A TACTICAL SHOT

In the Chess King's rapid game Micromaster - Sudav (11 July 2026), I had white pieces and a lost position. Black had two extra pawns.

Suddenly, Black made a naturally looking move 27...Ra8-b8??

See the diagram below:

White to move

Do not mess with me. Black has a weak back rank and his King has no vent-hole. White has the open e-file and a pawn on the 6-th rank. And White has an intermediate move...

The full game can be seen below:

Micromaster - Sudav, 2026

The analysis of the game can be seen below:

BLOCKED PLAYERS LIST OF THE CHESS KING

The blocked players list of the Chess King's Playing Hall:

1. Allows seeing the challenges despite the block;
2. It is also not really private. 

It is a major flaw.

If I do not want to play with someone, I shall block that player. However, I do not want to declare it publicly.

Currently, I see the challenges of those I have blocked and also those who have blocked me.

Worse, when clicking on the challenge, the player sees a message that the opponent has blocked the player.

Worse, the player is not informed beforehand that the blocked players list is not entirely private.

All this in sum makes the blocked list dysfunctional and also communicative, contributing to provocations and intrigues.

If the platform Chess King continues to maintain such weird features, I cannot regard it as a solid chess platform.

Post Scriptum

Chess King's blocked players list has the following features:

1. If you have blocked the player A, you still see A's challenges and you are even able to accept them and play again against, say, a recidivist hooligan or cheater. 
2. If the player A has blocked you, you still see A's challenges but you cannot play: instead you receive a message that A has blocked you.

Chess King's Support has the following features:

1. The Support does not support you. 
2. The Support never answer your emails.

It is difficult to follow who are these people responsible for Chess King. Finally, I managed to find out that the grandmaster Alexandra Kosteniuk is probably responsible for that disgusting mess.

Jüri Eintalu

(Micromaster)

I HAVE ABANDONED THE ENDGAME AI

Rating Difference

Below is my comment on Discord, Engame AI:

There is a major flaw in the rating difference system of the Endgame AI. 

I guess that it is not a computer program bug but a conceptual mistake.

The rating difference can be set for the lobby so that the player does not see challenges that do not meet the player’s criteria. 

Unfortunately, this does not apply to challenges that the player creates themselves.

Thus, if I set the rating range -300…+300, everyone with a rating of -500 can still see and accept my challenge.

It does not make much sense because if I want to avoid players with a rating difference of -500, then I do not care who made the challenge.

Moreover, when others issue a challenge, the player can see the challenger's rating in the lobby and decide whether to accept it. 

That is, the rating difference works where it is not urgently needed and does not work where it is necessary.

Usually, the rating difference or rating range is set symmetrically to both the challenges of others and the player's own challenges.

I have stopped playing on the Endgame AI, too

It has happened twice on the Endgame AI: when I achieve a rating above 1900, two players with very low ratings in a row accept my challenge and beat me, significantly reducing my rating. Remarkably, such players with very low ratings have played very-very fast and precisely, so that I have been entitled to suspect that either they used a chess engine or they were anonymous top-grandmasters. 

I cannot speculate on the conspiracy theory that such targeted attacks have been organised by the chess platform itself. 

However, the platform has a feature that the rating range the player has set does not apply to the challenges the player is doing himself, which is obviously a weird feature that increases the possibility of such manipulations. 

In the case of the FIDE Online Arena, they even dared to punish the players who “too often” cancelled the games. “Too often” cancelling the game actually meant that the player’s challenges were too often accepted by known cheaters with low ratings. 

Anyway, I have stopped playing on the Endgame AI now, too. That new platform claims to be making great innovations in online chess. However, what I see are the same mistakes I have seen on several other platforms.

LICHESS IS FULL OF CHEATERS

I will stop playing on Lichess because, over the past few days, more than half of my opponents have used a chess engine (either occasionally or for the entire game), and Lichess seems unable to do anything about it.

PS

Then, I tried to play again on the FIDE Online Arena. As they announced, they had given me back some rating points I had lost against the cheaters.

It is nonsense. They gave me back the rating points of one or two games, while there have been tens of reported cheaters.

Moreover, they have awarded grandmaster titles (AGM) to some of these players who cheat in every game, from start to finish. They are simply mocking people.

Then I played a couple of games there, and again someone managed to make 24 very precise moves in 2 minutes, in a tactically complicated, unknown position.

I do not understand why they call it an online chess arena owned by FIDE. 

MY LAST FIDE ONLINE ARENA UNFAIR PLAY REPORTS

Since May 2026, I have been an Arena International Master (AIM) in online chess. However, there are nuances.

I shall stop playing on FIDE Online Arena (FOA) and the site Worldchess.

Below are my latest unfair play reports that I have sent.

&&&

NN is very probably using a chess engine. In a 10 + 10 rapid game (39 moves), NN was disconnected several times in the middle of the game. NN used only 1 min 56 sec of thinking time, while NN’s performance was impossibly perfect: accuracy 0.99, average centipawn loss 2, inaccuracies 0.

&&&

NN is one such player who repeatedly offers a draw against players with a higher ELO. If the draw is rejected, NN takes a long pause. After that, NN plays abnormally fast and precisely as an altogether different player. I am pretty sure that a chess engine was in use.

&&&

NN – I think his games should be checked. I won him, but I think he is playing abnormally fast and precisely. In a 10 + 10 rapid game (47 moves), NN played astronomically fast: every single move was made using the time increment only. NN’s final thinking time is seriously negative: - 1 min 53 sec. Despite a very high speed, NN’s statistics are unbelievably good: accuracy 90%, average centipawn loss 15. When I played at normal speed, NN made only 1 inaccurate move. All the other inaccurate moves and mistakes NN made in a simple technical endgame, when I played extremely fast due to the Zeitnot. I suspect that NN (AFM!) is playing with the chess engine, and when the opponent plays very fast, he does not have time to read the chess engine's screen or thinks it is unnecessary. Thank you.

&&&

NN is very probably using a chess engine during a live game. In a 10 + 10 rapid game (53 moves), NN played at an astronomical pace. During the whole of the game, NN’s thinking time was negative. There were only some rare occasions when NN did not use the time increment only. At the end of the game, NN’s thinking time was seriously negative: - 1 min 29 sec. Despite a very high speed, there were long sequences of precise moves that NN made almost instantly. The statistics are also unbelievable: accuracy 0.91, average centipawn loss 15 (or 0.19). Inaccuracies 3 (or 5), mistakes 2 (or 3), blunders 0 (or 1). However, if we do not count the opening moves, it turns out that most of NN’s inaccuracies were practically the best moves to try to win, as White was in a Zeitnot and these moves were the only options to avoid very drawish endgames. 

I will stop playing on Worldchess because there are far too many cheaters, and Worldchess is far too slow to take them down. I cannot spend the rest of my life writing unfair play reports every single day, which seem useless anyway.

&&&

These were my last 4 unfair play reports. 

There are cheaters on every chess platform, and I have abandoned many of them.

The FOA is particularly peculiar. It is FIDE’s official gaming platform. However, no video cameras are used. The players cannot be blocked. One cannot set the rating difference for challenges. 

To obtain the title, one must play in tournaments, where one meets players with low ratings who use chess engines. It rather looks like the system wants you to play against the cheaters and tries to obstruct you if you try to avoid them.

Sometimes the system finally recovers your rating points, but you have already lost the chance to obtain the title, and the system does not restore that chance. You have to start everything all over again.

Worse. To obtain the title of, say, AGM, one has to be successful against those who already have the title of AGM or AIM. Unfortunately, the FOA has given such titles to several such players whose statistical data force one to conclude that, with very high probability, they are chess engine users. Their statistics are so astronomically perfect that I guess an ordinary OTB grandmaster would have little chance of beating them without using a chess engine.

All this not only makes it very difficult for a strong but honest player to obtain FOA's higher titles, but also makes such titles worthless. 

My fresh AIM title is worthless because the general background is such that people simply do not believe that I am not also a cheater - a player who uses a chess engine in live online games.

Such a title might even compromise my reputation. 

Some rating points restored

After a while, I tried to play again on the FIDE Online Arena. As they announced, they had given me back some rating points I had lost against the cheaters.

It is nonsense. They gave me back the rating points of one or two games, while there have been tens of reported cheaters.

Moreover, they have awarded grandmaster titles (AGM) to some of these players who cheat in every game, from start to finish. They are simply mocking people.

Then I played a couple of games there, and again someone managed to make 24 very precise moves in 2 minutes, in a tactically complicated, unknown position.

I really do not understand why they call it an online chess arena owned by FIDE. 

The availability of the FIDE title

So I cancelled my FIDE Online Arena subscription.

But the crazy mess in that office (I could write 10 pages about it, but I really don't feel like it) is endless.

Immediately, I got the following message:

Your subscription will end on November 25, 2026.
You won't be charged again

FIDE titles and ID will no longer be available after your subscription ends.

Screenshot of the Worldchess pop-up message

Such a blackmailing, ambiguous text was seen in the temporary pop-up window that opened immediately after I cancelled my subscription. I also received an official email, but it did not contain any such warnings or threats. Plausible deniability. This is their style. 

But here's a problem. Namely, they have previously announced that these titles are given for life. In addition, I have already downloaded my title certificate (after technical problems, it was finally successful).

All their information is inaccurate from beginning to end, and in this case - in the case of title availability -, it seems to be a scare tactic that if you don't pay at least 50 euros a year, you will lose your title or will no longer be able to use it effectively.

This title is here:

The availability of the FIDE ID

There are also problems with the availability of the FIDE ID. Actually, that ID does not belong to the Worldchess or even to the FIDE Online Arena. It belongs to the FIDE. It has also not been announced earlier that this ID depends on paying the subscription forever.

Note that the International Correspondence Chess Federation (ICCF) keeps the player’s ID permanently, regardless of whether the player continues to belong to the player’s national federation and pays the fees. Only tournament fees are applied if needed. 

Discrediting FIDE as a crime

Finally, Worldchess has clearly informed all users that if they damage Worldchess' reputation, their account may be closed. Along with the warning that if they do not pay, they will no longer be able to get their title, it is impressive.

In their news, they are currently boasting that the Russian Chess Federation has been suspended from FIDE in relation to Russia's war against Ukraine.

In this regard, an analogy came to mind.

In Russia, Putin banned the discrediting of the Russian Army. As a result, in Russia, people who speak out about Russian war crimes are being imprisoned.

Similarly, Worldchess has banned the discrediting of Worldchess. As a result, those who publicly state that their consumer rights have been violated may not be able to play chess there.

And, as it turns out, according to the warning, they may no longer get their well-deserved title or FIDE ID. 

Support feedback

Finally, the support answered my email and said that the pop-up window claimed that the player without a valid subscription cannot get new FOA titles. 

However, the pop-up window contained two obscure warnings. The support did not answer my second question concerning the second warning. It did not answer the question of in what sense exactly the FIDE ID is no longer available if the subscription is cancelled. 

Instead, I got a second letter which thanked me for my critical notes, as if they had already answered my questions, which they did not.

The main problem with the Worldchess and the FIDE Online Arena is that, from the very beginning, they have consistently avoided answering certain questions, pretending they had. 

It is pretty absurd that I finally cancelled my subscription, and even here, they managed to create several new problems.

In the third email, the FOA support team was finally able to answer both questions generated by the FOA's ambiguous pop-up message:

“After your subscription ends, you will retain and be able to save your FIDE ID, but you will no longer be able to earn titles.”

MALEKOHTUNIKUD KINNITAVAD SEDA, ET 2 + 2 = 5

Maletajad, kes reklaamivad, et malemäng arendab mõistust, ei oska ju arvutada. 

Põhikooli matemaatikaga on raskusi. 

Igatahes oskavad nad vist loendada ainult kaheksani, sest kummalgi vastasel on algseisus laual kaheksa etturit.

Nii oli see rahvusvahelise maleföderatsiooni FIDE hääletamistega - nende reeglid on niivõrd segased, et nad kas tahtlikult või kogemata ei saanud ise ka aru, millise "häälteenamusega" nad 2022. a. otsustasid, et seoses Ukraina sõja algusega tuleb Venemaa maletajaile kehtestada spordisanktsioonid. 

Mis enamus see oli ja millest see oli enamus, jäi täiesti arusaamatuks ja muutus vastavalt vajadusele pidevalt. 

Hiljem viis seesama häälte lugemise algoritm (või selle puudumine) 2025. a. selleni, et korraga võeti vastu kaks erinevat resolutsiooni, milles üks teatas, et sanktsioonid Venemaale tühistatakse, teine aga, et ei tühistata. 

Matemaatikaga pole sellel erilist pistmist, sest arvutuste tulemus peab poliitiliselt õige olema. 

Hiljem süüdistati vale tulemuse saamises reeglite rikkumist, ent reegleid rikuti ka õige tulemuse saamisel ja juba aastal 2022.

Äsja sain seoses maletajate matemaatiliste oskustega järjekordse üllatuse osaliseks.

Nimelt saatis FIDE Online Arena mulle ootamatult kirja, milles selgitas tiitlite omandamise uusi reegleid.

Kirja alguses teatati, et seoses reeglite reformiga on laekunud palju nurinaid. 

Ent mina pole FIDE-le mitte mingisugust protesti saatnud seoses tiitlite omandamise reeglitega. Samuti pole ma varem kuulnudki mingisugusest "reitingureformist".

Samuti teatati kirja alguses, et nurinad on põhjustatud sellest, et inimesed pole uute reeglitega veel harjunud. 

Seejärel tutvustati neid uusi reegleid. 

Paraku oli selles kirjas kogu tekst matemaatiliselt kirjaoskamatu, kahemõtteline ja vastuoluline, kohati otseselt vale. 

Kui ma sellele kirjale oma kommentaaridega vastasin, sain ma vastuseks ainult automaatvastuse, mis sisaldas täpselt seda sama vigast reeglite kirjeldust. 

Kui saatsin eraldi kirja, tuli samuti automaatvastus täpselt selle sama vigase tekstiga.

Nüüd on FIDE Online Arena vist juba tuhandetele maletajatele saatnud matemaatiliselt täiesti vigase selgituse uutest reeglitest. 

Küllap on paljud saanud selle kirja juba mitu korda. 

Võib kujutleda, kuidas selle institutsiooni postkast on täis e-maile, mis püüavad selgitada, et uued reeglid on arusaamatud ja tekst mitteloetav. 

Iga kord saadab see institutsioon automaatvastusega täpselt selle sama esialgse vigase kirja. 

Sisuliselt on minule juba kolm korda paari päeva jooksul saadetud kiri, mis teatab, et nüüd on uus reegel, et 2 + 2 = 5; ja kui ma sellest reeglist aru ei saa, siis tuleb see sellest, et ma pole uute reeglitega veel harjunud. 

Niipalju siis sellest müüdist, et maletajatel on palju mõistust. 

I PROTEST FIDE ONLINE ARENA DECISION CONCERNING GAME CANCELLATIONS

Unfortunately, I am practically forced to make my recent letter to the FIDE Online Arena support team public. The reason is that I have repeatedly signalled to that chess platform about their shortcomings through different channels, such as a letter to the support team or a public post on their social media site. I have never received a single comment, not a single word. Now, however, I received a notice that my ability to play has been temporarily restricted because I have cancelled some chessgames. 

As a result, I wrote a letter to the support team and shall publish it here on my blog below. 

I Protest FIDE Online Arena Decision Concerning Game Cancellations

Recently, I received the following notice:

“Game start paused due to recent cancellations.”

My ability to make a challenge was paused for 10 minutes.

I have to stress that the FIDE Online Arena does not have the feature “rating difference,” “rating range,” or whatever it is called. Unlike all other major online chess platforms, the FIDE Online Arena does not allow players to automatically reject opponents with very low ratings compared to the challenger.

Currently, my rating is approximately 1750, and I did not make a move in a game against an opponent with a rating of approximately 1200. The reason is evident: praxis has shown that if I win against such an opponent, I receive 0 rating points; if I lose, I lose 15 or 20 rating points.

It is also not the case that I often dismiss the opponents with a much lower rating than mine. Quite to the contrary: during my previous session, I played approximately 10 games against opponents with a much lower rating, usually earning only 1 or 2 rating points. I spent approximately 4 hours and earned about 15-20 rating points. 

Finally, someone with a rating of approximately 1500 played with astronomic speed and precision, and I lost my first game in that session. I sent a report about a possible use of a chess engine and ended that session. In a few minutes, I lost all the rating points I had earned in 10 games over 4 hours.

Today, I also already played one game against a player with a rating of approximately 1200.

There are other compelling reasons the player might not want to play against a given opponent, unless it is a tournament game. While these do not concern the present case, generally, it too often happens that the player thinks to know that the opponent is a chess engine user or has the tendency to unsportsmanlike behaviour. 

I have to note that I have written to the Support Team about similar issues before, but I have never received any feedback.

Unfortunately, I have to inform you that, as long as the current, uncommon practice of the FIDE Online Arena persists, I shall not make any public lobby challenges on that online chess platform. 

All this does not mean that I do not appreciate many excellent features of the FIDE Online Arena platform.

Sincerely yours

Jüri Eintalu 

I Have Received an Answer

As of now, I have received the first official response to my complaints about the FIDE Online Arena system, which, among other things, does not allow setting rating-difference conditions for challenges. 

I am not entitled to make that answer public. 

However, I quote one phrase from that response:

“... we are already working on creating rating filters.”

KERES - FINE 1937

Keres - Fine 1937

The game Keres - Fine 1937 is said to be Paul Keres’s first outstanding chessgame.

Of course, the game contains several mistakes.

Since then, the opening theory has evolved, and Black’s defence has been improved, for example, by Kramnik.

Keres himself admitted, in his book Valitud partiid [= “Selected Games”], Tallinn 1961, that his maneuver Re1-e3 and Rd1-e1 was clumsy.

Fine had several options to make a prophylactic move h7-h6. He also missed the opportunity to play 20...b5xa4!, attracting White’s bishop from the active position on the diagonal a2-g8.

Fine allowed Keres to start a combination. Suddenly, it turned out that White’s first rank was weak, and Fine seemed to get a counterplay.

After the move 27...d5-d4, the position was critical. White’s rook on e3 - the defender of the rook on the first rank - was attacked and had no good retreating squares.

However, Keres had calculated that the move 27...d5-d4 also opened a diagonal a2-g8 to White’s bishop.

White attacked first and won.

Below, I have tried to make some short comments on that game. 

I DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE DECISION OF THE ESTONIAN CHESS FEDERATION

Look at the sports news:

"Chess At War: Rebel Federations Take FIDE's Russia Decision To CAS" 
World Chess News, 06 January 2026

Quotation:

"This week the national federations England, Norway, Estonia and Germany announced they have collectively filed an appeal with Ukraine to the Court of Arbitration for Sport against FIDE. Their complaint is about the FIDE General Assembly's decision to readmit fully Russia and Belarusia into chess team sport and allow their symbols to be used."

I am an Estonian citizen, a sufficiently strong chess player, and a philosopher, and I have to announce the following:

1. I am strongly against politicizing sports. 
2. I am even more strongly against politicizing sports in a selective, discriminatory manner.

For example, the US chess players or chess institutions have not been sanctioned for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars that the US started and kept for decades.

The Israeli chess players or chess institutions have not been sanctioned for the Gaza genocide committed by Israel. 

Moreover, look at the phrase "full-scale invasion" in the article:

"The Russia/Belarus question has been bitterly dividing the chess world since, in the aftermath of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022."

The question is about why they never called the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq "full-scale invasions". It is obvious that these invasions were full-scale - if that word has any meaning at all.

Moreover, look at the complaint that FIDE has violated its rules, etc. According to the article, in its public statement, the Norwegian Chess Federation said: 

"The Appellants submit that the challenged resolutions were adopted following serious procedural irregularities, including violations of the FIDE Charter and fundamental principles of transparent and lawful decision-making within international sports governance."

You have no self-respect whatsoever.

When FIDE, in 2022, decided to impose sanctions on Russia, the decision-making process was already not transparent. 

Moreover, FIDE changed its rules ad hoc - solely to be able to impose sanctions on Russia.

These are the facts.

In sum, I am of the opinion that the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were completely unjustified; the Russian invasion of Ukraine was better justified, but also not sufficiently justified (taking into account the principle of proportionality and the large numbers of war victims); and the sports sanctions imposed on Russia were unjustified and discriminatory.

This is my opinion about those chess pederations who are trying hard to weaponize sports. 

The officials of Estonian Chess Federation

KRAMNIK SUES FIDE FOR DEFAMATION

A quotation from the article “Vladimir Kramnik Sues FIDE for Defamation after Daniel Naroditsky Controversy” (India Today, 1 January 2026):

"Czech Grandmaster David Navara has also claimed to have felt distressed and suicidal due to Kramnik's online cheating charge against him."

"Kramnik has consistently defended his conduct, maintaining that his statements are substantiated."

- Implicitly, it is said that Kramnik made a statement that Navara was cheating, and that Kramnik asserts that this statement is substantiated.

And that is a lie and a form of defamation.

I have read Kramnik's statements and watched his videos.

Kramnik has NOT accused Navara of cheating.

From the article “Kramnik Takes FIDE to Swiss Civil Court - Bypassing Sport's Usual Arbitration System” (Worldchess News, 30 December 2025), which presumably represents the position of FIDE:

"[Kramnik] ... now faces accusations that his own allegations against others crossed ethical and legal lines."

- The article implies that Kramnik has made several accusations and only accusations.

Instead, most of Kramnik's "accusations" are carefully formulated suspicions or questions.

In such cases, he clearly states that he does not accuse but merely demands investigations of statistically abnormal playing results and demands explanations.

Thus, when writing about the current defamation lawsuit, the slandering continues and even amplifies.

Typically, Kramnik's precise and clear formulations are almost never quoted.

The written text of Kramnik's critics simply does not correspond to what Kramnik actually said.

And I am talking about it not because of Kramnik.

I am talking about it because of the principle that important statements must be reported correctly. 

LACK OF TIME AND THE WINNING MOVE

In a short rapid game Eintalu - Juhasz, there was tactical fireworks and mistakes on both sides. 

In the end, I accepted a draw offer because I was running out of time and couldn't find an effective winning move.

Can you find it?

White to move

Below is an analysis of the game.

FIDE FAULTY VOTING SYSTEM

I am afraid that FIDE and ICCF have a mistaken voting system. Their press releases often do not specify how many deputies participated in the vote. 

Their demagoguery is to say "majority" instead of "majority of those who participated". 

Or they declare that "P percentage voted for the decision" instead of "P percentage of those who participated voted for the decision". 

It also leads to contradictions too easily. 

Already, when FIDE sanctioned Russia in 2022, public propaganda gave the impression that the majority of FIDE member states demanded the sanctions. I am afraid that, instead, it was the majority of those who voted. In any case, it seems that the percentage of those countries that supported the sanctions was much lower than the impression made by press releases. 

Suppose that Y is the number of those who vote "Yes", N is the number of those who vote "No", and A is the number of those who are neutral, abstain or are missing. We assume that A > 0, as is usually the case. Then, obviously, 

Y/(Y + N) > Y/(Y + N + A) 

That is the basics of probability calculus and the calculus of percentages. 

FIDE and ICCF public reports of their voting results are not transparent, making political demagoguery too easy. 

I suggest that reports and relevant news include: 

1. The number of FIDE member states. 
2. The minimum number of YES-votes required to accept a decision (the quota). 
3. The number of those who were ABSENT. 
4. The numbers of YES, NO, and NEUTRAL. 

My present essay is motivated by the fact that, recently, FIDE voted on whether to annul the sanctions imposed on Russia. According to FIDE's own press releases, it managed to adapt at once two parallel decisions that conflicted with each other. See, for example: 

"Chess World Left In Limbo As FIDE's Russia Vote Ends In Chaos And Confusion",

Worldchess, 14 December 2025 

Quotations: 

"When it came to the vote, Russia's controversial motion passed by 61 in favour, to 51 against." 

"A second motion proposed by the FIDE Council also passed by 69 votes to 40." 

Note that there are around 200 member federations of FIDE, and: 

61 + 51 = 112 < 200 

69 + 40 = 109 < 200 

Note also that 200/2 = 100, and: 

61 < 100 

69 < 100 

That is, no decision was taken with an absolute majority. 

Now, let us take a look at FIDE's official statement:

"FIDE General Assembly decisions regarding Russia and Belarus", 
Fide News, 14 December 2025

Quotation: 

"In a procedural outcome, reflecting the diversity of views within the chess community, the General Assembly voted to adopt both the resolution proposed by the Chess Federation of Russia (61 votes in favour, 51 against, 14 abstentions and 15 delegates not voting) and the resolution proposed by the FIDE Council (69 votes in favour, 40 against, 15 abstentions and 17 delegates not voting)." 

However, the total number of member states is still missing, as 

61 + 51 + 14 + 15 = 141 < 200 

69 + 40 + 15 + 17 = 141 < 200 

I criticised the demagoguery and illogicality of FIDE's voting and its interpretations already on 24 September 2024. 

Terminology

FIDE - International Chess Federation

ICCF - International Correspondence Chess Federation 

NÄILISELT LIHTNE JA IGAV VIIK

Hiljuti võitsin ühe tugeva kirimaleturniiri, milles mina olin ainus osaleja, kelle reiting oli alla 2500. 

Viimastel aastatel ei ole ma enam mänginud rahvusvahelise kirimaleorganisatsiooni ICCF turniiridel, sest kuigi see on ametlikult keelatud, kasutavad kõik malemasinaid ja praktiliselt on see lubatud. Samas on ajakontroll ICCF-s vanamoeliselt väga aeglane, mis malemasinate kasutamise korral muudab asja juba eriti mõttetuks.

Seetõttu olen kirimalet mänginud platvormidel, millel ajakontroll on kiirem, näiteks kolm päeva ühe käigu peale. Kahjuks on ka nendel platvormidel malemasinate kasutamine ametlikult keelatud, praktikas aga väga ilmselt kasutavad neid kõik mängijad, kelle reiting on umbes 2200 või kõrgem.

Veelgi hullem. Aeg-ajalt teeseldakse rangust ja karistatakse mõnda üksikut mängijat sohi tegemise eest, karistamise tegelikuks põhjuseks on aga näiteks poliitika või soov selle konreetse isiku tulemusi alla suruda. Sest väga ilmselt on nende platvormide esitipus mängijad, keda ei karistatata, kes aga teevad süstemaatiliselt sohki.

Seetõttu pean ma käimasolevat Kramniku vastast kampaaniat silmakirjalikuks. Küllap tal on õigus ja ka kiirmales ning eriti väga kiires males on lood samamoodi. 

Nüüd aga malelise poole juurde. 

Mulle meeldib mustade malenditega Lipugambiiti mängida, ent mitte Lipugambiidi Vahetusvarianti, mis algab käikudega

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 Bg5

Kuigi Botvinnik on nüüdseks surnud ja Kasparov ei mängi enam aktiivselt võistlusmalet, on endiselt mustadega väga raske mängida Lipugambiidi Vahetusvariandi vastu. Raske ja ka kurnav, sest võita mustade malenditega eriti ei saa, kaotada saab aga väga hästi - aeglaselt ja piinarikkalt.

Paljud minu viigid mustade malenditega on sellest variandist tulnud ainult suure tööga ja üle noatera.

Turniiril, mille äsja võitsin, olin mina ainukene, kes suutis ühe partii võita. Ent veelgi olulisem oli see, et ma ei kaotanud tugevale vastasele Lipugambiidi Vahetusvariandis, mängides mustade malenditega. Suutsin viiki mängida.

Partii Chitauri - Nanomeister näib esmapilgul olevat igav viigipartii. 

Chitauri - Nanomeister, Game Knot 2025

Tegelikult tegin selles partiis mustadega avangu-uuenduse üsna päevakajalises avanguteoreetilises seisus. 

Ja tegelikult läks see partii viiki sellepärast, et Valge ei julgenud kahida rünnaku nimel vigurit, kuigi see näis paljutõotav. 

Allpool selle partii põhjalik analüüs, kui tehnoloogia selle korralikku esitamist võimaldab. 

  Seda ma arvasin. Chessbase tegi mõned trükivead sisse, ma ei ürita neid parandada.