Russian version

Google Translator

Henrikh Chepukaitis
Russian Master

For fun and in earnest. Part 2


- Tell us about your new book, please.

- Understanding that anybody, who feels like it, is writing anything and what naught, I have written a booklet "Sprint on the chessboard". There are many useful advices in it. The global meaning on the booklet: "One must move where it is needed". It turns out that one must not play well, but one should achieve that the opponent could play worse!

- How can it be done?

- I write about it. It is a whole sophistication complex. One must move nearer to the push-button, make variation choice afterwards, and allow the opponent do his choosing. He will find it how to lose, if you are heavily in the way! The thing is, it is too logical, too obvious! And what is illogical, is a dark affair! It is so because different characters, confusion... do help in blitz. But I dislike this book which has been practically sold out, and I have decided to write another one. It has not been published yet, and it will be titled "The Anthology of Flippant Genre". There is nothing light-minded in it, thought. You may consider it to be methods text-book which is not inferior to the Nimzovich'es manual. Everything is set forth in simple everyday language. It may be read by common people, masters and grand masters can benefit by it. Everybody can find what he has never heard of, because my understanding of chess is perpendicular to the standard and characterized by the Russian "off-chance (may be)". I hope Reader will pay attention to it. Even that small one was not criticized though we have critics in much bulk, but most people cannot write so as one should. Taking a chance I want to say that "a sea" of chess fiction is being issued now but books often double each other. Chess positions are standard there and explanations are standard... M.Bloch perhaps elected "this and that" as one should, only D.Bronstein, may be, has a fine literary style...

- But what about original and new?

- Everything is known in chess since immemorial. They speak of nowadays, who has strong physical training, competent HQ, whose computer and its equipment are sharper, and who takes more time at it! Chess has become quite another, and speaking mildly I don't like it. One has to play and torment oneself. Children don't go back a step from the computer! And computer is a power installation! I like very much "The Ballad about myself' because my shyness there is seen by naked eye.

I'm not given grandmaster for the present,
I seem to be given it posthumously
And to be borne with legs forward
Perhaps into Guinnes' book...

Naturally I was born chance,
As everything what takes place on the Earth.
I have been growing an active boy, a genius,
What is known in the FIDE's chronicles.

In chess and everything else as well, one must have knowledge, skill and understanding, in order to move in ascending line. If you have all this, you will achieve a success in no way if you have not got the main parameter which is called FORTYNE scientifically. The fortune is needed for all this. And it appears when You don't avoid risk when You've ready to step into the unknown, inexperienced... Chess increases sharply man's capabilities to take bearings in all things which are not chess. We know well-known advocates, politicians, presidents... they didn't conceal themselves from chess, but they played. The same thing was in ancient times!

- What else interesting will readers find in Your book?

- Whence did appear from was written by I. and V.Linders, but it is very difficult to read their book, it is big... I express my solidarity with Petersburg master Yu.Ryzhkov who considers chess to come to us from ordinary Atlantis.** Whether it existed or not, the thing is unknown. But the thing that Atlantes played chess is a complete guarantee! (Laughing) I like my being a noted man in chess. I don't like to show my last games. Chessplayers like fishers remain objective during and after the game with difficulty! Such is psychology of a chess master. I hear rarely an objective judgment... here is, for example, what one master said after the lost game: "Everything has been normal in the Opening, there has been nothing wrong all the same the middle. And when ending has come, there has begun wild time trouble all of a sudden, and the opponent has stared at my face with his muzzle, and I've quite forgotten a game clue..." I believe he has been very objective at the moment. There were very many events in my life. I played many times with Spassky, Korchnoi, and other celebrities. They were very disrespectful to me in serious games and very respectful in blitz. They think I've made a move that I have some trick in the brain, but I've made the move simply, and great masters think: what for? And at that moment I take the main thing, time from the partner. If he even finds refutation, then it will be afterwards. And afterwards he "waves his hands" in the time trouble. I hoped most of all on citations from the book by German field marshal Guderian "Panzer vorwarts". He came up nearer than others to chess. Then I took something from baron Munchhausen... There are very many original thoughts in my book. I think, my book is a manual. Those manuals which there written in the past are hard to read. For example, Capablanca's "Chess Game Manual" still can be read, but "Nimzovich" is right, though, nevertheless it is fatiguing. But chessplayer today is bound to be ready to fatigue! One must sit at the computer and derive new ideas one's openings. And it is a difficult occupation. To my view, in spite of many known openings there are only two: "one is that You play well, another which You play bad!" Yes, of course, there is "a Hedgehog" also. Every Opening has its "hedgehog". If you have no "hedgehog", they will come to You, find some path anywhere! And the entire question is whether You can direct your figures, or not. For example, the castle "is fed" on open verticals and horizontals and bishops do on the diagonals! Figures should move. But as the Knight can "eat" any bishop, I consider the Knight as a figure to be much better than a bishop. The bishop may be bad as well, "immured". And the best bishop is a spare one! My book is also biographical; my won games are given in it. However, I'm a blitz expert, specialist in quick chess. And quick chess is still alive now. But serious classical chess has nearly perished... because many chessplayers keep computers at theirs and shamelessly use these "jacks" to the fall.

Lemur is a doc at home in bananas,
An opening is an opening in Africa as well,
But when a banana hangs high
They chew something another!

You're not a lemur, auf You
Perhaps can seize it from
When you partner gets the banana...
There's no need to tilt the baobab!

H.Chepukaitis - S.Zhelezny [A45]

Championship of Russia among chess veterans, Kratovo, 2003.

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 d5 3.Nd2 g6 4.Bxf6 exf6 5.e3 Bg7 6.g3 0-0 7.Bg2 c6 8.Ne2 Nd7 9.c4 dxc4 10.Nxc4 Nb6. On should play Nf6, Be6, Re8 and remember that Bishop "c8" is bad. 11.Na5 Nd5 12.Qd2 f5 13.b4 Re8 14.0-0 Rb8?
Generally speaking it enters in no gates; the castle will guard pawn "b7"!

15.a3 h5 16.h4 g5 The black begin an attack and as a beginning they break their "fence".

17.hxg5 Qxg5 18.Nf4! Here a good stomatologist would do the same... that is, stop a tooth!


Now the White win if they know well Guderian's creative work. Of course, the question is about tanks, chess castles!

19.Bxd5 cxd5 20.Kg2 It turns out that two verticals "h" and "g" are best of all designed for heavy equipment.

hxg3 21.Rh1

One "tank" is on the spot already. It is understood 21. is not good.

21...Bd7 One must have in view that men f5 and d5 are not eatable, they are not black, but white. They interfere with their own Bishop's action. The Black helped the White as they could, being left with two Bishops which are of little use.

22.Rh3 Qe7 23.Rg1 And the second "tractor" is on the spot. The Bishop "g7" is "not long to play".

23...Qe4+ 24.f3 Qxe3 25.Qxe3 Rxe3 26.Rxg3 Kf8 27.Rxg7 Rxa3 28.Kh2 Ke7 29.Nxd5+ Ke6 30.Nf4+ Kf6 31.Rh7 Rxf3

Now it follows checkmate in five moves.

32.Rh6+ Ke7 33.Nd5+ Kd8 34.Rg8+ Be8 35.Rd6+ Kc8 36.Rxe8# 1-0

- As a matter of fact, what was Guderian's method?

- Guderian always made provision for flank attacks, calculated how many shells and full are needed. If one had to carry on defence, tanks were to put one by one. But, in order to seize a vast area, tanks should be placed fan-shaped as if for sowing!

- What is a secret of Your longevity?

- I think out nothing, don't "take anything into the head"; my partners think so long that I have no risk to be a shortly living counter. I'm not a counter-man! I'm a pure strategy general, counter-men live short. I don't want to remember, but it is M.Tal, L.Polugayevsky and others. And strategy generals live so much they want. The least of it they maintain their chess power. Em.Lasker, V.Smyslov is a characteristic example. My chess longevity has begun only. When I began to understand something, it turned out that the years are great already.

Our commentary is somewhat late
Snow on the lips does not thaw
We, the last, are not sent, action
The last time into the last fighting...

We are alive, but the king is no more,
And how he strained to be in the action!
He hurried everybody and made them angry,
He hoped on turmoil,

Was in two steps from us...
We were in more number than now
And here is a senseless finale:
We are alive, but the king fell!

He, okhlamon*, would sit at home,
Than rush into this marathon of fighting
Where one gets one's punishment,
Where they strike in earnest and on the spot

Everything is foreseen by God,
And even this variant too
The ballad is of light spectrum
True, my talent is obvious.

There's no foundation for a pedestal
No biography of the impudent fellow
In the bottomless abyss of the Being
But there are chess and myself alone.

* An ordinary silly man
**The big English-Russian Dictionary, Moscow., Publ. "Russian Langauge", 1987, p.124

Translated by Sergeev V.V. Town of Pushkin.

На верхupdate 19-03-2005 

search editions