World Chess Champion kid


A couple of months ago I predicted that the Norwegian chess player Magnus Carlsen would beat the Indian Viswanathan Anand. Until today, Anand had been the undisputed World Champion since 2007. Although he had won the title for the first time in 2000, he failed to defend it in 2002 but then won again the World Championship in 2007 in Mexico City. In 2008 he defended the title successfully against former champion Vladimir Kramnik, and in 2010 he won again a match against former champion Veselin Topalov. Last year, Anand also defended successfully his crown against another formidable challenger, the Jew Boris Gelfand.

After Anand became India’s first Grandmaster in 1988 he has had a spectacular score against the mentioned World Chess Champions and also against Karpov. Only the retired (Jew) Kasparov has a favorable score against Anand. Anand also has favorable scores against the rest of contemporary Grandmasters, including Carlsen—until today.

Carlsen earned the right to challenge Anand’s crown this November but the match was celebrated in Anand’s own town, Chennai in India.

The final score of this match, that just finished today, is three wins for Carlsen, zero for Anand and seven draws of a total of ten games played. In competition chess draws count for half a point for each player; loses zero, and wins a point. The games limit of this match for the world’s crown was twelve games, although the first player to reach 6 ½ points automatically wins the match.

Anand, now a former champion, is forty-three years old and the new champion, Carlsen, only twenty-two: the youngest champion since Wilhelm Steinitz, the first undisputed champion from 1886 to 1894. (This is official chess history which Kasparov endorses in the first volume of his magnum opus My Great Predecessors, but in my humble opinion the American Paul Morphy, who like Carlsen was also a chess prodigy and who died in 1884, should be considered the first champion in history.)

The Ninth Game, with Anand playing the white pieces and Carlsen black, was the most exciting of the entire match insofar as it was the only one of the series with really serious mating threats. For those familiar with the technicalities of chess, let me say that for this game Anand chose a sharp ramification of the Sämisch Variation against Carlsen’s Nimzo-Indian Defence.

These are the moves of the Ninth Game of this historic match:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. f3 d5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c5 7. cxd5 exd5 8. e3 c4 9. Ne2 Nc6 10. g4 0-0 11. Bg2 Na5 12. 0-0 Nb3 13. Ra2 b5 14. Ng3 a5 15. g5 Ne8 16. e4 Nxc1 17. Qxc1 Ra6 18. e5 Nc7 19. f4 b4 20. axb4 axb4 21. Rxa6 Nxa6 22. f5 b3 23. Qf4 Nc7 24. f6 g6 25. Qh4 Ne8 26. Qh6 b2 27. Rf4 b1=Q+ (Carlsen queens his pawn having now two queens over the board) 28. Nf1?? Qe1 29. White resigns. (In chess jargon two question marks mean a gross blunder.)

Instead of that losing move, the computer gives the best line in the post-mortem analysis of the game: 28.Bf1 Qd1 29.Rh4 Qh5 (Black has to sacrifice his newly crowned queen if he wants to avoid being checkmated) 30.Nxh5 gxh5 31.Rxh5 Bf5 32.g6 Bxg6 33.Rg5 Nxf6 34.exf6 Qxf6 and 35.Rxd5 probably draws. Therefore, well played the Ninth Game would have meant splitting the point for both players. In the press interview both Anand and Carlsen explained a few of the many complex ramifications of Anand’s pretty scary assault on Carlsen’s castled king, with the young Norwegian defending so well.

But we must not be too harsh on Anand’s mistakes in this and the other two games that he lost. I have played chess tournaments and know firsthand the overwhelming stress that chess players suffer during serious competitions. In YouTube for example you can watch the entire Anand-Carlsen match with some games lasting six hours, which means six hours of strenuous intellectual activity. Anand’s mistake in the Ninth Game can be easily explained by what he himself confessed at the press conference: “The thing is, I had been calculating for about forty minutes…”, calculating for forty minutes a single move!

I confess that I spent many hours watching the match’s games live online thanks to the magic of the internet. This is very different from a mere reproducing of games as in the above algebraic notation, or a mere replaying all the games of the match (here).


A few minutes ago, after a fighting Tenth Game extended to a knights-and-pawns ending, a yelling could be heard from the Norwegian fans visiting India when it ended in a draw, as Carlsen thus obtained with that draw the 6 ½ mandatory points to win the crown.

Chess fans can see a lively audio-visual explanation of eleven minutes of the Ninth Game in Daniel King’s very entertaining YouTube channel (here). If you prefer watching the whole game, almost four hours of visuals of Anand and Carlsen actually playing with some moves commented by Grandmaster Susan Polgar, click here.

The king of chess is dead, long live the king.

Published in: on November 22, 2013 at 9:52 am  Comments (2)  

Chess from the racial perspective

“I am a Jew by blood, Russian by culture, Soviet by upbringing.”


I used to be a chess fan but have only participated in a single official FIDE chess tournament in 2004, which gave me a provisional rating of 2109; a rating I might improve if I played more FIDE tournaments. However, after my racial awakening, of which the most emblematic knowledge has been the anti-German Holocaust that the media hides since 1945—which proves that the Second World war continues in the sense of postmortem propaganda—, I cannot see my former hobby as I used to see it. Some snippets of the life of world chess champion Mikhail Botvinnik (1911-1995), who conquered the crown of chess right after the Holocaust of millions of Germans, illustrates my point.


According to the Soviet politician Nikolai Krylenko, Botvinnik, who here appears in a 1936 photo, “exhibited the traits of a true Bolshevik,” and Botvinnik’s pupil Garry Kasparov described his mentor as a “staunch communist, son of Stalin’s regime.” In his memoirs Botvinnik himself recognized that he was lucky in life because his “interests coincided with those of the society.”

In my opinion the Estonian Paul Keres, not the Jew Botvinnik, should have conquered the crown after the pro-Nazi world champion of chess, Alexander Alekhine (my idol around my middle teens), died in 1946. In fact, Alekhine virtually had offered the crown to Keres by means of challenging Keres to a match for the title when Alekhine was already well beyond his prime. The young Keres committed the blunder of his life by refusing this gracious glove, and in fact Keres morally succumbed right after the summer of 1940 when his nation, Estonia, was annexed by the Soviet Union. I would dare to claim that the outcome of the 1948 match-tournament, that crowned the Jew Botvinnik as the successor of the Aryan Alekhine, was the logic conclusion of the Judaization of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and the debasement of the Estonians in Stalin’s postwar society.


Curiously, Kasparov, whose real Jewish last name is Weinstein before he changed it—a fact that Bobby Fischer repeatedly stressed in the media until the US government didn’t allow Bobby to return to the US—, confesses in his book on his predecessors that as a child he, Kasparov, was the only intimate pupil of Botvinnik. His mentor only played the teacher role with other children, but with the young Garry the former champion maintained regular contacts through fourteen years—something that, Kasparov concedes, “helped me enormously” in his career to conquer the chess crown. “In those times life was difficult for me and for my mother, and Mikhail Moiseyevich did everything he could to help us, and provided food coupons.”

Jews helping Jews… I am so glad that by the end of this year a Norwegian gentile kid, Magnus Carlsen, will probably beat the current world champion, the Indian Viswanathan Anand… Hadn’t we been living through the darkest hour of the West, the fair race would’ve never lost the title of World Champion of Chess for so long.

Published in: on September 29, 2013 at 10:00 am  Comments (3)  
Tags: ,

Botvinnik’s advice

Kasparov 2

After finishing the first volume, I have started to read Volume II of Garry Kasparov’s My Great Predecessors, especially the long chapter devoted to Mikhail Botvinnik, the world champion of chess from 1948 to 1963 (second from left to right on the book cover).

While reading Kasparov’s lead paragraphs to that chapter some of his sentences struck me. Botvinnik had called chess “an inexact problem,” just as the problems of the living. “To solve inexact problems,” maintained Botvinnik, “it is very important to limit the scale of the problem to avoid getting bogged down. Only then could one hope to solve it satisfactorily.” For this champion chess reflected objective reality and what a person thought, and every problem should be reduced to manageable analysis and thought.

Since in the past I was an amateur chess player, these passages immediately brought my mind to my recent discussions in this blog with those who want to reduce the incredibly complex problem of the West’s darkest hour to the Jewish Question.

This is what I thought while reading that page of Kasparov’s magnum opus: “It is true that, in practical terms, people like Alex Linder are right in that the masses would not grasp something too complex and that, in order to explain the problem to them once pro-white politics becomes possible, we should focus on the subversive tribe.”

I have no problem with that pragmatic approach. Politically, I am on the same page of Hitler, Goebbles, and Linder on this issue. The problem starts when we abandon pragmatic politics and enter into the more subtle terrains of academic discussions.

If whites survive the current crisis, even after a final solution to all non-white problems is achieved future intellectuals will surely try to ponder what exactly happened in the 20th and 21st centuries. In that futuristic scenario it is unlikely that they will navigate forever inside the strait waters of Judeo reductionism. Sooner or later they will probably expand their point of view into a bigger picture, an all-encompassing meta-perspective, perhaps like the one barely sketched in my “Witches’ brew.”

Presently even those who are not Judeo reductionists, like Brad Griffin at Occidental Dissent, acknowledge that—rephrasing Botvinnik’s language—solving the Jewish problem would reduce the West’s darkest hour to manageable proportions. But even so the question will remain open: Why the West, unlike the Muslim world, became so Judaized after Napoleon emancipated the tribe? Why every Western nation started to imitate Napoleon’s lead in the 19th century? What was the primary cause of the empowerment of Jewry in the first place, always keeping in mind that they never wielded such power in the Muslim world?

These honest, commonsensical questions won’t go away even if a final solution to the problem is historically achieved.

Published in: on March 11, 2013 at 12:01 am  Comments (40)