Willa White Owens

      In addition to Mrs. Markowski, Willa White Owens was another prominent Ohio lady player in the 1950s and 60s whom I remember seeing at tournaments on occasion. In the 1957 US Open held in Cleveland, Ohio, Mrs. Owens finished tied for places 99-112 with 5.5 pts. out of 12. She lost her second round game to the strong master Attilio DiCamillo

      According to a brief article on her by Batgirl at Chessdotcom she was born on April 13, 1910 in Ohio. Her first husband died in 1948 and she married her second husband, Ross Owens, in 1950. She had learned to play from her first husband around 1937 and met her second husband at a chess tournament. Both of them were rated in the 1700’s.  Mrs. Owens died May 26, 2003 in Wyanesburg, Pennsylvania. 

Mrs. White's Obit at Find-A-Grave

Milwaukee Journal article on Mrs. Owens

Alina Markowski

     Alina Markowski died on June 28, 2011 just one month short of her 101st birthday. She was the Ohio women’s champion in 1955, 1957, 1959, 1960 and 1961. Her victory in the 1955 championship came only two years after learning the moves.
      Mrs. Markowski was born in Krakow, Poland on July 18, 1910 and her family moved to Chicago in 1912, but returned to Poland in 1923 where she was taught chess by her sister. In 1925 she briefly returned to Chicago and then moved to Toledo, Ohio which is where I remember her from. While living in Toledo she was employed as a Registrar at the University of Toledo. Registrars have the responsibility of maintaining records of the academic progress and accomplishments of students and maintaining student records.
      In 1935, while performing a Polish folk dance at a festival at Walbridge Park in Toledo, she met and married Steve Markowski, an attorney who also served as president of the Ohio Chess Federation (1956 - 1961). Her husband was also born in Poland and moved Pittsburgh in 1915. They both played chess, but it was not until 1953 that they began tournament play. Both had ratings in the 1600-1700 range. Her last published rating was in 2006 and was 1507...not bad for a 96 year old!  Her 'Quick Rating" was 1524. Her husband died of cancer in 1971 at the age of 65.
      In 1975 when Mrs. Markowski retired she moved to Escondido, California and became active in the local chess scene. Both in Ohio and California Mrs. Markowski was an active organizer for women’s chess. She also served as a board member for the Southern California Chess Federation and wrote articles on women and chess for the organization's publication. She was also active as a member of the San Diego Chess Club, the North County/Escondito Chess Club and the Vista Chess Club.
      She was a member of the Correspondence Chess League of America and was active in postal chess for many years. She also served as a volunteer organizer for the U.S. Senior Open and was a certified Tournament Director. Beginning in the mid-1908s Mrs. Markowski was living in an assisted living center where she formed, what else…a chess club.

 

The Demise of Plasticbishop

      Back in August of last year the site owner, who started the site about 7-8 years ago for his own enjoyment, announced that he would be closing up shop in August of this year, so the time is drawing near.

      He gave several reasons for his decision: 1) Not enough time…family and job 2) Other interests besides running a chess server 3) Working on the server became an obligation and not something he does because he wants to  4) Rather than making money, it is costing him money and 5) running the site is exhausting.  This was a very difficult decision for him, but understandable.

      However, from August 2013 the site will be transferred to a much cheaper server and most of the features disabled. The forums and messaging will still be active so people can keep in touch with their friends. 

      A few years ago when I was reentering correspondence chess and looking for a site to play on, I tried a lot of them.  Plasticbishop was a nice site, but the players there were mostly lower rated and there was no competition…I think my longest game was 20-something moves and several were 10-12 moves and two lasted about 5-6 moves!

       For reasons it isn’t necessary to go into, at one point I exchanged e-mails with Mr. Robson and found him to be a really nice guy and I’m sorry his site is shutting down in a couple of months.  It was a good site for lower rated players and the loss of a free chess server is, in itself, kind of sad. 

Stockfish 3 Update

The New Thoresen Chess Engines Competition reports that after 48 games Houdini defeated Stockfish by a score of 25 -23.  The complete set of games can be downloaded from the site.

The top 10 ratings are:

1-Houdini 3 - 3156

2-Stockfish 250413 - 3102

3-Rybka 4.1  -3099

4-Komodo 4534 - 3084

5-Critter 1.6a - 3073

6-Vitruvius 1.19 - 3064

7-Gull R375 - 3052

8-Equinox 1.65 - 3049

9-Hiarcs 14 - 2984

10-Chiron 1.5 - 2983

Loinjak Game

      I recently posted about Sinisa Loinjak’s winning of the LSS ‘World Championship’ and observed that because of his 51.1% wins 48.9% draws with no losses he clearly knows something about using chess engines that I and a lot of others don’t.  One poster commented, “Maybe the best correspondence chess players still clearly know something about using chess knowledge a lot of others don't ?!” and then asked the question, “Have you checked the games? Are the critical maneuvers and tactics really that easy to spot by strong chess engines?”  Actually, I had not checked any of his games, but the question made me decide to do just that to see if I could spot the critical points in the game and see where Loinjak varied from engine suggestions.

       I deliberately chose a game against a lower rated player figuring any mistakes and Loinjak’s exploitation of them would be easier to spot.  My method was to first Blundercheck the game at 10 seconds per move with a setting of 0.30 being considered a ‘blunder.’  Black's 17th move registered as a blunder and there was one later in the game, but it was already lost anyway, so we can discount that move.  The next thing was to utilize the Hot Meter function which is supposed to alert you major positional changes. Engines used were Houdini 2, Stockfish 3 and Critter 1.6a 64-bit.
      One important thing to remember is that I did not spend a great deal of time analyzing this game (maybe 1-3 minutes per move), but the purpose was not to annotate the game as such, but to find critical points where Loinjak varied from engine suggestions. 
      Even so, it is possible that if he spent hours analyzing with a powerful computer, he would have actually been playing engine suggestions that I was unable to hit on in such a brief amount of time.  And that in itself is a big difference between highly rated CC players and the rest of us.  I have a dual core laptop, an opening book and database that came with the software and am not willing to spend several evenings analyzing every move. 
      I had a game some time back where the DB showed several games by 2500+ CC players that were all wins so I steered into one of those games, but in the course of analyzing it, I  (or rather the engine) discovered an improvement for my opponent that lead to a significant advantage.  Alas, my opponent discovered it too and I lost.  This example shows how important opening analysis in CC is.  Then there are games like the one I recently posted where I chose a line none of the engines recommended and ended up drawing.  I’ve done that on more than one occasion and probably have lost more than I have won doing it!
      Anyway, it seems the critical point in this game was Loinjak’s 17.g4 which none of the engines found.  I let Houdini 2 work on it for three hours while I was out trimming hedges and Loinjak's move did not show up in the top 8 suggestions..  In fact, the evaluation after 17.g4 fell off a tiny bit, but as the game progressed you could see White’s advantage gradually creeping up. I even tried the ‘human-like’ Komodo-64 3 engine and it didn’t recommend 17.g4 either.
      So, the question is, how did Loinjak decide on 17.g4?  I don’t know, but if you think about it, a general P-advance on the K-side looks logical and I suppose that if the evaluation does not make a drastic change for the worse, then it makes sense to play it.  Maybe I'll understand it better when I get to 2500....

 

 

 

John W. Collins

      John William Collins (September 23, 1912 - December 2, 2001) was a well known author, teacher and master and in 1991 was inducted into the U.S. Chess Hall of Fame. His most famous ‘pupil’ was Bobby Fischer though Fischer never acknowledged Collins as such. Mostly what Collins seems to have done with Fischer was give him access to his vast chess library and to have analyzed some openings and played thousands of speed games with him. In fact, in his book, My Seven Chess Prodigies, Collins said he had merely "imparted knowledge" to Fischer's because his special ability could not be taught. Collins and his sister held open house two or three nights a week at his apartment in Flatbush, and Fischer had dinner there almost as often as in his own home.      Other famous pupils were Robert and Donald Byrne, William Lombardy and Raymond Weinstein, Sal Matera and Lewis Cohen although it cannot be said with certainty that Collins actually ‘taught’ them anything. Sal Matera became an IM and later gave up chess for a business career and who knows what happened to Lewis Cohen? With the possible exception of Fischer, I would hesitate to call any of them “prodigies.” I once read My Seven Chess Prodigies hoping to find the secret of his success, but there were no secrets. Mostly Collins and his sister, Ethel, provided their apartment, aka Hawthorne Chess Club, as a venue for people to play chess, analyze and generally fellowship. He and his sister also appear to have fed the kids a lot of pop, cookies and other goodies.
      Collins was born and raised in Newburgh, New York, but lived most of his life in New York City. He was injured in an accident at birth and confined to a wheelchair the rest of his life, but that did not stop him from being an active participant in many chess activities. He was assisted by his sister, a registered nurse who devoted her life to caring for her brother and accompanied him to chess events. Collins was a master in the 1930s and there were not many players in that era that could boast the title.
 

     He was a major figure in the early days of organized chess and served for many years as correspondence chess editor of Al Horowitz’ Chess Review magazine. In addition to being an OTB Master Collins was also a Correspondence Master. He was active in OTB chess up until the 1960’s and once won the U.S. Correspondence Championship. Collins also participated in the first World Correspondence Championship (won by C.J.S. Purdy) but did not do particularly well, finishing +3 -7 =3 and tying for 11-12 place out of 14. He also won the Marshall Chess Club Championship and the New York State Championship.
      Collins was co-editor of the ninth edition of Modern Chess Openings, a major organizer and leader for chess activities, especially through the Collins Kids organization. The Collins Kids were a group of young players who Collins helped to play against teams from other countries.

I Don’t Understand the Position

I recently concluded a correspondence game that has left me baffled.  After arriving at the position below I hit on the idea of a general K-side advance which I thought would leave me with reasonably good chances but after tinkering around with several different engines (mostly Houdini 2, Critter and Stockfish 3) to analyze the rest of the game I still have not been able to come up with what I consider any definitive answers about what the real evaluation of the position should be.  All the engines seem to give different outputs and evaluations and none of them indicate that a general advance on the K-side by White is in order.  Mostly what I get is what appears to me as aimless shifting of the pieces.
 

NM Dan Heisman Meets the Legendary Al Horowitz

      I came across a chessdotcom post from back in January where Heisman wrote of his one and only meeting with Horowitz. It appears Heisman met Horowitz right after Horowitz had a bad day in the US Championship and Horowitz was a little gruff.
      What I particularly found interesting was a comment by one poster who wrote…I think there is something else at play here. I've been thinking of blogging about it, but it would cause a firestorm. By my observations, chess players as a whole have a worse character than the general population. We all know some friendly chess players, no doubt: people who are kind, jovial, generous of spirit. Far more often than would be expected though, it seems, chess players are spiteful, boastful, arrogant, cold, mean. We see this when we play live internet chess: the comments that so often come through the chat box do not tend to reflect well on the character of chess players. We can ascribe much of this to the anonymity afforded by this medium, no doubt, and we certainly see similar behavior around the web. But still, when I consider my in-person experiences, there are far too many cases such as are documented here. This is especially sad if true, because it would further diminish the chances of people becoming interested in chess: no one likes to hang out with jerks.
      What do you think? Personally I have found the opposite to be true. Oh sure, I have run into plenty of real snot faces over the years, but generally I’d have to say most chess players I have met or played correspondence with from GMs on down to beginners have been pretty decent folks.
      Of the ‘famous’ GM’s I have met, Arthur Bisguier, Andy Soltis, William Lombardy, Milan Vukcevich and Edmar Mednis stand out as particularly gregarious fellows. Even Samuel Reshevsky was approachable away from the board. There were some that were less than nice, but I won’t mention any names.

Stockfish 3

      Stockfish 3 is available for download at Stockfish Chess. I don’t have any reports on its performance yet, but one person posting on a Blog claimed that in his ‘quick’ test at 10 minutes (plus increment) Houdini 3 scored +3 -1 =6 against S3.
       From what I have read though, blitz games often give different results than games played at long time controls so that doesn’t really tell you how good the engine actually is. I ran two 10 minute + 15 seconds games on my AMD Athlon II Dual Core M300 2000 MHz using the Fritz 12 opening book pitting S3 against Houdini 2 and the result was both games were drawn.

John Littlewood

  

    Littlewood (25 May 1931 – 16 September 2009) was one of England’s leading players for many years and won the British national senior champion in 2006. He was the best British attacking player of his generation during which time he notched up numerous grandmaster scalps. His 19 British championships spanned 50 years.
      His first big break was when he was invited to the British Chess Championship where he performed well and as a result was invited to participate in the Hastings tournament of 1961/62. It was in this tournament that he played his famous loss to Botvinnik. Littlewood started with a promising attack, but he missed the best continuation which enabled Botvinnik to turn the game around and defeat him. In the same tournament he defeated GM Arthur Bisguier in a vicious attack and after the game Bisguier asked, "What do you feed this guy on? Raw meat?"
      Littlewood was born in Sheffield, Yorkshire in 1931, the fourth of his eleven siblings. He did not start playing chess until he was 13 when he was introduced to the game by a friend. He kept on losing to his friend, so he went into the school library and checked out every single chess book and began studying tactics.
      At 16 he joined the local chess club and as he had not played many different opponents, he was surprised when he found he could beat everyone in the club which whetted his appetite for the game. While at Sheffield University he won three university tournaments and the Sheffield Championship. After graduating he entered the military service where he taught reading and writing. After completion of his service he worked as a French teacher.
      Littlewood played at two chess Olympiads, several Anglo-Dutch matches, and European and World Seniors. He was proud to have defeated the German GM Wolfgang Uhlmann on two occasions. Littlewood also managed the national blind chess team and for a while served as the Director of Junior Chess.
      He was the outright winner of the British Senior Chess Championship in 2006 and at age 77 finished equal first in 2008. Littlewood wrote a column called "Littlewood's Choice" for the English Chess Federation magazine. His brother Norman also played in four Olympiads, and his son Paul, an IM, won the British Championship in 1981.
      In the following game it is interesting to see how Littlewood whipped up an attack against Cafferty’s King with a Q and a R.

Dennis Waterman

 

     Waterman became a master by the age of 16; his last USCF rating was 2251. He gave actor Peter Falk (tv series Colombo) lessons in the early 1970s and played in the Lone Pine tournaments of that era. Waterman has authored books and articles covering science fiction, chess, spiritual teachings, meditation and poker. As a result of his spirituality books he has been nicknamed "Swami" by the people in poker. He also owned a logging company in Oregon.
      Born in Myrtle Point, Oregon in 1948, he became a chess master and backgammon player but eventually opted to pursue a career in professional poker. As it turned out, it was a good decision because he has always been successful in the poker world.
       Waterman attributes his success in poker to reality and experience saying that although reading poker books and watching poker games on television or in casinos helps a lot in augmenting the people's knowledge of the game of poker, they will never succeed unless they try playing the game themselves. He says that reading and watching are entirely different from actually playing. But like chess players, Waterman likes to watch and play against famous poker players because he admires the strategies they use at poker tables.
      The first time Waterman became recognized as a major poker player was when he attended the 29th Annual World Series of Poker in 1998 where he finished in the money and poker has made Waterman a millionaire; he has won over one million dollars in poker tournaments.
      Waterman, an elusive figure on a quest for enlightenment, describes himself as a hologram from hundreds of previous lives as a Buddhist monk. He's a man of nature, a former logger who lived in seclusion deep in the Oregon forests. Born and raised in Oregon, Waterman became a logger at the age of 13. As a teen he excelled at strategy games, playing backgammon and chess when bad weather kept him from logging.

Oregon forest

      He was a good enough chess player to have won the Brilliancy Prize at the 1973 American Open and it was during that time that he had a ‘spiritual awakening’ and studied subconscious visions.  He eventually experienced a ‘lucid dream’ while at a tournament in Lone Pine in which three men in the dream told him they would provide him with spiritual guidance as well as teach him about the physical reality in which humans live, ancient languages and how to survive natural disasters. As a result, Waterman has written extensively about his meetings with the men in an online series entitled, "Knowledge from the Ancient Cave."
      Losing interest in chess, he quit playing in 1975 and returned to Oregon to work as a logger, but a prominent U.S. businessman had read a chess profile of Waterman in the Los Angeles Times and decided to track him down. After about a year of searching, Waterman was located in the Oregon woods where he was without a phone or any connection to the outside world. The businessman offered him a membership with the Chicago Board of Trade, $2 million in wages, a $10 million line of credit and a regular job. Waterman accepted the opportunity and worked as a corporate troubleshooter in Chicago before relocating to New York to work in finance.
      By that time, he had turned to backgammon as his game of choice but managed to fit in some poker tournaments on the side. Eventually he quit both business and backgammon and embarked on a career as a professional poker player.
      Waterman made his mark in poker in 1998 when he began popping up at poker tournaments and doing well by winning minor events. Then, in 2002, he scored his first major tournament win: first-place in the Los Angeles Poker Classic in Pot-Limit Hold'em and subsequently he played in two World Series of Poker finals taking fifth in the $1,500 Pot-Limit Hold'em event and eighth in the $3,000 Pot-Limit Hold'em event. In 2002 at the Bellagio Five Diamond Poker Classic No-Limit Hold'em table Waterman won over $100,000 and that was only the beginning. He has won more than 180 poker tournaments.

Pontificating on Miscellaneous Stuff

Timing out on Chesshood:
  

   Chesshood has introduced a novel idea: In order to keep the site fun and clean, a new feature has been installed: Any members who do not log on the site for a period of 15 days (players on vacation excluded of course) will receive an automated private message and email, 24 hours after that if no log on has been recorded for that player, the account will automatically be deleted. That will also apply to members timing out more than 7 games with or without logins recorded.
      There needs to be some repercussions when a player forfeits on time in a lot of games. Some sites don’t seem to do anything while on Lechenicher SchachServer you get put on probation and suspended for a certain number of days, but your account is never deleted. I used to play on Chessworld and I don’t think you got suspended or anything but, like LSS and probably other sites, your name remained on the rolls. Some players have not been active on these sites for years. It’s wrong to keep a player on the rating list when his last login was 3 or 4 years ago. I think Chesshood has the right idea of deleting accounts for inactive players.

Is Chess Getting Played Out?

     Some people think that at the top level chess pretty well worked out and its possibilities exhausted with draws plaguing the elite GM level. And, as I mentioned in a previous post, chess engines are making winning correspondence games harder and harder.
      I saw a game in Shirov’s Fire on Board the other day where he wrote that he discovered a move in home analysis on, if memory serves, move 32 or 33. Bobby Fischer believed traditional chess is played out…finished. When Capa said the same thing, if you remember, about the only opening they ever played was the Queen’s Gambit Declined, or some such and it was getting harder to find any new ideas. But, then along came the K-Indian, for example, which was at first believed to be bad, but as we all know it wasn’t. Maybe somebody will discover 1.h3 has merits. Who knows?
      Chess has a tremendous number of moves, so I am not sure how it can be played out. Just like yesteryear, the elite GMs may have to start playing openings heretofore considered unplayable and perhaps discover they aren’t! There is always a new generation moving into the top 50 players at an ever-younger age who, hopefully, will be the new ultra-hypermoderns and opening theoreticians of their day and they will discover resources in what are today considered ‘unplayable’ openings.
      In any case, to me it does not matter what happens because until I gain several hundred rating points, chess is still a mystery.
Reprehensible Conduct

      Correspondence opponents who refuse to move in lost positions (sometimes I have noticed they have logged in and moved in other games), Internet opponents who abandon games, badger opponents, make cheating accusations, call their opponents names, swear, you name it...they remind me of people who write crude stuff on toilet walls.
      According to an Associated Press report of several years ago the fast-paced, high-tech existence has taken a toll on manners in society. From road rage to high decibel cell-phone conversations, people behaving badly has become the hallmark of the world.
      Nearly 70 percent questioned in an Associated Press poll said people are ruder than they were 20 or 30 years ago although more city dwellers report bad manners, 74 percent, than do people in rural areas, 67 percent. The generation that came of age in the 1960s and 1970s are now parents who don’t stress the importance of manners.
      We live in a world of sulking athletes and boorish celebrities, etc. and the media glorifies their crude behavior. Nowadays many people have little respect for authority and always want blame somebody else because whatever happens, it’s always somebody else’s fault. So why would one think chessplayers would be any different?      

Gideon Barcza

Barcza (August 21, 1911 in Kisujszallas, Hungary– February 27, 1986 in Budapest) had a Ph.D. in mathematics and was a professor of mathematics, Grandmaster and Correspondence International Master.

1940
third place behind Euwe and Vidmar at Maróczy Jubilee in Budapest.
1942
sixth place at the first European Championship in Munich
1947 helped design the first "chess stamp," one of a set of five issued to commemorate the 1947 Balkan Games in Bulgaria.
1948
second place in Karlovy Vary behind Jan Foltys tied for second/third place in Venice; the event was won by Najdorf
1950
tied for second/fourth place in Salzbrunn. won by Keres
1951 Chessmetrics has Barcza rated #16 in the world in 1951 with a rating of 2683. His best individual performance was Leningrad 1967, with a performance rating of 2710.
1952
fifteenth place in Saltsjöbaden Interzonal
1957
won San Benedetto del Tronto.
1961
third place in Vienna.
1962
tied for third/sixth place in Moscow tied for fourteenth/fifteenth place in Stockholm Interzonal

      Barcza played for Hungary in seven Chess Olympiads (1952, 1954, 1956, 1958, 1960, 1962, and 1968). He won the Gold medal in 1954 as best board 3. He won a Silver medal in 1956 as board 2. He won a Bronze medal in 1968 as first reserve.
      He won the Hungarian Championship eight times (1942, 1943, 1947, 1950, 1951, 1955, 1957, and 1958).
      Barcza is remembered for the opening 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3, known as the Barcza System. British writer Harry Golombek wrote of Barcza, "[he] is a most versatile player in the openings. He plays g2–g3 sometimes on the first, sometimes on the second, sometimes on the third, and sometimes not until the fourth move."
      He was editor of the chess magazine Magyar Sakkelet from 1951 to 1986 and contributed to Magyar Sakktortenet 3.
      In 2009 the Second Barcza Memorial was held which included a very strong field: GMs Zoltan Almasi, Ivan Sokolov, Evengy Postny, Victor Mikhalevsky, Eduard Rozentalis, Geetha Gopal, Oleg Romanishin and IMs Marcos Llanea, Peter Prohaszka, David Guerra and Robert Ris, but the event was canceled after the first round when it was discovered the organizer did not have the money to pay either the players or the Ramada Resort Hotel where the players were staying and, also, the tournament venue.

      Barcza is buried at the Kerepesi cemetery in Budapest.
 

New LSS “World Champion”

      Lechenicher SchachServer has announced the new 2011 LSS World Champion is Sinisa Loinjak of Croatia who has won it for the second time, the first being in 2009. 
      Looking at the crosstable the first thing I noticed was that out of 15 players, three withdrew and did not finish the tournament. Not counting the games of those three players and the two games remaining (which have no bearing on the standings), 142 games were played. Total decisive games…11, or less than 8 percent!! Loinjack accounted for 4 of those wins and the games among the top five finishers were all drawn.
      Engines are, of course responsible for this situation. I was reading a message board the other day and one guy was asking about the best computer and software to play chess…his budget? $12,000.
      If you want to play correspondence chess these days your choices are pretty much limited to: 1) anonymous opponents with meaningless ratings who are using an engine or 2) opponents whose names you do know, have meaningless ratings and who are using an engine. I prefer the latter and I don’t see why I should pay to enter a tournament under these circumstances, so I use a free site that allows engine use…LSS.
      In any case it seems that chess engines are not optimized for correspondence play. Of course, if you expect to get a high rating in modern CC play, you have to start at a high rating because it is extremely difficult to defeat another engine unless you are keenly aware of how engines work.
      My understanding is engines prune a lot of moves out of the search tree and sometimes they are good moves but that only would become apparent at deeper search depths.
      Under normal circumstances as long as a move does not lose it’s good enough, but for these really highly rated CC players that’s not enough. One problem is that often times an engine move shows an evaluation score and because it has pruned some moves, it doesn’t make any difference whether it searches 2 hours or 2 days, it’s not going to change its evaluation.
       In CC these is no such thing as two moves with an equal evaluation score; one move simply must be preferred over another. The result is that if you just let an engine run and run then play its recommendation, guys like Loinjack will beat you. The thing is they somehow manage to get positions engines don’t understand and they have the resources and the patience to keep searching.
       One high level CC player noted that you must use tablebases and gave one example where his opponent’s mistake was using the wrong engine for the relevant position. He then went on to explain how, using three engines, he basically strung together a composite of their moves. He added that, ideally, you would want to examine at least ten different alternatives and each one needs to be evaluated thoroughly.
       Capablanca complained about the draw death of chess back in his day and proposed a variant in the 1920's. He believed chess would be exhausted in the near future, that games between masters would always end in draws. Fischer made the same claim. He believed the chess openings have been analyzed to the point that games are decided by opening preparation alone and that engines and databases also contributed to the death of chess.  Indeed opening research wins games, both in OTB GM play and top level CC play.

      Look at the following table:

first 15 world CC championships

white wins 37%, black wins 24% draws = 39%

1996-2007 championships

white wins 27%, black won 12% draws = 61%

2008-present championships

average percentage of draws exceeds 80 percent.

      Upsets. In the first 15 world CC championships, upsets happened in about 10 percent of the games. Between 1996 and 2007 the percentage was down to 4% and since then it’s 1%.
      Playing on LSS even at my level shows how difficult it is to win: Wins: 23.7% Losses: 23.0% Draws: 53.3% Compare these to a Senior IM I played a while back: Wins: 20.5% Losses: 19.9% Draws: 59.6%
      Now, compare these to Loinjak: Wins: 51.1% Losses: 00.0% Draws: 48.9% He clearly knows something about using chess engines I (and a lot of others) don’t!