Blindfold Chess - the book

[Hugh Brodie]

So we have the exhibition from Najdorf's point of view. How about the 45 opponents? You wouldn't expect them to stay seated for 23+ hours as well? Were they sleeping between moves, or were there teams of players who replaced each other?

[Hans Jung]

Seems like both teams and also if someone was tired or wanted to quit, a replacement had to be found. How did Leo Williams manage with his 19 hour display (when he did 27 boards)? - were there teams or were replacements allowed?

[Hugh Brodie]

I witnessed a Leo Williams display on 19 or 20 boards which took 11 or 12 hours (I spent most of that time calling out the moves). Most of the players stayed to the end - but there were a few possibly premature resignations (or draws in possibly winning positions) from some who had had enough. I don't recall anyone being replaced.

[Hans Jung]

There's the problem and another reason why more than 30 boards has never been attempted since the Flesch simul in 1960. It takes too long and is to tiring for the sighted players, and of course a major organizational headache. It would be an interesting question for Leo Williams, his 25 board simul took 16 hours and his 27 board simul took 19 hours. You would think there would have been replacements. Another reason why Koltanowski's record of 34 boards is still considered by some to be the true world record. He responded relatively quickly and that exhibition was over in 13.5 hours (started in the morning and finished before midnight). Alekhines 32 board exhibition was 12.5 hours and finished just after midnight and there is no mention of replacements in either event.

[Paul Bonham]

Originally Posted by Hans Jung

There's the problem and another reason why more than 30 boards has never been attempted since the Flesch simul in 1960. It takes too long and is to tiring for the sighted players, and of course a major organizational headache.

Just wondering, Hans, is there anything in the book (or any records elsewhere) about anyone playing a blindfold simul against computer opponents? This would change things considerably, since none of the computers would have to be replaced or would resign due to fatigue. Only thing needed is to make sure the power stays on! I guess when the turn comes to each board, an arbritator would have to force the computer to make it's best move found at that time.

Maybe have the computers play not at their optimal strength, but with settings such that they have no use of opening books and in the opening phase at least, have high randomness. But even this might not be optimal, for example, with no opening book, will a computer play a gambit opening?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure this has never be attempted. Hans, why don't you be the first? Get yourself in the next edition of the book!

[Jonathan Berry]

Originally Posted by Paul Bonham

Just wondering, Hans, is there anything in the book (or any records elsewhere) about anyone playing a blindfold simul against computer opponents?

For my 2004, 12-board exhibition in Beckensdorf, Iowa, for Thinker's Press, I faced the opportunity of a trans-Atlantic flight combined with no practice of a 10-board or greater exhibition in 30 years. I had a laptop computer with a DOS version of Crafty (from an old Chess Assistant 4 install). To make the story short, I made batch files to run Crafty without displaying a board, ran them in four command-line windows, shrunk each window to a single line in height, and thus gave a 4-board blind simul at 35,000 feet. This improved my confidence level, though jet lag and insomnia in Iowa later proved detrimental to the same confidence! A psychological point was that the games had to be "winnable" so I set Crafty not to ponder while I was thinking and forced it to use just a tiny amount of thinking time.

Here is one of the batch files:

wcrafty /ponder=off /time=40/1 /display=off /echo=off /noise=10000000

My biggest fear in Iowa was total meltdown. However, I did complete the exhibition, in 8 hours (for 12 boards = very slow; 4-6 hours would be considered normal speed), thus tying (and setting because of my percentage result) the record for a blindfold exhibition given by a player aged 50 or above.

A Crafty game log (score) looks like this:

c4
Nf6
Nc3
d5
cxd5
Nxd5
e4
Nxc3
dxc3
Qxd1+
Kxd1
Nc6
Kc2
e5
Bb5
Bd7
Bxc6
Bxc6
f3
Bc5
Ne2
Bb5
Ng3
O-O-O
a4
Bd3+
Kb3
Rhg8
Nf5
g6
Ne3
f5
Nc4
fxe4
Nxe5
exf3
Nxf3
Rd6
Bf4
Rb6+
Ka2
Bc4+
Kb1
Re8
a5
Rbe6
b4
Bf8
Nd4
Re4
Bd2
Bxb4
cxb4
Rxd4
Kc2
Re2
Rad1
Rxg2
Kc3
Re4
Rde1
Be2
Rhg1

[Hans Jung]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Berry

For my 2004, 12-board exhibition in Beckensdorf, Iowa, for Thinker's Press, I faced the opportunity of a trans-Atlantic flight combined with no practice of a 10-board or greater exhibition in 30 years. I had a laptop computer with a DOS version of Crafty (from an old Chess Assistant 4 install). To make the story short, I made batch files to run Crafty without displaying a board, ran them in four command-line windows, shrunk each window to a single line in height, and thus gave a 4-board blind simul at 35,000 feet. This improved my confidence level, though jet lag and insomnia in Iowa later proved detrimental to the same confidence! A psychological point was that the games had to be "winnable" so I set Crafty not to ponder while I was thinking and forced it to use just a tiny amount of thinking time.

Here is one of the batch files:

wcrafty /ponder=off /time=40/1 /display=off /echo=off /noise=10000000

My biggest fear in Iowa was total meltdown. However, I did complete the exhibition, in 8 hours (for 12 boards = very slow; 4-6 hours would be considered normal speed), thus tying (and setting because of my percentage result) the record for a blindfold exhibition given by a player aged 50 or above.

A Crafty game log (score) looks like this:

c4
Nf6
Nc3
d5
cxd5
Nxd5
e4
Nxc3
dxc3
Qxd1+
Kxd1
Nc6
Kc2
e5
Bb5
Bd7
Bxc6
Bxc6
f3
Bc5
Ne2
Bb5
Ng3
O-O-O
a4
Bd3+
Kb3
Rhg8
Nf5
g6
Ne3
f5
Nc4
fxe4
Nxe5
exf3
Nxf3
Rd6
Bf4
Rb6+
Ka2
Bc4+
Kb1
Re8
a5
Rbe6
b4
Bf8
Nd4
Re4
Bd2
Bxb4
cxb4
Rxd4
Kc2
Re2
Rad1
Rxg2
Kc3
Re4
Rde1
Be2
Rhg1

Hi Jonathan, I should have read your message before posting. Very interesting! I still have in mind to break your world record of 12 after age 50 if the opportunity presents itself. That I think I can manage. However it wont be this year (although hopefully I'll have plenty of time in the future)

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Originally Posted by Paul Bonham

anyone playing a blindfold [simul] against computer opponents?

This option is possible with Fritz (at least 11). It is not true blindfold, as you see a board and the computer marks squares where pieces moved (maybe it is possible to turn off this I have not look for a multi-opponent option.

[Hans Jung]

Originally Posted by Paul Bonham

Just wondering, Hans, is there anything in the book (or any records elsewhere) about anyone playing a blindfold simul against computer opponents? This would change things considerably, since none of the computers would have to be replaced or would resign due to fatigue. Only thing needed is to make sure the power stays on! I guess when the turn comes to each board, an arbritator would have to force the computer to make it's best move found at that time.

Maybe have the computers play not at their optimal strength, but with settings such that they have no use of opening books and in the opening phase at least, have high randomness. But even this might not be optimal, for example, with no opening book, will a computer play a gambit opening?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure this has never be attempted. Hans, why don't you be the first? Get yourself in the next edition of the book!

Well first of all Paul, the authors spent 30 yrs researching - to me thats a lifetime work. This book is the only complete book of Blindfold Chess around. There would have to be a compelling reason for another edition - I dont see one. Also Koltanowski - the grand old showman - nobody else like him, Alekhine the legend, Najdorf the legend, - nobody's going to break those records and I'm happy about that. Thirdly doing a 30+ board exhibition takes at least 6 months to build up to and my thinking time is too slow these days - all for what - a Guiness World Record - thats just name display and ego gratification - there is really no public interest in that. However I am interested in keeping in practice and the computer option sounds like an interesting way of doing this. No, Im content with smaller displays and the enjoyment that comes from them - is there a way to run multi - chess games on one processor?

[Paul Bonham]

Originally Posted by Hans Jung

Well first of all Paul, the authors spent 30 yrs researching - to me thats a lifetime work. This book is the only complete book of Blindfold Chess around. There would have to be a compelling reason for another edition - I dont see one. Also Koltanowski - the grand old showman - nobody else like him, Alekhine the legend, Najdorf the legend, - nobody's going to break those records and I'm happy about that. Thirdly doing a 30+ board exhibition takes at least 6 months to build up to and my thinking time is too slow these days - all for what - a Guiness World Record - thats just name display and ego gratification - there is really no public interest in that. However I am interested in keeping in practice and the computer option sounds like an interesting way of doing this. No, Im content with smaller displays and the enjoyment that comes from them - is there a way to run multi - chess games on one processor?

Sorry, Hans, I didn't mean that you should try for a record. I meant that you might be the first person to play an official arbitrated blindfold simul match against X number of computer opponents, with each computer opponent forced to make it's best move at the time it's turn comes up, and with each computer opponent not having an opening book. I'm sure you can play multiple games on one processor, so that everything could be done on one computer. Maybe make it a dual quad-core machine, you could play 6 opponents and each one would surely have it's own processor.

[Hans Jung]

Ok, I think I get it. However check Jonathan's post above - looks like he's already done that and interesting story too. I'd like to do that - maybe somebody knowledgable at this end could set that up for me. The other thing is maybe I can "dumb" the computer programs down so that I dont lose with a perfect score (like 0-5 - nobody wants to read about that) LOL!

[Paul Bonham]

Originally Posted by Hans Jung

Ok, I think I get it. However check Jonathan's post above - looks like he's already done that and interesting story too. I'd like to do that - maybe somebody knowledgable at this end could set that up for me. The other thing is maybe I can "dumb" the computer programs down so that I dont lose with a perfect score (like 0-5 - nobody wants to read about that) LOL!

Hans, as long as you can play INTERESTING moves (remember our emails about this several months ago?) I think you could lose all the games and still make it worth the time for those who just love good chess. Since it is well known that humans can't beat computers tactically, the best thing you could do is set out to create positional quandries that the computer would have no understanding of. Maybe this is better accomplished blindfold than non-blindfold? You keep mentioning how you don't really see the board and pieces, there's some other mechanism involved. Maybe you could discover this as a new insight (excuse the pun) into how to best play against computers.

Sounds like a research project to me!

[Hans Jung]

Jonathan Berry's world blindfold record of 12 boards at age 50+ at the Thinkers Press Chess Festival in Bettendorf Iowa USA in November 2004 was described in good detail by Jonathan in the February 2005 issue of Chess Canada Echecs (#190). Jonathan gives quite detailed description of various aspects of blindfold chess and his thinking during the display. Unfortunately I dont think there is a copy of the article online anywhere although it might be on Jonathan's excellent webpage on blindfold chess listed earlier in this thread.

[Hans Jung]

I thought I would post some games - favorite blindfold games of my favorite superstars (that I grew up admiring) First Morphy (because he was the earliest) The first game is Paul Morphy blindfolded on his 12th birthday!! against his uncle. P.Morphy vs E.Morphy 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 d6 5.00 Nf6 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4 Bb6 8.h3 h6 9.Nc3 00 10.Be3 Re8 11.d5 Bxe3 12.dxc6 Bb6 13.e5! dxe5 14.Qb3 Re7 15.Bxf7+ Rxf7 16.Nxe5 Qe8 17.cxb7 Bxb7 18.Rae1 Ba6 19.Ng6 Qd8 20.Re7 1-0 That a 12 yr old boy could finish that way blindfolded!! (never mind the opposition)
Marache Morphy 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.e5 d5 8.exd6 Qxd6 9.00 Nge7 10.Ng5 00 11.Bd3 Bf5 12.Bxf5 Nxf5 13.Ba3 Qg6 14.Bxf8 Qxg5 15.Ba3 dxc3 16.Bc1 Qg6 17.Bf4 Rd8 18.Qc2 Nc-d4 19.Qe4 Ng3!! 0-1
Morphy Forde 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.00 Nge7 7.Ng5 d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Nxf7 Kxf7 10.Qf3+ Ke6 11.Ba3 Bb6 12.Re1 Na5 13.Rxe5+ Kxe5 14.d4+ Ke6 15.g4! g6 16.Qe4+ Kf7 17.Bxd5+ Kg7 18.Be7! Re8 19.Qe5+ Kh6 20.g5+ Kh5 21.Bf3+ Bg4 22.Qg3 Qd7 23.Qh3#
Morphy Amateur New Orleans 1858 This was one of 6 games simul blindfolded.
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 c6 4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Bc4 Bxc3 6.dxc3 Ne7 7.Qd6 00 8.Bxf4 Ng6 9.Bg5 Qe8 10.00 Kh8 11.Rae1 f6 12.e5! f5 13.Nd4 f4 14.e6 dxe6 15.Nxe6 Bxe6 16.Rxe6 Qc8 17.Rxg6! hxg6 18.Qxg6 Qf5 19.Rxf4! Qxg6 20.Rxf8+ Kh7 21.Bg8+ Kh8 22.Bf7+ Kh7 23.Bxg6+ Kxg6 24.Bf4 1-0
Morphy Amateur New Orleans 1858 another of 6 blindfolded (simul)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Ng5 d5 6.exd5 Nxd5 7.00 Be7 8.Nxf7 Kxf7 9.Qf3+ Ke6 10.Nc3! dxc3 11.Re1+ Ne5 12.Bf4 Bf6 13.Bxe5 Bxe5 14.Rxe5+ Kxe5 15.Re1+ Kd4 16.Bxd5 Re8 17.Qd3+ Kc5 18.b4+! (blindfolded!) Kxb4 19.Qd4+ Ka5 20.Qxc3+ Ka4 21.Qb3+ Ka5 22.Qa3+ Kb6 23.Rb1#
More later.

[Hans Jung]

Some more of Morphy - Morphy vs Lord Lyttelton from the famous Birmingham, England 8 board blindfold simul in 1858
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 d6 6.Nxg4 Be7 7.d4 Bxh4+ 8.Nf2 Bxf2+ 9.Kxf2 Nf6 10.Nc3 Qe7 11.Bxf4 Nxe4+ 12.Nxe4 Qxe4 13.Bb5+ Kf8 14.Bh6+ Kg8 15.Rh5! Bf5 16.Qd2 Bg6 17.Rae1 1-0
Morphy Cunningham 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.c3 Nc6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.e5 Qe7 7.00 Ng8 8.cxd4 Bb6 9.d5 Qc5 10.Na3! Nd4 11.Be3 Nxf3+ 12.Qxf3 Qf8 13.Bxb6 axb6 14.Nb5 Kd8 15.Rac1 d6 16.exd6 cxd6 17.Qe3 Ra6 18.Nc7! Qe7 19.Ne6+! fxe6 20.Bxa6 Bd7 21.Bb5! Ke8 22.fxe6! Nf6 23.Rc8+ 1-0
Morphy Dominguez Havana, Cuba 1864 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.00 Bc5 6.e5 Ne4 7.Bd5 f5 8.exf6 Nxf6 9.Bg5 Be7 10.Bxf6 Bxf6 11.Re1+ Ne7 12.Ne5 Bxe5 13.Qh5+ g6 14.Qxe5 Rf8 15.Nd2 c6 16.Ne4 d6 17.Nxd6+ Kd7 18.Be6+ Kc7 19.Nxc8+ Qd6 20.Qxd6#

[Hans Jung]

Ive been asked if I could give annotations for the games. Simplest answer is: I am not worthy. Besides Im afraid my annotations would spoil "Morphy's perfections". The reader could try Fritzifying the games. (actually any strong computer program would reveal amazing tactical insights in all the above Morphy games) Another idea is to take copies of the games to your local club and have good discussions and analysis with surrounding players.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Originally Posted by Hans Jung

I am not worthy. Besides Im afraid my annotations would spoil "Morphy's perfections". The reader could try Fritzifying the games

Do you enjoy Chess Informants? Personally I see them more like a tool, than a pleasure reading. Thus, human comments stand out above all kind of fish variants. Negative side, writing commentaries are really time consuming action.

[Hans Jung]

Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis

Do you enjoy Chess Informants? Personally I see them more like a tool, than a pleasure reading. Thus, human comments stand out above all kind of fish variants. Negative side, writing commentaries are really time consuming action.

Yes I agree - the older I get the more I like written commentary and definitely writing commentaries really take time. However ask young players this question. When I was younger I couldnt get enough variations with !, (hopefully!! or !?) or even spicier unclear (my computer wont make that symbol) Then I think my brain reached saturation point!?! or ?!? (maybe) Two of my first books were Informants and I exhausted them cover to cover and enjoyed grandmaster positions but just a bit later I enjoyed Tal commentary and Alekhine annotations (so who knows?)

[Hans Jung]

Blackburne Ballard London 1871 (10 board blindfold simul) 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Qh5 Qe7 7.00 Ne5 8.Bb3 d6 9.h3 Ng8 10.f4 d3+ 11.Kh2 Nf6 12.Qd1 Neg4+ 13.hxg4 Nxg4+ 14.Kg3 h5!? (with dangerous threats) 15.f5 Be3!? 16.Bxf7+ Kf8 17.Qxg4!?!?! hxg4 18.Bxe3 Qe5+ 19.Bf4 Qxb2 20.Nd2 dxc2 21.Nc4!? Qc3+ 22.Ne3 Bd7 23.Kxg4 Ba4 24.Nd5 The knight climbs the ladder. 24...Qd3 25.Bg6 Rh6 26.Ne6+ Kg8 27.Ne7+ Kh8 28.Rh1 Qd1+ 29.Raxd1 cxd1=Q+ 30.Rxd1 Bxd1+ 31.Kg3 Rh1 32.Bd2 Bh5 33.Bc3 Rg8 34.f6! Bxg6 35.Nxg6+ Kh7 36.f7 1-0 Alot of spicy moves in the last 25 moves. This was considered Blackburne's finest blindfold game and greatly inspired me when I first saw it.

[Hikaru Nakamura]

I think the fundamental ability for people to play blindfold chess well is much easier now considering the use of computers and pattern recognition. For instance, if I am playing 10-15 blindfold games at the same time, I am usually able to minimize each board in my head. Also, for the most part the diagrams in my head are either from the ICC interface or chessbase.