*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Ceremonies of the Horsemen The Journal of the IECC Rank and File Volume 1, Issue 2, Section 1 *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Editorial Consultant: Lisa Powell Editor of this issue: Tim Nagley Assistant Editor & Admin. Manager: Tina Stanton Technical Editor: Robert Mueller *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* To unsubscribe, please write to: *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* ANNOUNCEMENTS & EDITORIAL Tim Nagley writes ... WELCOME to Issue 2 of Ceremonies of the Horseman, the Journal of the IECC Rank & File. This issue is in three sections. In Section One, we have some brief member bio's (more are needed, please!), and a selection of interesting IECC games analysed by some of our increasingly professional team of annotators, to whom we're very grateful for their continued labours. In Sections Two and Three, we have some more annotated games in the continuation of the various `tuition columns' commenced in Issue 1, and the first of an occasional series of articles on Chess & Culture. Next month's issue will contain the first of an occasional series of articles on Chess Psychology, as well as the next in Mihnea Voloaca's outstanding instructive series of Analaysis, Questions and Answers. On behalf of IECC Publications, I'm delighted to announce that Lisa Powell has consented to join the Journal staff as Editorial Consultant, where all her experience is already proving invaluable to us. I'd also like to express our thanks to Mark Brooks for conceiving the whole idea and editing Issue 1 so successfully. Mark is now on leave from IECC publications until further notice, owing to greatly increased demands on his time on work, domestic and family fronts: we wish him well with them all. I'd also like to thank James Smith, who has recently retired from IECC staff but remains an active member, for his excellent tuition articles and book reviews in the previous issue and this one. I'm also pleased to announce that Tina Stanton, known to many of you as one of the TD's of the two-game match section of IECC, has joined us as Assistant Editor and Administration Manager (which comes as a great relief to me); and that Robert Mueller is the new Technical Editor, on whose painstaking and methodical attention to detail we are so dependent. Our intention is to continue to provide plenty of interesting game-analyses, together with some brief member bio's, tuitional columns, and other articles and features. We plan for future issues to be a little shorter than Issue 1, and to be published around once a month, at least for the next few months. At the moment, our original ambitious proposal to publish simultaneously a website edition of the Journal is lagging behind the email publication - this is something to which we hope to attend in the fullness of time. Thank you very much to all the members who completed the questionnaire in Issue 1 or gave us other feedback about it. This was extremely helpful for us to be able to judge what's wanted by the readers. Among the many things we learned from examining the replies were: that the increased variation in subject-matter is particularly welcome; that articles and features seem to be as well received as annotated IECC games; that the website edition was perhaps of less overall interest than some of us had imagined; that readers value the Journal being instructive as well as informative; and that people are willing to answer questionnaires and give us their opinions (which remain very welcome). In case anyone hasn't yet caught up with older news, the IECC's website is currently located at: . Lastly, if you know of any IECC members who haven't received this Journal, please let Tina know at . We use the most up-to-date address-list, but there are always a handful of new members and recent address-changes that slip through the net. Thank you. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* ANDREAS BRAUN (GER 2019 5-1-0) writes ... I was born in 1960 as a child of two chessplayers in Germany. In 1972, during the great Spassky-Fischer match, I was infected by the chess virus! In my youth I played almost only chess! This gave me a lot of nice events but some problems too. During the next years, I became a good tournament player (+- 2000), but not more. I was married in 1990 and live now with my wife Anke and my daughter Lara, who is 6 years old. We live in the nice old town named Hameln in Germany. My profession is to work as an administrative official in local government. After an inactive chess time of some years, I began in 1996 to play e-mail-chess in the IECC. I'm enthusiastic! In this short time I found many sympathetic chessfriends. Perhaps we "see" each other across the board?! Many chess greetings, Andreas *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* DAVID DAVIS (RSA 1173 2-0-9) writes ... I live in South Africa, have done my whole life. I have spent most of that time in the town Welkom, a mining town in the Goldfields, some 2 hours south of Johannesburg. Never left the country, but will try to travel next year for a month or so abroad. I have a honours degree in philosophy, love chess and computers. I am employed by the company Anglogold, as a Human Resources Management trainee, but that is not what I really want to do -- at least not in SA.. I have been looking for opportunities: difficult so far. I am almost 25....whoo whoo, getting older. Currently I am completing a law degree and a diploma in information systems management. It is this that is keeping me here for the time at least. I got married in February. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* ANALYSIS BY DAVID GLEW (ENG 1934 43-8-6) [Event "CL4-1998.03"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1997.11.23"] [White "Wenger, Joseph"] [Black "Varley, Trevor"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C58"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 (4... Nxe4? {looks tempting, but after} 5. Bxf7+ {but certainly not} (5.Nxe4? d5 {or white loses a piece.}) 5... Ke7 6.d4 Nxd4 7.Bd5 Nd6 8. Nxh7 {and Black's defence is in complete disarray, his king is exposed on the seventh rank and is not only undefended but can no longer castle.}) 5.exd5 Na5? {I know that this is one of the recommended book moves but I don't like it: it gives up a pawn, and gets nothing in return. The knight is sidelined on a5 and is less effective, and it doesn't really threaten the bishop on c4 which evades capture with check and therefore does not lose a tempo.} (5...Nxd5 {I much prefer: this gets rid of one of White's central pawns, keeps both knights in central positions and threatens the knight on g5.}) 6.Bb5+ c6 (6...Bd7 7.Qe2 Bd6 8.Bxd7+ Qxd7 9.O-O O-O {would have improved Black's development.}) 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Ba4 e4? {I cannot see the reason behind this move. The normal continuation here is h6, as shown in a selection of championship games won by Black, and I can think of no reason to change it.} (8...h6 9.Nf3 e4 (9...Ba6 10.c3 Qd5 11.Bc2 e4 12.Nd4 Bc5 13.Nb3 Nxb3 14.Bxb3 Bxf2+ 15.Kxf2 Qf5+ 16.Ke1 Ng4 17.Bxf7+ Kf8 18.Qa4 Qf2+ 19.Kd1 Ne3+{0-1 Miller, F - Kargoll, B, Mannheim 1990}) 10.Qe2 (10.Ne5 Qd4 11.Bxc6+ Nxc6 12.Nxc6 Qc5 13.Nxa7 Qxa7 14.O-O Ba6 15.d3 Bc5 16.Bf4 Rd8 17.Qe2 O-O 18.Rd1 Rfe8 19.Qd2 Nd5 20.Bg3 e3 21.Qc1 exf2+ 22.Bxf2 Bxf2+ 23.Kh1 Be3 24.Nd2 Nf4 25.b3 Qb7 {0-1 Nawal, A - Mejia, W Duisburg 1992}) 10...Be6 11.Ng1 Qd4 (11...Bc5 12.Nc3 O-O 13.d3 Bg4 14.Qf1 Re8 15.Be3 Bxe3 16.fxe3 Qb6 {0-1 Kara, S - Karius, T 1996}) 12.Nc3 Bb4 13.Bb3 Nxb3 14.axb3 O-O 15.Qe3 Qd6 16.Nge2 Bc5 17.Qg3 Qe7 18.O-O Bd6 19.Qh4 g5 20.Qxh6 Ng4 21.Qh5 Kg7 22.Ng3 Rh8 23.Qxh8+ Rxh8 24.h3 Nxf2 25.Kxf2 Bxg3+ 26.Kxg3 g4 27.Kf2 Qc5+ 28.Ke2 gxh3 29.gxh3 Bxh3 30.Rf2 Bg4+ 31.Ke1 Rh1+ 32.Rf1 Rxf1+ 33.Kxf1 Qf5+ 34.Kg1 Bh3 35.Nxe4 Qxe4 36.Kf2 Bg4 37.d3 Qf3+ 38.Kg1 Bh3 {0-1 Njie, M - Meade, V Dubai 1986}) 9.Qe2 Qd5 {Again Black deviates from the principles of development. The queen is now out in the middle of the board, and although she is powerful, she is extremely vulnerable. Black might develop his bishops.} (9...Bf5 10.Nc3 {would have been better.}) 10.d3 Be7 ({Not the seemingly obvious} 10...Bf5 11.dxe4 Nxe4 12.f3 Qd4 13.Nxe4 {and Black has lost his knight.}) 11.Nxe4 O-O {It is interesting at this stage to stand back for a moment and look at the board from a strategic rather than tactical point of view. After eleven moves, not only is Black two pawns down, but two of those are isolated pawns and his queenside is in disarray. Even at this stage he has a major struggle on his hands. Why is this?} {As always there are several reasons. Personally, I feel the Two Knights' Defence has several doubtful variations, and it is an opening to be used only if you are fully at home with it and aware of the potential problems. But more importantly, Black has not followed the basic rules that are common to all good openings - the fight for the centre, a sound pawn formation, the tactical and strategic development of the minor pieces as swiftly as possible. In correspondence/e-mail chess a sound opening is even more important, since you, and therefore your opponent, have the opportunity to consult reference materials.} 12.Nbc3 Qd8 13.O-O Bd7 14.Bg5 Re8 15.Qd2 (15.Rfe1 {occupying the open file, would have been more usual.}) 15...Nxe4 16.Nxe4 Nb7 (16...Bxg5 {would have put up more of a fight, but Black is obviously concerned that his knight, which went out to a5 in the opening, should be brought back and be made to earn its keep.}) 17.Be3 c5 18.Bb3 Bc6 19.Rfe1 Rc8 20.Bf4 a5 21.a4 Qd7 22.Be5 Bh4? {Attempting a discovered attack on the bishop on e5, but all Black does is lose a tempo by having to retreat the bishop two moves later.} (22...Qf5 23.Qf4 Qxf4 24.Bxf4 Bxe4 25.Rxe4 {wouldn't exactly turn the tables for Black, but it would take some of the sting out of the White attack and improve Black's chances.}) 23.Qf4! {Gathering forces for a kingside attack and threatening the unguarded bishop.} 23...Bxe4 (23...Bd8 24.Ng5 Rf8 25.Re3 {is no better.}) 24. Rxe4! {Absolutuely right. The following alternatives are obviously not nearly so good. White is in a strong position now and must bring his strongest firepower into the attack at the earliest possible moment by capturing with the rook, before Black can regroup.} (24.dxe4?! 24...c4 25.Ba2 Rc5) (24.Qxh4?! 24...Rxe5 25.Qf4 Re7 26.dxe4 c4) (24.Qxe4?! 24...Bf6 25.f4 Bxe5 26.fxe5 Nd8) 24...Bd8 {Retreat, unfortunately, in the face of overwhelming odds, but what else can Black do?} (24...Bf6 {doesn't improve anything} 25.Bxf6 gxf6 26.Re3 Rxe3 27.fxe3 (27.Qxe3?! Re8 28.Qf3 Kg7)) 25. Qg3 ({Much stronger would have been} 25.Rae1 h5 26.Bc4 Bc7) 25...g6 26.Bc4 {Preventing the attack by the c-pawn.} 26...Rf8 (26...Re7 {is the correct theoretical move, but it hardly makes much difference in this case.}) 27.Bb5 Qf5 28.Rae1 (28. Ba6! {would have made it even easier for White, followed by} 28...Qd7 29.Qh3 Qxh3 30.gxh3 f5 31.Bxb7 fxe4 32.Bxc8 Re8) 28...Bg5 (28... Bf6 {is what should have been played if we are being critical, but it would have made no diference to the eventual outcome.}) 29.Ba6 f6 (29...Bd2 {doesn't help} 30.Rd1 c4 31.Bxb7 (31.Rxd2 cxd3 32.Bxd3 Nc5 33.Ree2 Nxd3 34.Qxd3 Qxd3 35.Rxd3) 31...cxd3 32.c3) 30.Bxb7 fxe5 31.Rxe5! Bf4 32.Rxf5 1-0 {Black's position, as it has been for some time, is hopeless.} *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* ANALYSIS BY GERALD FIELDING (CAN 2219 15-8-10) [Event "M-1467.1"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1997.12.19] [White "Hughes, Dave"] [Black "Morihama, Nicolau"] [Result "0-1"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 {For most of this century theory required 3.Nf3 here to prevent ...e5 but during the 90's the rejection of this idea has become a popular way to create winning chances for White. That just shows you you can't trust theory or, perhaps, even me!} (3...e5 4.Nf3 exd4 5.Bxc4 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 Nc6 7.O-O {is the main line, which is now a real gambit.}) 3...Nc6 4.Nf3 (4.Be3! {protects the d pawn and avoids the coming pin.}) 4...Bg4 5.Bxc4 {The text looks like an obvious move, but in this position both Kasparov and Karpov have played 5.d5.} (5.d5 Ne5 6.Bf4 Ng6 7.Be3 Nf6 8.Nc3 e5 9.Bxc4 {Karpov-Milov, Biel, 1997 1-0 in 35 moves.}) (5.Be3 {is also favored by some good players.}) 5...e6! 6.d5 (6.Be3 {may still be best here, for example after the continuation} 6...Nf6 7.Nc3 Bb4 8.Qc2 {White has the advantage according to Kuzmin.}) (6.Bb5 {has been the choice of others.}) 6...exd5 7.Bxd5 ({Probably superior to} 7.exd5 {which has also been tried.}) 7...Nf6 (7...Qd7 {perhaps too conservative:} 7...Qd7 8.Qb3 O-O-O 9.O-O Bxf3 10.Qxf3 {with some advantage to White, as in Ward-Sadler, G.B. Championship 1995, and in Ward-Hartman, Wrexham, 1996.}) 8.Bxc6+ ({Speelman-Sadler, Hastings, 1992, continued} 8.O-O!? Be7 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.Qc2 O-O 11.Ne5 Bd6 {and it appears to me that White has fewer problems than after the immediate 8.Bxc6+ as in the text game.}) 8...bxc6 9.Qa4 {The queen might be better off at c2 where it can support the adjacent squares and prevent Bc5.} (9.Qc2 Bb4+ 10.Nc3 O-O 11.Be3 {after which Black's doubled pawns are a liability.}) 9...Rb8 10.O-O Bxf3! ({White may have hoped for} 10...Rb4 11.Qxc6+ Bd7 12.Qc2 Rxe4 13.Nc3 {when he becomes the attacker.}) 11.gxf3 Nd7 12.Qxc6 {Picking up a useless pawn when his position is starved for development.}) 12...Rb6 13.Qd5 Bc5 {A major decision, as it is not clear that the bishop should go to c5 but this seems preferable to ...Rg6+ followed by ...Bd6. (13...Qh4 {might be tried to good effect} 14.Rd1 Bd6 15.f4 Qg4+ 16.Kf1 Rb5 17.Qd3 Rh5 {after which I prefer Black.}) 14.Nc3 {One might say "About time!" as White doesn't have time for Nd2 and Nb3.} (14.Nd2? Qh4 15.Nb3 Rg6+ 16.Kh1 Qh3 17.Qa8+ Ke7) ({I think, however, that White can make a game of it by} 14.Bf4!? {inviting the dangerous Black rook to be diverted by} 14...Rxb2 15.Nd2) 14...Qh4 15.Bg5 ({The fact that the knight is doing nothing on c3 is shown by the follow-up} 15.Na4? Rg6+ 16.Kh1 Qh3-+) 15...Qh5 16.Rfd1 ({And now if} 16.Na4 {then Black has} 16...Bd6 17.f4 h6! 18.e5 hxg5 19.Qg2 gxf4 20.exd6 Rxd6 21.Qa8+ Ke7 22.Rae1+ Kf6 23.Qg2 f3 24.Qg3 Rd4-+) 16...O-O! ({Black has nothing after} 16...Bd6 17.Bf4!) 17.Bf4 (17.Qxd7 {is possible, but after} 17...Qxg5+ 18.Kh1 (18.Kf1 (18.Qg4 Qxg4+ 19.fxg4 Rxb2 20.Rf1 Bd4 21.Rac1 Re8 {leads to a Black endgame advantage}) Rxb2 19.Ne2 Qh4) 18...Rxb2 19.Qd5 (19.Rd5 Qf6 20.Qf5 Qxf5) Qxd5 20.Rxd5 Bxf2 21.Nd1 {and Black has an extra pawn.}) 17.Be7?! {doesn't work} 17...Qh3 18.Ne2 Rg6+ 19.Ng3 Rxg3+ 20.hxg3 Qxg3+ 21.Kh1 Qxf3+ 22.Kh2 Qxf2+ 23.Kh3 Qf3+ 24.Kh2 Bxe7 25.Qxd7 Rb8 26.Rd2 Rb6 {winning.}) 17...Qxf3 (17...Rg6+ {leads to a difficult position} 18.Bg3 Ne5 19.Kf1 Rxg3 20.hxg3 Qh1+ 21.Ke2 Qxf3+ 22.Kd2 Qxf2+ 23.Kc1 Rb8 24.Na4 Bd6 {after which I still slightly prefer Black.}) 18.Qd2 (18.Bg3! {very tempting, but after} 18...Rxb2 19.Qf5 Bxf2+ 20.Bxf2 Rxf2 21.Qxf3 Rxf3 22.Nd5 Nc5 {White has given up too many pawns.}) 18...Rg6+ 19.Bg3 ({Too late!} 19.Kf1 {and Black wins by} 19...Qg2+ 20.Ke1 Qg1+ 21.Ke2 Qg4+ 22.Kd3 Qf3+ 23.Kc4 Rd8) 19...Ne5 0-1 ({The best continuation I can find is} 20.Nd5 Rxg3+ 21.hxg3 Qxg3+ 22.Kf1! Qh3+ 23.Ke2 Qg4+ 24.Kf1 Nf3 25.Qc3 Qg1+ 26.Ke2 Qxf2+ 27.Kd3 Bd4 {threatening ...Ne5#.}) *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* ANALYSIS BY RAIMUND HEID (GER 2220 5-2-1) [Event "P-997"] [White "Cousins,Eddie"] [Black "Femmel,Don"] [Result "1-0"] 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Bg2 Nxc3 {A rarely played move. The most common continuation is 6...Nb6. 6...Be6 and 6...Nde7 are the main alternatives.} 7.bxc3 e4 {The most consistent continuation. Black forces White's best developed piece to retreat to the first rank. The question will be whether Black can control the space he has gained so early in the game, while his own pieces still aren't as well developed.} {The position now resembles one from an Alekhine's Defense, but with the colors reversed.} 8.Ng1 f5 {This move makes positional sense, but the pawn on f5 is still a major drawback for three reasons: first, it blocks Black's light square bishop; secondly, it leaves unprotected the e6 square, which can be occupied by a White knight via f4 or g5; thirdly, it leaves the a2-g8 diagonal open, allowing White to attack Black's king with his queen and/or bishop. There is, however, one good compensation: the mighty pawn on e4 which inhibits White's pieces.} 9.d3 {White attacks Black's pawn center, which is what he is supposed to do. But the Black center is a fixed target and it would have been more thematic if White attacked it after he has taken his king to safety and finished off his development, starting with 9.Nh3.} 9...Bc5 10.Nh3 exd3 {Now Black has no longer any compensation for the useless pawn on f5 (see the comment above).} (10....h6 {is the "suggested" move here: maybe there is some better move, but if Black is forced to play exd3 in the near future, then the entire line starting with 6...Nxc3 seems to be inferior for black. The idea of 10....h6 is with a view to ...g5 in order to keep the White knight away from g5, and ...f4 would have been much more in keeping the sense of Black's earlier moves. This line is very sharp and risky, but if Black wanted to have a calm game, he should not have played 6...Nxc3.}) 11.O-O dxe2 {Black can't afford to lose further time to win a pawn.} (11...O-O 12.exd3 {White has a very strong bishop on g2, a solid pawn center, and he will be able to bring the rest of his pieces to reasonably good squares in a short while: the rook to b1 and a knight to f4 or g5. On the other hand, Black will have difficulties in developing his queenside while he has to take care of the relatively open position of his king.}) {Although White stands much better, he is not yet winning.} 12.Qxe2+ Qe7 {Black has many alternatives here, but none of them is entirely satisfactory.} (12...Be7 13.Rd1 Bd7 14.Rb1 {and Black cannot avoid decisive material losses.}) (12...Kf8 13.Bf4 {this is a "soccer game" with one team having 10 players, and the other only 5.}) 13.Re1 Qxe2 14.Rxe2+ Kf7 {Again, Black's choices were very unpleasant.} (14...Be7 (14...Ne7 15.Bg5 Kf7 16.Rae1 Re8 17.Nf4 c6 18.Nd3 Bd6 19.Ne5+ Kf8 20.Nc4 Bc5 21.Re5) 15.Bxc6+ bxc6 16.Ba3) 15.Bd5+ Kf8 16.Bf4 Bb6 17.Rd1 {Black is lost. He can't develop three of his pieces, while White keeps attacking his king.} 17...Bd7 18.Bc4 Bc8 19.Ng5 h6 20.Nf7 Rh7 (20...Rg8 21.Ne5) 21.Ne5 g5 22.Nxc6 Bd7 (22...bxc6 23.Rd8+ Kg7 24.Rg8+ Kf6 25.Be5+ Ke7 26.Bg7+) 23.Ne5 Ba4 24.Rde1 gxf4 25.Ng6+ Kg7 26.Re7+ Kxg6 27.R1e6+ Kg5 28.Rxh7 Rg8 29.Rexh6 fxg3 30.Bxg8 gxf2+ 31.Kf1 Bc6 32.Rh3 Kf4 33.Bc4 Bf3 34.Rxf3+ Kxf3 35.Bd5+ Ke3 36.Bxb7 Kd3 37.Rh3+ Be3 38.Rf3 f4 39.h4 1-0 *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* ANALYSIS BY STEFAAN SIX (BEL 1979 7-3-12) [Event "Quad 404.5"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1997.12.19"] [White "Vanderven,Tony"] [Black "Bass,Stanley"] [Result "1-0"] [B32] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nb5 a6 6.Nd6+ Bxd6 7.Qxd6 Qf6 8.Qd1 Qg6 9.Nc3 Nf6? {Normally Black plays 9...Nge7, or sometimes 9...d5, here. The move Black played shuts out the queen out! In general it's good advice 'never to keep a lady waiting'!} 10.Qd6 (10.f3 {is somewhat better.}) (10.Qd6 {is also quite playable.}) 10...Qg4? (10...b5 {looks sounder. Maneuvering with the queen in the opening usually indicates something is going wrong.}] 11.f3 Qe6 12.Qa3! {There's no reason to exchange queens.} (12.Qxe6 fxe6 {gives Black has an additional supporter of d5 and an open f-file for the rook. Besides, White wants to use the queen for a future attack.}) 12...Nd4 13.Bd3 d5 14.exd5 Nxd5 15.Nxd5 Qxd5 16.O-O Bd7 17.Bg5?! {This is wasteful. Black has to play f6 some time anyway.} (17.Be3 Nf5 18.Bf2 Rc8 19.Rad1 Qe6 20.Qb4 {is better: White now has a big advantage due to the activity of his pieces.}) 17...f6 18.c4 Qc6 19.Be3 O-O-O 20.Bxd4 exd4 21.Qe7 (21.b4! {is stronger, leading to huge problems for Black, although the text move doesn't really throw away White's advantage.}) 21...g6 22.Rae1 Rde8 23.Qg7 Kb8 24.Rxe8+ Rxe8 25.Qxh7 {Time for lunch, perhaps!} 25...g5 26.f4 Qe6 27.fxg5 fxg5 28.Rf2 {Good! White has seen correctly that the threats down the e-file are nothing but a punch in the air.} 28...Qe1+ 29.Bf1 Bc6 30.Qg6 Qe3 31.b4 Ka8 32.Qd3 Be4 33.Qxe3?! (33.Qd2 {is a stronger move} 33...Re5 34.b5 axb5 35.cxb5 b6 36.a3 Re7 {and only now ...} 37.Qxe3 {Grandmaster Tarrasch used to give this good advice: "If you see a good move, sit on your hands and look for a better one!"}) 33...dxe3 34.Rb2 Ka7 35.Be2! {This is the kind of chess I like!! Use your pieces to their maximum strength. For more information about this kind of move, see the excellent book 'My System' by Nimzowitsh.} 35...Kb6 36.Rb3 Bc2 37.Ra3 Re5 38.Kf1 Bf5 39.c5+ Kc7 40.Rc3 Bd7 {The rest of the game is just a demonstration of the principle of having two points of attack. Once again: see the excellent book by Nimzo.} 41.g3 Bh3+ 42.Ke1 Bf5 43.h4 gxh4 44.gxh4 b6? {Giving away a pawn in a bad position.} (44...Be6 {plays better, although Black is doomed at this stage.}) 45.Bxa6 bxc5 46.Rxc5+ Rxc5 47.bxc5 Bg4 48.Bb5 Bh5 49.Be2 Bf7 50.a4 Kc6 51.h5 Kxc5 52.h6 Bg6 53.a5 Be4 54.a6 Kb6 55.Kf1 Bh7 56.Kg2 Be4+ 57.Kg3 Ka7 58.Kf4 Bb1 59.Kxe3 Bh7 60.Kf4 Kb6 61.Kg5 Bc2 62.Kf6 Be4 63.Kg7 1-0 *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* ANALYSIS BY PASCAL ROQUES (FRA 2337 2-1-1) [Event "Quad 369.11"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1997.11.03"] [White "Grazinys, Vidmantas"] [Black "Simpson, Barnaby"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "1821"] [BlackElo "1499"] [ECO "C29"] [Reference "Ceremonies of the Horsemen #2"] [Annotator "Pascal Roques"] [Opening "Vienna Game"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 {The Vienna opening} 2...Nf6 3.f4 (3.g3 [is the other move which leads to more quiet and positional games. Spassky played it at top level, for instance, as in the game against Karpov shown below.}) (3.Bc4 {is also sometimes played.[}) 3...d5 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.d3!? (5.Nf3 {I don't know whether %.d3!? is better or worse than this, but the text move can lead to some very wild variations!}) (5.Qf3 {was very popular around 1900, but is now nearly forgotten.}) (5.Nf3 {the classical move: it has been played since the beginning of the century by Spielmann and others. A recent example by young grandmasters is shown below.}) 5...Nxc3! {The positional treatment and probably the best. The two other possibilities seem to favour White, but the variations are quite complex.} (5...Bb4!? {a risky piece sacrifice, both sides have to play the right moves!} 6.dxe4! {"Let's go!"} 6...Qh4+ 7.Ke2 Nc6?! ({the critical line is still unclear:} 7...Bxc3 8.bxc3 Bg4+ 9.Nf3 dxe4 10.Qd4! Bh5!) 8.Nf3 Bg4 9.Nxd5! 0-0-0 10.c3! Rhe8! 11.Qe1! {the Simplest way to the win} 11...Nd4+ (11...Bxf3+ 12.gxf3 Nd4+ 13.Kd1 Qxe1+ 14.Kxe1 Nc2+ 15.Ke2 +-) 12.Kd2 Nxf3+ 13.gxf3 Qxe1+ 14.Kxe1 Bxf3 15.Bh3+ Kb8 16.Rf1 +- Bxe4 17.Nxb4 a5 18.Rxf7 Bg6 19.Rd7 1-0 {Roques - Negre corr. 1990}) (5...Qh4+? 6.g3 Nxg3 7.Nf3 Qh5 8.Nxd5! {and then, for instance} 8...Bg4 9.Bg2! Nxh1 10.Nxc7+ Kd7 11.Nxa8± Nc6 12.d4! (12.Be3 Be7 13.Bxh1 Rxa8 14.d4 {seems weaker}) 12...Bxf3 13.Qxf3 Qxf3 14.Bxf3 Nxd4 15.Be4 Bc5 16.Be3 Rxa8 17.Bxd4 Bxd4 18.Rd1 Ke6 19.Rxd4 Kxe5 20.c3 1-0 {Sax - Petran 1973}) 6.bxc3 c5 (6...d4 {recommended by Harding} 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Be2 Bc5 9.O-O dxc3+ 10.Kh1 O-O 11.Qe1 Nd4 12.Bd1 {with compensations for the pawn}) (6...Be7 {is another good possibility} 7.d4 c5 8.Nf3 Nc6 9.Be3 c4 10.Be2 h6 11.Qd2 Be6 12.Rb1 Qd7 13.O-O O-O-O 14.a4 Kb8 15.Rb5 Ka8 16.Rfb1 Rb8 17.Bf4 a6 18.R5b2 Na5 19.Ra1 Rbg8 20.Bg3 Bd8 21.Rbb1 g5 22.Qe1 Bf5 23.Ra2 Qe6 24.Rab2 Qg6 25.Qd1 h5 26.Nd2 h4 27.Bf2 g4 28.Be3 Bc8 29.Qf1 Bg5 30.Bf4 Qf5 31.Bxg5 Qxg5 {Black is better, and subsequently won: Roques - Gawehns, IECC Trio 312, 1998}) 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Be2 Bg4 9.O-O Be7 10.d4 (10.Qe1!? {is more direct. One example:} 10...O-O 11.Qg3 Qd7 12.h3 Be6? {better is 12...Bh5} 13.Bh6± g6 14.Bxf8 Bxf8 15.d4 Bg7 16.Rad1 Ne7 17.Qf2 c4 18.Nh2 Qa4 19.Ng4 h5? 20.Nf6+ Kh8 21.Bxh5! 1-0 (21...gxh5 22.Qh4 {is quickly decisive}) {Pfretzschner - Kuske corr. 1980}) 10...O-O 11.Rb1 Rb8 (11...b6 12.Be3 f5?! 13.exf6 Bxf6 14.dxc5 {White is slightly better} Re8 15.Bf2 bxc5 16.Rb5 Be7 17.Bxc5 Bf6 18.Bf2 Ne7 19.Nd4 Bd7 20.Rb7 Qc8 21.Ba6 Bg4 22.Qd3± Qd8 23.Bb5 Qc8 24.Ba6 Qd8 25.Bg3 Rc8 26.h3 Bd7 27.Rxf6 gxf6 28.Bc7 Rxc7 29.Qg3+ Ng6 30.Qxc7 Qe7 31.Qg3 f5 32.Nxf5 Qe6 33.Nd4 Qxa6 34.Rxd7 Kh8 35.Qc7 Re1+ 36.Kh2 Nf8 37.Rf7 Qh6 38.Nf5 Re7 39.Qxe7 Qf4+ 40.Ng3 1-0 {Iskov - Rumens 1981}) (11...Qd7!? {is also interesting}) 12.Bf4 Be6 13.Qe1 {A thematic move heading for the black King!} 13...Qa5 14.Bg5! Bxg5 (14...Rfe8 {is perhaps safer}) (14...Qxa2 15.Bd3!? {with initiative for the pawn}) 15.Nxg5 cxd4 ({Possible, also, was} 15...Qxa2 16.Bd3! h6 17.Qg3! hxg5 18.Ra1 Qb2 19.Rfb1Qxc3 20.Bh7+ Kxh7 21.Qxc3 cxd4 22.Qg3 {and White is only slightly better}) 16.Bd3! (16.Qh4!? {also leads to sharp variations:} 16...h6 {forced} 17.Nxe6 (17.Bd3! dxc3? (17...Nxe5! 18.Nxe6 fxe6 19.Rxf8+ Rxf8 20.Qe7! {is unclear}) 18.Rf6!! Qxa2 (18...gxf6 19.Qxh6 {Mate in 4!}) 19.Rbf1 Qa3 20.Rxh6! gxh6 21.Qxh6+- {Mate in 5!}) fxe6 18.Qg4 Rxf1+ 19.Bxf1 (19.Rxf1?! dxc3 20.Qxe6+ Kh8 {seems good for Black} 19...Nd8 20.Qg6=) 16...h6 (16...g6? 17.Qh4! h5 {forced} 18.Nxe6 fxe6 19.Qg5!+- {for instance:} 19...Qc7 20.Qxg6+ Qg7 21.Qxe6+ Kh8 22.Rf6! Rxf6 23.exf6 Qg5 24.Qd7) 17.Nxe6 fxe6 18.Qg3! Rxf1+ (18...Ne7 19.Rxf8+ Rxf8 20.Qg4! {and White is slightly better}) 19.Rxf1 Rf8! (19...Ne7? 20.Qf3! Qc5 21.Qf7+ Kh8 22.Rf6! dxc3+ 23.Kh1 Nf5 24.Rxe6 +-) 20.Qg6! {The goal of all the preceding moves: Qe1-g3, Bd3} 20...Rxf1+ 21.Kxf1 Kf8! (21...Qd8?! (21...Nxe5?? 22.Qe8# {was the threat!}) 22.Qxe6+ Kh8 23.Qf5!±) 22.Qxe6 dxc3 ({Equivalent is} 22...Ne7 23.Qd6! dxc3 (23...Qa4 24.e6! dxc3 25.Qb8+ {as in the text game}) ({Also equivalent is} 22...Ne7 23.Qd6! Qxc3?! 24.e6! Qc6 (24...Qa4) 25.Qf4+ Ke8 26.Qf7+ Kd8 27.Qf8+ Qe8 28.Qxg7+-) 23.Qd6+! Ne7! (23...Kg8 24.e6! Qb4 25.Bh7+!! Kxh7 26.Qxb4 Nxb4 27.e7+-) 24.e6! {The only move to maintain the pressure!} 24...Qa4! ({The only defence, once more!} 24...g6? 25.Qf4+! Nf5 26.Bxf5 +-) 25.Qb8+ Qe8 26.Qxa7 Nc6 27.Qc5+ Qe7 28.Qxd5 {For the first time, White is ahead (but only one pawn!!)} 28...Qf6+ 29.Ke1 Qe5+!? (29...Qh4+!? 30.g3 (30.Ke2 Qxh2 31.Be4! Qf4±) 30...Qd4 (30...Qxh2? 31.Qd6+! Kg8 32.e7! Qg1+ 33.Ke2 Qg2+ 34.Ke3 Qg1+ 35.Kf3 Qh1+ 36.Kg4!+-) 31.Qf5+ Qf6 (31...Ke7 32.Qf7+ ±) 32.Qf4 ±) (29...Qf4?! 30.Be4! (30.Qc5+ Ke8 31.Qxc3 Qe3+ 32.Kd1 Qg1+ 33.Qe1 Qxg2 34.Qh4 Qd5! {not as strong: now White is only slightly better}) 30...Qxh2 31.Qf5+ Ke7 32.Bxc6 bxc6 33.Qf7+ Kd6 34.Qd7+ Kc5 35.Qa7+! Kd5 36.e7! Qh4+ 37.Kf1 Qh1+ 38.Qg1 Qh5 39.Qe3! Qe8 40.a4! +- {Black is in zugzwang!}) 30.Qxe5 1-0 {and surprisingly, after this precise and difficult defense, Black resigned, although there is still a lot of work to win this favourable ending...if, indeed, it is possible!} ({White might even run into diffiulties:} 30... Nxe5 31.Ke2 Ke7 (31...Nxd3? 32.cxd3! {the king and pawn ending is winning easily} 32...Ke7 33.d4 Kxe6 34.Kd3 Kd6 35.Kxc3 Kd5 36.a4 +-) 32.Bf5 Kf6 33.Be4± b6 34.Bd5 g5 35.Bb3 h5 36.a4 h4 {and not it's not so clear exactly how White should proceed ...}) SUPPLEMENTAL GAMES Spassky-Karpov, 1979: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 3.g3 d5 4.exd5 Nxd5 5.Bg2 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bd6 7.Ne2 0-0 8.0-0 c6 9.d3 Nd7 10.f4 exf4 11.Bxf4 Ne5 12.Rb1 Rb8 13.c4 Bg4 14.h3 Bxe2 15.Qxe2 Ng6 16.Bxd6 Qxd6 17.Qf2 f5 18.c5 Qc7 19.Rbe1 Rf6 20.Bf3 Rbf8 21.d4 b6 22.cxb6 axb6 23.Re2 Qd8 24.Rfe1 f4 25.g4 Rd6 26.c3 Nh4 27.Re7 Nxf3+ 28.Qxf3 Qa8 29.R1e2 c5 1/2-1/2. Adams - Anand (Fidé Candidates, 1994): 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 d5 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.Nf3 Be7 6.Qe2 Nxc3 7.dxc3 c5 8.Bf4 Nc6 9.O-O-O Be6 10.h4 h6 11.g3 Qd7 12.Bg2 O-O-O 13.h5 Na5 14.b3 Nc6 15.Qf2 Qc7 16.Kb1 Kb8 17.Nh4 d4 18.cxd4 Nxd4 19.Kb2 Qb6 20.Be3 Qa5 21.Bd2 Qa6 22.Be3 Qa5 23.Bd2 Qa6 24.Be3 1/2-1/2. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Ceremonies of the Horsemen The Journal of the IECC Rank and File Volume 1, Issue 2, Section 2 *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Editorial Consultant: Lisa Powell Editor of this issue: Tim Nagley Assistant Editor & Admin. Manager: Tina Stanton Technical Editor: Robert Mueller *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* THE BOOK CORNER by JAMES SMITH 'CHESS MAIL' Tim Harding, Publisher In this months Book Corner I will review a relatively new magazine, and one that caters to correspondence players. Chess Mail, created and published by Tim Harding of Ireland, began last year. It was published 11 times (August and September were combined in one issue). Subscription prices vary depending on how and where it is sent, but run from US$46 to US$60 for a year. Diskettes with all the games in Chessbase format or PGN are also available, which makes for easy addition to your database. More information on how to order can be obtained from their web site http://www.chessmail.com/ Tim Harding is no stranger to chess, he is an established OTB International Master and veteran correspondence player. He has published many books over the years, including a collection entitled 'The Games of the World Correspondence Chess Championships I-VII' published by Batsford in 1979. He also writes an article for The Chess Café http://www.chesscafe.com. Readers will find his articles informative, well selected topics, and easily read and understood. A host of other authors, including IECC member and game analyst Roy DeVault, also contribute to the magazine. However, what really counts is content. And though small by magazine standards (8 inches by 5 inches and just over 60 pages) it is loaded with content. What impresses me most are the vast number of games, well-annotated at that. Each issue contains an article on opening theory, highlighting a line or variation. An article series 'The Best CC Game Ever?' is analyzing games nominated as the best ever played in CC chess, with GM Alexander Baubarin recently analyzing one of them. Interviews with notable CC players with several of their games is a regular feature. Numerous articles have appeared on email chess and chess web sites. Although not affiliated with the ICCF (International Correspondence Chess Federation), tournament results are printed. Of particular interest was the 4/98 issue which I fetched from my PO Box just today. On the cover is Roberto Alvarez, the IECG's equivalent to our Kyle Evans. A couple of quotes that IECC members may find interesting are in answer to a query about the early split of Lisa Powell from the IECG, "Probably it was a struggle for power, which produced a split in IECG, and the creation of IECC by Lisa Powell. Judging by later events, I think that Lisa Powell had good reasons! Although as a CC player I regret that a split took place. It is always easier to "divide" that to "join", and I trust that, in a near future, that situation may change." And in response to how he sees IECG developing, "This is why we must not get confused about our role in the chess world, pretending to offer extraordinary services which cannot be maintained, thus generating unrest among the players. We must be aware of our limitations and , if possible, we must establish a closer collaboration with ICCF and also with IECC, so that we can achieve bigger things together." And I am happy to say that the IECC has not been overlooked by Chess Mail. In an article on chess web sites, a reference was made to us. And in the present issue in an article about what IECG email play is all about, a reference is made about the IECC and that an upcoming issue will feature us. I personally have a very high opinion of Chess Mail. I think any serious chess player, CC or OTB, will benefit from this magazine. Anyone aspiring to be a world class player should consider it a must. The casual or novice player will probably find this magazine a bit over their head, and may find their chess literature dollar, if limited, better spent on books to bring their level of play up first to more fully benefit from it. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* CHESS BASICS by JAMES SMITH (This column is targeted mainly at those rated under 1500 looking for tips to improve their game.) I offer my thanks to those readers who filled out the survey, and especially to those who expressed appreciation for this column. It was certainly encouraging and appreciated! This month we are going to discuss a common mistake by the lower rated player (and sometimes higher rated players make this mistake too). It is called "letting your pieces sleep." What do I mean? Notice how in the following two games Black lets his pieces "sleep" on their original squares. And notice how little time it takes for White to deliver the 'coup de grace' as a result. [Site "London"] [Date "1796"] [White "Bowdler"] [Black "Conway"] [Result "1-0"] 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.d3 c6 4.Qe2 d6 5.f4 exf4 6.Bxf4 Qb6 7.Qf3 Qxb2 8.Bxf7+ Kd7 (8...Kxf7?? 9.Be5+! {and White wins Black's Queen.}) 9.Ne2 Qxa1 10.Kd2 Bb4+ 11.Nbc3 Bxc3+ 12.Nxc3 Qxh1 13.Qg4+ Kc7 14.Qxg7 {Pause for a moment and size up the situation. Yes, White is two rooks down. However, almost all of Black's pieces are "asleep" on their original squares! Only the Queen is out, and virtually out of play at that. All of White's pieces are active and focused on the target of the Black king. In essence, White is three pieces up!!} 14...Nd7 {Well look here, someone wakes up!} 15.Qg3 b6 16.Nb5+ cxb5 17.Bxd6+ Kb7 18.Bd5+ Ka6 19.d4 b4 20.Bxb4 Kb5 21.c4+ Kxb4 22.Qb3+ Ka5 23.Qb5# 1-0 {White delivers checkmate here after shedding nearly every piece! The sleeping Black forces can do nothing to defend their monarch.} The following is a famous game played by Paul Morphy while attending a performance of the "Barber of Seville". Morphy was, and still is, considered a chess genius. But what was the secret of his genius? Developing his pieces before beginning his attack, and then lunging with his full forces. In this case against an opponent whose pieces fell asleep at the opera! [Site "Paris"] [Date "1858"] [White "Morphy, Paul"] [Black "Count Isouard, Duke of Brunswick"] [Result "1-0" 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Bg4? {A move inviting disaster. Black will have to give up his bishop for White's knight while allowing White to build pressure on f7.} 4.dxe5 Bxf3 5.Qxf3 dxe5 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.Qb3 Qe7 8.Nc3 {White passes up the opportunity to play 8.Bxf7+ Qxf7 9.Qxb7 as he would rather "wake" his pieces up before launching his attack.} 8...c6 9.Bg5 {Notice how all of White's pieces are "awake" and he only need to castle to connect his rooks. However poor Black has two minor pieces and his rooks still asleep, while his King sits nervously in the centre.} 9...b5 10.Nxb5! cxb5 11.Bxb5+ Nbd7 12.O-O-O! Rd8 {Black has "arisen" his Queenside, but only because this was forced in response to White's attack. Black's king bishop and rook are so soundly "sleeping" that they never have a chance to participate.} 13.Rxd7 Rxd7 14.Rd1 Qe6 15.Bxd7+ Nxd7 16.Qb8+ Nxb8 17.Rd8# 1-0 So what is the lesson learned for the lower rated player? Work on developing your forces before you begin your attack. Get your pieces out on good squares and get your king to safety. Control the centre. Then formulate your plan and execute it, and hopefully your opponent's king! But what about those sharp lines that the Grandmasters play? - you may wonder. You may have seen games where the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn was played and Black went grubbing for pawns leaving his king in the centre, and pieces undeveloped, and still won. Yes, there are exceptions to the rule. And when you get better you will learn when the exceptions can be employed. With practice and study, it will come. But set a good foundation now and learn to play by the rules, and one of the first rules of play is to develop your pieces. Supplemental Game: [Site "Nuremberg"] [Date "1896"] [White "Janowski"] [Black "Schallop"] [Result "1-0"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 c5 4.e3 cxd4 5.exd4 Bg4 6.Bxc4 e6 7.Qa4+! Nc6 8.Ne5! Qxd4 9.Nxc6 Qe4+ 10.Be3 bxc6 11.Nc3 Qxg2 12.Bd5!! exd5 13.Qxc6+ Kd8 14.Qxa8+ Kd7 15.Qb7+ Ke6 16.Qc6+ Bd6 17.Bf4 1-0 *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* KLUBECK ON WAR by Martin Klubeck As promised in the previous issue, I'll be finishing up on my method of analysis. Now we take what we learned about analyzing a position based on our major principles. These principles include material, development, king safety, control of the center, space, and pawn structure. This issue, I'll introduce the table I use for analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of a position: Issue White Black -------------------------------------------------------- Material Development King Safety Center Space Pawn Structure Total Material: First, let's review how you assign values to each of these principles. For material, determine the value of pieces you have vs. value of pieces your enemy has, remembering that he or she is your enemy - this is war. If you are up 3 points or more look for a possible quick finish, but don't take silly risks. You can lose even when ahead in material by playing too passively or too wildly. Remember that the point count is based on a value system for each piece: pawns = 1, knights = 3, bishops = 3.5, rooks = 5 and queens = 10. Development: For development we look at how many pieces you have developed on the board vs. the number your opponent has, and how well they are developed. I basically give a point for every piece that is "well" developed, a half a point for weak development and no points for poor development. In a general sense this means that if you develop your knight to a2, I'd count it as not developed. How about a3? Well, I may give a half a point, but probably not. Of course you may be planning to move it from a3 to a strong post at b5 or c4 or even back to c2, but while it is at a3, I give it 0.5 at best. This is a bit subjective, and you have to learn to determine well developed vs. poorly developed, but hey, I never said it would be easy! King Safety: For king safety we check to see if you've castled. Is your castled position strong or weak? Is there a defending piece nearby to keep the king safe? I give a plus sign (or a zero) if you have castled behind three unmoved pawns and you have at least one piece near by defending. I give a minus 0.5 for the lack of a defender. I give a minus 1.0 for every pawn moved and another minus 1.0 (total of 2.0) if the pawn is no longer on the board. This means that if your king is out in the middle of the board trying to commit suicide, I'd give you a minus 6.5 - no protection. Center Control: For center control, we count control of the four squares e4, e5, d4 and d5. Count how many times you attack the square and how many times your opponent attacks the same square. If you have more pieces attacking the square, you get a point. If you both equally own the square you each get a half point. Remember, occupying the square does not count as an attack on the square. Space: To determine spatial advantage, we do the same kind of counting as for the center squares, except we count the number of squares controlled on the fourth rank or deeper into the opponent's territory. Pawn Structure: For pawn structure give a minus 1 for an isolani (isolated pawn); -2 for doubled pawns; -3 for a double isolani; -2 for backward pawns on or beyond the 4th rank; +2 for a deep pawn chain or cramping pawns; +3 for a passed pawn on or beyond the fourth rank. That was a quick review of what we covered last issue. For more detail, refer back to the last article. The next step is to use the table to determine a course of action. Before you decide that this table is the end-all, be-all for analysis, I have to stress something: the most important use of this table is in the fact that it gets you objectively to assess the position and think about where your strengths and weaknesses lie. It doesn't matter if you use a formula (like the one I'm about to give you) or not - the biggest benefit is that you can form a plan based on the position. While psychology, ability, and even personal tendencies can and do affect every game, you often can't study those. You can study issues based on the principles of analysis I've laid out. Here we go. A short version of what we covered last issue: 1. If you are up 3 or more points in material, look for a quick finish. Remember, three points only assures a draw if you get rid of all the other pieces on the board (unless the three points are in the form of pawns). 2. If you are up 2 or more points in development, look for combinations and sacrifices. You should have the advantage, see if you can use it before your opponent catches up. 3. If you are up 2 or more points in king safety, look for an attack on the king's position. 4. If you are up 2 or more points in the center, look to advance in space and to develop along owned squares toward a combination. Try to maintain your advantage. Look for posts for knights. 5. If you are up 3 or more points in space, look to build an attack. Look for combinations to win material. Look for squares deep in enemy territory to post your knights. 6. If you are up 5 or more points in pawn structure, look to finish your opponent off. Most times you should be able to win more material (pawns) due to the weakness. Don't simplify too early and lose the fire power necessary to attack the pawn weaknesses. That's it! Let's get to a game. Remember, I'm not as interested in looking into alternative lines (if x then y, but if j then k) as I am in analyzing the principles at given times in the game. These times in the game should relate to when you should be looking for a plan, or for moves which may swing the game in one direction or the other. [Event "M-1492.1"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1997.12.31"] [White "Smith, James"] [Black "Brooks, Mark"] [Result "0-1"] [Reference "Ceremonies of the Horsemen #2"] [Annotator "Martin Klubeck, 1934 (3/25/98)"] [Opening "Bird's Opening"] 1.f4 b6 2.Nf3 {Andrew Soltis gives 2.b3 Bb7 3.Bb2 in his book, Bird-Larsen Attack, Chess Digest Inc., 1989} 2...Bb7 3.b3 Nf6 4.c4 {This is not in keeping with the spirit of the Bird's Opening. Bird's Opening is essentially a Dutch Defense in reverse, and d5 by Black is expected and wanted. 4.c4 makes the game go in a different flavor} 4...c5 5.Nc3 {This early placement of the QN is also not commonly seen in the Bird's Opening. Bb2 is usually played with e3 and placement of the QN is reserved until later. Notice how both players are playing "modern": no center pawns have been touched! Let's look at the table.} Issue White Black -------------------------------------------------------- Material - - Development 2 2 King Safety -1 0 Center 2 2 Space 6 5 Pawn Structure -1 0 Total 8 9 Let's review how we calculated these scores. Material is even. If knights have been traded, you could give each player a score of 3.0, or since it is even, you could just use dashes again. Both players have two minor pieces developed (2.0 each - or dashes). White has a weakened kingside (a risk you take in the Bird's Opening), thus the -1. In the center White owns e5 and shares d4 and d5. Black owns e4 and shares d4 and d5. Hence 1 + .5 +0.5 = 2 for each player. Space is the number of squares owned outright equal to and past the fourth rank. You can (and should) pay special attention to the squares you share since these may be opportunities for you to gain the advantage by turning a shared square into one you own. On pawn structure, I gave White a minus one for the two unmoved center pawns. This is subjective, but I feel White is threatened with having a backward pawn in the center, and making it difficult for him to form a strong pawn structure. Giving White a minus one for the two unmoved pawns in the center, is more a means of pointing out the dangers than to prompt a plan by Black - although it could very well be made to work that way. For example, Black may find, by analyzing the table, that he should find a way to occupy the center and keep Whites pawns back, ore even better (for Black) - entice other White pawn weaknesses around the center. A new twist from last issue is the concept of point totals. This is useful to determine who is winning, a question I am always asked by students. If you are ahead by 5 or more points overall, I'd say you were clearly winning. Let's see how this pans out. 5...g6 {How does ...g6 change the nature of the analysis? Besides the fact that it gives a good square for the king bishop, it takes control of two more squares on the fourth rank or deeper (f5 and h5) and increases Black's space total to 7. Black is now ahead by three points.} 6.Bb2 Bg7 7.e3 {So far so good, for each player. They are still equal in development, but now White has gained control of the d4 square. Notice that once you have done a grid, you can refer back to how it changed or is changing as opposed to doing the grid from scratch. You can watch how the momentum or control of the game shifts.} 7...O-O 8.Be2 {This is one of the rare occasions that White can develop the king bishop to d3, blocking the d2 pawn! How would this change the situation?} with Be2 with Bd3 Issue white black white black ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Material - - - - Development 4 4 4 4 King Safety -1 0 -1 0 Center 2.5 1.5 3 1 Space 6 6 6 4 Pawn Structure 0 0 0 0 Total 11.5 12.5 12 9 {I took away the minus one for White's pawn position since he has two well based pawn chains now. Notice with Be2, that the bishop has not increased its scope significantly. The move is more of an opportunity to castle than to develop the bishop. Note also that I did not dock Black any points for king safety since the king bishop is standing in for the moved pawn. Of course, if White could trade off this bishop, Black would be at a -1 also. Very interesting! The difference in the totals swings the initiative from Black being ahead by 1 point to White being ahead by three! Of course it still is based on center control and space - very volatile areas, but important nonetheless. Note that you could also dock White another king safety point for the holes at e2 and f2, if White played Bd3.} {The analysis table is not intended as a silver bullet, able to kill all monsters with a single, well aimed shot. It is a tool. You still have to make decisions based on the tactics on the board, your strategy (which the tool should help you plan), and your style of play.} 8...Nc6 9.O-O d5 {Black finally plays in the center, gaining the e4 square and now taking a share of the d5 square again. The center count is now 2.5 for Black and 1.5 for White.} 10.d4 {Again, this is not in keeping with the flavor of the Bird's Opening, and the e3 pawn is now backward - what I warned you about earlier. I think 10.d3 would have maintained the battle, taking back the e4 square and maintaining the pawn chain.} 10...dxc4 {Black opens the d-file, gaining another attacker on the d5 square and penetrates deep into White's space.} 11.bxc4 {With this retort, we see a change in the board. I think White had to play 11.Bxc4. We'll look at the gird again:} Issue white black -------------------------------------------------------- Material - - Development 5 5 King Safety -1 0 Center 2.5 1.5 Space 6 5 Pawn Structure -2 0 Total 10.5 11.5 {While White is only down one point (isolani on a2 and backward pawn at e3), the game at this time is very fluid. While White's strengths are in center control and space, neither of these look to be long term advantages since those points are based on pawns that are likely to be traded. This is especially true in light of Black's strengths in pawn structure and king safety. By our table, White's mission should be to increase his space and lock in stone his control of the center, while Black's mission is to increase the weaknesses in White's pawns and strike at the king. As we will discuss at length in future articles, White's job is much harder.} 11...Ng4 {You should again quickly check to see how the game changes after this one move. Black uncovers his Bishop on g7, attacking the e5 and d4 squares while simultaneously shifting his attack on the e4 and d5 squares to e3 and d4. Ah, the beauty of the knight! The immediate danger is a loss of material on e3. By the way, this weakness on e3 is a constant worry in Bird's Opening.} 12.Nd5 {This is an attempt to protect e3 and block the fourth attacker (the queen) from d4. Unfortunately the knight is easily pushed with e6. This ends up looking like the mistake that costs White the game, but in truth the game-losing mistakes were made at 10.d4 and 11.bxc4. Don't believe me? Go back and review the analysis after move 10!} 12...e6 13.h3 Nh6 {Not necessary. It gave White hope due to the ill-placed knight. I think Nf6 was good enough and clearer. Even after the trades, White's pawn structure should spell a loss.} 14.Nc3 cxd4 15.exd4 Nxd4 {Creating two isolani for White. -2 total. Also h3 was another negative in the king safety department. What's the score now?} Issue white black -------------------------------------------------------- Material 0 +1 Development 4 4 King Safety -2 0 Center 2 2 Space 4 5 Pawn Structure -2 0 Total 6 12 {Wow: big edge for Black, even though the game is still very fluid. But the telling counts are in material and pawn structure!} 16.g4 Nxf3+ 17.Bxf3 Bxf3 {So, accordingly, when up 6 points after move 15, Black looks to trade off the hardware and go for a won endgame} 18.Qxf3 Qd4+ 19.Kh1 Qxc4 20.f5 {Not a bad move in the midst of defeat! Black cannot take the pawn with his g- or e-pawns due to g5 trapping the knight, and since Black cannot take, the knight becomes a non-developed piece. This gives White a fighting chance, but lack of king safety and weak pawn structure prove too much in the end.} 20...Rac8 21.f6 Bh8 22.Ne4 Rfd8 23.Qf4 Qd3 24.Nf2 Qb5 25.Rab1 Rc2 26.Ba3 Qd5+ 27.Kg1 g5 28.Qe4 Rxf2 29.Qxd5 Rxf1+ 30.Kxf1 Rxd5 31.Be7 Rd4 32.Rc1 0-1 I hope you saw that this analysis tool can help in making plans and determining strategy. The next articles will be on how we can learn about war from playing chess and how we can learn about chess from the concepts, principles and tenets of war. Meanwhile, try out the table. Use it as a teaching tool, study tool and as an analysis tool. I'd love to see a game where a reader uses it throughout an e-mail game to make plans and determine strategies. If anyone uses it throughout a game, send it to me and I will analyze it with you. I would hope also to discuss it in a future issue. Good hunting. Next issue, we go to war! *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Ceremonies of the Horsemen The Journal of the IECC Rank and File Volume 1, Issue 2, Section 3 *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Editorial Consultant: Lisa Powell Editor of this issue: Tim Nagley Assistant Editor & Admin. Manager: Tina Stanton Technical Editor: Robert Mueller *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* CHESS & CULTURE (This is the first of an occasional series by different authors). ELIJAH WILLIAMS OF BRISTOL & LONDON by CARL DUNN The quarter century beginning in 1830 was an exciting time for the contemporary chess players and extremely significant for those who followed. 1830 saw the formation of the Hamburg (Germany) Chess Club, and at about the same time the Bristol Chess Club, the first in England outside of London. Four years later saw a series of matches between LaBourdonnais and Macdonnell, the leading players of France and Britain, with LaBourdonnais demonstrating his superiority. In 1836 LaBourdonnais began "La Palamede", the first magazine devoted to chess. The years between 1840 and 1843 were important for a number of reasons. Howard Staunton defeated St. Amant in a match and England became the dominant chess power and remained so for many years. In the same year, 1843, the German Tassilio Lasa and von Heydebrandt published the first edition of the famous 'Handbuch des Schachspeiel" begun by his deceased friend, Paul Bilguer. The decade of the 1840s saw a great leap forward in communications, with the invention of the telegraph and introduction of cheap efficient postal service. Along with the several chess publications which received widespread attention, these factors resulted, for the first time, in a truly international chess community of the highest level players. Matches between the top players now became common, and in 1851 the first true International Chess Tournament was held in London. This was a knockout tournament (it seems that this format has returned) of 16 players, 8 of whom could be considered among the dozen best players at the time in the world. One result of this activity, was that the level of play at the very highest levels was improved. The top players could now compete with the other top players and had to improve to maintain their positions. The top players gravitated to one of the chess centers, usually in the capital city of the country. London, a metropolis of over 2 million, was without doubt the most important at that time. The concentation of masters resulted in a surge of theory, both opening and tactical, as well as widespread problem composition. One of the central personalities of that era was Elijah Williams, who is largely unheralded today. Williams has no openings or variations named for him (the so-called Williams Gambit of Bird's Opening was named for Bill Williams, a player from California in the 1980's.). He was a club organizer, chess writer and editor, a central figure in the theoretical advancements of the period, as well as one of the top dozen players in the world in the early 1850's. Williams was born in 1809 or 1810 in Bristol, England. He became an apothecary and learned chess early, possibly from Rev. F.H. Matthews, a long time member of the Bristol Chess Club. In 1829 or 1830 he was the founder or co-founder of the Bristol Chess Club, the first organized club in England outside of London. He served many years as President of the Club, " who no doubt gained it from possessing every qualification for his position, viz:--strength of play, sociability, urbanity, tact, judgment, patience, and enthusiasm for the game" (John Burt). In 1840, Williams began his literary career as chess editor for the "Bath and Cheltenham Gazette", a post he held until 1846. In 1841 he was prominent enough that Staunton played him, giving Williams odds of pawn and move, the standard practice of Staunton at the time. One of William's losses was published in the first edition of the "Handbuch des Schachspiels" in 1843. In 1844 (or 1845), he left for London, to become a Chess professional. One can only speculate as to his decision, but he must have had a deep love for the game as the financial prospects were dim, perhaps nil. Perhaps he was encouraged by Staunton, who was a de facto mentor of Williams at this time. In 1846 he published "The Souvenir of the Bristol Chess Club". Williams continued his chess literary career by editing "Horae Divanianae", a book of 150 games played at the famous (and still present) Simpson's Divan and Tavern at 100 The Strand, the book appearing in 1852. He also contributed chess articles to "The Historic Times" and "The Field", becoming chess editor of the latter in January 1853. As a chess player, Williams followed the typical pattern of most of the top players of the era, reaching his peak strength only after years of study and play. He was not, as has been reported, a boy genius who defeated "The Turk" in 1819 or 1820 (that honor belonging to a Peter Williams, who later operated "The Turk" for a time). In the absence of widespread chess books, the appearance of a natural genius, such as Morphy, was a rare occurrence. Williams has been characterized as knowing his openings well, but was less proficient in the middle game; a solid, cautious player who must have spent many hours with other top players analyzing positional openings, many of which are the precursors of modern openings. He played, as Black, the first recorded Nimzovich's Defense in 1846. In 1851 he played the White side of one of the first Rossolimo Variations of the Sicilian Defense. From 1846 to 1850, Williams played several matches, many of which are not recorded, and was knocked out of the 12 player tournament at the Divan in 1849 in the second round by Buckle. Williams was one of the 16 players in the great tournament in London in 1851, defeating another top player, Johan Lowenthal in the first round by a +2 -1 score. There was no seeding in the tournament and he had a break by having a weaker opponent in the second round, sweeping the match with four victories, thereby securing one of the top four places. In the third round, Williams faced Marmaduke Wyvill, Member of Parliament. Was he intimidated by the social standing of his opponent? It didn't seem so, as he won the first three games and was on the verge of winning the four-win match, when incredibly he lost the next four games. In the final match, he played Staunton for 3rd place, as Anderssen won the tournament by defeating Wyvill. Williams took 3rd place by defeating Staunton, and that prickly, self-absorbed primadonna never forgave him either for that, or for losing to Wyvill. Staunton immediately challenged Williams to a match, and although in the games played, Staunton won 6, Willams 4, with 3 draws, the technical winner was Williams as Staunton had foolishly given up a 4 game handicap. Williams played several other matches from 1851 to 1853, which was a golden age for matches in London. In 1854, one of the periodic cholera epidemics raged in London and over 10,000 people died. Elijah Williams, the apothecary, offered free medicine from his home to those who needed it. He fell victim to the scourge and died at Charing Cross Hospital on Fulham Palace Road on September 8th, 1854. He left his wife and two children destitute. To conclude, I can reproduce three of Williams' extant games, in one of which he defeated Howard Staunton: [{Event "?"] [Site "Bristol, England"] [Date "?"] [White "Williams, Elijah"] [Black "Henderson"] [Result "1-0"] 1.f4 f5 2.d4 d5 3.Nf3 c5 4.e3 e6 5.Bd3 c4 6.Be2 Nf6 7.O-O Bd7 8.b3 b5 9.bxc4 bxc4 10.Ne5 Nc6 11.Bh5+ g6 12.Nxg6 hxg6 13.Bxg6+ Ke7 14.Ba3+ Nb4 15.Bxb4 1-0 {The above game was probably played in the early 1840s.} [Event "Tournament"] [Site "London, England"] [Date "1851.6.?"] [White "Williams, Elijah"] [Black "Mucklow, J.R."] [Result "1-0"] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 e6 4.O-O Be7 5.Bxc6 bxc6 6.c4 d6 7.d3 e5 8.Ne1 Rb8 9.Nc3 Nf6 10.h3 O-O 11.Rb1 Kh8 12.f4 Ng8 13.fxe5 dxe5 14.Nf3 Qd6 15.Rf2 Rb7 16.Be3 Bd8 17.Qe2 f5 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Ne4 Bxe4 20.dxe4 Rd7 21.Rff1 Rdf7 22.Rbd1 Qe7 23.b3 h6 24.Qf2 Bb6 25.Qg3 Bc7 26.Kh2 Rf6 27.Qg4 Rd8 28.Nh4 Kh7 29.Rxd8 Bxd8 30.Rd1 Qf8 31.Rd8 Bb6 32.Nf5 Rg6 33.Qh4 Qf6 34.Qh5 Qe6 35.Rb7 Kh8 36.Nh4 Kh7 37.Qxg6+ Qxg6 38.Nxg6 Kxg6 1-0 [Event "Tournament"] [Site "London, England"] [Date "1851.07.??"] [White "Staunton, Howard"] [Black "Williams, Elijah"] [Result "0-1"] 1.c4 e6 2.e2 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Be7 5.Nc3 O-O 6.Nge2 Bb4 7.O-O d6 8.d4 Bxc3 9.bxc3 Qe7 10.Ba3 c5 11.Rb1 e5 12.Rb5? a6 13.Rb6 Nbd7 14.Rb1 e4 15.Qd2 Qf7 16.f3? Qxc4 17.fxe4 fxe4 18.Bh3 b5 19.Nf4 Nb6 20.Bg2 Qf7 21.dxc5 Nc4 22.Qc1 Qa7! 23.Re1 dxc5 24.Bb2 g5 25.Ne2 Bg4 26.h3 Bf3 27.Kh2 Rad8 28.Ba1 Rd2 29.Rb2 Rfd8 30.Nd4 Rxb2 31.Bxb2 cxd4 32.cxd4 Bxg2 33.Kxg2 Nd5 34.Kh2 Rf8 35.Qc2 Qf7 36.Re2 Qf1 37.Bc1 Nb4 0-1 {Staunton himself appended the "?" to 12.Rb5 and 16.f3, and the "!" to 22... Qa7. He neglected to comment, however, on 15.Qd2, where he could have played 15.Nf4. He could also have resigned after 27.. Rad8.} References: The Oxford Companion to Chess, 2nd Edition, David Hooper & Kenneth Whyld, 1992 The Bristol Chess Club, John Burt 1883, 1997 edition, The Bristol Chess League The Myers Openings Bulletin, Numbers 8 and 9, Hugh E. Myers, 1980 Nimzovich's Defense, Hugh E. Myers, Caissa Editions, 1985 John Richards, Secretary, Bristol Chess League, john@r-cube.co.uk Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, David Levy & Kevin O'Connell, Editors, Oxford University Press, 1981 *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* OPENING INNOVATIONS by David Gill I've heard it said that there is "nothing new to discover in chess" any more. The writer of this column doesn't believe any such nonsense. New moves are being discovered every day. In this column, we analyse games with opening innovations. If you (or your opponent) have played a game in which a new opening variation was introduced, please send a copy of the game (in PGN format) to: In most cases, the Queen's Gambit is not really a gambit at all. In this game, White introduces a new idea and a new move which turns it into a true gambit. The result is a 15 move checkmate against a senior master. [Site "IECC"] [Event "Trio"] [Date "1997.06.04"] [White "Gill, David"] [Black "Peddie, Ian"] [Result "1-0"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 {In recent years, the Queen's Gambit Accepted has become popular again. Nigel Short used it as an effective weapon in defeating Karpov in their Candidates Match.} 3.e4 {This variation has become popular of late. Among those who have played the Black side of this variation, there are such notables as Anand, Sereiwan, Polgar, Huebner, Ivanchuk and Timman; on the White side, Karpov, Kasparov, Beliavsky, Shirov, Miles and Sokolov.} (3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Bxc4 c5 {is the Classical Variation.}) 3...e5 (3...c5 (3...Nf6)) 4.Nf3 exd4 (4...Bb4+ {is also often played.}) 5.Bxc4 Bb4+ 6.Nbd2 (6.Bd2 {is also commonly played. 6.Nbd2 aims to keep the bishops on the board and avoid simplifications.}) 6...Nc6 7.O-O Nf6 (7...Qf6 {is another idea.}) 8.e5 Ng4 {This move is more commonly seen in the 4...Bb4+ variation, but it has been played before in this position too.} (8...Nd5 {is most commonly played, and probably best.}) 9.h3 Nh6 {Of course capturing the e-pawn would submit the Black knight to a devastating pin on the e-file.} (9...Ngxe5?? 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Re1) 10.Ne4 {The innovation. This new move turns the opening into a true gambit. The d-pawn is ignored, and instead Wwhite turns his attention to the Black king. This move brings the knight to the kingside and threatens Bxh6 followed by Nf6.} (10.Nb3 {is the normal move in these types of positions. White first recaptures the pawn, and can then apply pressure along the c-file, or play for a kingside attack based on his strong e-pawn and spatial advantage.}) 10...Nf5 {This is the normal move that would also normally follow against 10.Nb3.} {This very natural move responds to White's threat of Bxh6 followed by Nf6+, and places the knight on an active square where it defends the d-pawn, and can quickly jump into an attack on the White king, or defend his own king.} {What else can Black do? Can he allow his kingside to be broken up, by Bxh6? He has to find a safe haven for his king. If he allows Bxh6 then he will have difficulty hiding his king. However, we'll examine some of the alternatives ...} (10...Bf5 {Black ignores the dark square threats and instead develops his bishop to a solid square} 11.Bxh6 gxh6 (11...Bxe4 12.Bxg7 Rg8 13.Bf6 Qd7 14.Ng5 {this position is complicated, with Black having counterchances against the White king, but I feel that White has the stronger attack.} 12.Nf6+ +/-) (10...Be7 {this move covers the threat to f6. However, moving the bishop a second time does nothing for Black's already laggard development, and he allows his kingside to get broken up} 11.Bxh6 {of course this move is not forced} 11...gxh6 12.Qc1 +/= {White will recover the pawn with pressure.}) (10...Be6 {a typical maneuver in this variation: Bblack tries to exchange off one of White's most aggressive pieces} 11.Bxe6 fxe6 12.Bxh6 gxh6 13.Qb3 {with strong play for the pawn.}) 11.Nfg5 Nh6 {The knight does a little dance, going back to h6 again. But what is better? Let's look at some options.} (11...O-O {too bad black can't find safety in this move - this can be classified as "castling into it" ...} 12.Qh5! {this move gives White a devastating attack} 12...h6 (12...Nh6 13.Nxf7 (13.Nf6+ gxf6 14.Qxh6 fxg5 15.Bxg5 +-) 13...Nxf7 (13...Rxf7 14.Bxh6 +-) 14.Ng5 +-) 13.Bxf7+ (13.Nxf7 +/- {also wins}) 13...Rxf7 14.Qxf7+ Kh8 15.e6! {This line shows some of the beautiful attacking combinations at White's disposal in this line. Notice especially the multiple Queen sacrifice offerings in the 15...Nfe7 line.} 15...Nh4 {or else Qg6} (15...Nce7 16.Qh5 (16.Qxf5 {also wins} 16...Nxf5 17.Nf7+ Kg8 18.Nxd8 {White is up a piece}) 16...Qf8 17.Nf7+ Kg8 18.Nf6+ gxf6 19.Nxh6+ Kg7 20.Nxf5+ Nxf5 21.Qxf5 +/- {White is up the exchange, plus a pawn, and Black's king is still exposed}) (15...Nfe7 16.Nf6!! Ne5! 17.f4!! Nxf7 ((17...Bxe6 18.fxe5!! Bxf7 (18...Bd5 19.e6!! Qf8 20.Qh5! gxf6 21.Nf7+ Kg8 22.Nxh6+ Kg7 (22...Kh8 23.Nf7+ Kg8 24.Qh8#) 23.Ng4 +- {and white's attack will win}) 19. Nxf7#) (17...Nf5 18.Qg6!! Nxg6 19.Nf7#)) 18.Nxf7#) 16.Qh5 Kg8 17.Qxh4 +/- hxg5 18.Nxg5 +-)) (11...Be6 {attempting to reduce White's pressure by trading pieces} 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.Bxe6 {where will Black's king go now? White has a pretty strong threats of Qh5+ and Qf3, not to mention Bxf5} 13...Nfe7 14.Qh5+ g6 (14...Ng6 15Ng5 +/-) 15.Nf6+ Kf8 16.Qh6#) 12.e6! {White uses this break to expose Black's king.} 12...O-O (12...fxe6 {looks suicidal to me} 13.Qh5+ {looks extremely dangerous for Black: he will have a hard time finding safety for his king.} 13...Kf8 (13...g6 14.Qxh6 Bf8 15.Qh4 h6 (15...Be7 16.Qg3 +/-) 16.Nf3 +/-) 14.Qf3+ Ke8 15.Nxe6 Bxe6 16.Bxe6 +/- {Black's king is stuck in the center, and White has open lines to attack it.}) 13. Qd3!! Kh8?? {It emerged that Black actually thought that White's previous move was Qb3, the sort of thing which happens only in correspondence and blindfold games, but Black is in any case lost.} (13...g6 14.exf7+ (14.Nxf7! {even better} 14...Nxf7 15.Bh6! Nce5! 16.exf7+ Rxf7 17.Bxf7+ Nxf7 18.Qc4 +/-) 14...Nxf7 15.Nxf7 Rxf7 16.Ng5 +/-) 14.Nf6! Qxf6 (14...g6 15.Ngxh7 {should win easily} (15.Nfxh7 {should also win}) 15...Kg7 16.Bg5 Bxe6 17.Bxe6 fxe6 18.Nh5+ Kxh7 19.Bxd8) 15.Qxh7# 1-0 *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* FISCHERRANDOM CHESS ANALYSIS by TIM NAGLEY FischerRandom Chess is played the same as regular chess, except that subject to a couple of limitations, the pieces are arranged randomly behind the pawns before the start of the game, Black's setup mirroring White's and the same setup being used for each game of the match. (This is done by the TD at the start of each match). This makes players think strategically from the very beginning, since they are unable to rely on "book" openings. In order to play, the only "strange" thing you need to understand is how to castle. The FischerRandom TD's have noted recently that the castling rules seem to be the only issue which causes any problems for or between the players, so we'll summarise them. Subject to the usual conditions (i.e. the king must not be checked; the king and rook must not have moved prior to castling; the king must not move over a square that is checked; there mustn't be a piece on any square over which the king or rook pass), when castling with the "a-side" rook, the king moves to c1 for White, c8 for Black, and the rook moves to d1 for White, d8 for Black. When castling with the "h-side" rook, the king moves to g1 (g8), and the rook moves to f1 (f8), regardless of the starting position of the pieces concerned. It sounds easy, but it still apparently causes the occasional misunderstanding. We advise players to set out the position in the Forsyth notation in their email immediately after castling. (The two TD's do this in their ever-running mutual two-game matches.) In FischerRandom circles, we talk of a-side and h-side castling, rather than queenside and kingside, for obvious reasons. Let's now proceed to this month's pair of (lightly annotated) games: [Event "FR-6.1"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1997.09.30"] [White "Cheski, Joanna"] [Black "Fischer, Richard"] [Result "1-0"] [FEN "qbrkrnbn/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/QBRKRNBN"] {Before the first move, let's note some features of interest about this setup. See how relevant they become in the two games.} {The pawns at g2 and g7 are entirely unprotected; the d-pawns are protected only by the king.} {Castling on the a-side looks inconvenient, perhaps even dangerous, with the queen on a1 (a8) and a bishop on b1 (b8), because of the need to advance pawns on this side to activate these pieces; castling on the h-side looks a better option, but even there it's not possible, because of the bishop on g1 (g8), to place the castled king behind three undisturbed pawns (see the comments on this subject in Martin Klubeck's instructive article in this issue).} {Because of the starting position of the queens, we might expect the a1/h8 and h1/a8 diagonals to be of particular interest in these games.} 1.Nhg3 c5 2.Nf5 {White aims straight for Black's unprotected g-pawn. Note that this is at the cost of moving the same piece twice in the opening - not recommended by Nimzowitch; but Confucius allegedly pointed out that it's not possible the "same" piece once.} 2...Be5 3.N1e3 (3.f4 {could safely be played.}) 3...e6 4.f4 exf5 5.fxe5 Rxe5 6.c4 g6 {The natural move, but it blocks in the knight.} 7.Nd5 Ne6 {The game is wide open, and largely tactical in nature.} 8.b4! d6 (8...Qb8) 9.bxc5 Qb8 10.Nf6 (10.f4!? {might, alternatively, be interesting.}) (10.cxd6 {also looks playable.}) 10...Ke7 (10...dxc5 {is probably better, although the open c-file, with a rook on c1, is going to be beneficial to White, either way.}) 11.Nxg8+ Rxg8 12.d4 Re4 13.Bxe4 fxe4 14.cxd6+ Qxd6 15.Qb1 Nxd4 16.Qxb7+ Kf6 17.c5 Qe5 18.c6 {Not side-stepping for the time-consuming and unnecessary 18.Qxa7.} 18...Nb5 19.Qd7 Qd6+? {Exchanging the queens can only lead to an endgame favorable to White.} 20.Qxd6+ Nxd6 21.Bxa7 Ra8 22.Bd4+ Ke6 23.c7 Rc8 24.Kd2 (24.Rb1 {also plays well: (24...Rxc7? Bxh8)}) 24...f6 25.Rc6 Nhf7 26.Rec1 f5 27.a4 1-0 [Event "FR-6.2"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1997.09.30"] [White "Fischer, Richard"] [Black "Cheski, Joanna"] [Result "0-1"] [FEN "qbrkrnbn/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/QBRKRNBN"] 1.Ne3 Ne6 2.Ng3 Ng6 3.Nh5 b6 {A discreet, perhaps slightly non-committal opening: neither player has tried, for instance c4 or ...c5.} 4.f3 (4.Nf5 {might play well.}) 4...Ngf4 5.Nxf4 Nxf4 6.b3 f6 7.c3 c6 8.h3 d5 9.c4 e6 10.d4 Bf7 {Play seems fairly level up to here.} 11.Qc3 O-O {This puts Black's king on g8, her rook on f8, just as in normal chess.} 12.cxd5 f5?! {12...exd5 {doesn't appear to play too badly ...} 13.Bf5 Rc7 {is somewhat inconvenient for Black's dark square bishop, but arguably less disadvantageous than the text.}) 13.dxc6 Be8 14.d5 Nxd5 15.Nxd5 exd5 {Although White appears slightly better at this juncture, a winning plan is not so easy to produce, and the c-pawn is hanging.} 16.Bd4 Bg3 17.Rh1 Rxc6 18.Qb2 Rf7 {Preparatory to ...Re7 or ...Rc7} 19.Bd3 f4 20.Bc3 Re7 21.O-O-O?? {One can't help wondering whether White was intending a different position to result from the actuality of his king on c1 and rook on d1.} 21...Rec7 22.Kb1 Rxc3 23.Rc1 Rxc1+ (23...Qc6 {also plays well, but Black is essentially winning at this point.}) 24.Rxc1 Rxc1+ 25.Qxc1 Qc6 26.Qa3 Bf2 27.Qb4 Be3 28.Qa3 {And, at this point, Black can announce mate in 5 moves} 28...Qc3 29.Qb2 Qe1+ 30.Kc2 Qd2+ 0-1 Commiserations to Richard Fischer on finding an opponent in such good form as Joanna Cheski in the above two games. Full details of this section of the IECC are available via IECC's homepage. There's also a FischerRandom Web page with further information, located at: And the rules and playing details are fully discussed at: We hope you've enjoyed these games, and that you'll soon join the ever-increasing band of IECC players (with FR-ratings varying from below 1000 to over 2300) signing up for a two-game match of FischerRandom chess. New players are allocated their current IECC rating as their initial FR-rating, and all FR-ratings are maintained separately from standard ratings. Mark Brooks, FischerRandom TD Tim Nagley, FischerRandom Asst TD *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Thank you for reading: Ceremonies of the Horsemen The Journal of the IECC Rank and File *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*