*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ IECC CHESS BITS & PIECES *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ Published by the International Email Chess Club Devoted solely to E-Mail Correspondence Chess *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ Volume 1, Issue 8 May 1995 Published SemiMonthly *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ Editor: Sherman Klausner - klaus@interaccess.com *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ THE FOUNDER'S CORNER By Lisa Powell ********************************************************************* The inevitable question, which I get asked almost every day by new members joining IECC: "What's the difference between IECC and IECG?" To friends of mine, the short-form reply is "me." Although that's an entirely unsatisfactory answer, there's a germ of truth there. 1. Fact: I started IECG at the beginning of 1994 with a dozen players, none of whom are now on the staff of IECG. Some joined before I left; others joined later. 2. Fact: When I relinquished the position of CEO/TD to Franz Hemmer in October 1994, the membership of IECG had passed the 800-member mark. When asked why I surrendered my position as CEO/TD of IECG, I pass. The reasons were personal, and still are. 3. For a time I was permitted to stay of the staff of IECG as "Chairman Of The Board." In the business world, that means something; in the world of chess, it doesn't. 4. Close friends of mine who had belonged to email chess organizations long before I started IECG asked me to get back in the game. Hence, IECC: the International Email Chess Club. The original idea was to keep it small, but when I was told that I could NOT have more than 100 members in IECC, I naturally ignored the prohibition, for all the obvious reasons. 5. Why did I resign from my creation IECG? Basically, to avoid conflict of interests. 6. I have been told by new members that IECC is friendlier than IECG. That has to be categorized as a matter of opinion, of course. This not not a "Who is friendlier" contest -- nor indeed a contest at all, on this side of fence. IMHO, the appropriate place for aggression in the world of chess should be on the battlefield of 64 squares. I do hope that both my children -- IECG and IECC -- will continue to prosper. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ IECC MEMBER OF THE MONTH Each month we introduce to our readers two different members. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ Kenneth E Boys Age: 40 I began playing Chess at the age of 10. I was taught by my father and I competed with him and my older brother. The word "competed" may not be an accurate description. I lost severely. A bit later I joined the Chess Club at Tracy High School, here in central California. Because I learned so little, I soon lost interest. I guess that has happened to a lot of us. At age 17 I earned a "Private Pilot's License," worked in the summers (on the ground) for my father in the Crop dusting business... oh... excuse me, "The Aerial Agricultural Insecticide Applicators." I always enjoyed the maintenance department. Don't know whether it was turning the wrench or getting dirty but I liked it. While attending Arizona Automotive Institute, in Glendale, I had little or no time for chess. I worked as a Tune-up Technician at an American Motors Dealership during the day and attended the "Trade School" at night. I also worked at a "Speed Shop," in Phoenix, on week-ends and became a chronic "Drag Racing" fan. Wish I could stay awake that long these days. I returned to California after graduating from AAI and, somehow, talked Margie into marrying me on December 30th, 1973. Luckily I remember that date or she would sure as shooting tune me up! The first of our three children arrived on April 1st of 1975. I earned my Commercial pilots license in May of 1976 and got back into Crop Dusting but as a pilot. Approximately twenty years ago, my interest in the game of Chess revived. Once infected, one loses immunity, right? I proceeded to play all people interested in Chess at every opportunity. Unfortunately, I lost approximately 70% of the games I played. I didn't know what I was doing but I enjoyed the game. Sound familiar? I awoke in the local hospital one night where they informed me of an epileptic seizure I experienced. So much for the joy of flying. They were able to control the seizures with drugs for close to ten years and I went back to work on the ground. I maintained heavy equipment, 40 ton forklifts and locomotive cranes for a worldwide Pipe manufacturer called Ameron. Late in 1990, they gave up in their efforts to control my seizures and began discussions of brain surgery. At that point in time, I would do anything to get my medical back and fly again. On February 27, 1991, I experienced partially successful brain surgery. I have no seizures but I lost all of my short term memory. Suddenly I couldn't think or speak well, or even read. With Margie's help and the grace of God, I learned to read again and I can speak well enough. Chess became one of many therapeutic exercises to help me climb my own personal Mt. Everest. I learned about America Online and while using it to exercise my skills of communication, I discovered the IECG. Lisa adopted me as a student and quickly changed my view of the game of Chess. I began learning about Chess history and she continually supplied information, study guidance, and my friendship with her became second only to my most special and loving friendship with Margie, my beloved wife. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ IECC GAME OF THE MONTH Analysis By USCF Senior Master Chuck Schulien and Major William D. Wall *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ CHESS MASTER VS CHESS AMATEUR - AN ANALYSIS Duncan,Jack (2000) - Schulien,Chuck (2440) IECC, 1995, Ruy, Schliemann (C63) [CS - notes by Chuck Schulien; BW - notes by Bill Wall] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 [The Schliemann Defense of the Ruy Lopez. Also known as the Jaenisch Defense.] 4.Nc3 [The main line, and logically the best move. White continues to develop pieces. - CS] 4...fxe4 5.Nxe4 Nf6 [Tartakower's variation. This avoids the complications of 5...d5.] 6.Qe2 [6.Nxf6+ Qxf6 7.Qe2 White will win the e-pawn in this way. 7... Be7 8.Bxc6 dxc6 Now both 9.Nxe5 and 9.Qxe5 are possible, though Black obtains an open game with two strong bishops. It is very difficult for White to prove a clear advantage under such circumstances, despite gaining a clear extra pawn. Nonetheless, this is a challenging line. - CS] 6...d5 [Another line is 6...Qe7 7.Nxf6+ gxf6 8.O-O a6 9.Ba4 b5 10.Bb3 Na5 11.d4 Tal-Bronstein, Tbilisi 1982 - BW] 7.Nxf6+ [Or 7.Nc3 Bg4 8.Qxe5+ Be7 9.Nd4 O-O 10.Bxc6 Bd6 11.Bxd5+ Kh8, Onoprienko-Jonkman, Groningen 1994 - BW] 7...gxf6 [Not 7...Qxf6? 8.Nxe5 Be7 9.Nxc6 or 9.d4 or 9.O-O - BW] 8.d4 [8.Nd4 This is trappy, but not nearly so strong as 8.d4. 8... Qd6 9.Qh5+ Kd8 10.Bxc6?! Giving away the bishops is a bad idea. (10.Nxc6+ bxc6 11.Be2=\+) 10...bxc6 11.Nf5 Qe6 12.g4!? Bc5 13. d3 Qe8! Black gained a clear advantage in Sprague- Schulien, breaking down the blockade which White tried to form. In the ending, Black took advantage of the weakness of White's kingside squares. - CS. More recently, 8.Nd4 Bd7 9.Qh5+ Ke7 10.Nf3 Nb4 11.Bxd7 Qxd7 12.b3 Kd8 Bentefrit-Geenan, Moscow Olympiad 1994 - BW] 8...Bg7 [8...e4? 9.Ng5! It is well known that White gains a strong attack here, so Black must instead sacrifice a pawn. - CS. Perhaps White can go for the draw with 8...e4 9.Ng5 fxg5 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.Qh5+ Kd7 12.Qg4+ Kd6 13.Qg3+ Kd7 14.Qg4+ - BW] 9.dxe5 0-0 [Not 9...fxe5 10.Nxe5 O-O 11.Nxc6 bxc6 12.Bxc6 Rb8 13.c3 - BW] 10.e6 [10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.e6 This avoids the maneuver which Black tried in the game.; 10.exf6?! Qxf6 Black has a wonderfully harmonius development, and threatens 11...Bg4. White has no chance to use the extra pawn, and is in serious trouble. - CS. White did win a game with 10.exf6 Re8?! 11.Be3 Qxf6 12.c3 Bg4 13.O-O Cillo-Carlsson, Postal 1988. Another recent game was 10.Bxc6 bxc6 11.e6 Re8 12.O-O c5 13.Qb5 Bf8 which eventually drew, Almasi-Khalifman, Wijk aan Zee 1995 - BW] 10...Ne5!? [I had played 10...Re8 in previous games, so wanted to test something different. It is not clear which move is better. 10...Re8 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Be3 The position is not clear, but I personally feel that White has slightly better chances. - CS Perhaps another idea is 10...Qd6 and 11...Re8 - BW] 11.Nd4 [Now Black can fight for the initiative. 11.Bf4! Qd6 (11...c6 12.Bd3 Nxd3+ 13.Qxd3 Bxe6 14.Nd4 Re8 15. 0-0-0+\= Psakhis-Grosar, Portoroz 1987.; 11...Ng6 12.e7 Nxe7 13. 0-0-0 Ng6 14.Be3+\= Wedberg-Hynes, Novi Sad (ol) 1990.) 12.0-0 Qxe6 13.Rae1 c6 14.Bd3 Nxd3 15.Qxd3 Qf7+\= Hellers-Antunes, Novi Sad (ol) 1990, 1/2 in 22 moves. Tsetlin considers this position equal, but I suspect that White is a little better. - CS] If I were White, I would probably try to simplify and play for a draw with 11.Nxe5 fxe5 12.Qh5 Qe7 13.Bd7 Bxd7 14.exd7 Qxd7 15.Bh6 Bxh6 16.Qxh6 - BW] 11...c5 12.Nf5 Bxe6 13.Nxg7 Kxg7 14.Bf4 [Jack diverges from the game quoted by Tseitlin, which is probably a good idea. Black has a good enough game, but it is not so easy to choose the best path. 14.0-0 c4 15.c3 Qa5 16.f4 Bg4 17.Qe3 Nd3 (17...Ng6-\+) 18.Qg3 Qxb5 19.Qxg4+ Kh8 Black has the advantage. Carmel-Greenfeld, Tel Aviv 1989. - CS] 14...Ng6 [14...Qa5+ 15.Bd2 Qb6 16.0-0-0!? I didn't wish to fight against the strong, unopposed dark squared bishop on d2. - CS] 15.Qxe6 [Perhaps 15.Bg3 and 16.O-O-O - BW] 15...Nxf4 16.Qg4+ [White gains a tempo, and the Black knight continues its dance. - CS] 16...Ng6 17.0-0-0! [The White pieces are taking up active posts, and Black must be very careful. The first priority is to untangle the pinned pieces. -CS Or can White simplify with 17.O-O Kh8 18.Bd3 Ne5 19.Qf5 Nxd3 20.cxd3 - BW] 17...Kh8 [17...Qa5 18.Qa4 Qxa4 19.Bxa4 a6 20.c3 White has the better ending.- CS Another idea might be 17...d4 and 18...Qc7 - BW] 18.Bd3 [18.Bc4?? Ne5 - CS; Maybe 18.Qh5 f5, now 19.Bc4 - BW] 18...Ne5 19.Qf5 [Threatening 20.Qxh7 mate. I might have tried 19.Qh5 and 20 Bf5 - BW] 19...Qc7 [Black's position has improved in the past two moves: the knight is well centralized, and with the queen at c7, the c and d pawn duo is free to advance. - CS; 19...Nxd3+ fails to 20.Rxd3 Qa5 21.a3 d4 22.Rxd4 - BW] 20.f4 [Naturally White keeps the knight hopping! - CS] 20...Ng6 [Chuck wants to keep his knight on the board. My first instinct would have been 20...Nxd3 21.Rxd3 d4 to get rid of that threatening Bishop and advance my center. - BW] 21.g3? [This is a mistake. White should exchange central pawns, opening the game for his bishop. 21.Qxd5 Nxf4 (21...Qxf4+ 22.Kb1+\=) 22.Qc4!? - CS; 21.Rhf1 probably fails to 21...c4 22.Be2 c3 - BW] 21...c4 [Black takes the intiative.- CS] 22.Be2 Ne7 23.Qe6?! [This centralization cannot be maintained, so White only loses time. 23.Qh5 is best - CS] 23...Rad8 24.c3 [White tries to slow the advance of the Black pawns, but this creates a target for the b-pawn to attack. Black has more work to do if White leaves the pawns unmoved in front of the king. - CS; I might have tried 24. Rhe1 or 24.Bg4 (if 24...Rd6 then 25.Qe3) - BW] 24...Rd6 25.Qh3 [If 25.Qe3 Nf5 looks natural - BW] 25...b5-\+ [The rest of the game is very easy for Black. It is simply a matter of opening files in front of the White king. - CS] 26.a3 [Perhaps more resistance can be made with 26.Bf3 and 27.Qh5 or 27.Rhe1 - BW] 26...a5 27.Kc2 [I still like 27.Bf3 b4 28.Rhe1 better - BW] 27...b4 28.axb4 axb4 29.Ra1 [Maybe 29.Qh6 gives White an extra tempo move before playing Ra1 - BW] 29...Rb8 [Black brings all of the pieces into attacking position before opening lines. - CS I would have been more impatient and played 29...bxc3 30.bxc3 Qb6 aiming for Qe3. Another idea that I would have considered would be 29...Qb6 and 30...d4 - BW] 30.Rhc1 bxc3 31.bxc3 d4 [This is simple, but in accordance with the basic principles of attack: destroy all cover in front of the enemy king. -CS; I would have probably tried 31...Rdb6 and try to get to the 7th rank - BW] 32.cxd4 Nc6! [The knight takes up an attacking position, and this makes White's game impossible to defend. - CS; What can White do? Not 33.Bxc4 Nxd4+ 34.Kd2 Nb3+, winning the rook. If 33.d5 Rxd5 34.Rd1 Nd4+ 35.Rxd4 Rxd4 36.Qe6 Rd6 puts a stop to White's attack. - BW] 0-1 **************************************************************** IECC Advanced Studies Group Thomas Malloy VP IECC Advanced Studies Group I want to thank all the chess players -- both members and prospective members of IECC -- who have written to say they think this is a great idea. The IECC Advanced Study Groups are quickly getting off to a good start. We already have a group analyzing Fischer's "My 60 memorable games." Our second Group which will work through Capablanca's "My chess Career" will be commencing very soon. Other textbook and endgame groups should starting in a few weeks. Some of you have written asking how a study group is organized. Here is how the Fischer group functions. First every member of the group sends a round-robin message to every other member. This is how we work together and share ideas. After each member plays through a game, he/she sends a brief summary of what the dynamics of that game. Sometimes this is simply a case of restating in your own words what the annotations say -- a useful way to help absorb what is being studied. Group members also ask the study group questions about parts of the game or about parts of the annotation which they do not fully understand. On the basis of these messages, we are able to select two or three positions from the game or in the notes that we look at more closely, and at great depth. Alternative lines are suggested and evaluated. Some group members will suggest lines they think may improve on the game, while others may explore alternative lines that seem better suited to their level. They may want to know if there is another way to win which might be simpler than, say, a complicated combination of great depth. For some games, the answer is yes: there are more than one road to victory. If the superiority of one side is decisive, more than one method of winning is usually possible. We go on like this, tossing ideas back and forth, until we arrive at a consensus that it's time to move on to the next game. That's about it for this introductory "tour" of the IECC Advanced Studies Group. There are only a few basic guidelines we follow. One of these is: if you suggest a move or a line try to include some reason for it. One always learns more by articulating the reason behind a candidate move. Another rule is: everyone should participate. In short, a study group is we help each other increase our knowledge and improve our abilities. You will hear about all this when you sign up. Thomas Malloy ***************************************************************** The Newbie Corner By Sherman Klausner **************************************************************** First, I want to thank each of you who took the time to express your opinion on the RFD to initiate rec.games.chess.play-by-emial. Your voices were heard, and poll of the opinions showed a big plus for the changes. By now each of us has received the ballot to file your vote. Please don't put it off. Vote today and make your opinion count! Be sure to follow the rules on how to send your vote in. Send MAIL to: voting@Syra.NET Just Replying should work if you are not reading this on a mailing list. -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- rec.games.chess-reorg Ballot (Don't remove this marker) Give your real name here: If you do not give a real name your vote may be rejected. [Your Vote] Group ----------------------------------------------------------------------- [ ] rec.games.chess.misc (replaces rec.games.chess) [ ] rec.games.chess.play-by-email [ ] rec.games.chess.analysis [ ] rec.games.chess.politics [ ] rec.games.chess.computer -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Judging by the opinions posted on the RFD, the email chess population will make the decision one way or another. I am proud to see that the entire membership of "The Friendly Club" had the self restraint not to answer some of the nasty comments and misinformation posted about our club in rec.games.chess. It is a pity that that some members of another group have been told that they are disloyal to become members of IECC. We submit feel that it is okay to join as many groups as you like. You have a right to enjoy the great game of chess to its fullest. Bottom line: We of IECC have no competition except ourselves. Further, our paramount concern is to create the various forms of chess activity that our membership have indicated is wanted and needed. We are also especially proud of the way the activities of the IECC Chess Academy -- both Basic and Advanced -- is growing to serve IECC members players at all levels. We are also pleased to inform you that you will be seeing help in the Academy from some very strong players, masters included. We also want to urge postal players -- and others who have not taken the plunge into email chess via Internet -- to join IECC. With all the activities available in IECC, we're sure you'll find a type of activity to keep you interested! *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* IECC ..... The Friendly Chess Club! *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*