Chess Bits The Journal of the International E-mail Chess Club August 2003 IECC Web Site: www.geocities.com/ieccinfo/ In this edition: From the Editor's Desk Steve Ryan Welcome to New Members David Glew Top 10 Membership Countries Steve Ryan First Contact Steve Ryan Letter to the Editor Ben Kriechel Megacorr 3 Product Review Steve Ryan Two Unusual Game Types Steve Ryan Miscellaneous Items Steve Ryan IECC Biographies Gould/Washburn/Coulding The IECC Arbitration Department Steve Ryan Book Review: "Startling Correspondence Chess Miniatures" Ben Kriechel Megacorr 3 Giveaway Contest Steve Ryan Rumour & Gossip Silicon Saboteur A Chess Bits Interview with STEVE HAM Game & Theory 4 CL2-2003 1.5 Andersen-Agulnick CL5-2003.02 Pritchard-Hill Swiss 443.2.07 Carrillo-Muniz - Joanis CL1-2002.21.05 Belov-Turko CL4-2003.08.07 Williams-Lyew TH-M-1872.2 Wong-Zamora CL8-2003.04.10 Butcher-Ladkin O-1596 Zdziarski-Milne CL2-2003.12.02 Muller-LeDuigou CL#-2003.02.01 Green-Endean ------------------------------------------ From the Editor's Desk by Steve Ryan In this edition of Chess Bits, above all others, I want to restate my policy concerning the editorials you see published in our journal: The editorials, written by myself, contain SOLELY my own views on the topic under discussion and do not reflect the opinion of any other IECC member, unless by co-incidence. In particular, they do not represent the opinion of any member of the IECC Board of Directors, unless by co-incidence. I encourage, want, and outright plead for feedback that I may publish as a Letter to the Editor on my editorials or any topic appearing in the journal. You have almost a 100% chance of having your letter/article published with the caveat that I reserve the right to remove anything promoting racism, sexism or hate/bigotry of any kind and will edit for mistakes in spelling and grammar (when detected). Your articles must also have a chess or correspondence chess-based content or relate to the IECC in some manner. So go ahead and enjoy this edition. I plan to continue producing the journal for some time to come, but not indefinitely. I invite anyone interested in becoming an ASSISTANT EDITOR to write to me. I would like to have someone in place to take over when I decide to retire. Producing the journal requires a SUBSTANTIAL amount of effort and probably means that you will have to give up some of your chess games - so serious enquiries only. ----------------------- Welcome to New Members by David Glew The IECC welcomes the following 137 new members who have joined over the period 2003 April 26 - July 15: Argentina: Miguel Zarate Australia: Douglas Stones, Leon Blackman, Matthew Garcia Austria: Patric Lehnen Belgium: Bart Aerts, Lionel Cattaux, Michael Duganoff Brazil: José Morau, Francisco Sorroche, Alexandre Sigrist. Canada: Walter Rattay, Daniel Jollette, George Bradt. Costa Rica: Franklin Marin. Croatia: Tomislav Beric. Denmark: Michael Koch, Ejlif Hansen, Lars Pedersen. Ecuador: Arturo Montalvan. Egypt: Makram Kozman, Mary Abaskharoun. England: John Corallo, Nathan White, Phil Taylor, Robert Cook, Bill Powell, Stephen Hughes, Nicholas Cryer, Matthew Barnett, Stephen McGowan, Richard Gee, Jeremy Smith. Finland: Tuomas Nivala, Juha Kiviluoma, Arto Heimonen. France: Jean-Marc Depasse, Thierry Lhôte, Frederic Andres, Omega Lima, Arnaud Blais Germany: Jörg Rütten, Simon Henke, Ingo Schwarz, Peter Leisebein, Gerd Bauer, Björnstjem Baade. Greece: Athanassios Ghikas. Guatemala: Sergio Sierra. Hungary: Ervin Kaszab India: Shahvir Aga, Sathya Shrayan. Ireland: Timothy McCarthy. Italy: Elia Calderon, Donato Lombardi, Danilo Mariani, Marco Mariani. Japan: Kusaka Atushi, Josuke Fujiwara. Lithuania: Romualdas Kutkaitis. Malaysia: Sulong Tala'at. Mexico: Francisco Castillo, Javier Sinta, Pablo Keres, Carlos Pedroza. Morocco: Bah Thierno. Netherlands: Ruud Wenink, Remco Hillebrandt, Paul van der Wal, Paul Hoogervorst New Zealand: Brian Turner. Norway: Leif Waerstad. Oman: Ali Maimani. Philippines: Dar B. Leonor. Poland: Pawel Hynasinski, Marek Sadowski, Marcin Zimmerman. Portugal: António Duarte, Paulo Morais. Romania: Cristian Borsa, Andre Fortuna. Russia: Alexander Stefanov, Vladimir Trofimov. Scotland: James Jones, Craig Postlethwaite. Serbia: Radislav Sakic. Sewden: Mats Johanson, Peter Johansson South Africa: Heinrich Basson. Spain: Daniel Arraiz, Francisco Perez. Thailand: Prayoon Ekaworawong. Turkey: Kivanc Cefle. UK: Daniel Slater. USA: Gregg Shavor, Michael McDermott, Al Schneider, Christopher O'Connor, John Hettron, Dennis Michael, Becky Ralls, Scott Vechinski, Ernest Simmons, Eric Stanslaski, Patrick Sherrard, Doug Schultz, Ramon Sides, Michael Cook, Alex Relyea, Terrence Gildred, Kevin Masters, Matthew Etten, Jeremy Wedekind, Timothy Leap, Steve Stackhouse, Richard Pizzoni, Rick Wentworth, Perry Kaufman, Philip Riccobono, José Manis, Rob Macy, Alexandru Dimitriev, Bob Weir, Kelly Fergason, Ted Clark, Gary Patton, Marcelino Cruz, Martin Cohen, David DuRant, Logan Mac Murdo, Dick Mesirov, Joel Sherson, Robert Harris, Vandel Troutman. Venezuela: Luis Flores, José Pina. Vietnam: Nguyen Viet Anh. May each of you establish and enjoy a congenial relationship with all members of the IECC. May all of you strive to complete your games in time and without defaults. May you also always accord to, and receive from, your opponents the highest degree of courtesy, consideration and good fellowship. ------------------ IECC Membership by Country - Top 10 by Steve Ryan As of 2003 July 20 the IECC had the following membership breakdown by country for the top 10 countries: USA - 1431, England - 341, Canada - 243, Germany - 202, Italy - 138, France - 130, Australia - 113, Spain - 91, Sweden - 81, Brazil - 79. ------------------- First Contact by Steve Ryan Do you remember how you first found out about the IECC? I don't, really, but have the feeling I just stumbled across it somehow. To dig a little deeper into this subject I have asked the guides in the New Member Program to pose this very question to their trainees. I suppose you could consider this question sort of a "recruiting survey" but if 1. we wish the IECC to continue growing then 1... we need information of this sort. I have included either the direct quotes as received from the new member trainees (names removed) or have summarized them into groups where applicable: Informed about the IECC by an existing member - 3 responses. Informed about the IECC via another net-based CCC (IECG/ICC) - 3 responses Yahoo search - 2 responses. Friendly teams match - 1 response "I heard about IECC from several sources; IECG and other players I've met. The IECC offers events different from ICCF, IECG and NPSF(Norwegian corr. chess association). I must specially mention your Thematic section. I like the choice of openings/variations you offer ;-) And that it's possible to start at any time. That's why I like to join you". India I was doing a Google search on the Kings Gambit. Although the IECC website wasn't thrown up directly from the search I reached it from another website which I don't recollect now. Sorry I couldn't be of much help. New Zealand I did a net search on the word 'chess' as I was seeking a site to play with a friend. He's more casual than I am so we are playing on another site. New Zealand Played an American chap on www.chessworld.net who said he enjoyed both the IECC & IECG. I figured these sites, being a little more low tech, would weed out some of the less desirable elements (players who play a couple of moves then disappear, players using chess programs, etc) that exist on the more accessible sites... ...so here I am. Australia I searched the web for a web based chess correspondence and found you guys. Australia Internet search engine, that's how I found you. I just went for "Correspondence E-mail chess" and browsed the sites, the rest is history. Australia I was actually looking for the Australian CCLA site and happened across the IECC site at the same time. I downloaded the information there, found it sounded interesting and - hey presto! Malaysia I never heard about IECC before. It was my intention to search on the net where I can play correspondence e-mail chess. I found that it must be interesting site to get connected with. Hong Kong My one and only chess opponent went back to Singapore in 1997 but put me onto IECC before he left. I don't think we have enough information to do any kind of statistical analysis but you can see from the remarks above that chance plays a significant role. We should also give some thanks to other CC clubs such as the IECG and the ICC. It shows the value of at least exchanging links. -------------------------------- Letter to the Editor Hi Steve, You wrote as your point four in the Miscellaneous Items (Chess Bits 18): "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." Well, we may have peaked in 2000, but you certainly cannot conclude this from the games archives. Note that the games are collected after they are finished, and that the dates given are from the start of a tournament. Now, it is true that the average IECC game is quite fast, relative to old fashioned correspondence chess. But I regularly get games from 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 now every month to put in the monthly digest of games. While you see a levelling off for 2000, 2001 and especially 2002 get stronger. You might also have looked at the "yearly" files without looking at the tournament dates. Then you simply looked how many games were REPORTED in a given year as finished. While this gives some indication of the level of play, I am also somewhat doubtful about its indication for the "size" of the IECC. Around 2000 we implemented routines to remind players of still "open" games that went on for a long time. Hence, many games were reported around that time that were finished some time (years) earlier. I got -- by the way – - last month a couple of games from 1997, that were archived in the April files. As always, I enjoyed reading your Chessbits. Ben Kriechel Business Investment Research Center Maastricht University Thank you Ben - point taken. SR ------------------------ A Review of Tim Harding's Megacorr 3 by Steve Ryan I will start this review with a rhetorical question - can you ever have enough research material, game collections in particular, to assist you in finding the best next move? Answer - of course not. And another one, does the "average" CC player devote the necessary time to finding these game collections and download or save them somehow? Well, perhaps once in a while, but by and large no. Nevertheless, such research constitutes a legitimate and fundamental technique of good cc play and if you won't do it yourself then you need a product like Tim Harding's Megacorr3. Megacorr 3, produced by Tim's small but very active company Chess Mail Ltd. contains over 521,000 cc games gathered from various sources and presented in either PGN or Chessbase format. You need a PGN reader or programs such as Fritz 8 or Chessbase 8 to download the games. I personally find the PGN reader ECtool the easiest to use in this regard. You should also realize that each new CD in the Megacorr series of game collections ADDS TO previous CD's. By that I mean that you will find the games from Megacorr 2 on Megacorr3 but with many new games added on. Megacorr 3 also contains 58 issues of Tim's Chess Mail Magazine (1996-2002) in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format and Tim's "The Kibitzer" columns from chesscafe.com up to the end of 2002. As much as I recommend this product I am not going to let Tim off without with out a bit of constructive criticism. I am very much oriented to game collections and , personally, do not consider "frills" like photos of CC players at all necessary. True, they add visual appeal, but I don't really care what any CC player looks like and the disc space needed to include their photographs could have gone toward more games. I would like to see a future Megacorr devoted to NOTHING other than games. My own opinion. As a final minor point you may find the white text on the red background in the "Navigation Bar" buttons a bit hard to read. They did not display well on my screen at any rate. I suggest you investigate this very worthwhile product at Tim's website www.chessmail.com or contact Chessmail at 26 Coolamber Park, Dublin, Ireland Phone/fax +353-1-4939339, e-mail editor@chessmail.com. WATCH FOR THE MEGACORR 3 GIVAWAY CONTEST ELSEWHERE IN THIS EDITION. ------------------------------------ Two Unusual Game Types by Steve Ryan I have had the pleasant experience of participating in two types of chess games you don't encounter very often, a "consultation" match and an "odds" match (with the terms "match" and "game" used interchangeably). At this writing I am participating in a second consultation match as a team member for The Correspondence Chess Message Board vs. Chessworld. A "consultation" match usually pits two teams of players against each other, though an individual may also take on a team by himself. The team members appoint a "team captain" who coordinates the efforts of his group. The team members may consult freely with each other and analyze the next move they must play. A majority vote by the team members determines the next move, with the voting to take place and the selected move sent to the opposition according to the agreed-upon time controls. You can have "open rating" teams (the best kind I think) or restrict team memberships to a certain rating range. The free consultation mode can produce some lively discussion and analysis although the lower-rated players may defer to the higher-rated players. In an "odds" match a player with a high rating agrees to a game with a lower rated player with the higher rated player having some "restriction" or handicap placed upon him. The restriction may consist of removing one of his pieces or pawns, requiring the higher rated player to win within a fixed number of moves, to mate upon a particular square or with a particular piece etc. The higher rated player may also have to give up the first move (i.e. play the black pieces) depending on what arrangement they make. The most common type of odds match involves surrender of a pawn and perhaps also surrender of the first move. My copy of "The American Chess Player's Handbook" of 1934 (sorry - I have nothing more recent than that giving the rules for odds matches) gives the following regulations for odds games featuring removal of a piece or pawn: For games at odds of pawn the higher rated player (HRP) must remove the King's Bishop pawn (f-pawn): For odds of Rook, Knight or Bishop the HRP must remove his Queen's Rook, Queen's Knight or Queen's Bishop (the pieces on the Queen's side of the board). If using odds of Rook, the HRP may castle subject to the usual conditions by moving just the King (i.e. by pretending he still has the required Rook). Perhaps you have already jumped to the next logical development here - a consultation odds match. Players with a very high rating may enjoy something like that. Of course surrender of a major piece like a R, B or N would mean a correspondingly large difference in the ratings of the two opponents. but even I could probably beat C.G. , for example, if he gave up his Knight (and/or Bishop and/or Rook). So, do we have two new types of matches for the IECC? Not for me to say, but let's think about it. -------------------------------- Miscellaneous Items by Steve Ryan 1. In the last edition of Chess Bits I mentioned my experiments with an anti-spam program called "Mailwasher". According to the creators Mailwasher works by sending fake messages to the spammers indicating your e-mail address has become invalid. The spammers, not wanting to keep flogging a dead horse, will then supposedly remove your e-mail address from their list. MS Outlook with a Windows XP operating system also has a tool that allows you to place the sender of a spam message in a "junk e-mail senders list". Any future messages received from that source go automatically to the "Deleted Items" in Outlook. To date I have not received two messages from the same spam source, but keep getting the same old schemes, scams and ads from NEW sources. It means adding those new names to the junk e-mail senders list, a seemingly endless chore. It seems quite likely to me that the spammers pay no attention to "invalid" e-mail addresses. When one spammer sells an e-mail address list to another spammer, the seller most likely gets paid on the number of e-mail addresses the list has, invalid or not. The purchaser finds out just what kind of a "pig in a poke" he bought when he tries to use it. The phrase "no honour among thieves" comes to mind. Despite its best intentions I must conclude that Mailwasher does not work. If you seldom, or never, get a message from the same spam source why would the sender go to the trouble of deleting names he never intends to contact again anyway? I see, however, that Mailwasher now has an "improved" version and I will try it out. Stand by for more or if you have used it yourself let me know how it worked for you. 2. The IECC recently announced several staff changes and additions to the Board of Directors that I will reprint here: To the Board of Directors - Brad Coulding, Mike Gould, Dave Washburn. To the International Matches group - Michael Barrer (IECC-71), Greg Shell (Systems Manager), Terry Taylor (PGN Review), Olivier Laliga (Playing Guidelines Manager). To the Administrative Staff - Jean-Christophe Copin as Senior Administrator Congratulations to all new appointees. Volunteers make the IECC work! 3. The IECC recently achieved a significant milestone in that our number of members has now passed the 4000 level. As it turns out, we have no easy way to determine who became member 4000. It depends on whether you count the members in good standing, the total number of people who have joined since the club first started (many of whom no longer belong) and the date you do the count. The membership level has gone past 4000, dropped below and then gone past again all in the space of a few days. You must also take into account the fact that "accounting duties" to add new members rotates regularly among the executive and we have had some large mistakes in addition/subtraction over the years to complicate matters. Despite all these obstacles the executive has narrowed it down to a range of 5 people: Brett Williams, George Walters, Becky Ralls, Francisco Perez and Remco Hillebrandt. I suggest that these good people decide amongst themselves who gets the title of member 4000 and let the rest of us know when they sort it out. 4. The good people at Firenze have asked me to mention their chess store. They specialize in exotic chess sets and if such things interest you please visit them on-line at http://www.madeinfirenze.it/chess_sets_e.htm. ------------------------ IECC Biographies Editor's note - I asked each person mentioned in item #2 in the Miscellaneous Items section for some brief biographical notes for publication and received the following replies: Mike Gould I'm 40 years old (sigh!). I live in a small town in Western Maryland, about 40 miles north of Washington, DC. I live very close to Camp David, the presidential retreat. I've been married for 18 years, and I have two sons (16 and 14), a daughter (11), a golden retriever (10, in people years), a cocker spaniel poodle mix (2), and a rabbit (don't know and don't care). There's also a bearded dragon lizard running around the house somewhere. I am an air traffic controller, working for the US government. I've been doing that crazy job for 15 years now. When things get busy, it's a little like playing blitz chess. Having said that, if you ever saw me play blitz chess, you would never fly again. I joined the IECC as a player in 1997, I think. After about a year, I volunteered to be a member of the IECC staff, which I recommend highly to all of you. I was the assistant TD, and then the TD of the pyramid. I did that for almost three years, and then had to stop because of Health problems. Recently, I decided to resume volunteering for the IECC again, and the IECC board of directors, in a fit of raving insanity, decided to accept my application to join them as a director. So if you are a current chess opponent of mine, please keep in mind that I can now have your membership revoked at any time! I don't feel there is any pressing need for change in the IECC right now. I wouldn't mind seeing some new events started, but only if there were members interested in becoming staffers and running them. I would like to see the IECC continue to be what it has always been, a source of friendly chess opponents from all over the world. When you stop to think about it, the IECC is really an amazing organization, and it is completely free! If you have the time and the inclination, you should really consider giving a little bit back to the IECC by becoming a staffer. Dave Washburn: The worst thing about me is that I'm a perfectionist. Ever since my father taught me fool's mate as a young teenager, I've wanted to be perfect at my game. This conflicts, in general, with the fact that my main function in an OTB tournament seems to be to bolster the morale of most everyone I play by letting them beat up on me. I am 41 years old, married and have two children (ages 14 and 12). I was born in NJ and grew up in Philadelphia, PA. I studied at six colleges and universities over the course of several years, but never completed a degree program. I enlisted in the US Navy for six years and served on a cruiser as a nuclear qualified machinist. I requested to serve on a west coast cruiser since I wanted to see Japan and Australia, therefore the navy put me on a cruiser in Washington state which changed it's homeport to Norfolk, Virginia just a couple of months later. I did spend over a year in the Med and another six months in Northern Europe however so I did get to see quite a lot in any case. After I left the service, I worked in a gas turbine power plant in central Virginia for nine years, the majority of that time as a shift supervisor in operations. I also worked as facility training coordinator there for a year or two as a collateral assignment. After 15 years in Virginia, I moved to Indiana on a job transfer in 1999. I have done administrative work since 1998, and am currently working as an admin assistant in a pallet manufacturing facility. I am a Christian and have served in church for several years as a Sunday school teacher and Sunday school director. I've been a member of the USCF (off and on) from the mid 70's. I've enjoyed looking over games by Mikhail Tal in particular when I was younger, and more recently those of Duncan Suttles. I remember playing a little postal chess when I was younger, and thought that email chess was a fantastic idea when I learned about it later on (no postcards to keep track of!) I figure that I have been a member of IECC for at least the last five or six years...I don't remember exactly when I started playing here (but I've found a game result from early 1999). My first staff position (in 1999 or so?) was working with Raouf El-Messiry in the PGN editing group. In 2000-2001, I served as a TD in Thematics. I stepped down from that position for personal reasons (loss of the contents of my computer hard drive, loss of job, loss of sanity...in that order if I remember correctly). I recently rejoined staff in December 2002 when I agreed to help in the Admin department as Senior Administrator. I've always just wanted to help however I could, serving wherever folks felt I would be most useful. Editor's note - Dave also reports that he is an Eagle Scout and enjoys classical music, plays the piano and harp, likes stamp collecting, wargaming and role playing games. To top it all off he has also played keyboards in a rock band. Brad Coulding I really don't think I'm that exciting, or of that much interest to the membership, but for what it's worth... I'm 31 years old and live in a small seaside hamlet called Singleton, just outside of Perth, Western Australia. I'm married to Tracy, with whom I have one beautiful daughter named Sarah. I work locally as a maintainer for a chemical company called Tiwest, and have done so for the past 8 years. We've recently built a new home and I'm slowly managing to get a lot of the work done, but I don't really think you ever end up finishing with your house. Apart from chess, I enjoy reading, playing snooker / pool, and a just-for-fun poker game online. I've also recently purchased a four wheel drive, so when summer finally arrives I'm hoping some weekend camping adventures will be added to my list of "Things I like, but don't get enough time to do!". I don't recall exactly, when I joined the IECC. As far as I can tell sometime around mid 1997 seems to be about right. In early 2001 I heeded the call for volunteers and was asked to help out in the Pyramid section. I figured I'd give it a go, it couldn't be that bad. It wasn't, and I managed to make some good friends amongst both the players, and staff. As for chess, I've only played around 50 email games, which I play exclusively with the IECC. I'm a bit slow I guess, because I like to give each opponent the best game I can. --------------------- The IECC Arbitration Department by Steve Ryan I hereby nominate as the loneliest job in the IECC (aside from Journal Editor) that of working in the IECC Arbiter's Department, which, at the time of writing, consists of one person * - Robert Mueller, the Senior Arbiter. Unless you wish anarchy to prevail you need a "police force", so to speak, in any society to enforce the rules of that society combined with a impartial judiciary to dispense punishment as required. The IECC forms a society of sorts, dedicated to e-mail chess, and Robert performs both those essential jobs for us. I personally have never needed to contact our arbiter about any game but he seems to keep busy enough, sad to say. Robert joined the IECC in 1998 and at first played a considerable number of games. The arbiter's job now demands most of his time and he now participates in the Y2KO tournament and the odd pyramid game only. Robert graciously agreed to answer a few questions for me and I have printed his answers below: Q - How many requests for arbitration do you receive each month/year? That changes quite a bit depending on the time of year. During the summer months and around Christmas there seem to be less complaints. But after these seasons when players pick up their games again, there are usually a lot of cases. In average you could say we process about 100 cases a month. Q - Can you identify the main reasons for arbitration requests - time violations? rule violations? rude/un-sportsmanlike behaviour? Other? A - Most of the complaints are about time-violations or missing opponents. Quite often it is only because one email got lost. That is why we made re-sends mandatory. Many time-complaints can be avoided by a simple 5-day resend. Occasionally we get move order disputes, like players incorrectly repeating their opponent's last move. Rude/Unsportsmanlike behaviour is very rare. A problem which is occurring more and more nowadays is communication problems between players, caused by incorrectly configured Spam filter software. Many players use these today to protect themselves from unsolicited ad mail. Sometimes they (or their ISP's) filter out legitimate, chess related mails from their opponents or IECC staff. Q - Do members generally accept your decisions or do you sometimes get appeals? A - Most players accept our decisions. Sometimes, we get complaints and accusations from players who lose a game by forfeit and there have been a couple of cases that ended up at the board of directors. Q - . Feel free to include any individual comments or observations. A - Although we have sent out information about arbitration and how to handle time-complaints to all members in the past, there are still many players who are not familiar with these subjects. They don't re-send their move after five days, they don't submit time-complaints for months, they send incomplete time-complaints, or players get offended because their opponent submitted a time-complaint against them ("he is trying to win the game on time, because he is about to lose"). Players should be aware that submitting a time-complaint (with all the required information preferably) is not a choice but an obligation. Robert also mentioned that during any absences Tim Nagley will step in to handle things. So there you have it folks, the IECC's "top cop" describes life in the mean streets of the IECC. Give him a bit of a break everyone and time complaints with all the required information. Editor's Note * Not so anymore. Robert now has an assistant arbiter, Pat Bell, to help him. I have not changed the wording of this article partly because of some pure laziness from my end, but also to give you an idea of what Robert had to cope with BEFORE Pat came along. S.R. ---------------------- Book Review "Startling Correspondence Chess Miniatures", by Tim Harding, Chess Mail, ISBN 0-9538536-0-8; Reviewed by Ben Kriechel Tim Harding is an Irish correspondence chess IM that has written several books both in the area of opening theory and on correspondence chess. He is also the editor of ChessMail, a magazine devoted to correspondence chess. In this small book of 125 pages one hundred chess games are shown, none longer than 25 moves --- which constitute a miniature in chess. The games are selected to show something `typical' for correspondence play. Blunders, opening novelties, clerical errors, they all appear in this book and it is quite amusing to see that one is not alone in making typical correspondence mistakes. The book is explicitly not focussing on correspondence chess on the highest level, as perfection was not the selection criteria, rather than the educational point a game can contribute. Chapter two deals with notational blunders, something typical that probably all of us have encountered, and one can only hope that such a blunder does not waste a game entirely -- but I also have several games of my own in which my annotations point out the line I actually intended to play. Chapter 3 deals with classical (i.e. older) miniatures. Quite amusing is a mate in 19 announced by Mrs Gilbert in game 19. While the announcement was only partly right (with best defense a mate would have been slightly longer in her line, while a better line for her could yield a mate in 18!), it shows that already 1875 correspondence chess produced beautiful miniatures. Chapter four deals with the resigned games that should have been played on. It also has a game from the IECC between Tim Nagley and Lisa Powell in 1998. It is noted that while Lisa stands worse there was sufficient compensation for her to play on. Chapter five deals with so called "opening shocks". Something most of you are familiar with ... your opponent found a refutation of this great book-line you are following, and the dreamed advantage turns out into a severe defeat. Chapter six also deals with openings: Gambits, those openings in which a pawn is given for development -- some are sound, some are dubious -- but to gambit afficiendos it is a way of life. Chapter seven deals with ultra-minis, those games that were decided within 12 moves. Here another IECC game is given, which I will give you with full comment of Tim Harding: [Event "M-2443.1"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1999.01.04"] [White "Ventimiglia, Chuck"] [Black "MacDonald, Weldon"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "1766"] [BlackElo "1570"] [Annotator "Tim Harding"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 Qd7 7.Nf3 Nc6 (7... e6 {is also well met by} 8. Ne5) 8.Ne5 {So simple. Black loses material whatever he does. It is surprising how often this trap has occurred in CC games.} 8...Qd6? { This is just about the worst option.} {a}(8...Qc8 9.Bb5 a6 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11Qa4 Bd7 12.b3 e6 13.Ba3 c5 14.Nxd7 Nxd7 15.Rc1 cxd4 16.Nxd5 {1-0 D. Smith-S.Dooms, IECG email 1999}) {b}(8...Nxe5 9.dxe5 a6 10.exf6 exf6 11.Qxd5 O-O-O 12.Qxd7+ Rxd7 13.e4 Bg4 14.Be2 Be6 15.Be3 Bb4 16.O-O h5 17.Rfc1 Kb8 18.a3 Bd6 19.b4 b5 20.a4 Bxb4 21.axb5 { 1-0 S.Daigle-S.Redford, IECC email 1998}) {c}(8... Qc7 { is relatively best as the following shows:} {c1: The obvious} 9.Nxd5 { is deceptive, e.g.} 9...Nxd5 10.Qxd5 e6 11.Qb5 Bb4+ 12.Bd2 Bxd2+ 13.Kxd2 O-O 14.Rc1 Be4 15.f3 Bd5 16.e4 Rad8! 17.Ke3 Bxa2 18. Nxc6 bxc6 19.Rxc6 {(Falleiros-P.Goenez Briao, corr 1997) and White is better but not clearly winning}) ({c2:}9.Bb5 a6 10.Nxd5 Nxd5 11.Qxd5 e6 12 Bxc6+ bxc6 13.Qc4 Bd6 14.Bd2 Be4 15.f3 Bd5 16.Qc2 f6 17.Nc4 Bxh2 18.O-O-O Bd6 19.Ba5 Qd7 20.Nxd6+ Qxd6 21. e4 Bxa2 22.b4 {+- as in the OTB game Ehlvest-Glavas, Pula (year unknown).}) 9.Qxb7 1-0 As you can see the game is decided by a mistake in the opening. Such a mistake, or an opening novelty are typical for the games in this chapter. It also nice to see in this book that extensive use is made of a database of correspondence games both from email and mail chess to annotate the games. So games you and I are playing at the IECC are actually used to evaluate other games. From the example above you can also see that the comments are not too extensive. Only the main point is elaborated and not all mistakes are noted (or deemed important). If you want to have near perfect games and lots of annotations, you should go for Tim's newest book ("64 Great Chess Games - Masterpieces of Postal and Email Chess"), which was described in the previous issue of Chess Bits. However, for gourmets of high quality correspondence chess, there are also several "high-quality" super-minis annotated in the final chapter. To sum up I would highly recommend this book to take along and to browse without having a chess board around. It is interesting to read, and you are unlikely to find the material in other chess books. If you want books that are exhaustively annotated you rather want to go for "64 Great Chess Games". You might also buy both, one to take along and browse, the other for those serious study moments. ------------------ Megacorr Giveaway Contest by Steve Ryan The Megacorr CD I have reviewed elsewhere in this edition came directly from Tim Harding as a free sample. Since I should not benefit personally from my position as editor, I have established the practice of giving away any such merchandise received in a contest. We have another one for Megacorr 3. Rules: 1. I must exclude any member of the IECC responsible for reading this edition of the journal before it gets distributed to the general membership. 2. You will receive the CD by surface mail parcel post. That means it will take a LONG time to get to you, especially if the Canadian Post Office goes on strike as they have threatened to do. 3. You MUST agree to reimburse the cost of the postage in Canadian dollars. You pay the postage only, no cost for the CD. 4. The first IECC member to correctly answer the 5 trivia questions below wins the CD. You will have to look through back issues of Chess Bits to find the answers. The first e-mail message to arrive on my server with the correct answers determines the winner. The winner will have to provide his/her postal address so I can send the CD. Trivia Questions - Hint - look at back issues numbers 15, 10, 12, 13, & 18 (not listed in any particular order). 1. Who made this famous quote? "When I am White I win because I have the first move. When I am Black I win because I am ---------". 2. What did Siegbert Tarrasch and Jacques Mises play for as first prize in their match of 1916? 3. What significance does this number have, according to Edwyn Anthony ? 169,518,829,100,544, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000. 4. At least how many paintings exist called "Checkmate"? 5. Did former world champion Alexander Alekhine die from old age? ----------------------------- Rumour & Gossip by The Silicon Saboteur Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in your books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. Buddha Totally ignoring the good advice above we bring you the following startling "facts" based on half-truths, idle speculation and wishful thinking: 1 CASTLING to CHANGE name! 2. FUNDAMENTALIST cc PLAYERS raid OTB tournament! 3. IECC to MUMMIFY pyramid WINNERS. 1. Where do you see a castle anywhere on a chess board? With 4 pieces that look like castles but go by the name of ROOKS. Accordingly, the International Federation For Correspondence Chess has, supposedly, launched a world-wide campaign to change the name to ROOKILING. The moves will stay the same, you can Rookle either K's side or Q's side by following the usual rules. Since the word "rook" also means to win by unethical means you can always rationalize your loss of a rook by a totally idiotic move as unethical behaviour by your opponent. It will at least make you feel better about yourself if you can invent the logic needed to reach that conclusion. 2. In a brazen move to defend the "true game" of chess a group of fundamentalist CC players has launched a computer attack on an OTB tournament. The CC'ers, after realizing that an OTB tournament does not involve computers other than for compiling results, dispatched a volunteer loaded with a briefcase full of 31/2 inch diskettes full of virus bio-weapons to spread around the tournament hall. Had the diskettes contained COMPUTER viruses the volunteer might have accomplished something other than giving a lot of people a runny nose for a few days. The OTB'ers, suspecting a fundamentalist CC plot, have vowed revenge by any and all means since they, and ONLY they, play the "true game". 3. In keeping with the "ancient spirit" of pyramids found the world-over the IECC has decided to mummify all Pyramid event winners. The IECC plans to inundate the winners with mountains of dry analysis until they shrivel up and fall away from the computer screen. The player's spouses, grateful to finally have him/her away from that bloody machine, will gladly ship the remains to the IECC, sell the pile of silicon chips and then put the space to better use. As usual, watch this space for further developments. -------------------------------- A Chess Bits Interview with Stephen Ham Elsewhere in this issue you will find a description of "consultation" matches. I first met Stephen Ham in just such a match when I belonged to a team on The Correspondence Chess Message Board. Stephen and I have again become team mates in another consultation match, this time vs. Chessworld. We also share a "northern" climate which keeps us indoors and analyzing chess games for hours on end though myself, as the further north of the two, envy the relatively mild winters of Minnesota (USA) compared to the absolutely mind-numbing cold of a Manitoba (Canada) winter. Stephen admits to the use of a little single-malt Scotch "antifreeze" where I like a good dark rum. He has kindly agreed to do an interview for our journal. Chess Bits (CB): Can you give us some personal information, whatever you feel willing to share? Stephen Ham Bio I learned to play chess when I was 8. Due to being raised in rural Minnesota where OTB chess opportunities were unknown to me, I began Playing correspondence chess when about 12. Upon graduation from St. John's University (MN.), the need to support myself and hold a job left little time for chess, so I accepted the fact that my only future in chess would be in the correspondence arena. I played with modest success until approximately 1984 when I reached a point where I wasn't improving and my chess desire was low. Therefore I abandoned chess competition altogether. During this "retirement", I re-examined my play and was unhappy with what I saw. I had a "safety-first" attitude (the fear of loss greatly outweighed my will to win) and a general unwillingness to calculate deeply, because I had an inferiority complex about my tactical skills. Also, I was lazy and easily upset by sloppy play by either myself or my opponent. So if the game was "blemished" by either party, I lost interest. Therefore I promised myself that if I ever returned to correspondence chess, I'd always try to play the move that I thought objectively best, regardless whether it suited my conservative style. Thus I made a conscious effort to improve my ability to calculate tactically by studying GM level games in depth. Simultaneously, I abandoned many of my opening preferences in favor of more aggressive lines. So for the next 5 years I studied on my own and sensed improvement. During this time I played hundreds of speed chess games on my lunch break at work with the MN. State Chess Champion, Eugene Kerkey ; we shared the same employer. Finally I grew bold enough to challenge a strong correspondence chess master (Ron Elmquist, who scored well in our National Championship) to a couple of games. I won one game sharply and, due to my newer/riskier style, I blundered in the second game. Still, this result gave me confidence to play correspondence chess again. After the requisite number of games finished, I earned a master's rating in excess of 2300. I then accepted an invitation to play in the 1993 US Absolute Chess Championship (reserved for the 13 highest rated players accepting from the US). I scored 50% and learned a great deal about chess at "higher" levels. Therefore I entered the 1994 US Absolute Chess Championship. Although I was the lowest rated player, I won clear 2nd place, 1/2 point behind the winner. Subsequently I wanted to test my skills internationally and so became active in ICCF chess, playing both postally and via email. My most recent activity is in Champion's League, and I will soon be playing in a Category VIII tournament hosted by Brazil. I received international attention subsequent to some debate at TCCMB regarding whether strong chess engines could play correspondence chess successfully versus a human CC master. Most people felt that the chess engines had little chance against a human opponent who played without computer aid. But nobody was willing to take the risk to actually test this matter in a controlled fashion. Therefore I volunteered. The primary goal was to determine whether chess engines, allowed to compute for approximately 1-day, could be successful without any human guidance, much as a "postman" (somebody 100% dependent upon a computer to generate their moves) might behave. The two strongest chess engines of their day (Fritz 6a and Nimzo 7.32) were my opponents. The tests were published at Franklin Campbell's web site at: http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/ham/ham.htm. Earlier I had been active on the internet with some interactive chess challenges, where I played solo versus teams of opponents, including one team of masters who were allowed to consult. I won all games, which can be found under Interactive Chess Matches at Ralph Marconi's web site. My hobbies beside chess are: weightlifting, kickboxing, playing soccer (I also coach my son's soccer team), gardening, and listening to Celtic folk music (I have an enormous collection of CD's and tapes). I also review chess books for ChessCafe.com. I am 48-years old, employed as a Senior Risk Analyst for GE here in the Minneapolis suburb of Eden Prairie, where I also reside. I'm married to Tao Ham and the proud father of Alexander (6-years old) and Cordelia (4-years old), and thus find myself constantly short of time. CB: What do you mean by the US Absolute Championship? I don't think IECC members may know too much about it SH: The Absolute Correspondence Chess Championship is the USCF's (United States Chess Federation's) official closed championship of the United States. It is closed in that the USCF sends invitations only to Its top-rated masters. Then, only the top 13-respondents are allowed to compete. I really enjoyed playing in this elite group. Obviously, when I played in the 1993 and 1994 versions (which means that play began in 1994 and 1995 respectively), all play was postal. When I now review those games, I can see that everybody played with great creativity. After all, these games were played prior to chess engines having much influence on master level CC. From the moment that I first began to play CC, I read the CC rating lists and fantasized about being the highest rated player. However, reality is such that there can only be one "highest rated player", so I knew that I needed to have a more realistic and attainable goal. So I lowered my sights marginally to dreaming about being the highest rated player from my home state of Minnesota. Unfortunately, Ron Lifson held that position for many years, and his rating was always near the very top in the nation. So when I played in the 1993 Absolute Championship, I had my first opportunity to meet my hero - Ron. The result was a wild and crazy win for me as Black in a Gruenfeld Defense. When we met again in the 1994 event, Ron was given White one more time, but was then happy to draw against my Gruenfeld. If my memory is correct, my rating finally eclipsed Ron's at the time that I left domestic play and switched exclusively to the ICCF. Although he only lived about 30-40 miles away and we had friends in common, we never met. Instead, we spoke on the telephone a few times. CB: Please explain what you mean by a game getting "blemished". Will you unreservedly accept a win through a gross error on your opponent's part or does such a thing make it a type of "second class" win? SH:I think that one of the reasons that many of us play CC is to create beauty and to try to play the perfect game. Chess books are full of "beautiful" games and games played with great precision. However, we non-professionals will never be able to create any such gems in OTB chess. But given the time advantages that CC offers, and the access to books and databases, we then are capable of playing chess with a precision that's nearly unobtainable to OTB players. So it upsets me when a silly error is made by either myself or my opponent in a CC game. That game is irreparably blemished and so I lose interest in it. Sure, there probably does need to be some error in chess in order for there to be a victory. Still, beautiful games require nearly superhuman effort and skill to win, so there's plenty of challenges at every turn. You mentioned once that I have an artistic/perfectionist attitude. I think this is accurate. So when a hideous blunder ruins the game for me, I then act as if the game doesn't even exist. If my opponent makes a gross blunder, then certainly I'll accept that victory. Again, I just want that game to end so I can move on. CB: Did the speed chess help improve your game or did you do it just for fun? SH: It was just for fun. As a CC player, I tend to be slow and methodical. The speed chess was just a "tension release" as all fun games should be, and it sharpened my tactical eye as a consequence. Still, I'm a very slow speed chess player and so my errors are due largely to lack of time. I also don't play for any result in speed chess. If there's an interesting position on the board - I'll study it. This causes my time to elapse. While such behavior aggravates my friends, I only play for enjoyment as I can't take speed chess seriously. CB: How did you study those GM games in order to improve? What techniques did you implement? SH: I begin by selecting several GM games, either annotated or just the raw game scores. I play through each game at least three times. On my initial play through the game, I'll play quickly and ignore all annotations, taking no more than 5-10 minutes for the game. However, I try to recognize patterns and techniques. For example, if an Isolated Queen Pawn (IQP) situation arises, then I'd expect to see a supporting Rook behind the pawn and another on an adjacent open file, while the other pieces attempt to control the square directly in front of the pawn. As for the opponent, I expect to see a Knight blockading the advance square, etc. So I quickly look for the implementation of such plans - it's educational to see the GM's technique. I also look for tactical shots that may or may not be sound, and make a mental note to give some time to those positions on my second play through. Next, on the second play through, I play more slowly. I've seen the game now like a movie - I know what happens and how it ends. This means I should take some time to analyze in greater detail to consider options that were unplayed. I even prepare a brief annotation, but I still ignore any annotation the game had originally. Finally, I play through the game a third time, devoting the most attention to detail and any annotations the game originally had. This time, I compare my notes to the GM's annotations to determine where I was wrong or correct...and why. If annotations are available from multiple sources, then this is even better since one annotator may note something missed by another. After awhile, one develops an instinct for what should be done in certain positions. I try to note and comprehend broad concepts, so I can thus compare and contrast a specific IQP position with similar ones. When I feel generally comfortable with the strategic concepts, then I know better what tactical shots are possible in certain positions. CB: Going back to Steve Ham at age 12 (and earlier) when you first started playing CC did you belong to any particular CC organization at that time? How did you learn the rules of chess? I am also going to guess you started with the descriptive notation and learned algebraic later on, correct? SH: I learned how to play chess when on vacation; a cousin taught me. I was immediately addicted and joined the USCF because I saw their periodical, then entitled Chess Life and Review. In those days, unlike recent years, it was a very good magazine. Correspondence Chess was well advertised and several CC games were annotated in each issue. In those days, everything was presented in English descriptive notation, and so that's what I learned. Subsequently algebraic became the norm and I much prefer that notation over the archaic English descriptive format. CB: Do you still have the game score from your first CC encounter? SH: I sure do, because it was also my first victory. I still replay through my earliest CC games, since they probably brought me the most pleasure. In fact, my first game was a rather nice win, manifesting my present style - aggressive positional play. Although I no longer play the same openings that I did when I first began in CC (that game saw me defending the Black side of a Modern Steinitz Ruy Lopez), it's fun to see how I've either changed my style (my technique was quite poor back then) and what aspects of my style remain constant, such as playing for the endgame, etc. I've always annotated my games upon completion, since that's one of the best ways to learn and also to develop improvements. Over the years, as I got stronger, I enjoy comparing my present annotations to my original ones. I now see, by contrasting my annotations over the years, where my improvements in skill are manifest. CB: I think our readers would enjoy seeing your first game and comparing it to the present so I will leave that up to you. SH: OK, I'll copy this to my home address to provide the score with very brief notes from there. CB: You have had some interesting matches vs. chess engines, particularly in conjunction with Franklin Campbell's web site. Can you tell us about them? SH Yes, the best source of information is obtained simply by going to the source, Franklin's wonderful web site, found at: http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/ham/ham.htm. The entire experience was physically exhausting. Worse yet, it was psychologically depressing. I knew darned well that my opponent never tired, never had physical/psychological distractions and thus had nearly 24-hours to calculate per move, had no emotions, never doubted its ability, and never missed any tactical shots within its "horizon." Meanwhile, as a family man, I was relegated to playing in the evenings after my family retired to their beds. This created some marital strife. By late evening, my mind was already tired. Meanwhile I was playing at the generally rapid rate of 1-move/day, since there was a vast audience following the games. In addition, I wrote the annotations to each game "live". So I lived in constant fear of either playing a horrible mistake in the games or making a hideous error in my annotations. In hindsight, I think I was relatively error free. This may have been due to two factors: 1) pure luck, and 2) my general paranoia of making a public blunder, which thus caused me to double/triple check my work before committing to it. Subsequently, I've received some commercial offers to re-annotate my games, this time with the aid of Fritz 6a and Nimzo 7.32, which were given to me after the games. Some friends told me that they'd buy my work. However, these people are friends and would probably say the same thing even if my work were utter crap. I simply don't know what the market is for such a project, so I'm unwilling to commit to any more time/labor until I'm assured of a satisfactory pecuniary reward. This match also brought me both fame and infamy. I discovered that a local chess club exists, just 2-blocks from my home! So I made a visit in mid-May 2003. I haven't played serious OTB chess for about 20-years so I accidentally walked into a 5' tournament. Naturally, when they found out who I was, I was signed up to play. I met the local master/chess instructor who turned out to be a fan of mine. Naturally I lost both 5' games to this master in the tournament, finishing with only a 50% score. Oh well...the better OTB player won. CB: What commercial offers did you receive? Do you have a good income from your chess activities? SH: I'll keep these commercial offers private for the time being. I have no income from my chess activities other than the free books/software that I'm given to review for ChessCafe.com. CB: Your experiences remind me of a quote from Bobby Fischer "I gotta stay in shape or it's all over". Do CC players need physical conditioning? What do you think about the use of chess engines in CC play? Do you consider it ethical to use them even if the rules don't forbid them, for example? Will computers eventually "solve" traditional chess? SH: I just finished another book review for ChessCafe.com, where the author emphasized the importance of physical fitness for OTB chess success at the GM level. However, I don't think that plays much of a role in CC. After all, with a time control of 10-moves in 60-days, and the ability to carry forward unused time, one has more than enough time during which to deal with the stress of competition. Nonetheless, I'm athletic and think that it gives me an outlet to resolve some of my personal stress. I'm a naturally nervous and tense individual anyway – something of a "type-A" personality. I see a lot of parallels between chess and boxing and kickboxing, so I think that kickboxing keeps me mentally alert. Instead, I think that OTB chess players must stay in "chess shape." That means that their minds must be mentally tuned to recognize familiar positions and to spot tactics rapidly and to calculate quickly and efficiently. They must also practice their endgame skills like a golfer constantly practices putting. Pattern recognition is a priority for them. That's best accomplished by playing a great deal of OTB chess. Instead, in CC, there's no benefit for thinking rapidly. Instead, I force myself to slow down and to be thorough and methodical. In short, the way in which I approach my CC games actually is something of a detriment to playing OTB chess at short time controls. I'm more concerned about playing the best moves and less concerned about the result. I play the board and never the opponent. In OTB chess, given its time limitations, the reverse seems to be true. One instead tries to play moves that have the greatest practical value because playing the objectively best moves involves taking too much time and exposes one to too much risk. It's also mentally exhausting. Since my mind is better tuned to CC play, I'll probably never be a decent OTB chess player until I'm able to find a lot more available time. Already at age 48, I fantasize about being retired and being able to have time for OTB chess and to travel from tournament to tournament. Jumping to your question about computer use in CC, I have no problem with that. We all have our own reasons for playing CC. Personally, I play only for the enjoyment that this mental exercise gives me. Using a chess engine as a partner or in place of my own mind diminishes my enjoyment. So I continue to play the old-fashioned way...I find my own moves and do my own analyses. I do however quickly set up my selected move in a chess engine prior to emailing it, just to ensure that I haven't committed a horrendous blunder which would ruin the experience of playing the game. That's morally acceptable to me, although I struggled with that practice initially. But what others do with chess engines is not my concern. I just want a good game and all the competition I can handle. As software and hardware improves, that means that my rating will decline, unless I get stronger too. For me, that's all part of the challenge. I can't see computers ever "solving" chess, although they are already on a par with Kasparov in OTB chess. CB: I believe you have read the Dave Taylor interview in the April edition of this journal. Do you agree with his statement that "chess is a draw?" SH: Nope! Others claim that White has an advantage because of the first move. I counter that with demonstrating that the fastest checkmate is when Black checkmates White in 2-moves. So perhaps the "advantage" of the first move is both an asset and a liability, since Black can see what White has committed to and can thereby counter it. Who knows? Who cares? To me, the whole point is moot and thus uninteresting. Until chess is solved (if ever), then there's a game to be played. CB: We have dozens, if not hundreds, of CC organizations around today largely due to the Internet. This situation has resulted in different versions of the "world championship". Should we permit "the market" to decide which ones survive ie people will choose the club they like the best, or could we use a little "consolidation" in CC? Does a multiplicity of choices for clubs to join serve the best interests of CC? SH: I have no opinion here. I remain loyal to the ICCF exclusively. CB: How do you view CC personally? A hobby? Sport? Obsession? Pleasure? Do you have an "ideal" CC club you would like to see? SH: It certainly is both a hobby and a pleasure. Often it's an obsession...although I think Chess is the obsession and CC is merely an outlet for expression. Perhaps it's a sport too. I'm a very competitive person so I like being able to match wits with another person, and/or Their computer. With your last question, I can see you trying to steer me back to the world of CC politics and administration, just like your previous question regarding CC organizations. I'm apolitical and thus bored by such concerns. I'm happy with the ICCF. CB: Have you ever played any chess variants such as Fischer Random or Shuffle? If yes, what do you think of them? SH: Nope. Back in the late 70's, there was an article in Chess Life magazine (it may still have been Chess Life and Review at that time) by Bisguier about a variant where, in the initial position, only the pawns are on the board. Then White moves by placing a piece on his first rank, followed by Black, and so on. Eventually both sides will fill in their back rank, usually locating their King in the latter stage. Then the first non-placement moves are made. I liked this game since it is much more like the war-game that chess is supposed to be. Each player is thus more like a field commander in being able to place his forces and King where he chooses, rather than in accord with some pre-arranged configuration like Chess. I think this is superior to Fischer Random, due to the freedom it gives both players to set up their forces, usually in an asymmetrical fashion. Instead, Fischer Random artificially chooses the arrangement and also makes both sides symmetrical. I think that defeats the goal of a pure war game. Anyway, I played several games with this Bisguier format and truly loved it. Given the almost certain asymmetry, the games are much sharper than standard chess Although I'm a positional player, I fared much better with this variant than I did with OTB chess. Naturally, I think a correspondence version of this game would be fun. CB: When analyzing a position do you set up an actual board and study the variations, use some kind of recorder or perhaps a computer display? Do you make notes? SH: I used to carry a game position recorder with me when I took the bus to work. I found that helpful. However, I've been driving to work for the past 8-years, so I no longer use recorders. I'm very old fashioned and am somewhat embarrassed by my lack of computer skills. For example, I can't get ChessBase Lite to work well for me without going through all kinds of labors. Even then, I question why anybody would use such a thing. Meanwhile, there's probably all kinds of things that I'm probably missing out on with regard to computer software due to my general ignorance. Perhaps ignorance truly is bliss since I'm still happy just the way I am. So with regard to CC, I study strictly from a real chess board. I've tried to study from 2-dimensional computer monitor screens, but find the interface so artificial that I miss all kind of tactical shots. So for me, it's strictly CC the old- fashioned way. I use a real chess board and make copious notes on a piece of paper. Basically I construct trees of analysis which I test and retest and extend and broaden. Finally when I'm satisfied with the quality/quantity of my analyses, then I enter it all into my Bookup database. I love Bookup since it catches all transpositions. Since analysis trees frequently transpose at various points, this is really helpful when selecting moves. Once that's done, I set up the position of my last move in a chess engine while I reset my chess board to the next game position. If the chess engine doesn't show me that I'm going to lose, then I send my move out. This process is repeated for the next game. Yes, this effort is a little laborious, but that's the way I play and I still enjoy CC. I should mention too that as a consequence, I'm not the world's fastest CC player. I only move when I'm ready and I refuse to try to use psychology or time pressure to win. Therefore I just try to play the best moves that I can and let the results happen without resorting to gamesmanship or taking advantage of my opponent's time situation. When a game ends, and if my opponent is strong, I frequently enjoy "post- mortem" discussions involving a sharing of analysis. This is educational. It shows me how my analysis stacks up to other strong players and tells me if I have a deficit or strength in comparison. To date, I've found that I probably analyze deeper than my opponents but not as broadly. In short, I may not consider as many alternate moves as my opponent. As a consequence, I've been making a conscious effort to fix this. Finally, a shocking revelation - Although I annotate all my completed games, I haven't saved any of those game scores into a game database, since I don't own a game database. When an email game is completed, I delete the score after sending it to the TD. Again, this shows my lack of computer savvy and lack of sentimentality...and perhaps a lack of common sense. So if somebody wants to see the score of XYZ-Ham, Corr. 2002, they're out of luck, as am I (unless I can reconstruct it from memory - often I can). Instead, I just enter all all my moves and notes in Bookup. But this is a positional database, not a game database. So I can't search for anything other than a position. The primary thing that I value is the enjoyment of playing the game and all my analyses from the game. If I ever play into that position again, then all my notes are still there. So it doesn't bother me not to be able to retrieve my game scores. Still, I do have the written game scores to most of my postal games. I'm also extremely secretive and seldom share notes about my games with anybody other than the opponent or very good friends. I just hate giving away the fruits of my hard work for free. Perhaps this paragraph shows what a crazy and mixed up person I truly am. If so, then this interview has merit. :-) CB: Do you have any advice for lower level players to improve their game? SH: I presume you're referring to lower level CC players, since the advice I'd have for OTB players is totally different. First of all, there's a great variance in player skills so it's difficult to speak in broad terms. Nonetheless, I'm a great believer in annotating one's games. I've always annotated mine and continue to do so. If you can get your opponent to share their notes, then there's much to be gleaned from comparisons. There's also a lot of value in then comparing one's notes to the annotations of a stronger player. Also, just playing chess in general is of value, especially if one keeps a critical eye toward their game. If deficiencies appear, then extra focus should be given to repairing weaknesses. Also, I recommend the approach that I shared already - that of studying GM games in the format that I followed. I also think that many players play too rapidly. The objective is to win - not to win rapidly. So one shouldn't move until one is first convinced that they've found the best move that they can. CB: Do you have a favourite Celtic Group or melody? SH: Yes, I have many. About 8-years ago, my wife (then my girlfriend) counted over 250-Celtic CD's in my collection (not counting tapes and records). Since then, my collection has no doubt grown by a factor of at least 2X. So I like a lot of performers or groups, depending upon my mood. I prefer the traditional Celtic music and not the crap that is frequently marketed today, with electric guitars and African rhythm sections and synthesizers, etc. My favorite soloist is Archie Fisher of Scotland, whom I've seen several times in concert. My favorite group is Silly Wizard (since disbanded in 1988) , although Altan and Deata (pronounced Junta) are a close second/third. I generally like slow and sad Airs. Many great Celtic poems have been set to music, such as Campbell's "Raglan Road." The best version of that is Van Morrison singing with the Chieftains. It's found on the CD entitled, "Celtic Heartbeat." It's a must buy. So for fun, we go to several Celtic folk concerts/year. CB: Thank you Stephen, that concludes the interview. Some games from Stephen Ham: [Event "Golden Knights"] [Site " USCF"] [Date "1970"] [White "Soetarert, Morris"] [Black "Ham, Stephen"] [Result "0-1"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 {At this stage in my life, I had minimal experience with different openings. So, being a typical hero worshipper, I played the lines that my heroes did. I saw that ] Spassky, Keres, Alekhine, and Capablanca all had success with The Modern Steinitz Defense [Result "0-1"] to the Ruy Lopez.} 5.Bxc6+ { The most common moves are 5 O-O and 5 c3. In both cases, I found the Modern Steinitz to be too sharp, and thus unsafe, for my safety first mentality. Therefore it was my intention to then transpose back into a Closed Ruy Lopez with 5...Nf6.} 5...bxc6 6.d4 f6 {One of the benefits of CC is that one can gain a greater understanding about an opening in just one game than one can in OTB chess. In spite Of playing through numerous games, I saw no problems with the Modern Steinitz Defense. But already in this position, I'm unhappy. After 6-moves, I have no pieces in play. Worse yet, my pawn structure is both blemished and passive. Sure this a mainline - one that's been played and advocated by many Grandmasters. But I've chosen to never play this passive position again. I saw in my original notes that I was aware that my hero, Spassky, had success with 6...Nf6 7.O-O Be7 8.dxe5 Nxe4 9.Nbd2 Nxd2 10.Bxd2 Bg4 =. So why didn't I play this line? I think it was because 6...Nf6 was rarely played. As a rookie player who was insecure, I felt safety in playing the more common, but inferior game move. Already I was learning bad habits that I subsequently forced myself to correct.} 7.Be3 {After playing 6...f6, I then developed a deserved fear of 7 Nh4!, threatening Qh5+ and f4. Although the move is seldom played, I still believes that it gives White an edge. Nonetheless, the game move is a principal line.} 7...Ne7 8.Nc3 Ng6 9.Qd2 {Today I suspect that 9.Qe2! Be7 10.h4 might be more precise. By vacating the d-file, White threatens O-O-O followed by opening the d-file. Also, White can subsequently play Qc4, with the dual function of preventing Black from Kingside castling while atacking Black's c6 pawn. Then 10...Bg4?? 11.h5 exd4 12.hxg6 dxe3 13.Rxh7 exf2+ 14.Kxf2 wins for White. Instead, Black would have to weaken his pawn structure further with 12...h5 13 dxe5, when I think that White has an edge. Still, the game move is quite popular as well.} 9...Be7 10.dxe5? {White mixes up stratagems. The effect is reduced central tension, Allowing Black to open the f-file, thus activating Black's passive King's Rook. The most precise move was 10 h4, leading to very unclear play.} 10..fxe5 11.O-O-O Bg4 12.Ne2?! {Apparently the point of this move is to break the pin on his Rook. Strangely enough, White's best move was to allow his Queen to be temporarily pinned via 12 Qe2 O-O 13 Qc4+ Kh8, with an edge to Black.} 12...O-O! {The immediate 12...Bxf3?! 13.gxf3 O-O 14.Qc3! [14.f4?? exf4 15.Nxf4 Nxf4 16.Bxf4 Rxf4 17.Qxf4 Bg5 wins] Qe8 only allows a minimal Black edge.} 13.Ng5? {A miscalculation, the point of which was to break the aforementioned pin and then seal off the f-file with f2-f3. My notes show that originally I thought that White's best was 13.Ne1 Rb8 14.Nd3 Rb8 [14...d5!?] 15.Nd3 c5, with a clear Black advantage. I now think that White's best line might be to abandon the defense of f3 in order to try to seize some initiative via 13.Qd3 [White plans 14.Qc4+, winning Black's c-pawn]. Still, in the wild battle that ensues after 13...Qe8!?, I think that Black holds a clear advantage.} 13...h6 14.Nh3 Rb8! {Within the space of 4-moves, Black's formerly passive position has turned the tables to become the aggressor. The game move was typical of my style - positional chess, favoring simple solutions with minimal risk. There was a sharper line to be had in the messy complications following 14...Nh4!? 15.f3 Bxh3 16.gxh3 Nxf3 17.Qc3 Bg5. Clearly Black has a very large advantage here too, but this allows some open files for White's Rooks in front of my King. Instead my game move allows White no counterplay.} 15.f3 {Now White's plan comes at the cost of a pawn. Still, White also drops The pawn after 15.Rhf1 Nh4 16.f3 Bxh3 17.gxh3 Nxf3. Also, if White Anticipates the opening of the g-file with 15.Rhg1, then 15...Nh4! 16.f4 [16.Qd3 Qc8! and Black threatens both ...Qb7 and ...Bxh3] Bxh3 [also 16..exf4 17.Nhxf4 Bf6 18.c3 Qe8 wins] 17.gxh3 Nf3 18.Qc3 Nxg1 19.Rxg1 Bf6 wins.} 15...Bxh3 16.gxh3 Rxf3 17.Ng1?? {We'll never know why this blunder was played. But even the correct 17.Rhg1 Rxe3 18.Qxe3 Bg5 19.Rxg5 Qxg5 20.Qxg5 hxg5 21.Rg1 Nf4 22.Nc3 Nxc3 23.Rg3 g4! 24.Rxg4 Rf8 wins for Black.} 17...Rxe3 0-1 { So, my first correspondence game was both a victory and a miniature.} [Event " WC25SF01"] [Site " ICCF"] [Date "2001-02"] [White "Ham, Steve"] [Black "Smuts, Iain "] [Result "1-0"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f3 O-O 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Nge2 Rb8 8.Qd2 Re8 {Black's move, while not uncommon, seems to be a tempo loser compared to the main line of 8...a6 9. h4 b5 10.h5 e5. As such, Black never gets any chance to be effective with a ...b5 break.} 9.h4 {At this point , I believe White has several good continuations, but the text move seems most thematic. White hopes to assault Black's King prior to Black prying open the Queenside.} 9...h5 {As a consequence of Black's 8th move, any Queenside operations come a tempo later than normal. Thus 9...a6 10.h5 b5 11.hxg6 fxg6 12.Bh6 Bh8 13.Bg5 gives White a clear advantage.} 10.Nc1 {At this point most books show a clear White advantage after 10. O-O-O a6 11. Nd5 b5? 12. Nxf6+, as in Inf 49/(716). However, I was unable to find a refutation to the strange looking retreat of 11...Nh7(!), which plans a subsequent ...e6. Instead, my move prepares to centralize the Knight with options of either Nb3 or Nd3.} 10...b6 {The standard freeing move of 10...e5 is met with 11.d5 Nd5 12.Nb3 c5 13.dc when any Black recapture is unattractive. Since Black finds that he will be unsuccessful with his standard freeing moves of either ...e5 or ...b5, Smuts thus apparently decides to transform his King's Indian Defense into something of a Hedgehog. This defensive strategy says that Black will patiently build a fortress, thus putting the burden upon White to actually do something meaningful.} 11.Nb3 Bb7 12.Be2 Qd7 {Black's position seems sound at first glance. But first impressions Are often wrong. For example, the main line of an alternative continues 12...Nd7?? 13 d5!? Nce5 14 f4 Ng4 15 Bxg4 hxg4 16 h5 gxh5 17 Nd4 e6 18 O-O-O exd5 19 exd5 Nf6 20 Nf5 Bh8 21 Bd4 Bc8 22 Nh6+ [22 Ng3 also wins] Kf8 23 f5 Bg7 24 Qg5 Ba6 25 Ng4 hxg4 26 Rh7 Nxh7 27 Qxg7+ Ke7 28 f6+ wins} 13.Kf2 {I subsequently showed this game to my friend, GM Mikhail Golubev, a devout King's Indian player. He made the profound remark, "There's something seriously wrong with Black's position when White can play moves like 13.Kf2!" The point of the move is that White need not castle and instead steps into the fray in order to allow his Queen's Rook to shift to the attack on Black's King side. I now think Black is doomed.} 13...e6 14 Rag1 Rbd8 15 Bg5 a6 {It seems that Black has no meaningful moves and thus merely awaits White's response. My assessment of the position is that the shell around Black's King is about to be cracked and his pieces are too cramped to be able to maneuver effectively.} 16.g4 hxg4 17.fxg4 Ne7 18.h5 Nxe4+ 19.Nxe4 Be4 20.h6 Bxh1 {It seems that chess engines strongly favor Black in this position. In spite of their great calculating powers, they are unable to compute that Black is getting checkmated.} 21.Rxh1 f6 {21...Bh8? 22. h7+ and White checkmates. Instead I worked out the 21...Bf8 22.Qf4 f5 23.Nd2 lines to resolution - a White victory.} 22.hxg7 fxg5 23.Qxg5 Kxg7 24.Qh6+ Kf6 25.g5+ Kf7 26.Qh7+ Kf8 {Smuts offered me a draw at this point! I thought that he was either joking or being rude. I subsequently learned that he truly only saw only perpetual check for White.} 27.Rh4 d5 {Black is totally defenseless. For example 27...e5 28 Bg4 Qxg4 [28...Qc6? 29.Be6+ leads to checkmate] 29.Rxg4 wins easily} 28.c5 e5 29.Bg4 Qc6 30.Qh8+ Ng8 31.Rh7 1-0 {I announced checkmate in all lines. Smuts finally saw that I had a great deal more than perpetual check planned all along.} --------------------------------------- Games & Theory Editor's Note: This section gives me the most trouble and consequently means the most work. Even when I receive a submission with the PGN formatting done correctly I still run it through a PGN reader to check for ambiguous/impossible moves. Sometimes the readers themselves malfunction and indicate an error where none exists. A case in point occurs in the first game below. Neither Zork nor ECtool will accept Black's 14th move. ECtool insists on listing it as 14...Qc3 and Zork, while getting the move correct (14...Nxd4), considers it illegal. If anyone can solve this mystery for me I would appreciate your explanation. I will continue to issue invitations to submit games for publication. If you have received one from me and submitted a game but do not see it below, that has most likely happened because your game score contained too many formatting errors. I simply cannot take the time to go through each game and sort out all the mistakes. You may think that by doing so I am, in effect, rescinding my own invitations, but in such cases the guest has entered the house with muddy boots, so out he goes. I ask for your understanding. [Event "CL2-2003.15"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.04.19"] [Round "?"] [White "Andersen, Lars Kirstein"] [Black "Agulnick, Michael"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "D41"] [WhiteElo "2048"] [BlackElo "2105"] [PlyCount "64"] [Event Date "2003.??.??"] {Queen Gambit Declined: Semi-Tarrasch Defence - 5.cxd} 1.d4 e6 2.c4 d5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 c5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nc6 9.Bc4 b5 10.Bd3 Bb4+ 11.Bd2 Bxd2+ 12.Qxd2 a6 13.a4 {13.d5 exd5 14.exd5 Qxd5 15.O-O Be6 16.Qe3 O-O 17.Be4=} 13...O-O 14.axb5 {This is a mistake. Don't trust your PC too much even though the analyses initially are good for white. Positional this is wrong – sacrificing a centre pawn. But I was focused on eliminating blacks pawn majority on the queen side.} [14. Qc3 Bb7 15.axb5 axb5 16.O-O [16.Rxa8 Qxa8 17.O-O =] 16...Rxa1 17.Rxa1 +=} 14...Nxd4 15.Qe3 Nxf3+ 16.Qxf3 Rb8 {A nice little move. Black is using the fact that white hasn't castled Yet to grab the initiative. The rook on h1 never leaves its square and this is the downfall of white.} {16... Qb6 17.O-O Rd8 18.Rfd1 [18.Rfb1 a5 19.e5 Bb7 20.Qh3 h6 21.Ra4]} 17.bxa6 Rb3 18.Ke2 {18.a7 Bb7 19.Ke2 Rb2+ 20.Kf1 Rd2 -/+} 18...Rb2+ 19.Kf1 {19. Ke1 Qd4 20.Rd1 Rd8 [is terrible.]} 19...Rd2 20.Be2 Qd4 21.Re1 f5 {Threatening to open another file to the white king.} 22.e5 Ra2 {According to Fritz this is not necessarily a bad position for white, but one only need one look at the position to see that white is already lost due to the cramped and inactive position of whites army, while all black pieces are participating in the attack.} 23.g3 f4 {The threat of the open f-file is still very much alive. } 24.g4 Qc5 {Again a nice move. Why exchange pieces while capturing the a6-pawn and at the same time loose force in the attack?} {24... Bxa6 25.Bxa6 Rxa6 26.Kg2 Qc5 27.Rhg1 Ra5 28.Qb3 Qe7 29.Re4 f3+ 30 Kg3 Qf7 31.Rge1=} 25.Bd3? {Again a bit incorrect. 25.h4 to activate the rook over h3 would have been more correct.} {25.h4 Ra3 26.Qe4 Bxa6 27.Bxa6 Rxa6 28.Rh3} 25...Rd8 {25... Bxa6 26.Bxa6 Rxa6 27.Kg2} 26.Kg2 Rxd3! 27.Qxd3 Qxf2+ 28.Kh3 {I had looked through this variant and was betting on 28...h6 now, that would lead me to a draw position. But I didn't give 28...h5 much attention and that was a mistake.} 28... h5! {28... h6 29.a7 Qg2+ 30.Kh4 Qxh2+ 31.Rxh2 Rxh2+ 32.Qh3 g5+ 33.Kh5 Rxh3+ 34.Kg6 Bb7 35. Ra1 Kf8 36.Kf6 Ke8 37.a8=Q+ Bxa8 38.Rxa8+ Kd7 39.Ra7+ Kc6 40.Kxe6 Rg3 41.Kf5 f3 42.Rf7 Kd5 43.e6 f2 44.Kg6 Kxe6 45.Rxf2 Rh3 46.Re2+ =} 29.gxh5 Bxa6 { White is finished. I've added a couple of extra moves to show why.} 30.Qb3 {30. Qc3 Rd2 31. Rd1 [31.Qxd2 Qxd2 32.Rhg1 f3] 31... Bd3 32.Qxd3 Qg2+ 33.Kh4 Rxd3 34.Rxd3 Qxh1} 30...Bc4 31.Qb8+ Kh7 32.Qb1+ Rc2} 0-1 [Event "CL5-2003.02"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.01.18"] [Round "-"] [White "Pritchard, Owen"] [Black "Hill, John"] [Result "1-0"] 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 dxc4 5.Qa4+ Nbd7 {Bd7 is also possible, egg [5...Bd7 6.Qxc4 Bc6 7.0-0 Nbd7 8. Qc2 e5=]} 6.Qxc4 Bd6 {6...Nb6 might have been better} 7.d4 O-O 8.Nc3 a6?! {again, missing Nc6, after which 9.Qd3 Nfd5 gives black a comfortable position. The text is part of black's longer term plan of Q-side attack} 9.Bg5 b5 {attacking the Q, whilst preparing to challenge for the long diagonal.} 10.Qd3 Bb7 11.a3 {stopping 11..., b4} h6 12.Bxf6 Nxf6 13.O-O c5 14.e3 Qc7 15.Rfc1 c4 16.Qe2 Rac8 17.e4 e5?! {Black is trying to create space on c5 for his N, but in fact this, and blacks next move, undermines his plan by allowing white to block the centre and tie down black's pieces.} 18.d5 Nd7? {Trying to shift the N to c5, with an eye on b3, but overlooking the reply. Better would have been 18...Qd2 to stop the B occupying the h3-c8 diagonal} 19.Bh3! Rcd8 20.a4 b4? {although appearing to press ahead with the Q-side attack, this simply loses a pawn. Black could, in fact now place the N on c5, as after [21.axb5 Nb3 22.Nd2 Nxa1 23.Rxa1 Ra8=]} 21.Nd1 Rc8 22.Nd2 a5 23.Nxc4 Ba6 24.Nde3 Qd8 25.Qf3 Bxc4 26.Nxc4 Bc5 27.Qf5 Rc7 28.Nxa5 {from now on, it is simply a mopping up exercise} 28...Nf6 29.Nc6 Qd6 30.a5 Ra8 31.Qxe5 Rxc6 32.Qxd6 Rxd6 33.Rxc5 Nxe4 34.Rc8+ Rxc8 35.Bxc8 Rd8 36.Bb7 Nc5 37.a6 Kh7 38.a7 Nxb7 39.a8=Q Rxa8 40.Rxa8 1-0 [Event "Swiss-443.2.07"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.10.16"] [White "Carrillo-Muniz, Jose"] [Black " Joanis, Marc-Andre"] [Result "0-1"] 1.d4 d6 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg5 Nbd7 4.e3 c6 5.Bxf6 {Maybe giving up the bishop a bit too fast?!} 5...Nxf6 6.Bd3 g6 7.O-O Bg7 {This bishop won't have any contestant!!} 8.c4 O-O 9.Nc3 Bf5 {This is really a provocative move, and it is really not needed here, black will have a good game because he has a monster on g7. So black should go with static play, because in the long terms, white will have to prove that his knight is stronger than the bishop.} 10.Bxf5 {What about simple e4! After e4 it's Black who has to try something fast...because of white's big center...black would have to try and play typical King Indian defense moves, like e5 or even c5...still here white still feels the pressure on the dark squares} 10...gxf5 11.Rc1 Ne4 {Black plays active because he has a poorer pawns structure.} 12.Nxe4 fxe4 13.Nd2 {Ng5! shows weaknesses in Black position. [13.Ng5 d5(f5 14.Ne6) 14.Qh5 h6 15.Nh3(heading to f4 and then someday h5) or even 14.Nh3 e5?! 15.dxe5 Bxe5 16.Qh5 followed by 17.Rfd1 and Black is in trouble with his backward D pawn...]} 13...f5 {The last few moves helped black getting space on the kingside, then preparing for an attack} 14.Qb3 e5 15.d5 {Qxb7 looks like a try, but maybe my opponent didn't want to look at the lines, still d5 is a good move because it shuts my bishop in. I am still not sure what I would have done on Qxb7, I was hoping for a big attack, but really it is not clear at all, is black having compensation, maybe maybe not, psychologically, black got compensation, but is it enough?} 15...Qc7 {I felt like I had to remove the threat to my b pawn now, but Qe7 is maybe best according to the plan of a kingside attack} 16.Rfd1 {dxc6 looks like a good move to insert before Rfd1, it creates a target for white on d6, so Black has to wait to make some action on the kingside, but now black can block the center to concentrate on the kingside.} 16...c5 17.Nf1 {The knight is hard to place, because it can't get loose on the Queen side, because it will in defence} 17...Rf6 {Lifting the rook to g6 or even h6, look how black can take his time because white is in a passive position with the center closed and no play on the Queen side, black had to play dxc6 a few moves ago.} 18.Qc2 {Putting an end to f5, for now...} 18...Qf7 19.Qe2 h5 {Black played this before Ng3 came, because it will be impossible after to play h5} 20.h4 {it is hard to find a better move but this weakens the g4 and g3 square too much and gives black big chances in the attack,Ng3 looks like and alternative but after[20.Ng3 h4 21.Nh5 Rh6 taking the Bishop is forced, and this opens lines toward the white king!]Notes that the black bishop is not participating in the attack, and it even obstructs the g file, but you can also note that it is pretty hard for white to bring is rooks into the defence of the king side, this is due to the lack of space in this area.} 20...Rg6 {I am not really sure about this move, because during the game I found a defence for white...} 21.Ng3 {Really near losing now, white's only defence might be in g3 followed by Nh2 with looks weird but stops the attack for now, so white might have time to escape with the king or bring a rook to g1 something like that, still white can sack in these lines...by f4} 21...Rg4 {stopping the threat to the h5 pawn, attacking the h4 pawn, this move can't be bad, since f3 is impossible!} 22.Rc3 {Hoping for black to play f4 so white can bring the rook to defense} 22...Qg6 {Increasing pressure, pinning the knight, the h4 pawn won't go away. This move supports the f4 advance because it protects the e4 pawn!} 23.Kf1 f4 24.Nh1 {This loses a piece, but really white is dead anyway...because of the f3 threats} 24...Rxh4 25.Ke1 Rxh1+ 26.Kd2 Rxd1+ 27.Kxd1 {the ending with a piece up is won, even though black won't play it the best way} 27...f3 28.gxf3 exf3 29.Qe1 Qb1+ 30.Rc1 Qd3+ {Forcing a queen trade to remove any practical possibilities to white} 31.Qd2 Qxd2+ 32.Kxd2 Kf7 33.Kd3 h4 34.Rh1 Rh8 35.Ke4 h3 36.b3 h2 37.Kxf3 Kg6 38.e4 Kg5 39.Kg3 Rh4 40.f3 Bh6 {The threat to bring the bishop to f4 forces white to take the pawn} 41.Rxh2 Rxh2 42.Kxh2 Kf4 43.Kg2 Ke3 44.Kg3 Kd3 45.Kg4 Kc3 46.Kf5 Kb2 47.Ke6 Kxa2 48.Kxd6 Kxb3 49.Kxc5 a5 50.d6 a4 51.d7 Bg5 52.Kd5 a3 53.Kxe5 a2 54.Kf5 Bd8 {A good game, with full of mistakes, but still, black played too aggressively in the opening, but white did not punish him, the big mistake for white was to let the center be closed, which gave black a free hand for black on the kingside, without white having counterplay} 0-1 [Event "CL1-2002.21.05"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.12.19"] [White "Belov, Dmitry"] [Black "Turko, Sergey"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "2132"] [WhiteCountry "RUS"] [BlackElo "2107"] [BlackCountry "RUS"] {I should mention that this was my first game in IECC played against Russian player (I live in St.Petersburg and Sergey in Moscow) and only my second against a Russian-speaking player (the first was against Farit Balabaev from Kazakhstan). Furthermore Sergey has a great win- loss difference in IECC so I decided to play tenably.} 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.b4 (I retired from the most popular in Italian Game 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nxe4 in advantage to solid but equal line with 5.b4) 5...Bb6 6.d3 d6 7.a4 (grabbing the space on the Queen part of the board, another way was 7.O-O O-O and then 8.a4) 7...a5 (I think 7...a6 was a better move - 8.O-O O-O 9.Nbd2 Ne7 10.Bb3 Ng6 11.Nc4 Ba7 without any problems) 8.b5 Ne7 9.O-O Ng6 10.Nbd2 O-O 11.Ba3 (in the case of 11.Bb3 c6 12.Nc4 Bc7 13.Re1 Re8 black has a good game) 11...Nh5 (maybe 11...c6 was a better move with 12.Ba2 Re8 13.Nc4 Bc7 14.Ne3 d5) 12.d4 Nhf4 13.dxe5 Nxe5 (alternative was 13...Bg4 14.g3 Nxe5 15.gxf4 Bxf3 16.Nxf3 Nxc4 17.Qd5 Nxa3 18.Rxa3 Qf6 and black has a good game opposite disassembled white pawns) 14.Nxe5 Qg5 15.g3 (another move was 15.Qf3!? Qxe5 16.Bc1) 15...Nh3+ 16.Kg2 Qxe5 17.Bd5 (18.Bb2 or Rc1 are passive moves) 17...Qxc3 18.Nc4 Qd4? (I think this move has lost game for black, better was 18...Ng5 19.Bb2 Bh3+ 20.Kh1 Qf3+ 21.Qxf3 Nxf3 22.Nxb6 cxb6 23.Rfc1 Rac8) 19.Qc2! (provoked advantageous for white changes) 19... Nxf2? 20.Qxf2 Qxf2+ 21.Rxf2 Bxf2 22.Kxf2 (white game is better) 22...Be6 23.b6 Rac8 (badly 23...cxb6 24.Nxd6 Bxd5 25.exd5 and white pawn is very strong) 24.Ra2 Bxd5 25.exd5 f5 26.Nxa5 cxb6 27.Nxb7 f4 28.g4 (after 28.a5 fxg3+ 29.Kxg3 bxa5 30.Bxd6 Rf7 31.Nxa5 Rd7 32.Nc6 Kh8 33.Be5 Rxd5 or 28...bxa5 29.Bxd6 Rf5 white lost their main trump – d-pawn) 28...Rc4 29.Rb2 Ra8 30.Nxd6 (30.Bxd6 Rd4 and white can lose d-pawn) 30...Rcxa4 31.Bb4 Ra2 32.Rxa2 Rxa2+ 33.Kf3 Ra4 34.Be1 g5 35.Bf2 Ra2 36.Bxb6 Rxh2 37.Ne4 Rb2 38.Bc7 Rb3+ 39.Kf2 Rb2+ 40.Kf1 Rb1+ 41.Ke2 Rb2+ 42.Kd3 Rb3+ 43.Kc4 1-0 [Event "CL4-2003.08.07"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.03.24"] [White "Williams, Derek"] [Black "Lyew, Merrill"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "B95"] [WhiteElo "1678"] [WhiteCountry "USA"] [BlackElo "1666"] [BlackCountry "USA"] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Be2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0 9.Be3 b6 10.f4 Bb7 11.Bf3 Ne8 {more often is Qc7[11...Qc7 12.Qe1]} 12.e5 d5 13.Bg4 Nc6 14.f5 Nxe5 15.fxe6 Nxg4 16.Qxg4 Nf6 17.Qg5 {Perhaps 17.Qg3 would provide a better development for White [17.Qg3!? Bd6 18.e7 Bxe7 19.Nf5±]} 17...Ne4 18.Qf5 Bf6 19.Nxe4 dxe4 20.Rad1 Qd5 {Another possibility would be [20...Qe7 21.Qg4 fxe6 22.Qxe6+ (22.Nxe6? Bc8-+) 22...Qxe6 23.Nxe6=]} 21.Qxd5 {What about [21.Qg4!? h5 22.Qh3±]} 21...Bxd5 22.e7 Rfe8 {22...Bxe7? doesn't lead to the expected results [23.Nf5 Bf6 24.Rxd5 Bxb2 25.Rb1+-]} 23.Nf5 Be6 {Instead of [23...Bxa2 24.b3 a5 25.Bd4 Bxe7 26.Ra1 Bxb3 27.cxb3±]} 24.Bxb6 Bxf5 {Less advisable is [24...Bxb2 25.Rd8 Be5 26.Rfd1±]} 25.Rxf5 Rxe7 26.b4 e3 {Pushes the passed pawn} 27.Re1 e2 28.Rf3 Rae8 29.Rd3 Re4 30.Bc5 h5 31.Kf2 Bg5 32.a3 h4 33.c4 h3 34.g3 {Secures f4+h4 [34.Rxh3? (would be great except for) 34...Bd2-+]} 34...Rxc4 35.Rd5 f6 36.Rxe2 Rxe2+ 37.Kxe2 Rc2+ 38.Kf3 Rxh2 39.Kg4 Rh1 40.a4 h2 41.Kh3 Ra1 42.Kxh2 Rxa4 43.Kh3 Kf7 44.Kg4 a5 45.Rd7+ Kg6 46.Ra7 Bd2 47.Rxa5 Rxa5 48.bxa5 Bxa5 49.Kf3 Bd2 50.Bb6 Kg5 51.Bf2 f5 52.Bd4 g6 53.Bc5 Kh5 54.Bb6 g5 55.Kf2 Kg4 {Black prepares the advance [f4]} 56.Bc7 f4?? {too soon, gives the opponent new chances, better would have been [56...Kh3-+]} 57.gxf4 Bxf4 58.Bd8 Bc1 1/2-1/2 [Event "TH-M-1872.2"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.10.21"] [White "Wong, Víctor"] [Black "Zamora, Sammy"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "1939"] [WhiteCountry "PER"] [BlackElo "1909"] [BlackCountry "COL"] 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 Bg4 {This game was my first game at IECC and it was played in the Thematics Section} 4.Nf3 Qxd5 5.Be2 e6 6.h3 Bh5 7.O-O Be7 8.c4 {I decided to play in a positional way due to my lack of experience in this opening. It was my first time playing this variation of the Scandinavian Defense and, because of that, I didn't know how was I supposed to proceed. I think this is the best way to continue, white gain space advantage on the Queenside and completes its development faster than black.} 8...Qd8 9.Qb3! {I have found only two games in my DataBase with this move and I liked it very much. My plan was to put pressure to Sammy's Queenside from the beginning and then breaking the center with an eventual d5. [9.Nc3 c6 10.Be3 0-0 11.Ne5 Bxe2 12.Qxe2 Nbd7 13.Rad1 Qa5 14.Nxd7 Nxd7 15.a3 Nf6 16.Rd3 Rac8 17.Rfd1 Rfe8 18.d5 exd5 19.cxd5 cxd5 20.Nxd5 Nxd5 21.Rxd5 Qa4 22.Qf3 Bf6 23.Rd7 b6 24.Bg5 Bxb2 25.Qxf7+ Kh8 26.R1d2 Qxa3 27.Rxa7 Qb4 28.Bh6 Rg8 29.Be3 Rgf8 30.Qe7 Rfe8 1-0 Voigt,U-Winter,K/Gruenheide 1997/EXT 98 (30)]} 9...Qc8 {I think this was the best move in this position. 9...b6 leaves many weaknesses on the Queenside. For example: [9...b6 10.Nc3 O-O 11. Nbd7 12.Ne5! Bxe2 13.Nxe2+/=]} 10.Nc3 O-O 11.Rd1 Nc6 {Maybe, it was better to play 11...Nbd7. [11...Nbd7 12.Be3 a6 13.d5 exd5 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.cxd5 Bd6 16.Rac1 Re8 17.Nd4 Nc5 18.Qc4 Bxe2 19.Qxe2 Ne4 20.Qf3 g6 21.Ne2 Qd8 22.Rc2 Qf6 23.Bd4 Qxf3 24.gxf3 Ng5 25.Kg2 f5 26.Be3 Nf7 27.Nf4 Re7 28.Nd3 Rd8 29.Bd4 Rde8 30.Nc5 Bxc5 31.Rxc5 b6 32.Rc3 Rd7 33.Be3 c5 34.Rb3 f4 35.Bxf4 b5 36.Re3 Kf8 37.Ra3 Red8 38.d6 Ra8 39.Rd5 b4 40.Ra4 Rc8 41.Be3 c4 42.Rxb4 1-0 Kaidanov,G-Dzindzichashvili,R/Parsippany 1996/CBM 55 (42)]} 12.Bf4 {I was feeling very comfortable in this position.} 12...Bd6 {Neutralizing the threat 13.Nb5} 13.Bg5 {I didn't like 13.Bxd6? because after 13...cxd6, black has an open c-file to counter-attack and a solid position in the center.} 13...Nd7 14.Ne4 {If 14.d5?! Nc5!= with counter-play.} 14...Re8 15.Be3 {Protecting d4.} 15...a6 {[15...e5 16.d5 Nd4 17.Nxd4 exd4 18.Bxh5 dxe3 19.Qxe3] After this, I think white has an edge.} 16.Rac1 {Finally, all my pieces are playing.} 16...Be7? {I don't understand the purpose of this move. After regrouping the pieces to play e5, black changed his mind and now is going backwards.} 17.d5 Nd8 {After 17...exd5, I was planning to play: [17...exd5 18.cxd5 Nce5 19.d6 Nxf3+ 20.gxf3 Bh4 (20...Bd8 21.dxc7 Bxc7 22.Nd6+-) 21.Rxc7+-]} 18.c5! exd5 19.Qxd5 {Sammy is in big trouble now.} 19...Bxf3 20.Bxf3 Nf6 21.Nxf6+ Bxf6 22.Rc2 c6 23.Qb3 Qe6 24.Rc4 Be5 {[24...Bxb2?? 25.Rd6+-]} 25.Re1 f6 {[25...Bxb2 26.Re4 Be5 27.Qb1 f6 28.Bh5 g6 29.f4 gxh5 30.fxe5 A) 30...fxe5 31.Bd4 Nf7 32.Bxe5 Qd5 33.Qb2 Qxc5+ 34.Kh1 Qf8 (34...Nxe5 35.Rxe5 Rxe5 36.Rxe5 Qf8 37.Rg5++-) 35.Qb3+-; B) 30...Nf7 31.Bd4 fxe5 Transposing to the variation A)30...fxe5]} 26.Be4 Qf7 27.Qc2 g6 28.Bd3 Ne6 29.Re4 Qd7 {Another possibility is: [29...Kh8 30.Bc4 g5 31.Bxg5 Qg6 32.Bxe6 Rxe6 33.Qb3 Re7 34.Bf4 Rg7 35.g3 Bxf4 36.Rxf4 Qh6 37.Kh2] After this, I'm a pawn up, but I still have a lot of work to do in order to win this.} 30.Bc4 Kg7 {[30...Kh8 31.Rd1 Qc8 The only move. (31...Qc7 32.Bxe6 Rxe6 33.f4+-; 31...Qg7 32.Bxe6 Rxe6 33.f4+-; 31...Qe7 32.Bxe6 Qxe6 33.f4+-; 31...Qf7 32.f4+-) 32.f4 Bc7 33.f5 Ng7 (33...gxf5 34.Rxe6+-) 34.fxg6 Rxe4 35.Qxe4 Qe8 36.Qxe8+ Rxe8 37.Rd7 Rxe3 38.Rxc7 hxg6 (38...Re5 39.Rxb7 hxg6) 39.Rxb7 Re5 40.b4+-]} 31.Rd1 Qc8 32.f4 Bc7 33.Qc3 1-0 {I was planning to play Re1, trade pieces on e6, play Bd4 (Threatening Bxf6+ and Re7+). After this, black has no possibilities but to resign anyway. This was one of my best games since I started to play CC at 2001.} [Event "CL8-2003.04.10"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.02.26"] [White "Butcher, Robert"] [Black "Ladkin, Peter"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "791"] [WhiteCountry "USA"] [BlackElo "801"] [BlackCountry "ENG"] 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Bc4 Ng4 5.Ng5 Nce5 6.Bb3 f6 7.Nh3 e6 (I thought I could attack both Knights and get at least one of them) 8.d4 Nc6 9.Qxg4 e5 10.Qh5+ g6 11.Qf3 Nxd4 (I chose this move to weaken the King's side) 12.Qd3 Bd7 13.f4 Qe7 14.Bc4 O-O-O 15.Nd5 Qe6 16.Nb6+ cxb6 {This was a very good way to win a Queen. I felt that a queen was worth the exchange for a Bishop and Knight} 17.Bxe6 Bxe6 18.Be3 Nc6 {As an after thought I should have moved the queen to c3+instead of moving the Bishop.} 19.c4 Nb4 20.Qc3 a5 21.Bxb6 Rd7 22.fxe5 dxe5 {I should have moved Bxa5 before taking the pawn at e5.} 23.Rd1 Bg4 24.Rxd7 Kxd7 25.Bxa5 Nc6 {At this time I should have moved the queen to d2+} 26.Qd3+ Nd4 27.Nf2 Be2 28.Qh3+ Ke8 29.Qc8+ Kf7 30.Bb6 Bb4# 0-1 (30. Qxb7+ this is the move I should have made.) {I had the game in the bag till I made the mistake of not checking the king and the movement of the Bishop . My opponent capitalized on it. } [Event "O-1596"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.04.02"] [White "Zdziarski, Zbigniew"] [Black "Milne, Scott"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "1226"] [WhiteCountry "AUS"] [BlackElo "1110"] [BlackCountry "SCO"] 1.b4 {Polish Opening} e5 2.Bb2 c5 {Out of book. Black gambits his pawn hoping to snatch it back in a few moves} 3.bxc5 Nc6 4.Nf3 e4 5.Nd4 Bxc5 {Not the best move as now white has a discovered attack on g7. Perhaps better [5... Qa5 6.Nc3 f5]. 5...Qc7 not too good as this doesn't pin the d2 pawn and white can play d2 then Nd2 and then Nb3 defending the pawn before black can win it back. Remember, black cannot take c5 without defending g7 first} 6.Nxc6 dxc6 7.Bxg7 Bd4 8.Bxh8 Bxh8 9.Nc3 Bxc3 10.dxc3 Qxd1+ 11.Rxd1 Bd7 12.e3 O-O-O 13.Bc4 f5 14.Bxg8 Rxg8 15.O-O Be6 16.a3 f4 {black has intention of playing Bh3 and getting the exchange back} 17.exf4 {white misses black's intent} 17...Bg4 18.Rd4 Bh3 19.g3 Bxf1 20.Kxf1 Re8 21.Ke2 c5 22.Rc4 b6 {22...b5 does not trap the rook as white can play 23.Rxb5+} 23.Ke3 Kc7 24.Rxe4 Rxe4+ 25.Kxe4 Kc6 26.Ke5 Kb5 27.f5 Kc4 28.f6 Kxc3 29.f7 Kxc2 30.f8=Q c4 31.Kd4 c3 32.Qb4 Kd1 33.Qxc3 Ke2 34.Qd3+ 1-0 [Event "CL2-2003.12.02"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.03.19"] [White "Muller, Henri"] [Black "Le Duigou, Jean-Guy"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "2104"] [WhiteCountry "BEL"] [BlackElo "2118"] [BlackCountry "FRA"] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.O-O Bg7 5.c3 (5. Re1 Nf6 6. e5 Nd5 7. Nc3 Nc7) 5...Nf6 6.Re1 O-O 7.d4 {7.h3 e5 8.d3 (8.d4 cxd4 9.cxd4 exd4 10.e5 Nd5 11.Bg5 Qc7 12.Qb3 Nb6 13.Nbd2)} 7... cxd4 8.cxd4 d5 9.e5 Ne4 10.Nc3 Nxc3 11 bxc3 Bg4 {good is too Qa5 or Na5 } 12.h3 Bf5 {12...Bxf3 13.Qxf3 Rc814.h4 Na5 15.h5 Nc4 16.e6} 13.Nh4 Be6 14.Rb1 Qc7 15.f4 f5?! {the opening of black's position is not the best; white becomes now a better attack; Na5!?} 16 Nf3 h6 17.Ba3 Na5 18.Nh4 Kh7 19.Qd3 g5 {the opening of the king's position give white the advantage} 20.fxg5 hxg5 21.Nf3 Bh6 22. Bc1 a6 23. Ba4 Rg8 24. h4 g4 25. Ng5+ Bxg5 26.Bxg5 (26. hxg5 Rac8 =) 26... Rg7 27.Bc2 Nc4 28.Rf1 Na3 29.Rxf5 !! {the best way to concretise the attack; other moves as Rb3, Rb4 gives a equal position, with hope for black!} 29...Kg8 (29...Bxf5 30.Qxf5+ Kg8 31.Qe6+ Kh8 (31... Kf8 32. Bg6 ! Rxg6 33. Qxg6 and mate in two !)} 30.Rbf1 {there are no sufficient defenses, and, with fair-play, black resigns !} 1-0 [Event "CL3-2003.02.01"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.01.22"] [White "Green, Everett"] [Black "Endean, Andrew"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [WhiteElo "1807"] [WhiteCountry "USA"] [BlackElo "1784"] [BlackCountry "ENG"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 {The Petroff defense: The main line gives an asymmetrical opening with good chances for both sides. The main line continues [3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Be7 (or Bd6)] with the opening focusing on Blacks advanced Knight. The Petroff has a drawish reputation since white can play the Lasker variation (5.Qe2) forcing an early endgame} 3.Bc4 {This unnecessarily exposes the Bishop. Some possible refutations are presented in the notes to the next move} 3...Nc6 {Black might try here 3. ..Nxe4. White can then try either the positional (Variation A) [4.Qe2 d5] followed by a return of the pawn with rapid development and harassment of the White Queen; or as Endean pointed out after the game black can try the more combinatoric (Variation B) [4. Nc3 Nc6 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Bd3 dxe5 7.Bxe5 Bd3]} 4.Ng5 {The Two Knights defense The next half dozen moves are all main line book moves} 4...d5 5.exd5 Na5 {This variation sacrifices a pawn for attack(See notes to move 16). An alternative book line is Nd4 However Nxd5?? loses (but white must know exactly what to do) } 6.Bb5+ c6 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5 Bd6 11.d4 {f4 is a more typical move. But Black intends Qc7 with strong pressure on the dark colored squares on the b8-h2 diagonal. f4 weakens the dark colored squares further. Hence d4} 11...exd3 12.Nxd3 Qc7 13.b3 0-0 14.Bb2 Nd5 15.Nc3 Nf4 16.0-0 {IDEA: Return the pawn. A POSITION ASSESSMENT will clarify this: BLACK: 1)Has an open position (no pawns in the center) 2) 2 powerful bishops 3) the potential for placing Rooks at e8 and d8 with powerful pins on the White K and Queen 4) Whites K is exposed. WHITE: Whites only advantages are a) the extra pawn b) the weak Queen side pawns of Black. Such a position assessment gives rise, naturally, to plans for each side. BLACKS PLAN: Develop both rooks, avoid exchanges and mount a king side attack. WHITES NATURAL PLAN: Return the pawn, achieve King safety, exchange pieces and go into an endgame where Blacks weak Queen side should give white an edge. The following continuation given by Endean illustrates Blacks possibilities if white does not give back the pawn: [16.Nxf4 Bxf4 17.g3 Rd8 18.Bd3 Re8+ 19.Ne2 Bg5 20.0-0 Bg4 21.f3 Bh3] As the game progresses we will use the natural plans outlined above to evaluate various moves.} 16...Nxe2+ 17.Qxe2 Bxh2+ 18.Kh1 Bd6 {Note how the return of the pawn causes black to lose time, since he must retreat the bishop, because White was threatening a classical trap, g3, winning the bishop. White will now begin to implement his plan by initiating exchanges.} 19.Ne4 Qe7 {Threatening Qh5+ Qh7# and "pinning" the Knight(NxB cannot be played)} 20.g3 Be6 {This move allows exchanges which Black should be avoiding(See note to move 16) Black has several good alternatives here eg (Variation A) Bb7 threatening c5 or (Variation B) [20. ...Bf5 21. Nc3(best) Qxe2 22.Nxe2 Bxd3 23.cxd3.] Now both white and black have 3 pawn islands and isolated pawns on semi open files. Thus White will attack blacks weak c pawn while Black will attack Whites weak d pawn. The position is therefore approximately even.} 21.Nxd6 Qxd6 {Black could try and keep the attack up with an intermediate move: [21. ... Bd5+ 22.Ne4 f5] After the game Endean using Fritz 8 provided the following variation with a very slight advantage for white: [23. Ne5 Bxe4+ 24.f3 Bd5 25.c4 Bf7 26. Qd2. ] However black still had the straightforward option of continuing [22. .. Qxe4+ 23.Qxe4 Bxe4+] followed by 24. ... Bxd3 creating weaknesses in the white pawn side structure (See note to last move)} 22.Qe5 Qxe5 {Again, Black might try an intermediate move to maintain the attack: eg [22....Bd5+ 23.Kg1 Qxe5 24.Nxe5 f6 25.Ng6 Rfe8] Black then has possibilities of occupying f3 with play on the white colored squares} 23.Nxe5 c5 24.c4 f6 25.Nd3 {See note to move 16. White will now put pressure on the weak black q-side pawns} 25...Nb7 26.f3 Rfb8 {Endean told me after the game that he intended Rab8 but made a notational slip. This however does not seem to affect the game much} 27.Ba3 Rc8 28.Rfe1 Bf5 29.Rad1 Kf7 30.Nf4 {Threatening occupation of the 7th rank. eg [31. ...g4 32. Bg6 Rd7+ ]} 30...Re8 31.g4 Rxe1+ {Forced---see previous note} 32.Rxe1 Bd7 33.Nd5 {Still threatening occupation of the 7th (Re7+)} 33...Re8 34.Rxe8 Bxe8 {Black threatens 35. ... Bc6 followed by 36. ... Bxd5 37. d5 leaving white with an isolated pawn which is hard to defend} 35.Nc7 Bc6 36.Kg2 Ke7 37.Na6 Kd6 {POSITION ASSESSMENT: a) White has weaknesses at f3, b)a2 and c)a6 d) Black can create a passed pawn on the King side e) Black has "entry points" to both wings eg K-e5-f5 winning both K side pawns or K-d5-b6 etc Finally note that whites Knight is vulnerable eg black can play Be8 and Kc6-b6 and if white plays Nb8 black continues Nd8 Kb7 winning the Knight. On the other hand Black has weak isolated pawns at 1) a7 and b) c5 and c) all his K side pawns are on the same color as his opponents bishop. Whites plan is therefore to immediately give his bishop more scope He has several alternatives available METHOD A: b4 weakening the white Q-side but giving whites Bishop access to the 3 Black king side pawns METHOD B (Suggested by Endean using Fritz 8 after the game): Bc1-e3. METHOD B would prevent the other problems and would also threaten Bf4+ -- Bb8 winning the Black h pawn. Accordingly Method B should have been used Endean using Fritz 8 gives the following continuation: [ Fritz 8: 38.Bc1 Be8 39.Be3 Bf7 40.f4 g6 41.f5 g5 42.Bf2 h5 43.Bg3+ Kd7 44.Bb8 Kc6 45.gxh5 0.50/18 ]} 38.b4 cxb4 39.Bxb4+ Ke6 {Black plays conservatively, avoiding variations where each side attacks the opponents weak wing and obtains passed pawns: eg. [39. ... Ke5 40.Kg3 Kd4 41.Bf8 Ke3 42.Bxg7 Bxf3 43.Bxh6+ Ke4 44.Bg7 Be2 45.Bxf6 Bxc4 46.Nb4 a5 47.Nc2 Bxa2]} 40.Nc5+ {At this point both sides have pawn weaknesses---they both are interested in a draw which can be accomplished by the exchange of knights leaving bishops of opposite colors. Note particularly that Black's king is more centralized than White's ... as pointed out in the note to move 37 black has "entry points" at d4 and f5 ... this forces white to seek exchanges} 40...Nxc5 41.Bxc5 a6 42.Kg3 1/2-1/2 {A classic "Bishops of opposites" The strategy here is for White to play a3, f4 and keep the K on King side (to prevent Queening of a passed Black pawn) White can safely sacrifice the c pawn since the Black light colored bishop blockades it Since neither side can advance the game is drawn.}