allanbeardsworth

February 5, 2016

It’s Your Move: daily chess puzzle #256

Black to play and win

2561

Jacobsen v Ljubojevic, Groningen 1969-70

Solution

A lovely one today, and very hard – it took me a good while, looking at very confusing and similar lines, and throwing away various pieces on b4, e3, d4 before finding 1…Nf4! with the key move then being 2 gf Qd3!! – for a while I tried to make 2..ef work, but, if nothing else, 3 Qe1 refutes it.

2562

But after 2..Qd3 White is totally trussed up: 3 Re1 0-0-0 and at some stage, trouble on f2 or somewhere else, dependent on how White wriggles.

2563

February 4, 2016

It’s Your Move: daily chess puzzle #255

(i) White to play and win

and (ii) evaluate 1 Ra6

2551

Lehmann v Cordovil, Malaga 1970

Solution

Second part first: 1 Ra6? loses to 1…Qg1+[] 2 Kg3[] h4+!

2552

3 Kh4 Qg2![] defending the Pg6 and giving Black sufficient time to follow up with Rh1/ Rg1/Qf2.

2553

The key point in Black’s winning line is Ph4+! so the way White wins is 1 h4!. There is the threat of mating with Qg8+ Qg7+! e6+! Rh8 mate, and Black is powerless against it.

2554

February 3, 2016

It’s Your Move: daily chess puzzle #254

White to play and win

2541

Hecht v B Kristjansson, Reykjavik 1970

Solution

Not too hard, but I totally miffed this one. I played 1 Ncb5, convinced it wins, but part of my reasoning was that after a Nd6+ I could follow up with Rf1-f7; but alas, the R is on g1- so a total fail. I thought the problem was easy, and checked the solution too quickly.

Instead, 1 Bb5+! is the move, partly to vacate f1 the said rook.

2543

In the game, Black didn’t capture, and lumbered on a pawn down: White’s attack was also easier than Black’s play. 1 Bb5+! Kf8 2 Rf1 (threat 3 Ne6+) Kg1 3 h4 and White dominates.

Or 1…ab 2 Ncb5 Qe7 3 Nd6+ Kf8 4 Rf1 with a similarly overwhelming position.

2542

February 2, 2016

It’s Your Move: daily chess puzzle #252

White to play and win

White actually played 1 Rfa1 and lost – how?; and how could he have won?

2521

Burkett – Fritzinger, California 1969

Solution

Not too hard it being a puzzle, but in the game White erred playing 1 Rfa1? which was met by 1…Qe4+ 2 Kg1 (2f3 same) Qe1+ and mate next move.

2524

Instead, 1 Ra8+ Kb7[] :

2522

My solution was 2 Ra7+! Ka7[] 3 Qc7+ and mates on the a line, but equally 2 Qb3+ mates on the same line, and is prettier: 2…Ka8[] 3 Ra1+ etc.

2523

February 1, 2016

It’s Your Move: daily chess puzzle #251

White to play and win

2511

Bures- Zikan, corres 1969

Solution

More or less desperado, but 1 Qc6+! begs to be tried, and in fact wins. 1…bc[] 2 Rb8+ Kd7[] 3 Rb7+

2512

3…Ke8 4 Re7+ and 5 Ne6 mate (because of the Ph7) whilst 3…Kc8 4 Rc7+ 5Nc6+ and 6 Ra7 mate.

January 31, 2016

It’s Your Move: daily chess puzzle #250

White to play: can he play 1 c6*d7?

2501

Smirnov v Yeleznov, USSR 1969

Solution

The answer is, “he might as well” since all moves lose, and here Black must fund something; but it is not too hard: 1 d7 e2+ 2 Be2 Qd4+!

2503

and it is all over. If the King moves, or the B interposes, the Q can be taken, since the Qd4 controls the promotion square. So 3 Qd4 but then 3..Rc1 is a pretty mate.

2504

January 30, 2016

It’s Your Move: daily chess puzzle #249

White to play and win

2491

Tal- Suetin, Tbilisi 1969-1970

Solution

For once, a Tal problem which is not fiendishly difficult. Examine all biffs leads quickly to 1 Qe5! de[] 2 ef+ Kd8 (2…Kf8 3 Bh6 mate) and now 3 Bf5+ is murderous, but my engine says 3 f8(Q+) is even stronger.

2492

January 29, 2016

It’s Your Move: daily chess puzzle #248

Black to play and win

2481

Spiridonov v Tal, Tbilisi 1969

Solution

I make an exception for Tal, especially, as here, where the position is a mess. Black won by 1…e2! 2 Re2 Ng4! and several more tactics: my engine tells me this wins, but so do other moves- I suspect I could write chapters, which isn’t my aim – seeing 1…e2 and 2…Ng4, or equivalent strong messes like 1…b5 and 1…e4 isn’t hard: I’ll leave the lines to those readers who are interested. The game is in Megabase.

2482

January 28, 2016

Thoughts on Google tax

Google is in the news at present for its tax deal struck with HMRC. So, yet again, there is a spike of media coverage about tax avoidance; some well reasoned, some inane, some conflating avoidance and evasion…nothing particularly new. I should though say that I thought BBC2’s recent programme ‘The Town That Took on the Taxman’ about Crickhowell was a very good example of its genre and worth watching whilst still available on iPlayer.

not evasion, avoidance

This blog was prompted by several people asking me about Google – “what do I think?” “is it fair?” and I thought I would try to summarise my thoughts. It is a quick note; I could write reams, and research my facts; but this is hopefully a good flavour of my thoughts.

I suspect at least 80% and probably even 90% of the problem is the legislation; 10% or possibly less is taxpayer behaviour. And 90% of the problem with the legislation isn’t easily fixable given that countries (i) compete with each other to attract jobs; (ii) countries are run by politicians, who, in democracies, want to get re-elected; (iii) politics seems to be all about fudge, shuffle, blame.

Taxation develops as economies develop. The system of double tax treaties stems mainly from the League of Nations in the 1920s, when the mechanism of international trade was sail boats, and England, the US and other developed powers ruled. So the framework of tax treaties looks to tax based on “permanent establishments”, bases. If you have a permanent establishment somewhere, you pay tax there. And if you read the old tax treaties, you will see that the e.g. British rulers framed the definitions of “PEs” so that good old British companies didn’t always have to pay tax on mining or other extracting or exploiting activities in their colonies. The definitions of permanent establishment were lop-sided. Yes, treaties have been refined over the years, but many of the core concepts include PEs remain more or less as in the past.

vintage-map-africa-ancient-depicting-th-century-32556042

Now, take a family business, founded by mum and dad; say a village retail store. It develops, and son Jack and daughter Jill inherit it. They decide to open another store in the neighbouring village. It too goes well; son works in the Oldtown store, sister in Newtown. They want to divide the profits fairly, proportionate to their efforts. But what about the fact that the central stores are in Oldtown? Or the finance department in Newtown; or son also spends part of his time looking, so far unsuccessfully, for a third site. What’s a fair apportionment? Such questions have no single right or wrong answer, but a range of answers.

Oh, I didn’t say that Oldtown and Newtown were in two different counties, which raise separate taxes, at different rates. How now to apportion? The compromise the siblings came to no longer looks good, when viewed from a tax perspective. Worse, OldCounty’s tax system has a different basis to NewCounty’s, assessing high taxes on people employed there: what to do about the staff who divide their time between the stores?

Then t’internet comes in. The business starts selling over t’internet from OldTown. Should they pay tax solely in OldCounty? Or solely where the customers are based? Or nowhere?

If countries weren’t run by politicians, and if politicians weren’t limited by what their electorate felt, but were run by mathematicians or logicians, then, maybe, they would conclude that taxing internet businesses by virtue to rules devised in Victorian England was past its sell by date. Better, tax something else: tax sales (so a higher VAT, or fewer exemptions); tax earnings more; tax annual wealth, tax unshaven heads (I’d vote for that), tax Celebrity Big Brother contestants(ditto), just don’t try to tax trading profits based on where things physically are in the modern world.

Turning to the Google deal itself- and, shame on me, I haven’t bothered to read any of the detail so far, just listened to snippets on the news- it looks like a political fudge. I heard, may be wrongly, that the tax payment is being made without acknowledging that there is a UK Permanent Establishment. That seems to be perverse – if that is the case, it is a Starbucks-type voluntary tax. We, Google, will give, UK, a gift. I would have more belief in the settlement if there was an acknowledgment of UK presence and the settlement was a negotiated Jack and Jill assessment of the profits split between UK and elsewhere.

So, as to 90%, the system is defunct; and as to 10%, Google have gamed the system, and HMRC have taken the reasonable stance of negotiating what is possible given the impossibility of getting a logically inherent answer.

Oh, there is nothing new in taxation causing problems. It happened first a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

January 28, 2016

It’s Your Move: daily chess puzzle #247

White played 1 Be5; what happened?

How instead should White have played?

Sahovic v Matulovic, Belgrade 1969

Solution

First question has fairly standard answer, 1..Qa1+ and mate next move after 2 Ba1[] Ra1 mate.

Second question is harder: 1 e8(Q)+ either deflects the Ra8, meaning that the same Qa1 tictac doesn’t work, or if 1…Ba8 then 2 Qe6+ safely picks up a piece, and e.g. 2…Bf7

3 Qe7?? threatens 4 Rd8+ and thus keeps the piece, except that Black has a hidden tictac: 3…Qa2+ 4 Kc1[] Qb2+!! 5 Kb2 Nd3++ 6 Kb1 Ra1 mate.

White would have to grovel with 3 Qe5 when after exchanges, Black is to be preferred: 3…Be5 4 Be5 Bb3 5 cb Qa2+ 6 Kc1[] Qg2 and White is just about holding together.

So instead 1 Qe6+! Be6 2 Rd8+ and the pawn safely queens, since the Black King must move to g7, blocking the Bh8’s line of sight.

Also, a prophylactic move such as 1 c3! would also be mean (i.e. winning; White keeps control) Black’s pieces lack stability and will fall apart.

Posted with Blogsy

Search site