Dunking on Mac Chess

I was out for my morning walk today, and found myself reflecting on unattainable goals. Many goals, even very ambitious ones, are, attainable. In my experience, most people can, if they give themselves a year or three and have a good plan, achieve almost anything. Get rich? Probably, if you don’t mind working very hard at selling. Create a work of art? Of course: you’re human and three years is plenty of time to become technically proficient in something. Climb Everest? Why not, old and blind people have done it.

He’s going to try again when he’s 90. (Photo source)

But then there are goals that are genuinely out of reach. Could I dunk on a strong defender in an NBA game? No, never, no matter what effort I put forth. Perhaps, in my spry youth, I could have reached the point where I could dunk in a pickup game. I’d have had to learn the proper footwork, conduct a well-conceived steroid program, and practice several hours a day for a year or two, but it was in the realm of possibility. To my eternal discredit, I did not do these things, and the opportunity has now slipped away.

For Alen Smailagic, there is still time

In chess, the equivalent of a dunk is the double rook sacrifice. The canonical example (as every schoolchild knows), is Anderssen-Kieseritzky (1851), better known as The Immortal Game. There are some others, with Alekhine-Levinfish (1912) a particular favorite. But it is a rare event.

The normal pattern occurs when the Black queen snatches White’s b2 pawn and white counterattacks in the center, inviting Black to snatch the queen’s rook, giving check, and then grabbing the king’s rook after the king scuttles out of the way. When all goes well, the attack in the center overwhelms the enemy king.

No, Mister Levenfish, I expect you to die!

If not, no point playing on, White will never offset all that lost material.

The double-rook sacrifice is the stuff of chess legend, but I’d never seen it done in a tournament or casual game until Wednesday night, when, on a flight from Denver, I found myself playing one against Mac Chess on my computer (set at roughly my patzer strength).

Here is the game:

1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e3 c5 4. c4

We begin in a reasonably conventional way. Through a few transpositions we are in a Queen’s Gambit Declined, Tarrasch Defense. I am trying this approach because it often leads to an isolated queen pawn for white. Once considered a weakness, modern experience has shown that such positions can offer good attacking opportunities.

I used Stockfish, a grandmaster-strength chess engine, to look over the game. It rates this position as even.

4. … cxd4 5. exd4 Qa5+

Stockfish hates this move, assigning White a significant advantage (perhaps half a pawn’s worth) as a result. It recommends instead g7, keeping the position level.

For White’s next, Stockfish recommends Nc3 to maximize White’s advantage, but I selected Bd2 instead. While the rule normally is “knights before bishops”, in this case I want to drive the queen off immediately. Computers are good at tactics, and having the queen lingering near your uncastled king is usually a bad idea.

6. Bd2 Qb6

When I saw this move I immediately changed my mind about dangerous queens. I resolved to let the greedy computer capture the b pawn, and use this as an opportunity to swarm the center and attack the enemy king. Stockfish sees Black’s move as an error, and rates White as now having a one pawn advantage. It recommends my next move as best.

7. cxd5 Bf5

Stockfish says this is a big mistake: Black is firmly in the soup now, and there are multiple ways for White to win material. The best thing to do, it says, would be to bring the Bishop out, castle, then attack up the middle. I agree with the “attack up the middle” part. But why wait?

8. Nc3 Qxb2

Mac Chess grabs the pawn, Stockfish’s disapproval deepens. I see a diagonal pointing at the enemy king, with nothing to defend it.

9. Qa4+ Nc6

Stockfish says Black is now decisively lost. Ne7 would have been better, but Black would likely end up a piece down even with best play. Stockfish says I should now take the knight with the pawn, but I am hunting kings, not knights.

Mac Chess wants to capture that rook, and I am nothing if not accommodating.

10. Bb5 Qxa1+ 11. Ke2 Qxh1

Stockfish still thinks it would be great idea to capture with the pawn. But I like lines that go check-check-check-check-check-mate. So that’s the one I go for.

12. Bxc6+ bxc6 13. Qxc6+ Nd7 14. Qxa8+ Nb8 15. Qxb8+ Kd7

16. And we’re done here, Ne5 mate

I turned Mac Chess up a level and tried this again, but it neatly sidestepped this variation when it had a little more time to think. Doesn’t matter though. That’s a real double rook sacrifice in a real game, no hints or take-backs. Probably the only one I’ll ever see in my life.