Chess Bits The Journal of the International E-mail Chess Club April 2003 IECC Web Site-www.geocities.com/ieccinfo/ In this Issue: Section From the Editor's desk By Steve Ryan 1 Welcome to New Members David Glew 1 Miscellaneous Items Steve Ryan 1 Chess Fiction Book Review Steve Ryan 1 From the Editor's Desk By Steve Ryan As editor of the IECC journal I am concerned first and foremost that all members should enjoy reading it and, secondly, that all members CAN read it. By that I mean the journal should show up on your monitor screen as you would normally view the pages of a book. Since I am restricted to a "plain text" format, I am not at all certain it shows up that way when you receive it. Now you should understand that I agree with the reasons for sending it in plain text, even if it means it does not appear as nicely aligned as it might. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to produce the journal so it appears aligned to everyone. I have discussed this problem with several knowledgeable people and gotten different answers from each. It seems to boil down to the simple fact that text messages, while "readable" to everyone, do not allow any kind of formatting which will permit them to appear nicely lined up with all the sentences and paragraphs in their proper place. I quote one of the people with whom I have discussed this problem:" The more advanced machines and software becomes the harder it is to send out just a plain text email all lined up. We may have want to discuss just putting it out on the website and not sending it out by email in the future." That particular solution would leave out IECC members (if any) having e-mail only accounts. In addition, we supposedly have members who receive e-mail through their TV sets. I suspect this last group does not exist and never did, but perhaps I am wrong. Such "Urban Legends" have a very long life and stay around even years after someone has proven them false. Accordingly, I would like to get some feedback from the members, strictly for my own information, about what type of e-mail systems they have. Do you receive e-mail through your TV set? How does the journal appear when you open it? Do you have e-mail only or e-mail plus internet access? Do you want to continue receiving the journal as a bulk mailing or would you like to see it posted on the IECC web site? Send your comments to me at ryansc@granite.mb.ca. On other topics, a long and very cold Canadian winter seems on the point of finally ending. The nicer weather and lots of yard work call me outside and only by the most rigid discipline can I sit here and produce the journal for you. But I don't mind since it gives me the chance to play with my new computer system. I now have Windows XP, a faster chip, more hard drive capacity, A CD read-write blah blah blah. I'm not sure what XP stands for. How about eXtra Pay (for Willy Gates)? Suggested reading for this issue - well the whole thing of course - but in particular the interview with Dave Taylor and Larry Evans' hilarious "Gentle Glossary". Take a look at GM Evans' comments at the end of the glossary . No great fan of CC, this fellow. ------------------------------------------------ Welcome to New Members By David Glew The IECC welcomes the following 92 new members who have joined over the period 2003 January 01 - April 25: Argentina: Abelardo Meza, Francisco Pons, Pedro Parnenzini Belgium: Karel Glas, Philippe Heyvaert, Wim Beeckmans Bulgaria: Grigor inchev Canada: Brent Travis, Grahame Booth, Jean Jibouleau, John Shillingberg, Klaus Fiedler, Mike Bernas. Denmark: Simon Reusch. England: Andrew Reeves, Anthony Blair, Fred Winnard, James Law, James Richards, Jonathan Powell, Omar Mirza, Peter Brown, Richard Longden, Robert Amis, Tony McCord, William Boothman. Finland: Anders Forsman. France: Amar Djoudi, Pierre Trocme. Germany: Anton Prestele, Christian Paas, Gordon Phillips, Hans Mayer, Reinhol Schunk, Uwe Nebel, India: Girish Kurwalkar, Tapas Saha. Italy: Ricardo Milan, Vittorio Duchemin. Netherlands: Albert-Jan Fischer, Ben Sitton, Jan-Willem Lubbers, John Reinders, Rene Bal. Pakistan: Sehba Shah Philippines: Ted Togonon Poland: January Acedanski Romania: Aurelian Tutuianu, Gheorghe Manole, Miron Cristea Russia: Anatoly Stepanyants, Andrej Dvoinikov, Dmitry Sharapan Scotland: Scott Milne, Volker Ballueder. South Africa: Gregory de Jager Spain: Francisco Sanfrutos, Manuel Iglesias, Soren Jensen. Sweden: Rickard Lundback Turkey: Cahit Dalgicdir. Ukraine: Andrew Dushchak USA: Amit Banker, Ben Etten, Brett Williams, Brian Brett, Brian Smith, Chris Kantack, Dee Davis, Douglas Jayne, Ed Strungis, Francesco DiBaggio, George Walters, Gerard Snitselaar, Glenn Tripp, James Korwitz, James Nuoffer, James Riker, James Stripes, John Thommen, John Williams, LeRoy Plock, Michael Gray, Norm Wright, Patrick McCartney, Peter Johnson, Rashunda Tramble, Sid Souvey, Tiger Buford, Zack Campbell. -------------------------------------- Miscellaneous Items by Steve Ryan 1.Congratualtions to JOHN PRICE of Sherman Oaks California in the US of A for sending in the first correct answer to the Book Contest Problem in the January journal. John's solution of 15.Nd6+ Kd8 16.Nxf7+ Ke8 17.Bf5 e6 18.Bxe6 Qe7 19.Bd6 Qf6 20.Bxd5+ arrived very shortly after release of the January edition to the general membership (which does NOT necessarily mean that some people have nothing better to do than sit by their computers all day long). John will receive "64 Great Games" by Tim Harding. 2. I watched an interesting TV show on January 16 dealing with the journey of the Voyager 1 and 2 space probes, both launched in 1977 and now almost at the edge of our solar system. You may recall that one of these probes (Voyager 1 I believe) contains assorted items which will, hopefully, provide any intelligent extraterrestrial species which recovers it some information on earth and its solar system. These probes will continue on long after human civilization has vanished and will take billions of years to reach the nearest star. The items chosen as "representative of earth" include such things as various photographs depicting "typical" earth scenes, mathematical formulas/diagrams, structural diagrams of some important organic molecules, vinyl records bearing sound tracks of all kinds and a plaque featuring the frontal view of an unclothed man and woman next to a type of schematic drawing indicating earth's location. Unless I missed it, I did not hear about the inclusion of any earth GAMES which, to my way of thinking, certainly represent an important part of human culture. Granted, the designers had to strictly ration the available space, but I would have liked to have Chess included and perhaps the oriental game of "Go" as well. I am not sure if we should expect the development of a Chess or Go-like game on a distant planet with sentient beings or regard it as an amazing coincidence. Fascinating stuff either way. Similar games would indicate similar thought processes but I hope neither Chess nor Go would give any creature some of the ideas we could well do without here on our own planet. 3. Will we ever get PGN formatting straightened out? The rather mundane topic of whether or not a space occurs after the period in a move number arose on the discussion list in January (ie 1.e4 or 1. e4). Personally, I prefer the 1.e4 as it provides a nice "compact" look to the game score and saves you the "chore" of hitting the space bar one extra time. Strange to think though of the number of wars and amount of slaughter that have arisen over far more trivial issues. 4. Since we now have the data for 1997 and 2002 I can calculate the win/loss /draw statistics by colour for those years (all ratings). 1997 (5383 games total) 2224 1-0 (41.32%) 2117 0-1 (39.33%) 1042 Draws (19.36%) 2002 (5736 games total) 2318 1-0 (40.41%) 2092 0-1 (36.12%) 1346 Draws(23.47%) You can see playing White still provides a slight statistical advantage even though 1997 came very close to even. For those of you who would like to know how I did these calculations, you simply download and then open the ZIP files for each year as provided on the IECC web site. After opening, I imported each file using ECtool and did a filter/sort. The filter allows you to specify all games 1-0, 0-1 and 1/2-1/2. I would like to further refine the data to list the stats by rating group, but can see no provision to do so using ECT. Any suggestions appreciated. Finally, for whatever it says, the total number of games played each year goes this way: 1995 - 720, 1996 - 2329, 1997 - 5383, 1998 - 6087 1999 - 7825, 2000 - 8035, 2001 - 6609, 2002 – 5736 We seem to have "peaked" in 2000 but have steadily declined ever since. 5. I am trying out a new anti-spam e-mail program called MailWasher. This program looks promising since it will allow you to bounce unwanted e-mail messages back to the sender and make it appear that they have sent a message to a non-existant address. The spammer will then, presumably, delete your name from his mailing list. MailWasher has indicated that some spammers have themselves fake e-mail return addresses and it can't bounce anything back to them. More on this topic in the next issue. 6. As recently announced, the New Member Program has had some staff changes. ANDREW FEDORKO has taken over the position of Senior Administrator from CHUCK SMITH who has stepped down from this job for medical reasons after many years of deicated service. The Board of Directors has also appointed ANDY CROSS to the position of Administrator in the New Member Program. I asked Andy to provide some biographical notes on himself and he responded with the following: Well, to start with the basics, I'm 29, and currently live with my wife in Staten Island, New York. I've been here in the US for two years now, but am originally from England. From 1992-2001 I lived in Nottingham (home of IECC CEO David Glew), studying for my bachelors and PhD degrees in physics at Nottingham University. I then moved to New York with my Brooklyn-born wife, who also completed a PhD at Nottingham, where I now work for a small software company, developing products for the telecoms giant Verizon. I've been with the New Member Program since October of 1999. Once nice aspect is that as one of the few British Guides, most of my new member assignments are from the UK, which gives me plenty of opportunity to catch up on events (and the weather - I wouldn't be a proper Englishman without a weather obsession) back home... -------------------------- Chess Fiction Book Review By Steve Ryan The Queen's Gambit By Walter Tevis After losing her parents at an early age, Beth Harmon spends an unhappy childhood at the Methuen Home in Kentucky. There, she learns chess from Mr. Shaibel, the custodian. Her natural talent soon becomes obvious though Beth has to fight the effects of sedatives given to all the children to make them "easier to handle". Addiction to the pills continues to haunt her through childhood and into her teenage years. She also develops a heavy drinking problem to complicate matters. Despite all these handicaps her chess talent continues to develop. She eventually gets adopted by a Mr & Mrs Wheatley but after Mr Wheatley abandons the family Beth soon realizes that her adopted mother has problems similar to her own. The book traces Beth's fight to overcome everything driven largely by her love of chess and desire to succeed. Her tournament victories propel her to a climatic match in Moscow where she takes on the Russian "chess establishment". Written during the Cold War and using the descriptive notation to list all moves, this book appealed to me very much. The author keeps a good pace throughout, maintains the suspense with a firm hand and does an exceptional job describing the atmosphere of OTB chess tournaments. Do not attempt to follow the play of the games. They form a necessary background to the story but get described in general terms beyond four or five moves into the opening. You should treat this book as an entertaining story and not as a serious chess book. Ryan's rating for The Queen's Gambit - ****/5. The Queen's Gambit By Walter Tevis Random House Publishing, First edition 1983 ISBN 0-394-52801-8 -------------------------- A Chess Bits Interview.......With DAVE TAYLOR I met Dave Taylor largely through postings on the Correspondence Chess Message Board.  Though I didn't know about his illustrious CC career before that, Dave and I have communicated regularly ever since and have, I hope, become friends.  Dave has retired from active CC competition (see more below) but still keeps up to date on the world of CC and also takes an active interest in helping other players, from beginners to masters.  He kindly agreed to do an interview for our journal. Chess Bits (CB):  Please tell us a bit about yourself, whatever you feel willing to share. Dave Taylor (DT):   I am age 61, married with boys ages 2 and 7, a daughter age 22, and a son  age 39. Also have a grandson age 1.  After graduating from college most of  my working career was spent with the State of Illinois, State Employment Service.   My three older children show a talent for chess but I do not encourage them or discourage them to play.   My CC career started at age 15 [1956] and mostly ended in 1990 when I became disabled. During that last year I did win the 7th United States Correspondence Chess Championship and also played in the prelims for  the 8th Championship [and qualified for the finals again]. My best results include the 7th USCCC [13 1/2 1/2], 1980 Illinois Chess Association Championship [11 1/2 1/2], 1972 CCLA North American Championship, Courier Postal Chess Championship several times [once 10- 0], and climbing to the top of the APCT rating list.  Because of my health, I was unable to advance further to ICCF play and gradually finished my 50 odd games I had going. I also gave away 95% of my books and magazines [mostly to prisons].    Although I did play one serious game in 2000-2001 [vs.. TCCMB Team], I am not able to play at this time. Have authored two books, Centre Counter Uprising [with Alex Dunne] and Ponziani Power.  The first book was quickly written and was a sell out. Ponziani Power was a 7 year labour of love/hate and is not a sell out. :)  My other hobbies include the card games of poker and duplicate bridge.   I am a master at chess, expert at bridge, average at diaper changing and a novice in understanding women.   CB: What do you mean by the "Courier Postal Chess Championship"?  I don't think many   people have heard of that.   DT:   My memory partially fails me on this but according to my records there   was a Courier Postal Chess Club run by Virgil M Kimm. It had a magazine   THE CHESS COURIER. Some time around 1975 or 1976 it merged with another club and became the American Postal Chess League. Frank Niro  was on the APCL Board of Directors at one time. I do not know whatever happened to the APCL?   CB: Please outline your road to the 7th US Championship.  How did it come about? DT:  It has always been difficult just to make it to the  finals of United States Correspondence Chess Championship[USCCC].Often I did well in the prelims, but not quite well enough. My preliminary section in the First USCCC was very close. The three strongest players were Ken Smith [Smith Morra Gambit fame], Robert Wendling [master from California, now deceased] and myself I was on a "tear" with a winning game vs. Smith and everyone else except for Wendling.  But then something happened in one of my "winning games"-I made a one move blunder and lost. [Never, never relax even when you are winning]. In the meantime Wendling had won all of his other games. If I could beat him then I still would move on to the finals on tie break. The game was a Smith Morra Gambit!  I made one of my "notorious" "if" moves which contained a hidden trap. This gave me an end game advantage.  I remember Mr. Wendling commenting about my "tricky" "if" move and lamenting how unfair it might have been if I had beat him and kept him from the finals. :) As it turned out he held a long, difficult endgame and qualified for the first USCCC Finals and I was on the sidelines.  This turned out to be a very strong Final with Anthony Cayford 1st, Robert Wendling 2nd, and Vytas Palciauskas 3rd. Finally for the 7th USCCC I qualified for the finals! Also started playing the 8th USCCC Prelims [and later qualified for the 8th Finals] My game load [as usual] was heavy with a total of 50 games.  In the past my philosophy was to play as many very good players as possible so as to learn from my mistakes and improve my game. I live in a very chess isolated area and my only chess opponents were my postal friends. [this was before the internet :)]. Also I had played such openings as the Smith Morra Gambit, Danish Gambit?!. Goring Gambit??!. Scotch Gambit, Benko Gambit, and the Open and Classical [3. ...Bc5] Defence to the Ruy Lopez. I did well playing these openings but after some soul searching decided to abandon all of them except for the Benko Gambit. [Sorry Gambiteer's Guild].  Most of my previous good results were "in spite of" these openings rather than "because of" these openings. For the 7th Finals I decided to play the Centre Counter [1. e4  d5  2. exd5 Qxd5]. I had written a book on this defence and felt well prepared. Also I played the Ponziani [1. e4  e5 2. Nf3  Nc3  3. c3] in three of my games.  I had played the Ponziani in the past and had been studying it. Two of my games started with 1. c4 which is an opening I had rarely played a few in the past. Because of my relatively heavy game load, I decided to "concentrate" my efforts on the USCCC. My estimate is that I spent an average of 2 hours per move per game.  At some critical points in some of the games I took several days. In one of my games I spent at least 20 hours for one move.  My toughest game was against Eric Osburn.  It was a Ponziani where I followed the "book" line as it was supposed to give White a big advantage.  However Mr. Osburn found the brilliant "backwards move" of 14. ...Ng8!!. Immediately I knew I was in trouble. [Note: Never, Never trust written analysis—no matter how good the variation looks!].  No matter how long I considered the position--Black had the much better game. My only chance was to go into a "swindling mode". I made a couple of aggressive but not completely sound moves towards his King. He made a couple of second best moves and I was able to engineer a draw by perpetual motion [a series of checks where if either side varied, the other side would have an advantage]. My goal was "to give no quarter" and I became the only person who has won all  7 games with Black in a USCCC Final.    CB:  Your game vs.. Eric Osburn sounds interesting.  Perhaps you could let us look at the game score sometime.  For now though I want to take full advantage of your  considerable theoretical knowledge so are there any openings or gambits which you think are unsound?   DT:  My guess is that the following openings/gambits are unsound: Albin Counter Gambit [1. d4  d5 2. c4  e5] Blackmar Deimer Gambit [ 1. d4  d5  2. Nc3  Nf6  3. e4 --There are other ways  to get to this gambit] Cochrane Gambit  [. 1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nf6  3. Nxe5  d6  4. Nxf7] Danish Gambit   [ 1. e4  e5  2. d4  exd4  3. c3] Elephant Gambit [  [ 1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  d5] Englund Gambit  [ 1. d4  e5] French Defence Wincheimass-Reimer Gambit Goring Gambit  [ 1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6  3. d4  exd4  4. c3] Grob Opening  [1. g4 ] Latvian Counter Gambit  [1. e4  e5  2. Nf3 f5] Ponziani Opening, Ponziani Counter Gambit [ 1. e4  e5  2. Nf3 Nc6  3. c3  f5 Ponziani Opening, Vukovic Gambit  [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Nf6 4.d4  Nxe4 5.d5 Bc5] Ruy Lopez, Cordel Gambit  [1.e4 e5 2.Nf3  Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 f5] Ruy Lopez, Schlieman Defence  [1. e4  e5  2. Nf3  Nc6  3. Bb5  f5]  St. George Defence  [1. e4  a6] Sicilian Wing Gambit [1. e4  c5  2. b4] Other Openings :   Benko Gambit  [1. d4  Nf6  2. c4  c5  3. d5  b4] This is a very difficult one to  guess if Black can hold or not? Winkelmann-Riemer Gambit [1. e4  e6  2. d4  d5  3. Nc3  Bb4  4. a3]  . This is played with some success by super CC player Tom Winkelmann.  However the Pawn layout looks very suspicious to me. Smith-Morra Gambit [ 1. e4  c5  2. d4  cxd4  3. c3] After playing this gambit many years-I am not sure if White can hold a draw or not? :( The two mentioned lines from the Ponziani Opening were defences which should not work. By the way, a former ICCF World Champ used the Ponziani Counter Gambit at least twice. [He scored a win and then a loss with the black side] CB: That's quite a list Dave and I'm surprised to see your beloved Ponziani in it.  Turning to a more personal note, I see you post messages quite frequently on The Correspondence Chess Message Board but you have apparently retired from active play.  Do you have any particular reason for this retirement? DT: One reason for my "retirement" is I have Alzheimer's Disease. It is a progressive disease but fortunately, in my case, slowly progressing.  While it is quite true that people who actively "use their minds" tend to be least likely to get the disease--everyone has a statistical chance to get the disease. With Alzheimer's there are some extremely simple things I cannot do. Often I cannot follow simple directions or recognize someone who I have known for 20 years. On the other hand, there are still some rather complex things I can do. I can still evaluate chess positions and do some analysis. I can still play duplicate bridge well but sometimes my partners wonder when I do not keep track of all the 52 cards during play of the hand. [something I used to be able to do].  I choose to continue playing bridge on OKBRIDGE as that is an activity I can do every day [if I want].  My choice is not to play CC as it is just [now] too difficult. However life is life, and we all have these burdens/problems. I am not ashamed to have Alzheimer's--it is just a part of life.  As you very  well know, I love talking about CC and chess on TCCMB :). CB: I think you have a very brave attitude towards your disability and deserve full credit for facing up to it.  I'd like to turn now to another topic of considerable interest, chess engines in CC.  What do you think about the use of chess engines in Correspondence Chess? DT: I live in the United States where the three major CC organizations ban the use of chess engines to generate or help generate moves. So clearly, if you are playing in APCT or CCLA or USCF CC and use a chess engine to help generate a move-- you are doing something "unethical". However considering the world's problems and the inhumanity of some men and groups--using a chess engine to generate moves is way down on the totem pole of "unethical behaviour". Almost all of my CC experience has been in the USA where use of chess engines has been banned.  Also, even if they had not been banned, the strongest engine [at that time] was only approximately 2200 strength. Now we have ICCF where the use of chess engines to generate moves or help generate moves is allowed. If you play in the ICCF and play at the master level or above you would have to EXPECT most of your opponents to be using a chess engine to help them in determining moves.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. It just brings up the level of play. If you play in ICCF and are rated anywhere from 1000 to 2000 you are probably not using a chess engine to generate moves and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that either. The truth is that a master level player who is the better player [and uses a chess engine] will beat another master level player who is not such a good player [ and uses a chess engine]. My only experience where I had a chess engine to help me generate moves was my game vs. TCCMB Team [2001 to 2002]. During that match up I had M Chess Pro for about a dozen moves and then my chess engine "broke down" and a few weeks later I bought Fritz 6. Many of the "suggested moves" by these two chess engines were very bad.  If I had followed the moves suggested-I would have lost the game several times over.  In the opening the chess engines had no understanding of my basic plans.  Most of the moves I made were absolutely contrary to the "suggestions" of the chess engines. This particular game [vs. the TCCMB Team] had no "middle game".  There was a quick transition from the opening to the endgame.  For the endgame Fritz 6 had no idea how to proceed.  It kept wanting me to make the very bad move "h4" early in the endgame.  Later it did not "see" that my best plan was to trade off my Rooks.  It had no inkling that I was winning the "good Knight vs. bad Bishop" endgame.  It did not :see" my 34th move which was a tactical exchange of Pawns so I could later reposition my King and Knight.  On the 39th move a black Pawn was moved to a5.  I moved a Pawn to a4 and at that point could see the [future] possibility of a Knight Sac for the a5 Pawn.  My 50th move was Nxa5 sacking the Knight for that Pawn.  The machine, although supposed to be a tactical genius— did not see this move. I think because the tactical plys were beyond it's horizon? So I am saying if you are rated 1000-2000 in ICCF play you do not have to "worry" about chess engines as probably your opponent is not using one.  If you are rated somewhat above that, you need not fear engines being used by other players as you may use your own engine and that levels the playing field. The best player will win.  CB: I'm a bit surprised to hear you say that a lower-rated player would probably not use an engine and would have expected exactly the reverse, i.e.. the higher rated players not using one because they know they could defeat it.  Anyway, would you care to predict how strong chess engines will eventually become?  DT: Higher rated players [in ICCF] probably use chess engines as there are certain aspects of chess a chess engine can do very well. Despite the failings of my own chess engine [in one game] they usually are very good with tactics. So a strong ICCF player may use a chess engine to check out tactical combinations and/or defenses to such tactical combinations. Despite the recent drawn matches vs. Kramnik and Kasparov, I do not think the best chess engines are quite yet at the level of the best humans. But they are getting closer each year. With time, chess engines will equal the best humans. I would guess it will take about 5 to 10 years for that. Then they will get better. And better. If Kasparov is now rated approximately 2850 the  best chess engines should get to 2900 in about 10-20 years. Maybe to a rating of 3000 in 20-30 years. In the year 2050 they should virtually be unbeatable. However, even then, the best humans will manage about 80% draws!? How strong can they possibly get--given time?  I will guess that the best human might get to 3100 in the next 1000 years and the best computer to approximately 3300 in the next 1000 years. 3300 would be about the limit for computers and humans as by that stage all the games or virtually all the games will be drawn. :) Sometime in the next 1000 years chess will probably die out at the highest levels because the game is, after all, ---a draw.  Nobody at the higher levels will be able to win. Then chess will slowly fade away [like checkers is now?]  CB:  Please explain what you mean by "the game is a draw".  Many players might not understand that. DT: Hans Berliner states that with best play for both sides that White will win with 1. d4.  Weaver Adams used to say the same thing about 1. e4. However the overwhelming majority of GMs believe that with best play from both sides, a game of chess should end in a draw. I concur. The game of checkers is a draw. The game of tic tac toe is a draw. The game of chess is a draw.  CB:  Would you say that an OTB Master and a CC Master have different approaches to the game?  If yes, how would the thinking process work for each during any game in progress? DT: Both the over-the-board and CC masters are similar in that they both must have a lot of chess knowledge. They both need an opening repertoire and skills in middle game and endgame play.  Both must be able to play positional as well as tactical chess. The o-t-board master has the disadvantage of having to deal with the time limit. Often there is just not enough time to find the best moves or to completely figure out a long tactical combination.  The o-t-board master will make many more errors than the CC master.  Physical and mental stamina play a role.  You will often find o-t-board masters "peak out" at an earlier age than the CC master.  Also the o-t-board master must have memorized a good part of his opening preparation. In CC time is not a problem. So no "pressure" There is time to find the best moves and to figure out exactly if a long tactical combination is "sound". The CC master has the luxury of looking at books on openings and endgames. Data bases are a big help. And yes, [for ICCF play] chess engines are a help. But they are not as much "help" as many guess they are!  You have to have the chess knowledge and skill to "know" when the chess engine is making a mistake! But, remember, in CC your opponent has all these "advantages" also. There are some players who can "find the best moves" but they need "time". There are some who do not wish to have to memorize opening variations. There are some who "panic" in o-t-board play.  Some masters have no strong opposition near the area where they live. CC is for them. The thinking process is much the same for the two kinds of masters. However, the o-t-board master will generally have a better memory and [generally] will think quickly and rarely panic. However the CC master will usually have a better opening and endgame preparation.  Also the CC master will often be better at thinking very deep into a position, making long plans, and catching all the details. Sometimes o-t-board masters are a little too confident if and when they start CC. I once played a strong o-t-board master who was just "breaking into CC play" and beat him in 9 moves. :) However, I have the greatest respect for all o-t-board masters as I am a "slow" thinker myself! CB:  Do you have fun when you play CC ?  What do you think about the competitive nature of chess in general and CC in particular? DT: Most of the time it is fun to play CC.  The only time it is not "fun" is when you have an extremely difficult board position and you feel you "must" find the best follow-up and it (the follow-up) is just eluding you.  Then there is a period of some "suffering" .  Yes, chess is very competitive in nature .  Often egos are involved.  Males must have some way to "be competitive".  It does not matter if it is in sports, or card games, or seeking female companionship – males must have an inborn sense of competition. In the hunter-gatherer days the men who were "most competitive" and killed the most game and also built the best shelters were the men who got to pass on their genes.  Now we have men from thousands of years of gene pooling who are by nature - competitive.  If they are not sports-minded they can play cards or even do chess or checkers.  Or they can chase women :).  But they MUST DO SOMETHING to release the tension caused by their competitive nature. Both OTB and CC are very competitive.  It's just a matter of personal preference. CB: Thank you Dave.  That concludes the interview. -------------------------- Chess Trivia By    Steve Ryan 0 Correct = Hopeless Duffer,   1 Correct = Patzer,   2 Correct = Superior Patzer,  3 Correct = Expert,   4 Correct = Master,  5 Correct = Grandmaster  (see the answers at the end of this issue). 1. World Chess Champion Alexander Alekhine died from... A. Alcoholism? B. Syphilis? C. Choking on an unchewed piece of meat? D. Gunshot wound? E. Old age? 2  What novelty did the Baden Baden tournament of 1870 introduce to the chess world? A. Lead-weighted chessmen B. A physical barrier to separate players & spectators C. Free alcoholic drinks for the players D. Chess clocks E. Sealed-move adjournments 3. Who won the 1870 Baden Baden tournament? A. Alexander Alekhine B. Adolf Anderssen C. Jose Capablanca D. Paul Morphy E. Steve Ryan 4.Which members of The Beatles played chess? A. John Lennon B. Ringo Starr C. George Harrison D. Paul McCartney E. None 5. What happened to the PDP 11/23 computer running the chess program BELLE that program creator Ken Thompson though he had with him on a flight to Moscow in 1982? A. Left behind at U.S. airport B. Lost when the luggage compartment opened accidentally C.. Lost when the plane crashed D. Confiscated by U.S. Customs before the flight took off E. Stolen at some point between airports.               -----------------------------------------------                            A Gentle Glossary                      By                        Larry Evans From "Chess Catechism" By GM Larry Evans, Simon & Schuster Publishing, New York USA.  All material copyright Larry Evans, reprinted with permission of the author.                                        Algebraic Notation:  A system of recording chess moves which is so logical and mathematically neat that it will never gain favor in the USA. Analysis: Irrefutable proof that you could have won a game that you lost. Bird's Opening: 1.P-KB4.  Opening named after a strong but near-sighted English master who frequently reached for the wrong pawn. Castling: A defensive move played by a cowardly opponent. Champion: Someone who has attained success in chess only because he has had more time to devote to the game than you have. Checkmate: A self-inflicted torture by novices who don't know the word "resigns". Chess: 1." A nice and abstruse game, in which two sets of puppets are moved in opposition to each other" (Samuel Johnson's Dictionary).  2. "The checkmate of the King, which is the purpose of the game, is the symbolic equivalent of the desire to kill...the father" (Coriat). Cramped Position: That which you must obtain as a necessary preliminary to freeing your game. Duffer: Anybody who can beat you three in a row. End Game:  Your last opportunity to miss a win or a draw. Ethics of Chess: 1.Undefined. 2."Place your opponent so that the sun shines in his eyes" (Ruy Lopez). Fish: A player who falls for all your traps and still wins. Fool's mate: A chess player's spouse. Gambit: Any unsound sacrifice in the opening. Giuoco Piano: Playable, but not quite so good as a Steinway. Good Bishop: The one you still have left on the board. King's Indian Reversed: naidni sgnik. Lost Game: Something your opponent had before he won. Marshall Counterattack:  An aggressive defence to the Ruy Lopez devised by Frank J. Counterattack. Middle Game:  In postal chess,  the move after published analysis is exhausted. Modesty: 1. A virtue that grandmasters rarely cultivate.  2." When I am White I win because I am White; when I am Black I win because I am Bogoljubov." Opening: That phase of the game in which intelligence plays no part. Pawn Snatcher: A defensive genius. Perfect Game: A way of describing all one's victories. Pin: A sharp move. Positional Sacrifice:  A move so profound that if the annotator isn't your friend he calls it a blunder. Resigns: A way of terminating a game, unknown to weaker players. Sacrifice: Any piece left en prise. Sicilian Defence: A defence originated by members of the Mafia, embodying their highest principles. Sportmanship, Bad: Unconcealed hatred. Sportmanship, Good:  Concealed Hatred. Swindle:  The only way someone can be defeated. Swiss System: A pairing system full of holes, like some other Swiss products. Tournament Committee: A carefully selected group with no particular responsibility. Trap: Something you saw but forgot about until you fell into it.* Win: To make an enemy. Won Game: Any game you lost. Woodpusher:  A way of describing one's chessplay so as to make opponent's overconfident.                                                           For all interested IECC members, GM Evans wishes to announce a 2002 reprint of his book "Modern Chess Brilliancies" with new material added.  You can get full details from www.hardingsimpole.co.uk.  Postal address: Harding Simpole Publishers 1/R 50 Leven St. Glasgow, G41 2JE Scotland Mr. Evans also agreed to answer a few questions in a "mini-interview". CB: Can you give us any personal information, whatever you feel willing to share? LE: I currently conduct a weekly syndicated chess column for various newspapers and invest in real estate. My weekly column can now be found at worldchessnetwork.com and ready by anyone for free. CB: Can you outline your chess career to date? LE: Won the U.S. championship 5 times, the U.S. Open 4 times, wrote about two dozen chess books and collaborated on Bobby Fischer's classic "My 60 Memorable Games." In the last five years I wrote four books for Cardoza publishing: The 10 Most Common Chess Mistakes, Test Your Chess I.Q., Chess Endgame Quiz and 100 Easy Checkmates (not out yet). CB: Have you ever played any correspondence chess, postal or e-mail? LE: Played postal chess only when starting way back in the 1940s. I don't play via e-mail because I prefer over-the-board chess where your opponent can be seen and he can't blame the result on a mouse error. CB: If yes, what do you think of the relative merits of both types of the game? LE: I only cared about Over-The-Board chess. Presently it's too easy to cheat by e-mail. Many improvements must be made until it can be used for real rating purposes or serious tournaments. CB: What do you think about current split between FIDE and the Prof. Chess Players Assoc.? LE: I'm sorry to see the GMA disappear because top players now have so little input into decisions made by chess politicians. FIDE has been a corrupt world chess body ever since it arranged the so-called world championship in 1948 when the Soviets refused to let Najdorf substitute for Fine and forced Keres to lose games to Botvinnik. For decades FIDE was dominated by the Soviets and now it is under the thumb of a tinhorn dictator in Kalmykia who is credibly accused of torturing and killing dissidents. FIDE is too reliant on one man and Campo recently was convicted of graft in a Philippine court. CB: Have you ever played any chess variants such as Fischerandom? LE: No. CB:  If yes, what do you think of them? LE: I haven't studied these variants seriously but Fischerandom may have a future if computers succeed in "solving" traditional chess. CB: What do you think of previous comments by such Masters as Fischer and Capablanca that traditional chess has become "played out"? LE: This is a real danger. Many masters games no longer begin at move one, as in the good old days, but at move 15 or even later. Much of the fun has gone out of the game and openings have been analyzed very deeply. In "A Gentle Glossary" I describe the opening has that phase of a game where intelligence plays no part. CB: Have you ever played a game against a strong chess engine?  If yes, how did things turn out? LE: I play against chessmaster 8000 at its top level -- win some, lose some, draw some. It's pretty tough. CB: Will  chess engines eventually become so strong that no human can best them? LE: Yes. It's just a matter of time and money. Already they can solve chess problems such as mate in 2 or longer in split seconds that take humans a long time to figure out. CB: Do you have a favourite opening? LE: My playing days are essentially over. As black I preferred the Sicilian and the King's Indian Defence or the English and Queen pawn as White. CB: Can you provide us with an annotated game from your chess career? LE: You are welcome to use one from any of my chess books, such as Modern Chess Brilliancies or Chess Catechism. ....................... The Chess Player's Anthem                               By The Silicon Saboteur (to the tune of "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean") The chessboard, it does lie in ruins My opponent discovered the plot So now it's back to rethinking Cause I'm not as smart as I thought Refrain Give me oh give me Give me a good move to make To make Give me, give me Give me a good move to make My pawns are scattered all over With no chance of linking up two My knights have gone back to their stables Oh what is a patzer to do ?         Refrain His Queen, I wanted to fork her But his Bishop,  it got in the way So now I'm trapped in the end game Oh when will I learn how to play?        Refrain      My position has become quite a shambles                               Everything's bottled up tight I don't see the use to continue I might as well give up the fight    New Refrain Re-sign re-sign That's all I have left to do To do Re-sign re-sign That's all I have left to do. If you can think of a verse to add send it along to your editor (ryansc@granite.mb.ca).  I will publish all contributions in future issues of the journal.  Just for your interest, the traditional folk melody of My Bonnie Lies Over The Ocean has become "adapted", shall we say, to many "alternate lyrics" besides those above.  Example: My sister, she works in a ----- house My Dad, he sells his own gin My brother robs banks for a living My God how the money rolls in! ------------------------------------------------- Rumour & Gossip By The Silicon Saboteur We base the veracity of all items appearing in this section on the following three slogans.... 1. Lies are Truth. 2. Fact is Fiction. 3. Reality is Illusion. .... to bring you the following breaking news: 1. IECC abolishes SILICON from PERIODIC table! 2. IFFCC introduces DESIGNATED players! 3. IGEC introduces LONELY hearts DIVISION! 1. With the agreement of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) , the IECC executive has succeeded in abolishing the element Silicon from the Periodic Table of the Elements.  "It should take care of, once and for all, the problem of using chess engines in CC" said Glew Nagley, a representative of the IECC board.  When advised that this action would  create an "embarrassing void" in the Periodic Table, as well as upsetting all kinds of physical and chemical laws, the board responded succinctly with "so?".  After further consideration they allowed the substitution of a new element "Nocilis" under the assurance from IUPAC that incorporation of this previously unknown substance into computer chips would produce faulty analysis and embarrassing blunders. 2. According to Hegoburu Borwell, the latest winner of another coup d'etat within its administration ( thereby becoming the new Imperial Grand Poobah and TD of  the International Federation For Correspondence Chess), the next logical development to follow allowing chess engine use and consultation with other cc enthusiasts during any game in progress involves the use of DESIGNATED PLAYERS (DP's).  Also known as a "hired gun" you may engage the services of any DP to PLAY YOUR GAME FOR YOU while you earn the rating credits!! Points awarded for a win or a draw!  No fuss, no muss, no more tiresome wading through opening compendia and game scores. If you hire one, watch for a whole slew of CC masters to quickly pick up on this new source of revenue and cash in real fast with a sudden onslaught of pre-arranged draws, suspicious "wins" and "losses" and other similar goings-on that will allow them to move right along to the next customer. 3. In a move described as "pure genius" by its creators, the International Group for E-mail Chess has decided to incorporate a "lonely hearts" club (LHC)  into their membership structure.  Members will now have the ability to not only engage in stimulating chess games,  but also stimulating games "of all kinds".  "We expect membership to soar", said an IGEC rep.   The LHC will operate at "arm's length" from the main IGEC organization as a quasi-independent branch.  The IGEC wants to make it perfectly clear that members will participate in the LHC "entirely at their own risk" and that the organization  will turn a blind eye to any "liaisons" or "fooling around" that may result from the LHC. As usual, watch this space for further developments. ------------------------------------------------- Games & Theory In this issue: Patterson - Sqouritas     Swiss 451.1.1 Bielewicz - Ladkin   P-3158 Gorelikov - Cross M-4482.1 Newton - Junaidi CL3-2002.33.09 Adams - Chapin CL2-2002-25.02 Wozniak - Sgouritsas M-4457.2 [Event "Swiss-451.1.11"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.09.08"] [White "Patterson, Eddie"] [Black "Sgouritsas, Demosthenes"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "1014"] [WhiteCountry "USA"] [BlackElo "1584"] [BlackCountry "GRC"] 1.c4 Nf6 2.Nc3 g6 3.g3 Bg7 4.Bg2 O-O 5.e4 { Trying to go into a Botvinnik style position.} 5...c5 6.Nge2 Nc6 7.d3 d6 8.O-O { We have now transposed into the Botvinnik System of the Symmetrical English.} 8...Rb8 9.a3 { Preparing to do battle on the Queeside.} 9...a6 10.Rb1 Bg4 { 10...b5 11.cxb5 axb5 12.b4 } 11.b4 { Now 11...cxb4 12.axb4 looked promising for White. } 11...b5 12.bxc5 bxc4 {12...dxc5 13.cxb5 seemed better.} 13.Rxb8 Qxb8 14.d4! {I liked this move. It locks the pawn on c4 and threatens to attack black's knights with e5 or d5.} 14...dxc5?! {This seemed to be a slight mistake. 14...Qc7 looked better and was what I expected.} 15.e5 {I follow through with my plan to disrupt his knights.} 15...cxd4 16.exf6 Bxf6 17.Bxc6 dxc3 {This is the position I was trying for after Black played 14...dxc5. I have a knight for three pawns. Both our a-pawns are isolated. Black's doubled c-pawns are targets and I start going after them immediately.} 18.Qc2 Rc8 19.Bg2 Bf5 20.Be4 Bxe4 21.Qxe4 e6 {21...Qd6.Black should make his queen more active.} 22.Qf3 Bg7?! {White gets the c3 pawn. Better is 22...Qe5.} 23.Nxc3 Qb3 24.Bd2 Qxa3 25.Rb1 Qd6 26.Rb7 f5 {26...Qxd2?? 27.Qxf7+ Kh8 28.Qxg7#.} 27.Ra7 Qc6 {Now if 27...Qxd2 28.Qb7.} 28.Qf4 Rd8 29.Be1 e5 {29...Bxc3 30.Qh4 Rd7 31.Rxd7 Qxd7 32.Bxc3} 30.Qh4 Re8 31.Na2 Qd5 32.Rc7 Qd4 33.Rxc4 {The c4 pawn falls.} 33...Qxh4 34.gxh4 {I intend to use this pawn to break open Black's kingside.} 34...e4 35.Rc6 Ra8 {Now threatening the a-pawn.} 36.Ba5 Kf7 37.Rc7+ Kg8 38.Nb4 {After restricting Black's king, it's time to bring in the knight.} 38...Bf6 39.Nc6 Re8 {39...Bxh4 40.Bc3 h5 41.Rg7+ Kf8 42.Rxg6.} 40.h5 {Trying to open the kingside.} 40...gxh5 41.Bd2 Re6 {Possibly better is 41...Ra8.} 42.Bf4 h4 43.h3 {Lock the doubled h-pawns.} 43...h5 44.Kf1 {Time to activate the king.} 44...Kh8 45.Ke2 Kg8 46.Ke3 Bb2 47.Nd4 {Offering to exchange knight for bishop. 47.Ne7+?? Rxe7 48.Rxe7 Bc1+ 49.Kd4 Bxf4 and White has lost his advantage.} 47...Bxd4+ {47...Rf6 48.Rc2.} 48.Kxd4 a5 49.Ra7 e3 {49...a4 50.Kd5 Re8 51.Rxa4.} 50.fxe3 Re4+ 51.Kd5!! {Black is helpless.} 51...a4 52.Be5 Rxe3 53.Ke6 f4 54.Ra8+ Kh7 55.Kf5 Rxe5+ {Anything else is 56.Rh8#.} 56.Kxe5 f3 57.Rxa4 {Black resigned. After 58.Rf4 and capturing the f-pawn, White mates easily.} 1-0 [Event "P-3158"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.11.11"] [Round "1"] [White "Bielewicz, Julian "] [Black "Ladkin, Peter"] [Result "1-0"] 1.Nf3 {This was my first competitive chess game following a long absence from the chessboard and as such I wanted to give myself the advantage of feeling comfortable with the opening.  The KIA is an old favourite of mine.  I first dabbled with flank openings back in the late 1960s when Bent Larsen (an early chess idol) popularised the KNP advance.  Later, an unexpected brown paper parcel, addressed to the former occupant of the house I was renting, arrived in the mailbox.  All attempts to locate this person drew a blank and as the parcel had no external indication as to the sender other than that it had been posted in the United States, I opted to open it.  To my surprise it contained a small A5 booklet on the King's Indian Attack.  My nascent dabbling became a little more serious, until circumstances forced me away from chess and the booklet gathered dust along some forgotten shelves. One of the advantages of the King's Indian Attack is that WHITE can more or less force the opening in spite of anything BLACK cares to do.  Other openings are often fraught with transpositions into lines unfamiliar to WHITE.} 1...d5  2. g3  Nf6  3.  Bg2 Nc6  {prepares for e5 with plans to create a broad pawn centre.} 4.d3 e5 5.O-O Ng4   {And one of the disadvantages of the KIA is that you can become a little blasé about the opening moves.  I should have given this departure from the textbooks closer consideration but at the time I was still feeling 'comfortable' with an opening I knew off-by-heart!} 6. Nbd2   {Still in my 'comfort zone' completely overlooking the pending danger.} 6... Bc5 {OUCH!  And suddenly I'm rudely awakened from out of my reverie.  The KBP is in all sorts of trouble.  Indeed, my very return to competitive chess is staring down the business end of a double-barrelled shotgun.  As this was my return to chess the shock serves as a salutary warning about complacency in the opening moves.} 7.d4 {with the idea of 8. h3 to drive off the threatening N.  7. e3 would have lost at least a P [7. e3 Bxe3] and even more after [8. fxe3 Nxe3!].  7.Qe1 was a possibility that didn't occur at the time}. 7...Bb6 8.Nb3 e4  {Peter mounts pressure on my cramped position} 9.Ne1 {the only viable escape hole.  9. Nd2 would have serious repercussions [9.Nd2 e3 10. fxe3? Nxe3] and even Nh4 does nothing more than marginalise my N} 9...Qf6 {bringing out his Top Gun to apply another turn of the screw} 10.e3  {not only protects the d4 P but opens up a small channel for my Q} 10...O-O 11.h3 Nh6  {Peter's first retreating move in the game} 12.c3 Bg4? {a blunder.  This was the sort of mistake one saw on a regular basis in pre- computer days, or before Zork, ECTool, etc. appeared on the scene.Clearly a turning point in our game.} 13.hxg4  {while I now have the material advantage, Peter retains a stranglehold on my cramped position} 13...Qg6  {the focus of attention temporarily moves to the comparatively weak P on g4} 14.Bh3 Ne7  {bringing more troops to the K-side} 15.Ng2 {the start of a combination that turned out to be more fruitful than I had envisaged} 15...f5 16.Nf4 Qg5?? {a serious error by Peter which costs him his R.  From this point on the advantage has clearly swung in my direction although Peter is still not totally without play.} 17.Ne6 Qg6 18.Nxf8 Rxf8 19.gxf5 Nexf5 20.Bxf5 Qxf5  {returning the focus of attention to my KBP} 21.Kg2 Ng4  {and yet more pressure on the KBP} 22.f3 exf3+  {It seems Peter has not read my intention of exchanging pieces until my R advantage can come into its own.  This move simply facilitates my plan} 23.Rxf3  {a skewer which leaves me with the only R on the board, albeit still stuck on home base} 23...Qh5 24.Rxf8+ Kxf8 25.Qh1   {... but I still need to watch my own defences as Peter is not prepared to simply lie down.  His Q and N are threatening to combine} 25..Qg6  26.Bd2  {clearing the way for my R} 26...h6  {I expected c6, bringing his B back into play} 27.Qf1+ Kg8 28.Qf3 Nf6 29.Rc1   {I was somewhat paranoiac about that b1/h7 diagonal with the thought of ...Qc2 causing me nightmares} 29...c6  {the move I had expected at 26...} 30. Qf4  (with the idea of wheedling my way behind Peter's defences and forcing his K to h7 thus putting his K and Q on the same diagonal and ripe for a skewer} 30...Nh5  31.Qb8+ Kh7 32.Qe5   {and not Qxb7 which would have been manna from heaven for Peter [32. Qxb7 Qxg3+ etc.]} 32...Bd8 33.Rf1 Bh4?  {another blunder on Peter's part as this loses him another piece down the track} 34.Be1 Qc2+  {that nightmare from earlier on but now I have the R advantage to smooth my brow} 35.Kh3 Bf6 36.Qf5+ {not quite the way I had envisaged the Q exchange coming off but as long as Peter was prepared to come to the party I was happy to oblige} Qxf5+ 37.Rxf5 {in essence the game was over here.  The remaining moves were little more than 'end game' practice} 36...Qxf5+  37. Rxf5  Be7  38.  Rxh5 g6 39.Re5 Bg5 40.e4 Bf6 41.Re6 Bg5 42.Bd2 Bd8 43.exd5 cxd5 44.Rd6 Bg5 45.Bxg5 hxg5  46.Rxd5 Kh6 47.Re5 b6 48.d5 a5 49.d6 Kg7 50.d7 Kf6 51.Re8 Kf5 52.d8=Q g4+ 53.Kg2 b5 54.Qd5+ Kf6 55.Qe5+ Kf7 56.Qe7+ 1-0 [Event "M-4482.1"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.09.27"] [White "Gorelikov, Igor"] [Black "Cross, Andy"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "1739"] [WhiteCountry "RUS"] [BlackElo "1691"] [BlackCountry "ENG"] [Annotator "CM Igor Gorelikov"] 1.e4 d5 {I think this game is of some theoretical interest.} 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 Nxd5 4.c4 Nb6 5.h3  {It's not the most popular move even though after 5... g6 6.Nf3 the game follows the well-known patterns.} 5...g6 6.Nf3 Bg7 7.Nc3 O-O 8.Be3 Nc6 9.Qd2 e5 10.d5 Ne7 11.g4 e4 12.Ng5 f5 13.O-O-O h6 14.Ngxe4 {The idea of the sacrifice is picked up from the game Feukkink vs Weyers, corr Netherlands , 1992 that have been concluded with a quick     draw: 14. Ngxe4 fxe4 15. Bxh6 Qd6 16. Bxg7 Kxg7 17. Qd4+ Qf6 18. Qxf6+ Rxf6 19. Nxe4 Rf7 20. Re1 Ng8 21. Bd3 Bd7 22. Re2 Raf8 23. Rhe1 Rf3 24.Re3 Be8 1/ 2-1/2     Though I like to take the e-pawn instead of h-pawn so my 15th move is a novelty.} 14...fxe4 15.Nxe4 Kh7      {Black may give away a pawn but activate his queen after 15... Qe8.} 16.Bd4 Bxd4 17.Qxd4 Ng8 18.Bd3 Rf4 {? Better is 18... Qe7 with idea Qg7. For example, 19. c5 Nd7 20. d6 cxd6 21. cxd6 Qe5 with compicated game and equal chances.} 19.h4 {White tries to open lines by any means to attack the black king.} 19...Rxg4 20.h5 Bf5 21.Rdg1 Rxg1+ 22.Rxg1 Qe7 23.hxg6+ Bxg6 24.Nf6+ Qxf6 25.Qxf6 Nxf6 26.Rxg6 Nxc4 27.Rxf6+ Kg7 28.Rg6+ Kf7 29.Rxh6 Ne5 {The storm is over and White goes into the better ending with a pawn up.  But white's advantage is not yet decisive and the endgame seems so drawish.} 30.Be4 Rg8 31.Kd2 Rg4 32.f3 Rg2+ 33.Kc3 Nd7 34.d6     {! White creates passed pawns and this decides the game.} 34...cxd6 35.Bxb7    {Here the b-pawn is more important than the d-pawn. The bishop allows white to play better on both king side (with the passed f-pawn) and queen side (with the a and b-pawn majority).} 35...Nf6 36.a4 Ke6 37.b4 Kf5 38.a5 d5 39.Rh8 Rg7 40.a6 Rc7+ 41.Kd2 Rc4 42.b5 Rb4 43.Bc6 Rb2+ 44.Kc3 Rf2 {The black is lost because the coupled a- and b-pawns cannot be stopped.}  1-0 [Event "CL3-2002.33.09"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.09.29"] [White "Newton, Hobart E."] [Black "Junaidi, Barlian"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "2020"] [WhiteCountry "USA"] [BlackElo "1899"] [BlackCountry "INA"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 {Ruy Lopez} 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Bc5 {ECO C75,5....Be7,...b5 & .....Nxe4 are more popular moves} 6.c3 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.d4 exd4 9.cxd4 Ba7    { NN. Every game in my database has 9......Ba6} 10.Bg5  {Pinning the Knight} ...Na5 11.e5 dxe5 12.dxe5 Qxd1 13.Rxd1   {Exchanges free the attacked Knight on f6} ... Nd7 14.Bd5 c6 15.Be4 Bb7 16.Bf5 Nb6  {Black's Queen side looks very congested} 17.e6 f6 18.Bc1 Nd5  { Better may have been.....c5 19.b3 O-O 20.Ba3 Bd5 21.Nd2 g6 22.Bc2 O-O-O =/+} 19.Nc3? {Better was Ncd2 avoiding the exchange.} ...Nxc3 20.bxc3 Bc8   {I was expecting ....g6  or ....c5} 21.Nd4 O-O 22.a4 Bxd4 23.cxd4 Nb3 {a very good move. 19.Nc3 Nxc3 20.bxc3 Bc8 21.Nd4 O-O 22.a4 Bxd4 23.cxd4 Nb3 } 24.Ra3 Nxc1 25.Rxc1 Rd8 26.axb5  {= the game is even}...Rxd4?? {much better is axb5. After the game move it is all downhill for Black} 27.bxc6 g6 28.Re3 Kf8 29.e7+ Ke8 30.Bc2 Bf5 {Necessary was ...Ra7. This trade did nothing for Black}  31.Bxf5 gxf5 32.Re6 Kf7 33.e8=Q+ { A possible continuance would be 33......Rxe8 34.Rxe8 Kxe8 35.c7 Rd8 36.c7xd8=Q Kxd8 and White wins easily}   1-0  [Event "CL2-2002.25.02"]  [Site "IECC"]  [Date "2002.09.08"]  [White "Adams, Mark"]  [Black "Chapin, Chip"]  [Result "1-0"]  [WhiteElo "2174"]  [WhiteCountry "WLS"]  [BlackElo "1958"]  [BlackCountry "USA"] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.f3  {This sort of structure is very trendy at the moment. White has a standard plan Be3, Qd2, 0-0-0, g4-5. This can even be played against e6 variations e.g. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cd4 4.Nd4 e6 5.Nc3 Qc7 6.Be3 a6 7.Qd2 Nf6 8.f3 b5 9.Bf4! Topalov - Movesian, Sarajevo 2001 (1) and according to Fogarasi in New In Chess, black's problems are insoluble}  6...e5 7.Nb3 Be7 8.Be3 O-O 9.Qd2 Be6 10.O-O-O Na5?!   {10...a5 is usual}  11.Nxa5 Qxa5 12.Kb1 {This is why Nxa5 is not best as white threatens Nd5 and Nxe7 and white has an edge}  12...Kh8 13.a3  {more of a prophylactive than anything else. Black would like to play b5-4. 13.Nd5 Qxd2 leads to a slight edge for white, but nothing much. If 13.g4 b5 14.gxf6 bxc3 15.fxg7+ Kxg7 16.Qxc3 Bxa2+ and black is fine} 13....a6?  {too slow. White now gets a strong initiative} 14.g4!  {white's plan is crude, but effective -  to roll the king side pawns forward and open up lines to the king} 14...Rfc8 15.g5 Nd7 16.h4 b5 17.h5 {Notice that black's queen is effectively out of the game} 17...Bf8? 18.g6 h6 19.Bh3! (Removing defenders from around the king and connecting rooks) 19...Nb6? {Black is now lost. This helps the white attack by moving away from the king and allowing a white pawn to get to f7} 20.Bxb6 Qxb6 21.gxf7 Bxh3 22.Rxh3 Qb7 {More active was the plan Rc6, Rac8} 23.f4!  {variations like this e.g.23.Nd5 Rc6 24.Rg1 Rac8 25.Qxh6+!! and mates, show how precarious black's position is} 23...Qxf7 24.f5 Rc4 25.Qg2!  {white's has a winning game due to the bad bishop on f8. This move defends e4 and aims for Qg6, swapping of queens with a huge ending}  25...b4 26.axb4 Rxb4 27.Nd5 Rb5 28.Qg6 Qb7 {exchanging queens is hopeless. White can double rooks on the f-file and invade the 7th rank}  29.b3 a5 30.Rg3!  {with the threat of Nf6!!}...Rxd5 {forced}  31.Rxd5 a4 32.f6 axb3 33.cxb3 Qa7 34.Ra5!! {a nice way to finish}  1-0 [Event "M-4497.2"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.10.15"] [White "Wozniak, Zbigniew"] [Black "Sgouritsas, Demosthenes"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [WhiteElo "1541"] [WhiteCountry "POL"] [BlackElo "1545"] [BlackCountry "GRC"] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 5.Be3 Bg7 6.Nc3 Nf6 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.e5 Ng8 9.Bd4 Qa5 10.e6 Nf6 11.exf7+ {I resigned from theoretical continuation 11.exd7+ Bxd7 12.Qd2 O-O 13.Ne4 Qd5 14.Nxf6+ exf6 15.Be3 Qe6 16.Rd1 Rfd8 17.b3 Qe5 18.f3 Qe7} 11...Kxf7 12.Bc4+ d5 13.Bd3  {Surely better than Bb3} 13... e5  {I expected rather c5} 14.Bxe5 Re8 15.f4 Qb6 16.Qf3 Rb8 17.b3 Bg4 18.Qg3 Qd4 {Threatening also was for white's18...Rbd8 19.Kd2 Qb4 20.a3 Ne4+ 21.Bxe4 dxe4+} 19.Be2 Rxe5 20.fxe5 Bxe2 {also intresting 20...Ne4 21.e6+ Bxe6 22.Qc7+ Bd7 23.Qxd7+ Kg8 24.Nxe4 Qxa1+ 25.Bd1 dxe4 26.Qe6+ Kh8 27.O-O} 21.Kxe2 Re8 22.Rad1 Rxe5+ 23.Kf1 Rf5+ 24.Ke2  {Initiative one should to black} 24... Qg4+ 25.Kd3 Qxg3+ 26.hxg3 Ng4 {Loss of rook inevitable} 27.Rxh7 Nf2+ 28.Ke2 Nxd1 29.Nxd1 Re5+ 30.Kf2 Rf5+ 31.Ke2 Rg5 32.Kf2 Rf5+ {and black offered draw}   1/2-1/2           ------------------------------------ Chess trivia answers 1. C 2. D 3. B 4. A & B 5. D