to concentrate his forces on the kingside and neutralise Black’s initiative, before gradually expanding all over the board. Computers have become very good indeed at exploiting a space advantage. Barking also relied on engine analysis, but did not always follow its recommendations where the engine departed from Jones’s ideas, and this did not work out well. I am not saying anything against Jones, who is possibly the world’s leading expert on the King’s Indian Defence, and whose books were surely checked with the best-available engines at the time.

White: Michael Moyses (1800), Black: Rodney Barking (1800), ICCF 2022
E94: King’s Indian, Classical Variation
Online game – https://lichess.org/QyQdEy2c
1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.e4 d6 4.d4 Bg7 5.Be2 0-0 6.Nf3 Nbd7
This is Gawain Jones’s trademark and he analyses it in detail in his book. Of course the main line is 6…e5 followed by 7…Nc6 and Jones analyses that in much greater detail. I’m not ascribing the loss to the 6…Nbd7 line despite losing with it in another game as well. The third game I lost was in the 6…e5 main line.
7.0-0 e5 8.Be3 Qe7 9.Qc2 c6 10.d5 c5
The plan endorsed by Jones is to close the centre, slowing down White’s queenside play, and to prepare kingside expansion with …f5. Often Black will play …Ng8 and …Bh6 to exchange the bad bishop.

11.Kh1
Jones considers a range of 11th moves for White, but this is not one of them. It’s the prelude to a kingside build-up by White. Alarmingly, the engines already evaluate White’s advantage as over +1.00 for several different 11th moves.
11…Kh8 12.Rae1 Ng8 13.g4 Ndf6 14.h3 h6 15.Qc1 Nh7 16.Rg1 Bd7 17.Rg2 a6 18.a4 f5 19.gxf5 gxf5 20.exf5 Bxf5 21.Reg1 Rf7 22.Nd2 Ngf6 23.Qd1 Bxh3 24.Rh2 Qd7 25.Bh5 Rff8 26.Qf3 Bf5 27.Rhg2 Rg8 28.Bf7 e4 29.Qf4 Bh3 30.Rg3 Qxf7 31.Rxh3 Qd7 32.Rgg3 Raf8 33.Qh4 Qf5 34.Ncxe4 Nxe4 35.Qxe4 Be5 36.Rxg8+ Kxg8 37.Rxh6
Over the course of the game, White has steadily increased the pressure on the kingside and has now won a pawn. His advantage is now around +2.00. Black’s king is also very exposed. I give the remaining moves although the game is effectively over as a contest.

37…Qxe4+ 38.Nxe4 Nf6 39.Nxf6+ Bxf6 40.Kg2 Kg7 41.Rh3 Kg6 42.b3 Kf5 43.Kf3 Bg5 44.Bxg5 Kxg5+ 45.Ke3 Rb8 46.Rh7 b5 47.Rd7 bxc4 48.bxc4 Kf5 49.Rxd6 1–0

The Sicilian Najdorf 6.Bg5

This is one of the most exciting and heavily-analysed of all opening variations. Fischer chose it as Black and defended the Poisoned Pawn line where Black snaffles the White b-pawn and aims to weather the storm in potentially quite irrational positions. In practical play, Black often declines the pawn in favour of completing development, and a complex position arises with chances for both sides. The variation as a whole is fully-playable both over the board and in correspondence chess. However, what used to be the main line – a Black option at move 13 – is now regarded as a serious error. Watch and learn.

White: Rodney Barking (2000), Black: Luis A. T. Frazão Ferreira (1668), ICCF 2022
B99: Sicilian Najdorf, 7…Be7 main line
Online game – https://lichess.org/FRZOtJZX
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7
7…Qb6 leads to the Poisoned Pawn variation. Because it is so theoretical, it tends not to be seen as a practical choice in over the board chess, and not many opening books analyse it for Black. One exception is The Sharpest Sicilian by Georgiev and Kolev, but that dates from 2012 which is a lifetime ago in the theory of this opening. Nor are there any Chessable courses on the Black side of this variation. In contrast, 7…Be7 is well-covered from the Black side, both in Playing the Najdorf: A Practical Repertoire by David Vigorito (2019), and on Chessable in Lifetime Repertoires: Giri’s Najdorf Sicilian by GM Anish Giri (2020).
8.Qf3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.g4 b5 11.Bxf6 Nxf6 12.g5 Nd7 13.f5

Black has a major choice here. Currently the best is thought to be 13…0-0! when Black seems to be castling into a kingside attack, but theory suggests that Black can successfully defend these positions.
13…Nc5?
The question mark may seem to be audacious for what was the main line of this variation until relatively recently. Vigorito considers it briefly and dismisses it in these words: “The big theoretical main line used to be 13…Nc5 but this never appealed to me in view of: 14.f6 gxf6 15.gxf6 Bf8 16.Rg1. The ensuing variations can be quite irrational and Black’s king is always in danger, with Rg7 and various knight sacrifices in the air. Maybe in a correspondence game Black can hold his own, but over the board it looks too scary. One recent example went 16…h5 17.a3 Rb8 18.Re1 Nd7 19.Nxe6! with a winning attack for White in Vallejo Pons–Wynn, Bangkok 2016. No thank you.”

Well that was 2019. Roll on 2021 and the 2-volume set The Najdorf Bg5 Revisited by Lukasz Jarmula. This is the most detailed and up-to-date coverage of the Bg5 Sicilian from White’s point of view. His assessment is even more stark: “This is the old main line, which has been pretty much refuted in correspondence practice.” He demonstrates this in 8 pages of detailed analysis backed up by recent games, concluding that the line “…has been simply refuted by modern engines. The whole line is unplayable unless as a provocation in a rapid or blitz game against an unprepared opponent.”
14.f6 gxf6 15.gxf6 Bf8 16.Rg1 Bd7
I have also faced 16…h5 in a more recent correspondence game which is still ongoing. We are only at move 20. The engine evaluation in that game is +1.60 and I am already winning.
17.Rg7 Bxg7 18.fxg7 Rg8 19.e5 0-0-0 20.exd6 Qb6 21.a4

White has sacrificed the exchange for an irresistible attack. 21.a4 opens up the queenside. The evaluation is now +2.50 and the game is effectively over.
21…Qb7 22.Qh5 f5 23.axb5 axb5 24.Bxb5 Rxg7 25.Qe2 Qb6 26.b4 Ne4 27.Qc4+ Kb8 28.Bxd7 Rdxd7 29.Nc6+ Kb7 30.Na5+ Kb8
Although Black has a slight material advantage, his king is completely exposed and is no match for the marauding White pieces.
31.Nxe4 fxe4 32.Qxe6 h5 33.Qd5 e3 34.Nc6+ Kb7 35.Ne7+ Kb8 36.Rf1 Rxd6 37.Rf8+ Kc7 38.Qc4+ Rc6 39.Rc8+ Kd7 40.Rxc6 Qa7 41.Qe6+ 1–0
It’s mate next move although Black could have resigned a long time ago.


Incremental time controls

Leave a Reply

Rodney Barking brings you further original research on the playing rules of league chess in England. This time the subject is incremental time controls. This arose from an internal consideration of a potential attempt (not by the league committee) to amend the rules of the London League. Currently the rules stipulate a time control of 75 minutes for the game plus a 15-second increment from the start.

The main issue is whether the basic game time should be shortened, and the increment lengthened to 30 seconds a move. The point of the 30-second increment is to provide more thinking time in the later stages and to ensure that all moves are recorded throughout the game. The drawback is that reducing the basic game time may impair the quality of the chess played in the earlier stages.

Bear in mind the maths underlying the different ratios. In considering the effect of increments on the length of the playing session, the chess authorities assume that a game will last typically 60 moves. So a 15-second increment adds 1 minute for every 4 moves, whereas a 30-second increment adds 1 minute for every 2 moves. If the game lasts exactly 60 moves and both players use all the available time (without actually losing on time), then both G75 + 15s and G60 + 30s will result in a total playing session of exactly 3 hours.

There are 86 standardplay leagues in England (excluding online and junior leagues). Information on the playing rules is available online for 63 of these leagues. Of these, 52 provide for an incremental time control (either mandatory or the default option or simply an option) and 11 do not.

Almost all leagues with an incremental time control are based on a single session of play (49 out of 52). In these cases, this is the frequency of the different incremental controls (in ascending order of length).
G60 + 30s – 5
G65 + 30s – 1
G70 + 10s – 1
G70 + 15s – 2
G75 + 10s – 8
G75 + 15s – 6
G80 + 10s – 20
G80 + 15s – 2
G85 + 10s – 2
G110 + 10s – 1
G135 + 15s – 1.

The last two of these stand out from the rest, but they are afternoon leagues where more time is available.

In three leagues, the rules provide for two sessions of play. The first session is a set number of moves in a set time (eg 30 moves in 70 minutes). The second session is a guillotine with all remaining moves in a set time (eg all moves in a further 10 minutes). In all cases the increment applies from the start of the game.
G30/70 + all/10 + 10s – 1 (Coventry & District)
G35/70 + all/10 + 10s – 1 (Bedfordshire)
G40/100 + all/50 + 30s – 1 (4NCL).

There are some particular points I want to make about these results.

Although the most common time control is G80 + 10s, in one case known to Barking the relevant league moved from this to G75 + 15s and not the other way round. This was the Central London League, which made the change about 10 years ago. The league’s decision-makers agreed that the extra thinking time provided by an increment of 15 seconds rather than 10 seconds was more important than the reduction of the basic game time from 80 minutes to 75 minutes.

They may have been influenced by the early starting time in the Central London League (6.30pm). Late finishing was less of an issue. In contrast, the Surrey Border League rejected the same proposal (to move from G80 + 10s to G75 + 15s) at its AGM in 2022. Games in this league start an hour later, at 7.30pm, and the potentially-extended finishing time would have run up against venue closing time constraints in some cases.

The session length at the two London League central venues is limited to 3 hours and 30 minutes. This applies whatever time control is used. So although it is the case that a longer increment will prolong the game where more than 60 moves are played, that is not an argument against the longer increment, at the central venues at least. Barking knows of only one case where the game was not finished on the night. 

Finally, going all the way to G60 + 30s, in other words reducing the basic game time to 60 minutes, would have a direct implication for the default time allowed. As Barking has argued elsewhere, a league the size of London with regular transport problems requires a generous default time of 45 or 60 minutes and this is not easily accommodated within a basic 60-minute game time.

Useful acronyms 1: CEM

1 Reply

The start of a short series in which we examine useful pieces of chess advice that could make your experience at the board less disastrous than it might otherwise be. For some reason the authors of such advice tend to convert it to an acronym. Maybe they think this makes it easier or remember, or else they mean something uncomplimentary about their readers’ attention span.

Today, CEM, which is short for Check Every Move. This advice features in the excellent book The Survival Guide to Competitive Chess by John Emms (Everyman Chess, 2007). The aim is to avoid the type of blunder or mistake where you have a line in mind but you overlook a good move for your opponent. Emms says that when you have worked out what you want to play, you should methodically examine the position and consider every legal move your opponent can make. In doing so you are bound to visualise the position on the board after each move and you are more likely to spot any obvious problem with your intended line. It’s not about calculation since this kind of problem almost always arises on the very first move.

Now this procedure does add to the thinking time (although many of your opponent’s potential moves can be dismissed very quickly). So Emms does not advise doing this on every move, but only where you reach a critical position and it matters that you get it right.

Here are two examples from recent games where I did not follow this procedure and only spotted a problem after making my move. In the first case I was fortunate that my opponent did not find the right continuation.

White: Rodney Barking (2073), Black: Joshua Blinkhorn (1934). London League 2023.
C82: Ruy Lopez, Open Variation.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.c3 Bc5 10.Qe2 0-0 11.Be3 Qe7 12.Rd1 Rad8

This is a fairly typical position for the Open Variation. I chose 10.Qe2 to prevent Black sacrificing his knight on f2 then opening the f-file with …f6 (the Dilworth Attack). With correct play White is better but it can be complicated and I couldn’t remember all the theory as I don’t often face the Open. Then after Qe2, I was able to play Be3 and neutralise Black’s dark-square bishop.

Black’s last move, 12…Rad8, reinforces the centre but leaves his queenside unprotected. In this case the standard (and in principle best) White plan is to attack on the queenside by pushing a4. I looked at various Black attempts to hold the queenside together. 13…bxa4 14.Bxa4 is better for White, and 13…Rab8 14.Bxd5 wins a pawn. 13…b4 didn’t look problematic either (although the computer later identified this as Black’s second-best option in this position). So without checking anything else, I continued:
13.a4??
Can you see what’s wrong with this move? I could – but only after I’d played it on the board. Black has the massively-strong continuation 13…d4! with a double attack on the bishop on b3 and the bishop on e3. I can’t avoid losing material. For example 14.Rxd4 Bxd4 15.Bxd4 Bxb3 16.Qxe4 Bd5, or 14.cxd4 Bxb3 15.Rc1 Nxd4 and in both cases I can resign. If I had applied the CEM technique I would have considered all Black’s possible replies, dismissing most of them, but identifying 13…d4! as fatal to my plans. You only have to notice the move to see this instantly. Instead of 13.a4?? I would have played 13.Nbd2 retaining a definite pull.

As it happens my opponent didn’t find the killer move. The game continued 13…Na5 14.Bxc5 Qxc5 15.Bc2 and I went on to win.

You would think I learned a lesson from this, but in fact the next example is from a game that I played only two days later.

White: Chris James (1996), Black: Rodney Barking (2073). Sligo 2023.
A36: English, Symmetrical Variation.
1.e4 c5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 g6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 e6 6.Nge2 Nge7 7.0-0 0-0 8.a3 b6 9.Rb1 Bb7 10.b4 d6 11.d3 Qd7 12.b5 Nd4 13.Nxd4 Bxd4 14.Ne2 Bg7 15.Bb2 Bxb2 16.Rxb2 d5 17.Rd2 Rad8 18.Qa4 dxe4 19.Qxa7

White’s 1.e4 turned out to be an Anti-Sicilian, converting after 1…c5 2.c4 to an English Opening, Botvinnik Variation. This must be recommended in some opening book. The Botvinnik Variation is White’s most popular choice if you’re new to the English as it’s easy to learn (with a standard piece deployment) and it’s effective against one of Black’s most common responses to the English, which is a King’s Indian formation. There are several good ways of responding to the Botvinnik Variation. In this game I chose the Symmetrical Variation with 1…c5 and a later …e6, which Fischer used to play, and which was recommended by GM Victor Bologan in a DVD with a Black repertoire against the English some years ago. I was happy with the position I got from the opening as Black has active development and no obvious problems.

Perhaps recognising this, my opponent decided to go in for complications with 18.Qa4, since I was threatening to win a pawn by capturing on c4 or e4, and preventing this by capturing on d5 himself is nothing for White. After 18…dxe4 19.Qxa7 we reach the diagram position. Now the best continuation for Black is 19…exd3, when the tactics work out well for Black after either:
(1) 20.Bxb7 Nc8 21.Qa6 dxe2 22.Rxe2 Nd6 23.Bc6 Qc7, or in this line 22.Rxd7 Rxd7 23.Re1 Rd1 24.f3 Rxe1+ 25.Kf2 Ra1, or else
(2) 20.Qxb7 Qxb7 21.Bxb7 dxe2 22.Rxe2 Nf5.

Note that in the diagram position, even if Black makes a quiet move such as 19…Nf5, White can’t take on e4 because the d3 pawn is pinned, e.g. 20.Bxe4 Bxe4 21.Qxd7 Rxd7, exploiting the undefended White rook on d2. The problem with quiet moves is that White is threatening to win a pawn with Qxb6. I can defend it with 19…Nc8, but after 20.Qa4 exd3 21.Rfd1 this time the pin on the d3 pawn (which is now a Black pawn) works against me. Then 21…dxe2 22.Rxd7 Rxd7 23.Re1, or 21…Bxg2 22.Rxd3 Qxd3 23.Rxd3 Rxd3 24.Kxg2, are both quite good for Black but you feel White has rather got away with it.

You can see what’s coming next. If only I could defend the pawn on b6, and also remove my queen from the potential pin on the d-file, I would not only be threatening to take on d3, but also to win White’s queen with …Ra8. So without really considering what White might do about this, I played 19…Qc7?

As soon as I had played this move, I saw that White could capture on e4 with the bishop and win a pawn. Yes, his d3-pawn is still pinned because the rook on d2 remains undefended, but more importantly my queen on c7 is no longer defended by the rook on d8, so my bishop on b7 is pinned and I can’t recapture on e4. Again if I had applied the CEM technique when considering 19…Qc7, I would have thought about 20.Bxe4 (among all the other moves White might play, all of which lose for White) and I would instantly have seen the problem.

The game continued 20.Bxe4 Rd7? (one bad move leads to another: instead the problem-like 20…Nd5! 21.Qa4 Ne3! 22.fxe3 Bxe4 is fine for Black) and now 21.Qxb7 Qxb7 22.Bxb7 Rxb7 23.Ra1 would have cemented the extra pawn. However, White played the inferior 21.Nc3? and after 21.Qe5 22.Bxb7 Qxc3, I went on to win.

Since these games I have been trying to apply the CEM technique in my games and in most cases it has helped me to avoid some obvious errors that I might otherwise have made.

Winning with the English 1

Leave a Reply

Rodney Barking has recently moved across to 1.c4 as his main opening as White. The English used to have a reputation for being a boring positional opening until players discovered its potential as an attacking kingside opening. Also it is less heavily analysed than 1.e4 or 1.d4 so you are more likely to reach original positions.

Rodney has been very successful with the English so this is the start of a new series showcasing his games. You can play through the unannotated game on Lichess online, or alternatively set up the board and follow the game and annotations in the old-fashioned way.

Rodney Barking (2070) – Ewan Wilson (2142)
Surrey Border League, 16 March 2023
A13: English Opening
In the Surrey Border League, public transport is scarce and you have to make most journeys by car. That’s OK when the venue is within about 10 miles of your home club (Guildford in my case). However, this match was away against Reading A which is an hour’s drive on a good day so the travel is much more of an effort.
1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5
There are many ways to play against the English. Black chooses a solid Queen’s Gambit Declined setup. I already knew this would happen. You can’t normally predict your opponent in league matches but Ewan Wilson is their strongest player and has been playing board 1 all season. Also the Border League rules gave me White as the away player on top board. So I spent an hour before the match checking the theory and recommended lines in the Anti-QGD English. For this I used the Chessable course “Lifetime Repertoires: 1.c4 / 1. Nf3 – Part 2” by IM Christof Sielicki. I was not so interested in the exact move order as the plans for both sides, which he explains very clearly.
4.e3 Be7 5.b3 O-O 6.Bb2 b6
The basic idea of this variation is to delay playing d4 until absolutely necessary (otherwise you would have the QGD proper which is a different opening). Instead White relies on controlling the centre from afar in hypermodern style. The main issue is at what point White should clarify the centre with cxd5. Sielicki explains that the right time is when Black has committed to a particular pawn structure with …b6 or …c5. In these cases the exchange on d5 will eventually leave Black with either an isolated d-pawn or hanging pawns on c5 and d5. In contrast, Sielicki explains that White should not exchange on d5 if black has played …c6, because after recapturing with the e-pawn Black would have a solid pawn chain on b7-c6-d5 with no weaknesses.
7.cxd5 exd5 8.d4 c5
8…Bb7 is theory. After 8…c5, either White can inflict hanging pawns by capturing on c5, or Black will close the centre with …c4 and leave White a free hand on the kingside.
9.Bd3
This is slightly inaccurate since Black could now play …Nc6 with pressure on d4 and could also hassle the bishop on d3 with …Nb4. Instead Sielicki recommends 9.Rc1. However, my opponent didn’t take advantage. I suspect his chosen system involved playing …Bb7 and …Nbd7, and he didn’t see a need to deviate from that.
9…Bb7 10.O-O Nbd7 11.Rc1 Bd6 12.Ne2
This is a key idea that I picked up from Sielicki’s course. The knight transfers to the kingside with the manoeuvre Ne2-g3-f5 where it takes up an attacking position.
12…Re8 13.Ng3 Rc8 14.Nf5 Bb8
I can see why he played this as he wants to follow up with …Qc7 and his own kingside attack. But 15…Bf8 defending was safer.
15.Bb1 c4
This is one of the turning points in the game. Black’s plan is now to create a protected passed pawn on the queenside. He must have decided that my kingside pressure was not a threat.
16.Ba3
The idea was to exploit the dark squares with Nd6 gaining the bishop pair. Black’s only way to prevent this is with …Nf8, but then Ne5 and the attack builds. Ne7+ winning the exchange is a secondary theme. However, Stockfish prefers to clarify matters in the centre with 16.bxc4 dxc4 17.Ne5 Nxe5 18.dxe5 Bxe5 19.Bxe5 Rxe5 20.Rxc4 Rd5 21.Rxc8 Bxc8 22.Nd4.
16…b5 17.Nd6 Bxd6 18.Bxd6 a5
Continuing with the queenside plan as my attack is a slow burner.
19.Bf4
The bishop has no future on the queenside. From f4 it controls the h2-b8 diagonal (this becomes important much later in the game) and prepares Ne5.
19…b4 20.Ne5 Nxe5 21.dxe5 Nd7
Now unless I do something Black will follow up with …c3, …Nc5 and …Ba6. But Black’s pieces are temporarily uncoordinated and this gives me the chance to clarify the centre and develop the attack.
22.bxc4 dxc4 23.Bf5 Nc5
Black is more or less forced to give up the exchange in this way:
A: 23…Rc7? 24.e6 wins for White.
B: 23…Re7 24.Bg5 f6 25.exf6 gxf6 26.Bh6 leaves the black king exposed.
C: 23…Nxe5 24.Bxc8 Qxc8 25.Bxe5 Rxe5 26.Rxc4 is also very good for White.
24.Bxc8 Qxc8 25.Rxc4
And now I decided to return the exchange for a pawn, otherwise black plays …Ba6 and …Nd3 with counterplay and the queenside pawns could become dangerous.
25…Ba6?
This is the obvious move, skewering the rooks, and he played it quickly, but actually it’s a blunder since I could create a lasting pin on the c-file and win the knight on c5. However, it’s not easy to see how this is done, and in fact I didn’t see it during the game.
26.Qc2?
Stockfish points out the correct manoeuvre: 26.Rc1 Bxf1 27.Qxf1 Qc6 28.Qc4 Rc8 29.e6 fxe6 30.Be5 with Bd4 to follow.
26…Bxc4 27.Qxc4 Ne6 28.Rc1
I’m a pawn up, but Black has compensation and my back rank is vulnerable. The safest course was to gain time by attacking the a5 pawn and create a bolthole for the king: 28.Qb5 Qa8 29.h4. I considered Qb5 but decided to take queens off and go for the ending with rook and bishop against rook and knight.
28…Qxc4 29.Rxc4 g5
The attack on the bishop gains a tempo and ensures Black won’t get mated on the back rank, so freeing his rook for active play.
30.Bg3 Rd8
The mate threat wins the pawn on a2, creating two connected passed pawns on the queenside for Black. However, I get to activate my king and push my pawns on the kingside. The race is about to start…
31.f4 Rd1+ 32.Kf2 Rd2+ 33.Kf3 Rxa2 34.f5 Nf8??
This natural move loses. My opponent played it very quickly. Instead Stockfish points out that Black can reach a drawn rook and pawn ending by pushing the b-pawn and sacrificing the knight: 34…b3 35.Rc8+ Kg7 36.fxe6 fxe6 37.Rb8 b2 38.Rb7+ Kg6 39.Rb6 Kf7 40.Be1 (there’s nothing better) 40…Ra1 41.Rxb2 Rxe1 42.Ra2 h5 43.Rxa5 is +0.00.
35.Rc8
Now e6 and Bd6 winning the knight is a real threat.
35…Kg7 36.f6+ Kg6
This allows me to win material and chase Black’s king around. Instead 36…Kg8 37.e6 fxe6 38.Bd6 Kf7 39.Rxf8+ Kg6 wins for White.
37.Rxf8 b3 38.Rg8+ Kf5
38…Kh5 39.e6 b2 40.Rb8 is no good as White queens and stops Black queening.
39.e4+ Ke6 40.Re8+?!
I had seen all this and played it automatically intending to follow up with Re7+ and a strong attack. However, if I’d stopped for a moment, I would surely have found the better continuation 40.Rd8 forcing immediate resignation as Black can’t prevent mate on d6.
40…Kd7 41.Re7+ Kc6
His only hope is to run to the queenside and try to stop my rook coming to the b-file where it would control the queening square.
42.e6 b2 43.Rc7+ Kb6 44.Rc8!
The position is now so sharp that this is the only winning move. Everything else loses for White. If Black queens first then White is in big trouble. After Rc8, Black can’t queen on b1 because the x-ray move Rb8+ picks up the queen for nothing.
44…Ka7 45.Rb8 Ra3+ 46.Kf2
Alternatively 46.Kg4 Rxg3+ 47.hxg3 Kxb8 48.exf7 b1=Q 49.f8=Q+ and white will win because the queen can support the promotion of the advanced pawn on f6.
46…Ra2 47.Ke1! fxe6
My last move allowed black to queen with check, winning the rook, but… 47…Ra1+ 48.Ke2 b1=Q 49.Rxb1 Rxb1 50.exf7 and crucially black can’t get back to stop the f7 pawn from queening because the bishop on g3 guards the b8 square.
48.f7 Ra1+ 49.Ke2!
Better than 49.Kd2 Rf1 50.Rxb2 Rxf7 although white will still win this eventually. Black has nothing left in the locker and so he resigned.
1-0

It’s time to get jingoistic in the words of an old song:
“The English the English the English is best /
So up with the English and down with the rest!”

Determining colours, and the default time

Leave a Reply

As a former civil servant, I like to know what I’m talking about before I express an opinion on something. They call it Evidence-Based Decision-Making, or in other words, Knowledge is Power.

The London League is in the process of revising its rules. Back in October, an issue arose about whether teams should be selected on playing strength or in rating order. This blog carried out some research on the practice in other chess leagues the length and breadth of the land. The results appeared in the post The board order in league chess. Today we address two further issues: (1) how do you decide which team has white or black on each board; and (2) if you’re not there at the start, how much time do you have before you lose on default?

Determining colours

Traditionally the two teams would toss for colours and the winner would choose either white or black on top board (with the colours alternating down the board order). This was open to abuse in that if your player had prepared a particular line as white or black, winning the toss meant you could ensure the player got the preferred colour. So a refinement was to remove the choice and if you won the toss you automatically got a specified colour (in practice white) on top board.

Tossing for colours has its own issues: for example at what time before the scheduled start do you decide colours, and what happens if one team is not represented at the appointed time, for example running late in travelling to the venue? You could decide that the team which was there on time automatically had white on top board – at the risk of annoying the other team which might be late through no fault of its own.

So a further refinement – and this may reflect a modern trend towards simplification in procedure – was to eliminate the toss altogether and automatically allocate colours by a pre-determined principle, for example the home team or away team would always have white on odd boards.

Which brings us to the research. There are 86 chess leagues in England (excluding junior-only and online leagues). In 63 of these, the league rules are available online. (Previously it was 62, but one has emerged since then.) This is the frequency of the different options for determining colours.

  • home team has black on odd boards – 35
  • home team has white on odd boards – 5
  • toss for colours, winner chooses – 10
  • toss for colours, winner has white on odd boards – 9
  • not stated – 4.

In the London League, the fourth of these applies. Teams toss for colours and the winner automatically has white on odd boards.

The research shows that the clear preference in practice is for the home team to have black on odd boards. This must reflect the disadvantage to the away team in having to travel to the venue. This works fine if teams play their home matches at their home venue and their away matches at the opposition venue. But in some cases, including the London League, several clubs play all their matches at their home venue rather than a central league venue. Under this rule, their top board would have black in every game. That’s not a desirable outcome. The available information does not disclose – at least, not without a lot more digging – how many leagues feature clubs that always play at home and how many clubs are affected in each case. So we don’t know whether the London League is unique. If it’s not unique, the leagues which allocate colours automatically have not addressed the issue.

For the London League, a simple but unique solution has been proposed. This is that the home team has white on odd boards if the date of the match falls on days 1 to 15 of the month, and black on odd boards if it falls on days 16 to 31. Assuming a natural layout of the fixtures, roughly half of the fixtures would fall in each of the first and second halves of the month, so the colour distribution would be roughly even. At the time of posting, the proposal remains under consideration internally.

The default time

Here too, practice varies. The official FIDE Laws of Chess take a hardline approach:

6.6 a. Any player who arrives at the chessboard after the start of the session shall lose the game. Thus the default time is 0 minutes. The rules of a competition may specify otherwise.

This rule was introduced a number of years ago. It seems appropriate in official FIDE events, which are strictly controlled. In less formal conditions – applying in the typical weekend tournament in England, and in league chess played on a weekday evening – it would be completely impractical. Hence the discretion for local rules to specify otherwise. And they have done. There are no known cases in English league chess where the default time is 0 minutes.

In the 63 leagues where information is available, the default time is as shown below.

  • 30 minutes – 30
  • 45 minutes – 8
  • 60 minutes – 18
  • time control (75+ minutes) – 2
  • not stated – 5.

In the two leagues with a “time control” default system, the player may turn up at any time while the clock is still running, losing only when the time control is reached. In one case this is 75 minutes. In the other, a range of time controls are available and 75 minutes is the minimum.

The available information does not disclose the reasons for deciding on a particular default time in each league. Rules are rules and they rarely include explanatory material.

If you were developing a set of rules based on reason and logic, you might decide on a principled approach so that (for example) the default time was half the time available for the game. So if you had 90 minutes to make all your moves, you would have 45 minutes after the start to arrive at the board. Arriving just before the cut-off would still leave enough time for a sensible game.

An alternative approach would be to recognise that leagues operate in different circumstances and that no one solution would suit every league. If the league operated in a very small catchment area, and the travelling time to the venue was not significant, it might be appropriate to specify the short default time of 30 minutes. In other leagues, for example in large metropolitan areas, players might need longer to reach the venue. This may be what happens in practice – more detailed research would be needed to establish a correlation.

In the London League, which covers a large area, the current default time is 60 minutes. This is long enough for any reasonable journey. The downsides are, first, that if you’re present and your opponent is not, and you don’t know whether your opponent is running late or has simply forgotten there’s a match on that night, it’s a long time to wait for a no-show. And second, that if your opponent turns up just inside 60 minutes, with an incremental time control allowing a game time of 75 minutes, it’s practically impossible for the latecomer to play a serious game.

At its AGM in 2022, the London League considered a motion from one club to reduce the default time from 60 minutes to 30 minutes. This was no doubt motivated by the downsides of the longer default time. It was, however, clear from the debate that 30 minutes was in practice too short a default time for a league whose catchment area was the whole of London. Players could well miss the cut-off for no fault of their own, for example problems on public transport (and, more recently, one might add industrial action resulting a reduced service or none at all). The motion was defeated by 18 votes to 4.

During the debate, a compromise was suggested of a default time of 45 minutes. This reflected the experience of the person proposing the compromise (no prizes for guessing who that was) that players often turned up within 45 minutes of the start, but he did not recall anyone turning up between 45 and 60 minutes late. So nothing would be lost, and players wouldn’t have to wait a whole hour for a no-show. The amendment was defeated by 12 votes to 9. This was not because the majority of the clubs represented thought it was a bad idea in itself. Rather, it was tabled at no notice, and they had not been able to consult their membership. So in 2023, the proposal (and again this is still under consideration, well in advance of the summer AGM) is to reduce the default time from 60 minutes to 45 minutes.

Anyway, the lesson for any person of a sound mind is, Vote For Barking – You Know It Makes Sense.

Smoke and dagger

2 Replies

The Beautiful Game speaks for itself. I try to let my moves do the talking. But sometimes the language of chess is overshadowed by events. So this is my story.

I returned to County Sligo in the Republic of Ireland for the annual Spring Tournament. This year it was held in the Diamond Coast Hotel in the seaside town of Enniscrone. This is, in most respects, a very good tournament. Generous sponsorship lies behind the quality wooden boards and sets, the latest DGT 3000 clocks, and live streaming of all games in the top section (the Masters) through DGT technology. I was playing in the Masters in a small but strong field of 22 with 8 titled players including Ireland’s only GM, Alexander Baburin. The winner on 4.5/5 was Jonathan Pein, son of the well-known player and organiser Malcolm Pein. 

In accordance with the FIDE anti-cheating regulations, players were required to remain in the playing area for the duration of their games. This large hall (the hotel ballroom) had its own dedicated toilets. The playing area was also defined to included a separate but adjacent room where players could smoke during the round. The playing hall itself was non-smoking. In Ireland, smoking is mostly banned in public places, but it is allowed in designated hotel areas.

Why am I telling you this? It was not relevant in rounds 1 to 4. In round 5, however, I was paired against Oleg Gubanov (FIDE 2266), a Ukrainian IM and professional smoker. By this I mean that he smokes for a living and finances his expensive habit through his winnings at the chess board. In the early stages of our game, he went into the smoking room two or three times to indulge his habit. On returning to the board, his whole being reeked of smoke and his smoke-filled breath permeated the immediate area. Passive smoking is a novel and unwelcome experience for me. Not only the adverse health effects and unpleasant smell. I found inhaling it made it hard to concentrate on the game and I started to develop a headache.

I went off to speak to the arbiter about this. He was sympathetic but could do nothing since the tournament regulations permitted smoking in the designated area (and by implication its after-effects for other players, including many juniors). I could not bear to sit through this so I removed myself and my possessions to a separate space about 10 yards away, observing the board from afar and returning only when it was my move. The other players must have thought it strange to see Gubanov sitting at the board and facing an empty chair.

It’s not ideal to play chess like this. I gave a good account of myself but could not manage the serious and prolonged thought that such an event requires.

Things went from bad to worse when Gubanov started making his moves immediately in response to mine without first writing down the move I had made. I thought (mistakenly) that this was illegal, and spoke to the arbiter again, but apparently the Laws of Chess do permit players to make their own moves before recording their opponents’ moves. This is contrary to the universal practice, and is unsporting since you save a little time on the clock if you don’t bother to write down your opponents’ moves in your own time. 

Over time, Gubanov made repeated visits to the smoking room. My headache got worse and my position deteriorated until I was actually losing. At this stage I experienced one of those “What am I doing here?” moments. I realised that the result of the game no longer mattered. What is the point of playing competitive chess if you have to endure conditions as unpleasant as this?

With about 30 minutes left on my clock, I went to the arbiter again and said that I could not continue to play. I said I would not resign, but neither would I make any more moves and would allow my clock to run down. He advised me that in order to lose on time, I needed to remain in the playing area. If I left the playing area before the end, my game would be forfeit. So I stayed in place, watching the other games and waiting for my flag to fall. The arbiter was present for this and formally confirmed that my opponent had won.

So I finished the event on 2.5/5, a par result, scoring 50% against opponents rated FIDE 2084 on average. This was what I expected at the start, although I could not have foreseen how it would end. As soon as my game was finished I left the playing area, returned to my room, packed forthwith and checked out. I left the venue like a bat out of hell and drove 160 miles back to Dublin ready for an early flight tomorrow. This is one chess experience I hope never to repeat.

Classics from the Archives – 1990

Leave a Reply

I know what you’re thinking. Classics from the Archives means “another chance to see some recently-repeated filler material again.” Rumour has it that the BBC originally resisted showing repeats because viewers might complain they were being short-changed for their licence fee. Life is very different now. Last year, the BBC ran more repeats than original shows. This is the inevitable effect of funding cuts: there isn’t so much money to make new programmes.

Well, have I got news for you. The Rodney Barking blog does not repeat itself. Not intentionally, anyway. What follows is previously unpublished.

In this series we bring you a classic game from Barking’s earlier years – and these go back a long way. Today we revisit 1990. The scene: a playing venue somewhere in London in March 1990. The occasion: Streatham & Brixton 1 v Kings Head 1 in the London League. In those days, Kings Head were the strongest club in London. (This was before a team of professionals took over the league and started winning it every year.) The boys from S&B were no pushovers but my recollection is that they were out-rated on every board and lost the match 8–4.

On one of the lower boards, Barking was White against Kings Head legend Rick McMichael.
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bd3 c5 6.e5
I was already feeling uncomfortable in this unusual French position. Apparently theory recommends exchanging on d5 and c5 to open the centre with a free-for-all.
6…Nfd7 7.dxc5 Nc6 8.Qe2 Nxc5 9.Bf4 g5!
Rick clearly knew the French better than me. I wasn’t expecting this typical thrust. Black now takes over the initiative.
10.Bg3 g4 11.Nd2 Nd4 12.Qe3 Nxd3+ 13.Qxd3 Nf5 14.Bf4 Bd7 15.h3 Nh4 16.Kf1?
This was an error of judgement. I should simply castle queenside. Black can’t really take the g-pawn because he is overextended on the kingside.
16…Ng6 17.Bg3 gxh3 18.Rxh3 Bg5 19.f4?
Another error, in a complex position. I am now probably losing. Instead 19.Rh5 would have kept things murky.
19…Bxf4 20.Bxf4 Nxf4

By now I was feeling quite ill. But it was too early to go home. In desperation I tried…
21.Rxh7
Now if he takes my queen, I take his rook with check and then his queen, and I come out a piece up. So he can’t ignore the threat. He should simply castle short, when I lose the exchange, or (more aggressively) take the rook, play …Qg5 with threats, and castle long, when it’s more or less game over. He thought for a long time over his next move, and then… he simply ignored the threat.
21…Qg5??
He threatens …Qxg2+ followed by …Nxd3+ and assesses (correctly) that this is worth more than the double rook sacrifice. However…
22.Rxh8+ Ke7 23.Nxd5+!
A bolt from the blue! A line clearance sacrifice! He was probably expecting 23.Rxa8 Qxg2+ 24.Ke1 Nxd3+ 25.cxd3 Qg3+ 26.Ke2 d4 27.Nce4 Qe3+ 28.Kd1 Qg1+ picking up the rook, or 28.Kf1 Bb5 and the bishop enters the game to decisive effect.
23…exd5
23…Nxd5 allows 24.Qa3+ and mate next move.
24.Qa3+ Ke6 25.Qd6+
Suddenly it’s all over. After 25…Kf5 26.Qxd7+ Kg6 27.Rh2 Qg3 28.Nf3 I am simply a rook up. Rick shook his head in disbelief and resigned. I still remember his parting words: “My captain’s going to kill me for this!” Posterity records that his life was spared on that occasion although I wouldn’t be surprised if he was sent to the Naughty Step for a while.

Endgame tablebases

Leave a Reply

I’m going to start this post by quoting an extract from the Wikipedia entry, since it says what I want to say and I don’t see the point of paraphrasing it.

An endgame tablebase is a computerized database that contains precalculated exhaustive analysis of chess endgame positions. It is typically used by a computer chess engine during play, or by a human or computer that is retrospectively analysing a game that has already been played.

The tablebase contains the game-theoretical value (win, loss, or draw) in each possible position, and how many moves it would take to achieve that result with perfect play. Thus, the tablebase acts as an oracle, always providing the optimal moves. Typically the database records each possible position with certain pieces remaining on the board, and the best moves with White to move and with Black to move.

Tablebases are generated by retrograde analysis, working backward from a checkmated position. By 2005, all chess positions with up to six pieces, including the two kings, had been solved. By August 2012, tablebases had solved chess for almost every position with up to seven pieces, but the positions with a lone king versus a king and five pieces were omitted because they were considered to be “rather obvious.”[1][2] These positions were included by August 2018.[3] As of 2022, work is still underway to solve all eight-piece positions.

Tablebases sometimes come with a name as a prefix, e.g. Nalimov, Lomonosov, Syzygy. Eugene Nalimov is a computer programmer who generated the first tablebases in the 1990s. Lomonosov is the name of a Russian supercomputer. Syzygy is an astronomical term describing the occurrence of three celestial bodies in a straight line. No, I don’t know what that has to do with chess either. Syzygy 7-piece tablebases are the most recent. These are used by the International Correspondence Chess Federation.

What is the practical use of a tablebase in correspondence chess? In my experience the tablebase is a means of bringing a game to an end quickly and so achieving a draw or a win, when your opponent cannot or will not see this, and particularly when he or she has slowed the game down in order to delay the inevitable. The ICCF rules allow you to claim a win or draw by reference to a tablebase where there are no more than seven pieces on the board. Here’s an example from one of Barking’s games earlier this year.

White: Maurizio Mangiarotti (1958), Black: Rodney Barking (1915).
D45: QGD Semi-Slav.

Yes, I know there are more than seven pieces… This was the position after White’s 41st move. Earlier I had given up my queen for a rook and bishop. As all the pieces are on one side of the board, and there are no passed pawns, Black can hold the draw easily enough and in fact the evaluation of one of the chess engines I use is 0.00. However, White can continue the game for quite a long time just by probing with the queen.

As I’m not winning this position, there’s no advantage to me in prolonging it. What’s the quickest way out? Answer: sacrifice some material…
41…Bxh4! 42.gxh4 Rxg4+ 43.Kh3 h5

Despite the material difference, this position is actually drawn. Black has constructed a fortress. There is no way the white king can penetrate Black’s defences. I offered a draw, which my opponent accepted.

The point that’s relevant to this post, and obviously I checked this before going nuclear, is that the position is a tablebase draw as well. I would have claimed a draw by reference to the ICCF tablebase if my opponent had not co-operated. This is what the tablebase evaluation looks like:

Interestingly, the various engines I use all evaluate this position differently. The strongest of them has White at +0.81 (approaching a clear advantage, but not yet winning). The weakest has White at +4.21 (a trivial win). I guess none of the engines has the 7-piece tablebase programmed in. Maybe that should not be a surprise as the storage size you need for a tablebase is absolutely huge.

I was going to give a further example, another game against my Austrian opponent Herr Wiesinger. We have reached a rook and pawn ending where the Austrian is totally lost. He knows this and has slowed the game down to a funereal pace. Unfortunately there are still eight pieces on the board so we are just out of tablebase range. I expect one of his pawns to drop off very soon (when he finally gets round to moving) and then it will be Goodnight Vienna.

So much for correspondence chess. What about tablebases in OTB chess? Now here’s a thing. Chess leagues are increasingly using incremental time controls. These carry the risk that a game may still be going on at the end of the playing session. Back in the day, if the two players couldn’t agree on the outcome, these games were resolved either by adjournment to a later date or by adjudication. Neither of these is ideal. Adjournments simply add to fixture congestion. Adjudications take the result of the game out of the hands of the players and transfer it to a third party (in Barking’s eyes this is a detestable practice).

The London League used to rely solely on adjournments, following a playing session of 30 moves in 90 minutes. Those days have gone. At some point in the past decade, the League introduced an incremental time control of G75 + 15. So far, there have been no documented cases of games being unresolved at the end of the playing session. But adjudication is available as a backup if needed.

This season, and as far as I know this is the first time this has happened in English league chess, tablebase decision-making has been introduced. If a game is unfinished, and there are no more than seven pieces on the board, the outcome is determined by reference to a tablebase rather than adjudication. This has the advantage of determining the outcome by objective rather subjective means since you know with certainty what will happen with perfect play on both sides, rather than relying on the human (no doubt computer-assisted) determination of the adjudicator. The relevant London League rule is as follows:

C8. UNFINISHED GAMES
C8.1 If any game is unfinished at the end of the session, both players and both captains shall record the position on the board. If the two sides cannot agree a result, then –

(a)  if no more than 7 pieces remain on the board, the result shall be determined by reference to a tablebase such as the Syzygy endgame tablebase at
https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=4k3/8/8/8/8/8/8/4K3_w_-_-_0_1;

(b)  In other cases, both sides shall submit an adjudication claim to the league secretary together with a fee of £10. If only one claim is made, it shall be upheld without adjudication. Either side may appeal against an adjudication decision, providing supporting evidence, and on payment of a further fee of £10. The fees shall be returned to the relevant side if no adjudication is needed or if an appeal succeeds.

Whoever thought of this deserves a medal. Who says space can’t be conquered?!