*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Ceremonies of the Horsemen The Journal of the IECC Rank and File Volume 1, Issue 3, 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 3 of Ceremonies of the Horseman, the Journal of the IECC Rank & File. This issue is in two sections. In Section One, we have some brief member bio's (more are needed, please!), and a further 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 Section Two, we have some more annotated games, the continuation of Mihnea Voloaca's outstanding instructive series of Analysis, Questions and Answers (started off in Issue 1) and the first of an occasional series of articles loosely about Chess & Psychology. (There's no FischerRandom analysis this time; just this snippet of FR-gossip: in a recently started two-game match, both the games started off 1.O-O O-O. One of them continued 2.e4 c5, which one player described as 'Sicilian-ish', but his opponent accurately and neatly pointed out that any similarity was an evanescent mirage!) Issue 4, to be published around mid-August 1998, will contain further installments of some of the series of tuition columns from the first two issues. (IECC has such a wealth of talent and interests that it isn't possible to include everything in each issue!) Last month, I was delighted to announce that Lisa Powell had joined the Journal staff as Editorial Consultant, where all her experience is already proving invaluable to us. Lisa is also continuing as the IECC's Senior Advisor, and is at last devolving a couple of her routine administrative tasks to other staff-members, so as to have more time available for her forthcoming career as a best-selling novelist. I'm taking over the compilation of the master-list of absences (vacations, business-trips, email access interruptions, etc.), so if you're planning to be away from your computer for any reason, please let me know at , but don't trouble Lisa with the news. Kyle Evans, our CEO, has also asked me to mention that members need not routinely notify him of impending absences. Anothers of Lisa's administrative tasks, compilng the regular Events Updates and posting them to the newsgroup, is being taken over by my friend and compatriot David Glew, whom many readers will already know as a regular contributor to this Journal and as an Assistant TD of Knock-Outs. Tina Stanton (our Assistant Editor and Administration manager and Assistant TD of two-game matches) is IECC's new Volunteer Co-ordinator, so she's the person to write to if you'd like to help out with anything, at . Also, if you know of any IECC members who haven't received this Journal, please let Tina know. We're very grateful for all the continuing enthusiastic letters about this Journal, and willing to listen to criticisms and suggestions too, so please write and give us your opinions if you wish to. In case any readers still haven't yet caught up with older news, the IECC's website is currently located at: . Lastly, a member's query: does anyone know anything about a game played by Joseph Blackburne in 1881, in which Blackburne played 1.a4 and won the game? I think his opponent was J. Noa, but I can't find out any more, and Jihuan Wu and I would love to know the whole story! *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* TINA STANTON (1464 28- 7-13 CAN) writes ... I live in Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada with my extremely bad cat, Pookie, and currently work for a local telephone company as a graphics designer. I'm currently also going to school part time in hopes of someday getting a diploma as a Software Developer. I joined the IECC about 4 years ago having begun to play chess only at about the same time. I enjoy playing chess and meeting people from all over the world so much so that a few months ago, I became a volunteer with the IECC. In addition to being Assistant Editor and Administration Manager of this Journal, I'm an Assistant TD with two-game matches, and the Volunteer Co-ordinator of IECC, so I'm the person to notify in the first instance if you'd like to help out with anything. In what little spare time I get, I enjoy writing haiku, having had a few published already, and actually creating and designing web pages for myself, friends and others. If interested you can visit my web site at http://www.geocities.com/~ehlana/ TERRY J. LANE (1273 0- 1-20 USA) writes ... I am a 15-year-old chess-player from Wyoming. I was taught chess at the age of four, but didn't get serious until about two years ago. I have an over-the-board ELO rating of around 1500. My IECC rating isn't as high, but I am learning. I am new to e-mail chess and have found that a lot more time is required for each move. I would like to become a master by the age of18. The state Championship crown is held by a player with a United States Chess Federation rating of 2100, and I would like to beat him in a few years. If you have any interesting, good games that can be pasted to an e-mail, please send them to me at: Thank you. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* ANALYSIS BY DAVID GLEW (1932 44-11- 6 ENG) [Event "Quad 359.11"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1997.01.19"] [White "Moston, Mike"] [Black "Thompson, Paul"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "C24"] 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 {The Bishop's Opening. Judging by the lack of master games I can find, it is not very often played in master or grandmaster chess. It is obviously an attempt by White to command the centre other than by the normal d- and e- pawns supported by the knights, and as such may have the usual advantages of novelty and rarity against players who are well versed in the more usual openings.} 3.d4 (3.d3 Nc6 4.Nf3 {seems a safer continuation. In the text variation White contrives to lose a pawn for very little.}) 3...exd4 4.Nf3 Nxe4 {A continuation which takes advantage of White's weak defence to win a pawn.} 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5 Be7 (6...Nc6 {would have developed a piece with the gain of a tempo.}) 7.Nc3 c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Rhe1 Be6 10.Bd3 Nbd7 11.Qh4 c5 {This, the move played by Karpov in Timoschenko-Karpov, USSR Championship 1967, seems unorthodox in the sense that up to this point, Black has had the better of the opening, but now he apparently begins temporarily to lose some initiative.} {An interesting, and apparently stronger, continuation is perhaps 11...Nc5.} (11...Nc5 12.Nd4 Ng8 (12...Nfd7 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.Qxe7+ Kxe7 15.f4 g6 16.g4 Nxd3+ 17.Rxd3 Nc5 18.f5 Nxd3+ 19.cxd3 Kd6 20.fxe6 Rae8 21.Nf3 fxe6 22.d4 Rhf8 23.Re3 a6 24.Na4 Rf4 25.Nc5 Re7 26.h3 a5 27.Nd3 Re4 28.Kd2 b6 29.Nf2 Rxe3 30.Kxe3 c5 31.Nd3 {1-0 Neiman, E - Macles, J 1989}) 13.f4 Bxg5 14.fxg5 Ne7 15.Bf5 a6 16.Bxe6 Nxe6 17.Rxe6 fxe6 18.Nxe6 Qd6 19.Qh3 Qe5 20.Rf1 d4 21.Ne2 Qe3+ 22.Qxe3 dxe3 23.Nc7+ Kd7 24.Nxa8 Rxa8 25.Rf3 {1/2-1/2 Rheinwalt, T - Abu Rab, Z 1993}) (11... h6!? 12.Nd4 Nc5 13.Nxe6 Nxe6 {is another line which would appear to give Black at least as good an advantage.}) 12.Ne5 {Perhaps a little premature? It's hard to see what this immediately achieves: the knight, although often a powerful attacking force in crowded conditions, has only the rook on e1 in support and is easily repulsed. The centre is at present far too well defended, and White might instead concentrate more on Black's kingside.} (12.Bxf6 Nxf6 13.Ng5 {would have given White a stronger position.}) 12...Nxe5 13.Rxe5 h6 (13...d4 14.f4 Nd7 15.Bb5 Bxg5 16.fxg5 Qc7 17.Bxd7 Kxd7 18.Qe4 {Timoschenko-Karpov, as quoted above.}) 14.Bb5+ (14.Bf5 Qc7 15.Rde1 Ne4 16.Rxe6 fxe6 17.Bg6+ Kf8 18.Nxe4 dxe4 19.Bxe7+ Qxe7 20.Qxe4 Rd8 {is not necessarily the most brilliant combination, but is certainly an improvement on the text moves. With this variation Black is up a rook to a bishop, but white has the better pawn formation, and Black has an isolated e-pawn which will take a lot of defending and his king is out in the open. In addition, he could well be on the point of losing another pawn. All in all, White has realistic chances of drawing the game.}) 14...Kf8 15.Re2 (15.Ree1 Kg8 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 {is not really any better, unless Black makes the blunder of re-taking with the g-pawn when after} (16...gxf6? 17.Nxd5 Bxd5 18.Bc4 Qc7 {Black loses a whole piece and White has a winning position.})) 15...Qb6 16.a4 {Too passive. The game is opening up and bishops, with diagonals becoming available, should be coming into their own. At this stage it is often not enough just to support them with pawns, as in the opening. They should be used as the powerful attacking forces that they are, and on the basis that attack is the best form of defence.} (16. Bd7 Rg8 17. Bxf6 Bxf6 18. Qa4 {gives White a much better position.}) 16...Rh7 {Attacking the bishop on g5 with the h-pawn.} (16...Rg8 17.Bd2 a6 18.Bd3 {would have been stronger: White's bishops have been repulsed, giving Black much more space to launch his own attacks.}) 17.Bxf6 Bxf6 18.Qg3 a6 19.Bd3 g6 20.Rde1 (20. Ree1 {is better, leaving a line of retreat for the bishop on d3. As we shall see immediately, the bishop now has nowhere to go.}) 20...c4! 21.Bxg6 Rg7! {An excellent combination of moves from Black. From now on, the bishop's days are numbered.} 22.h4 Bd7 23.a5 Qb4 (23...Qxa5? 24.Qd6+!) 24.h5 fxg6 25.Qf3? {This move finally puts the game out of reach, although it was arguably lost as early as move 21.} (25. Qf4 Bf5 26.Qxh6 {would, perhaps, have put off the evil day a little longer!}) 25...Rf7 26.Qxd5 Bc6 27.Qe6 gxh5 0-1 ANALYSIS BY STEFAAN SIX (1977 8- 4-13 + BEL) [Event "TH-M-78.2"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1998.01.23"] [White "Bratton,Alan"] [Black "Dimtchev,Boris"] [Result "1-0"] [E97] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5 7.O-O Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.b4 Nh5 10.Re1 Nf4 {Taking the knight off the edge. In the classical King's Indian, White tries to break through on the queenside while holding his own on the kingside. Of course the opposite applies to Black.} 11.Bf1 a5 12.b5 !? (12.b5 {is probably best.}) (12.bxa5 Rxa5 13.g3 Nh3+ 14.Bxh3 Bxh3 15.Rb1 Bc8 16.Bb2 {with equality, is also playable.}) 12...h5 13.Ba3 f5?! {Too early: Black should avoid being tied up by 14.b6! and therefore 13...b6 was necessary.} (13.b6 14.g3 Nh3+ 15.Bxh3 Bxh3 16.Ng5 Bc8 17.Qd2 Bb7 (17...Bh6) {with an equal position.}) {Of course 13..f5 is very tempting, and it's the usual stuff for Black - but it's the exception that proves the rule!} 14.b6! {A very strong move: now Black is on his way to a first class funeral, as White's position is already so superior!} 14...cxb6 15.g3 fxe4 16.Nxe4 Nh3+ 17.Bxh3 Bxh3 18.Nfg5 Bg4 19.f3 Bf5 20.Nxd6 Bh6 21.Ne6 Bxe6 22.dxe6 Bg7 {This entire line was almost forced. Now we can clearly see why 14.b6 is such a killer.} 23.Nb5 Qc8? {Oops.} (23...Bf6 {is better, leading to} 24.Qc2 Re8 25.Rad1 Qc8 26.Bxe7 Rxe7 27.Qxg6+ Bg7 28 Rxe5 Qxc4 {and although Black still stands badly, there may be chances for a swindle or two ...}) 24.Bxe7 Re8 25.Bd6 Qxc4 26.Nc7 e4 (26...Rad8 {is now better, leading to} 27.Re4 Qxc7 28.Bxc7 Rxd1+ 29.Rxd1 Rxe6 30.f4 Re8 31.Bxe5 {but White is still winning, of course ...}) 27.Rxe4 1-0 {So, we saw how Black got swept away due to a little inaccuracy in the opening. I think it's a good thing for your opening repertoire that once in a while you walk into the occasional wizard who shakes the foundations of your system. If I can offer Black this comfort: I know how it feels. I also hate it...} ANALYSIS BY PASCAL ROQUES (2337 2- 1- 1 FRA) [Event "Swiss #54.1"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1997"] [Round "1"] [White "Bacino, Gustavo"] [Black "Brady, Stuart"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "1900"] [BlackElo "1900"] [ECO "B00"] [Opening "King's Pawn, Nimzovich D"] 1.e4 Nc6 {The Nimzovich Defense has been played extensively at Grandmaster level by Britain's Tony Miles.} 2.Nf3 {The other move is 2.d4, with two very different main lines: 2...d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.d5 Ne5, and 3.e5 Bf5.} 2...d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bg4 {A thematic move for Black.} 5.d5 Ne5 {5...Nb8 is another possible choice, with completely different games. How Miles himself treats this variation is shown in a supplemental game below. 5...Be2 and 5...Be3 are also commonly played.} 6.Bb5+ (6.Nxe5!? {is also very interesting} 7.Qxg4 Nxg4 8.Bb5+ c6 (8...Qd7 9.Bxd7+ Kxd7 10.h3 Nf6 11.f4 exf4 12.Bxf4 e6 13.dxe6+ Kxe6 14.Nb5 Ne8 15.O-O-O Bd6 16.Nd4+ Kf6 17.e5+ Bxe5 18.Bxe5+ Kxe5 19.Rhe1+ Kf6 20.Rf1+ Kg6 21.Nf3 f6 22.Rd7 Nd6 23.Nh4+ Kg5 24.Rxg7+ Kxh4 25.Rxf6 h6 26.Rf4+ Kh5 27.g3 1-0 {Lanzani - Bellia 1990}) 9.dxc6 a6 10.c7+ axb5 11.cxd8Q+ Rxd8 12.Nxb5+-) (6...Bxd1 {and the following moves are quite forced:} 7.Bb5+ c6 8.dxc6 dxe5 9.c7+ Qd7 10.Bxd7+ Kxd7 11.Kxd1 {and Miles continued:} 11...e6 12.f3 Kxc7 13.Ke2 Kc6 14.Nd1 Bc5 15.Be3 Nd7 16.Nf2 Bxe3 17.Kxe3 Nc5 18.Rhd1 Rad8 19.Rxd8 Rxd8 20.Rd1 Rh8 21.Nd3 Nxd3 22.Rxd3 h5 23.Rc3+ Kd6 24.Ra3 a6 25.Rd3+ Kc6 26.Rc3+ Kd6 27.a4 g5 28.Rd3+ Kc7 29.Rc3+ Kd6 30.a5 Rg8 31.Rd3+ Kc7 32.Rc3+ Kd7 33.Rb3 Kc7 34.Rc3+ Kd7 35.Rd3+ Kc7 36.Rc3+ 1/2-1/2 {Renet - Miles, Zt Linares 1995}) 6...c6 (6...Ned7!? {is perhaps safer:} 7.h3 Bxf3 8.Qxf3 g6 9.O-O Bg7 10.Re1 O-O 11.a4 c6 1/2-1/2! {Anand - Miles, Cannes 1989}) 7.dxc6 (7.Nxe5!? {transposes to the note above.}) 7...bxc6?? {The losing mistake!} (7...Nxc6 {forced: a game between Timman and Miles followed this way:} 8.e5 dxe5 9.Qxd8+ Rxd8 10.Bxc6+ (10.Nxe5 Bd7 11.Nxd7 Rxd7 12.Be3 a6 13.Bxc6 bxc6 {unclear}) 10...bxc6 11.Nxe5 Bd7 12.Be3 Nd5?! 13.Bxa7 Nxc3 14.bxc3 Be6 15.a4 f6 16.Nxc6 Ra8 17.Nd4 Bc4 18.Bb6 e5 19.Nf5+= Kd7 20.a5 Kc6 21.Ne3 Ba6 22.Kd2 g6 23.c4 Bb4+ 24.c3 Bd6 25.Kc2 f5 26.Kb3 Rhc8 27.Rhd1+- Rab8 28.Rd2 f4 29.Nc2 Kd7 30.c5 Rxc5 31.Nb4 Bc4+ 32.Kc2 Rb5 33.Rad1 R8xb6 34.axb6 Rxb6 35.Re1 Rb5 36.Ra1 Rb7 37.Ra8 Ke6 38.Nc6 Bb3+ 39.Kc1 Rb6 40.Rb2 Bc5 41.Nb4 Bc4 42.Rc8 Rb5 43.Na6 Ba3 44.Nc7+ Kd6 45.Nxb5+ Bxb5 46.Kc2 Ba4+ 47.Kb1 Bxb2 48.Kxb2 e4 49.c4 e3 50.fxe3 fxe3 51.Kc3 Bc6 52.g3 Bf3 53.Re8 e2 54.Kd3 Kc5 55.Re5+ Kb4 56.Rb5+ Ka4 57.Kd2 g5 58.Rxg5 1-0 {Timman-Miles, Tilburg 1981}) 8.Nxe5! Bxd1 (8...dxe5 (8...cxb5 9.Nxg4+-) 9.Bxc6+ Bd7 (9...Nd7 10.Qxg4+-) 10.Bxa8 Qxa8 11.Qd3+- {is also hopeless}) 9.Bxc6+! {It's over!} 9...Qd7 (9...Nd7 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 11.Nxd7 Bxc2 12.Nxf8 Bd3 13.Nxh7 Rxh7 14.Be3+- {is equivalent}) 10.Nxd7 1-0 (10... Nxd7 11.Bxa8 {and White is a rook up}) SUPPLEMENTAL GAME: Riemersma - Miles 1995: 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bg4 5.d5 Nb8 6.a4 a5 7.Be2 Bxf3 8.Bxf3 g6 9.0-0 Bg7 10.Re1 Nfd7 11.Nb5 c6 12.Nd4 0-0 13.g3 Qc7 14.Ra3 Na6 15.Rae3 Rab8 16.Bg2 Rfe8 17.f4 e5= 18.dxe6 fxe6 19.f5 Nac5 20.c3 Nf8 21.g4 Bh6 22.Rf3 Bxc1 23.Qxc1 Kh8 24.Ref1 gxf5 25.gxf5 e5 26.f6!? (26.Ne2 Nxe4=+) 26...exd4 27.Rg3 (27.f7? Re6 28.Rg3 Rg6+) 27...Qf7 28.Rg7 Qh5 29.Rg5 Nb3! (29...Qf7 30.Rg7=) 30.Rxh5 Nxc1 31.Rxc1 dxc3 32.Rxc3 Nd7 33.Rh6 Re6=+ 34.Rch3 Nxf6 35.Rf3 Rf8 36.Rh4 Rg8 37.Rh6 Rf8 38.Rh4 Nd7 39.Rxf8+ Nxf8 40.Bh3 Re7 41.Bf5 Kg7 42.Kf2 Ng6 43.Rh5 Re5 44.Ke3 b5 45.b3 h6 46.Rh3 Ne7 47.Kf4 Rc5 48.axb5 Rxb5 49.Rg3+ Kf6 50.Bh7 Rh5 51.Rd3 Ke6 52.Rd2 Rg5 53.Rd3 Rh5 54.Rd2 Rb5 55.Rd3 Rb4 56.Rh3? Nd5+! 0-1 ANALYSIS BY PHIL 'PAUL MORPHY' HILDENBRANDT (2064 83-23-16 + USA) [Event "P-1182"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1998.04.25"] [White "Ostrovskij, Jori"] [Black "Hilgert, Dieter"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteIECC "1308"] [WhiteCountry "FIN"] [BlackIECC "1429"] [BlackCountry "GER"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bf4 {Believe it or not, my database found 43 games with this unorthodox position. Generally this position is used against computers with some success.} 2...d5 3.Nf3 e6 4.c3 {By far the commonest continuation is 4.e3. Rarer moves include 4.Bg5, 4.Nbd2, 4.c3, 4.c4, and 4.h3; this last move was played in Eliza Hanim - Puuska Heini/FIN-MAL Kuala Lumpur 1996 0-1 and Ibrahim - Puuska/FIN-MAL Kuala Lumpur 1996 0-1. Did Jori find an improvement?} 4...Be7 5.Nbd2 {Since the Bishop is already in front of the pawns, 5.e3 seems a bit more accurate.} 5...Nbd7 6.Qc2 Nh5 7.Bg3 O-O 8.e4 f5 9.exf5 exf5 10.h3 Nxg3 {After the text, Black does have a slight advantage based on the fact that his King is much safer than White's. White does have a very nice square at e5 but he can't really use it as long as Black keeps his Knight.} 11.fxg3 Nf6 {Was this an enticement?} 12.Ne5 Ne4 13.Nxe4 fxe4 {A capture towards the center is always a good idea. Black's advantage increases.} 14.Be2 {In the opinion of this humble annotator, Queenside castling was necessary here.} 14...Bd6 15.c4 {Last chance for Jori was 15.Qd2} 15...c5 16.cxd5 cxd4 17.Qxe4 Qa5+! {Good move.} 18.Kd1 Qa4+ 19.b3 Qe8 0-1 {Here Jori apparently did not want to continue after becoming a piece down. A nice game by both players.} *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Ceremonies of the Horsemen The Journal of the IECC Rank and File Volume 1, Issue 3, Section 2 *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* 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: *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* CHESS PSYCHOLOGY I by Tim Nagley Author's note: in this occasional series of articles (one every three or four issues), I'll be trying to draw on some of my experience of neurology, psychiatry and psychology and apply it to chess. Before we start, please note that I'm very far from being a grandmaster, and that although I'm trying to keep the articles readable by not scientifically referencing every assertion made, I'll be happy to send a list of references to any IECC member who asks me for one. The subject for this first article is Pattern Recognition. We start with two little games. First, you're given four cards to look at. The cards have something printed on both sides, but you can see only the top sides, which look like this: (i) E (ii) K (iii) 2 (iv) 5 You're told that each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other side. The problem is to name which of the four cards need to be turned over to find out whether the following sentence is true or false: 'If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.' Have a think about it, decide which cards you need to turn over in order to discover if the sentence is true, and hold on to your answer for a minute. In the second game, you're visiting a new state for the first time, and you walk into a bar. You've heard that there's a law which goes like this: 'Anyone drinking alcohol must be at least 21 years old.' Assume that nobody is breaking the law. In order to find out whether this law is true or false, which of the following four drinkers would you need to interrogate? (i) Someone drinking alcohol; (ii) Someone drinking water; (iii) Someone aged 35; (iv) Someone aged 18. Work out your answer (yes or no, for each of the four people), and we'll discuss the second problem first. The answer, obviously enough, is that you have to interrogate person (i) to find out his age, and person (iv) to find out what he's drinking. The age of person (ii) and the drink of person (iii) aren't relevant. This should surprise nobody. What often surprises people, though, is that the answer to the first problem is exactly the same, and for exactly the same logical reasons. The two questions have, in logical terms, identical 'forms'. Experimentally, most people get the first question wrong. Some people (not IECC members, of course) have great difficulty understanding it even after they've seen the answer. There is often no transfer of knowledge between the second problem and the first: the pattern isn't recognised, and solving the 'familiar' problem doesn't help to solve the 'abstract' one. (I've derived these games from a variation of a psychology experiment called the Wason Selection Task). But what does all this have to do with playing chess, and chess aptitude? We'll go back to 1944 to find the answer. Adrian De Groot was a professional psychologist in Holland, who played chess in the Dutch team in the 1937 Olympiad, and was a chess master. In 1944 he did his key chess experiment, which I'll describe (and necessarily simplify). He took a group of four people: a grandmaster (Euwe), a master, a club player and a poor player. He showed them chess positions, from the middle-game of actual but unpublished master games, for a few seconds, and then asked them to reconstruct as much as they could of the position on an empty board. The results were dramatic: the ability of the four players to rebuild the position from their memories was in proportion to their chess-playing skills. Euwe had no problem; the poor player did badly; etc. This was repeated very consistently for each of 16 different positions, and has since been very reliably repeated countless times all over the world. The grandmaster (and the master, to some extent) perceived the positions in large complexes of clusters of pieces, but the others couldn't do this. We know now that the better players actually use different neurological mechanisms of memory to recognise patterns of pieces. Anyone who has played chess can do this to some extent: imagine White's position after kingside castling, and you can probably readily envisage a cluster comprising king on g1, rook on f1, pawns on f2, g2 and h2. The grandmaster can see an equivalent cluster of the whole of the kingside board after, say, move 10 of a Sicilian Defense or a Kings Gambit Kieseritsky Variation. Experiments like this have become the universally accepted paradigm among psychologists for investigating chess skill. The superiority of the better player is not due simply to his perceiving and remembering the given position more quickly and accurately, but due to a huge store of previously seen similar positions. The exact way this works inside the brain is extremely complicated and not fully understood. De Groot said 'The master does not just calculate more than the expert: he sees more than the expert, especially the things which are most significant.' And he was right: it's now well established that the ability to analyse efficiently, and the ability to see a large number of moves ahead are both considerably less important. Does this seem obvious? Would you expect grandmasters in general to have better short-term memories than weaker players, so that the results above are no surprise? Not so: it's been extensively proven (though not by De Groot) that if entirely random selections of chess-pieces are used, rather than positions from actual games, the differences between even players of widely differing skill levels completely disappear. A series of experiments (mostly in the USA and Canada) in the 1970's confirmed that chess-playing skill is largely attributable to highly developed pattern recognition by mentally accessing huge numbers of previously stored patterns. In the 1980's, in Russia, this was taken a step further. Malkin, a neurophysiologist, showed experimentally that the critically significant idea of a chess position dictates its actual perception. Where De Groot had used fairly quiet, level positions, Malkin selected positions in which one side was about to launch a winning combination. In his experiments the grandmasters (including Tal) reconstructed everything without difficulty, but the mere experts frequently remembered incorrectly the positions of pieces not involved in the combination. These pieces were often placed on the squares where they 'ought to go.' Malkin argued convincingly (in the Russian chess magazine '64', in 1982) that this phenomenon was the main cause of blunders in chess: a configuration to which insufficient attention is paid may not quite coincide with a stored pattern. Analysis also takes place, of course, and one would expect better players also to analyse better, but even the basis of analysis rests on the perceptual ability, which is more fundamental. This suggests that we can all improve with more practice, and that setting the pieces up on a board may confer a big advantage for email chess, rather than simply looking at a display of the pieces on the screen. (There is also corroborating scientific evidence for this). Are you still wondering what the little games at the beginning have to do with all this? The ability to play chess like a master is, in a sense, related to reasoning in a sort of miniature world which is highly structured and studied, but isn't intrinsically related to the real world. This notion of context-dependent reasoning is related to what psychologists call 'schema theory'. To simplify, this assumes: that experience about the world is stored in some sort of organized structures in the brain (e.g. to do with nucleic acids); that these structures can be set off by some stimuli so that elements of them are manipulated without conscious effort; and that the existence of the structures accounts for various inferences made inside the brain. (Anti-vivisectionists should skip this next paragraph.) The physical basis of memory is well documented by all the experiments in which worms can be taught the way through a maze simply by giving them, as food, chopped-up sections of worms which have previously been experimentally taught the way through. The grandmaster's skill, then, is attributable to his 'schematic' knowledge comprising patterns of chess-pieces. This suggests that although playing chess at a beginner's level may perhaps help people to think better, chess is a better mental exercise for bad players than good ones, and being a grandmaster confers little benefit to an individual in the real world. But don't assume that excellence at chess is not in itself a worthwhile goal. There may be many societal advantages, and perhaps even a role in therapy, a subject which we'll discuss in a future article. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* ANALYSIS, QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS by Mihnea Voloaca (1988 2- 1- 0 CAN) In Mihnea Voloaca's analyses for Ceremonies of the Horsemen, the annotations are interspersed with a series of numbered questions, designed for the reader to ponder before reading on. Mihnea's own suggested answers to his questions are listed at the end of the game. These are set out in the form Q1, Q2 ... A1, A2 etc. [Event "CL4-1998.04"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1997.12.03"] [Round "?"] [White "Glew, David"] [Black "Tauaf, Rachid"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "C14"] [Opening "French, Classical, Steinitz V"] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 {The classical variation. 3....Bb4 is called the Winawer variation, and usually gives way to a more exciting game, with pawns flying on both sides in many lines.} 4.Bg5 {The best way to meet Black's threat of capturing on e4.} 4...Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 {White has achieved two things in this position: he has exchanged the bad dark square bishop for Black's more useful one, which becomes even more important after Black plays ...c5 and weakens d6; and he has diverted the g8-knight to d7, where it doesn't have much of a purpose. However, Black has caught up in development, and the knight at c3 will have to move if White wants to defend his center by playing the pawn to c3.} 7.f4 {A good move. White makes sure that his center is rock solid, and that his pawn on e5 remains there to bother Black. However, this gives Black more time to organize a counterattack.} 7...a6 {Q1: Why is Black apparently wasting time with moves like 7...a6 when he should begin a counterattack?} 8.Nf3 b6 {Consistent: Black makes sure that after ...c5, he will be able to take back with a pawn. But, according to ECO, this move is 8...b6?!, and 8...c5 can be played immediately.} 9.Qd2 c5 10.Ne2?! {The idea is good, but the execution is faulty. c3 is now free for a pawn, but the knight stands badly on e2. To develop the bishop, White will have to play either g3 (stealing away that square from the knight), or Ng3. On the square g3, the knight supports the break f5, but it's placed badly. Therefore, a better move would be 10.Nd1!, as recommended in ECO. c3 is still possible, and the knight at d1 will jump to e3, where it will have much more influence on the game than it can exert either on g3 or on e2.} 10...Nc6 11.c3 O-O 12.g3!? a5 {A good move: it prepares ...Ba6, getting rid of the bad bishop, and gains space on the queenside.} 13.h3?! {Q2: Why is this move bad?} 13...Ba6 {Activating the Bishop. Notice that every move that Black has made has a point.} 14.Bg2 f6 {An attempt to dislodge the awesome-looking White center.} {Q3: Isn't Black afraid of 15.exf6, leaving him with a weak, backward e6 pawn?} 15.O-O {There isn't much choice: if White castles queenside, he will be subjected to a powerful attack. However, castling kingside isn't much better either, because the intended counterplay on this side of the board will leave White's king open.} {Note that White's spatial advantage doesn't have much of an effect on Black's position. All Black's pieces rest on good squares. A spatial advantage is good only if it cramps the opponent's pieces! (Nimzovitch).} 15...fxe5 16.dxe5? {Q4: What's so terribly wrong with this move? Can you suggest an improvement?} 16...b5 {Gaining space.} 17.Qc2 {White can only sit and watch.} 17...b4 {Yummy, more space!} 18.Rfd1 Nb6 19.Rab1?! {19.Ng5! is a better try.} {After 19. ...g6 20.h4 the White Queen is stuck defending the kingside and the e6 pawn.} 19...Bb5 20.b3 g6 {Q5: Wouldn't 20...Bxe2 win a pawn?} 21.cxb4 (21.c4 dxc4 22.Rxd6 cxb3 23.axb3 Nc8 24.Rdd1 {is an interesting alternative, sacrificing a pawn to stall Black's growing initiative.}) 21...axb5 {Now the a2-pawn is weak.} 22.Rbc1 Rfc8 23.Qb2 {Queens rarely like to share files with enemy rooks, even if they are separated by a large number of pawns and pieces.} 23...Ra7 24.Ra1 d4 {Q6: What's the purpose of this move?} 25.Nh2 {Too timid. 25.Ng5 is a better choice.} 25...Nd5 26.Rd2 Nc3! 27.Nc1 g5! {With the Queen locked in the queenside, Black begins decisive kingside action.} 28.Ng4 {A lone knight can't harm the Black king.} 28...gxf4 29.Nf6+ Kh8 30.gxf4 Qg7 {Increasing the scope of the Black Queen.} 31.Ng4 h5 32.Nf6 Qg3! {White is lost.} 33.Nxh5 Qe3+ (33..Qh4 34.Nf6 Nxe5! 35.fxe5 Qe1+ 36.Kh2 Qxe5+ 37.Kg1 Qxf6 {is more convincing, but the text is good enough.} 34.Rf2? d3! {Even stronger than 34. ...Nd1} 35.Nf6 Nd1 0-1 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS: A1: He pretty much has to. Obviously, the best counterattack on White's center is ...c5, attacking the base of the pawn chain. However, 7...c5 fails miserably to 8.Nb5!, and Black will have a deplorable position once the knight reaches d6. A2: White intends to play g4-f5. However, he should have done it without interpolating 12.g3!? and 13.h4?!. 12.g4! right away was quite alright. White is already in trouble, and purposeless moves won't help him. A3: No. After 15.exf6 Nxf6, Black has gained the useful e4 square. If White tries to castle and pile Rooks up on the e-file, disaster happens: 16.O-O-O? (16.O-O??) Ne4 17.Qe1 Bxe2 18.Qxe2 Nxg3 -+. A4: This move increases Black's advantage: he now owns the center. He has pawn control over c4, d4, and e4, while White controls only d4 with a pawn. Furthermore, White will never get f5 in, because of the weak e5 pawn. A better choice would have been 16.fxe5 A5: 20...Bxe2 would be a blunder: 21.Qxe2 bxc3 22.Rbc1! d4 23.Qb5, and White is back into the game. A6: This move frees d5 for a knight, and also secures the c3 and e3 squares. If a knight gets to one of those squares, it will terrorize White's position. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* ANALYSIS BY PABLO TABOADA (2212 7- 3- 0 CHI ) [Event "Swiss 36.3"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1997.08.02"] [White "Mathews, Michael"] [Black "Muschalek, Ingo"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "D36"] [WhiteElo "2005"] [BlackElo "2144"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 (The exchange variation of the Queen's Gambit.} 5...c6 6.Qc2 Be7 7.e3 Nbd7 8.Bd3 O-O 9.Nf3 (9.Nge2 {another interesting approach, which is currently fashionable.} 9...Re8 {In this position White has three main possibilities: to castle long and advance the kingside pawns, opening files to the Black king, as seen in the instant game; to castle short and advance pawns on the queenside (minority pawn attack); and to castle short and then play Ne5 and f4, attacking on the kingside. The second and third of these plans are commented on in the annotated variations below} 10.O-O-O {Risky for the white} (10.O-O Nf8 11.h3 (11.Rae1 Be6 12.Ne5 N6d7 13.Bxe7 Rxe7 14.f4 {this is the third plan mentioned above} 14...f6 15.Nf3 Nb6 (15...Qc7 16.g4! {Yusupov}) 16.f5 {Yusupov - Spassky 1996} (16. Kh1 {with the idea of Rg1 and g4 is interesting})) 11...Be6 12.Bxf6 (12.Ne5 N6d7 13.Bxe7 Rxe7 14.f4 f6 15.Nf3 Nb6 16.Rae1 Nc8 17.g4 (17.f5 Bf7 18.e4 {unclear, {Kramnik}}) 17...Nd6 18.Qg2 {Kramnik-O.Renet Clichy '95} (18.Qh2!? {Kramnik})) 12...Bxf6 13.b4 {this is the second plan mentioned above} 13...c8 14.Na4 (14.Rac1) Rc7 15.Rac1 Be7! 16.Qb1 (16. b5 (16.Nc5 Bc8 17.b5 b6 18.Na4 c5) Ba3 17.Rb1 cxb5 18.Qb3 b4) 16...Bd6 17.b5 +/= {Karpov - Campora, San Nicolas 1994}) 10...Nf8 11.h3 (11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.h3 Be6 13.Kb1 Rc8 14.g4 b5 {Yusupov} (14...c5! 15.Bb5 Nd7 16.Ne5 cxd4 =) 15.Ne2 Qb6 16.Rc1 {Kortchnoi - Yusupov}) 11...a5 12.g4 Be6 (12...a4!? 13.Nxa4?! (13.Kb1!?) Qa5 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.b3 b5 16.Nc5 Qxa2 = {Gheorghiu - Spassky, SSSR 1981}) 13. Rdg1 a4 14. Bxf6 (14. Nxa4?! Qa5 15.Nc3 (15.Nc5 Qxa2) c5 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.g5 Be7 18.h4 c4 19.Bf5 b5 20.g6 fxg6 (20...b4?! 21.gxh7+ Kh8 22.Bxe6? (22.Rxg7! Kxg7 23.Rg1+ Ng6 24.Bxg6 Kh8! 25.Bxf7 bxc3 (25...Bxf7 26.Qf5 +-) 26.Rg8+ Rxg8 27.hxg8Q+ Rxg8 28.Bxg8? (28.Bxe6 cxb2+ 29.Kb1 (29.Kxb2 Ba3+ {-+}) 29...Ra8 30.a4 Qxa4 31.Qxa4 Rxa4 32.Kxb2 Ra5 33.Ng5 Kg7 34. f4{+/-}) 28...cxb2+ 29.Kd1 {the only move} 29...Bxg8 30.Qxb2 {-/+}) 22...bxc3) 21. Bxe6+ Nxe6 22. Nxd5 Qxa2 {=}) 14... Bxf6 15.h4 b6 {with the idea of playing c5} (15...a3!? 16.b3 Be7 17.g5 c5 {with counterplay, might be better}) 16.g5 (16.Nxa4 c5 17.g5 Be7 18.h5 (18.Nc3 c4 19.Bf5 b5 20.Ne5 b4 21.Bxe6 (21.Nc6 Qd6 22.Nxe7+ Rxe7)) 18...c4 {-/+}) 16... Be7 17.Ne5 (17.h5!? {perhaps more in accordance with White's plan of kingside progression} 17...a3 (17...c5!?) 18.b3 c5 19.g6 (19. Bb5) 19...fxg6 20.hxg6 h6 21.Bb5 (21.Rxh6 gxh6 22.g7 Bf6 23.gxf8Q+ Kxf8 24.Bb5 Re7) 21...Bd7 22.Bxd7 Qxd7 23.Rh5 Rec8 24.Rxd5 {unclear}) 17...c5 18.Bb5 (18.h5 c4 19.Be2 a3 20.b3 cxb3 (20...Rc8 21.g6 fxg6 22.hxg6 h6 {unclear}) 21.Qxb3 Rc8 22.Bb5 {is interesting}) 18...Nd7 19.f4?! {White is progressing only slowly and apparently playing without a plan. In a game with the players castled on opposite sides, it's very important to plan to open up the files leading toward the opponent's king.} (19.Bxa4 Nxe5! 20.dxe5 (20.Bxe8 20...cxd4 21.exd4 Qxe8 22.dxe5 d4 {-+}) 20...Bd7 21.Bxd7 Qxd7 22.h5 (22.g6!? fxg6 23.h5 g5) 22...d4 {-/+}) (19.Nc6 Qc7 20.Nxe7+ Rxe7 21.Bxa4 { with compensation for the material}) (19.h5 a3 20.b3 Nxe5 21.dxe5 Bd7 22.g6 fxg6 23.hxg6 h6 24.Rd1 Bxb5 25.Nxb5 Qd7 {unclear}) 19...Nxe5 20.fxe5 Bd7 21.Bd3 a3! {opening files} 22.Bxh7+?! ({Maybe better is:} 22.b3 cxd4 23.Bxh7+ Kh8 24.exd4 Rc8 25.Rg3 Bb4 {=/+}) 22...Kh8 23.Bf5? ({Better is:} 23.b3 Rc8 (23...g6 24.h5 Bf5 25.e4 {+-}) 24.g6! f6 25.h5 {+-}) 23...axb2+ {with compensation for the material} 24.Kxb2 (24.Kb1 b5) 24...cxd4 (24...b5!? 25.g6!? {with the idea of Qe2} 25...cxd4 26.exd4 f6? (26...b4 27.gxf7 (27.Qe2? bxc3+ 28.Ka1 Rxa2+ 29.Qxa2 {the only move} 29...Bxf5 {-+}) 27...bxc3+ 28.Ka1 Bxf5! 29.Qxf5? (29.fxe8Q+ Qxe8 30.Qxc3 Qa4 31.Rh2 Rc8 {-+}) 29...Rxa2+! 30.Kxa2 Qa5+ {-+}) 27.Qe2 {! +-}) 25. exd4 Bb4 26. Bxd7 (26.Rg3 {might be better.}) {Now it's clearer that White has played without an adequate plan. He's a pawn up, but the cost is very high: his king is in a dangerous spot and both his rooks are out of the game.} 26...Qxd7 27.Ne2?? (27. Qb3 Bxc3+ 28.Qxc3 Qa4 29.a3 Rec8 30.Qd3 Rc2+ 31.Kb1 Rc4 {-/+}) (27.Rg3 Rec8 28.g6 Ra3 29.Rhh3 =) 27...Rec8 28.Qb3 Qb5 29.Nc1 Ra3 0-1 ANALYSIS BY BLAKE LEWIS (2297 12-10- 2 USA) [Event "TH-M-67.1"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1997.12.21"] [White "Nowicki, Andrzej"] [Black "Hildenbrandt, Phil"] [Result "0-1"] 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 {A fearless choice; more cautious souls play 4.h4.} 4...Bg7 (4...g4 5.O-O {is the Muzio gambit, in which fireworks abound. The text leads to the less forcing, but equally recognised, Hanstein gambit.} 5.O-O d6 6.d4 Nc6 7.c3 h6 {So far, the game is following a well-known path. Players from Blackburne to Karpov have pondered this position.} 8.Qb3 {This excursion has been tried a few times, but does not appear particularly promising. The threat against f7 is toothless and the queen is likely to be out of play on b3.} {Since the f4 pawn is choking White's development, the usual plan is to dislodge it.} (8.g3 g4 9.Nh4 f3 10.Nd2 Bf6 11.Ndxf3 gxf3 12.Qxf3 Bh3 13.Qh5 Qd7 14.Rf4 O-O-O 15.Nf3 Ne5! 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.Rf5 Bxf5 18.Qxf5 {and White held on for a draw, Spassky-Ornstein, Nice, 1974.}) 8...Qe7 9.h4? {Opening the h-file cannot be good for White.} (9.Na3 Nf6 10.g3 fxg3 11.hxg3 O-O 12.Bd3 Nh5 13.Kg2 Qd7 14.Ng1 Qg4 15.Rf3 Bxd4 16.cxd4 Nxd4 17.Qd1 Nxg3 18.Rxg3 Qxd1 19.Bxg5 Qh5 20.Bf6+ Bg4 21.Bxd4 Rfe8 22.Rf1 Kf8 23.Rf4 Be6 24.Nb5 Qd1 225.Nxc7 Qc1 26.Nxe6+ Rxe6 27.Ne2 1-0 {Loeffler-Erben, corres., 1990.}) 9...Nf6 10.hxg5 hxg5 11.Nxg5 Nxd4! {A nice shot, demolishing the center and exposing the weakness of the White king.} 12.Qd1 {This leaves Black firmly in control.} (12.cxd4 Nxe4 {leaves White no good moves.}) (12.cxd4 Nxe4 13.Bxf4 Bxd4+ 14.Be3 Bxe3+ 15.Qxe3 Nxg5) (12.cxd4 Nxe4 13.Re1 Bxd4+ 14.Be3 (14.Kf1 Ng3+) fxe3 15.Bxf7+ (15.Qd3 Nf2) Kf8 16.Qd5 Qf6 17.Nf3 Ng3) (12.cxd4 Nxe4 13.Nxe4 Bxd4+ 14.Rf2 (14.Nf2 Qh4) Qh4 15.Kf1 Qh1+ 16.Ke2 Qxc1) (12.cxd4 Nxe4 13.Nh3 Bxd4+ 14.Kh2 (14.Kh1 Ng3+ 15.Kh2 Rxh3+ 16.gxh3 Nxf1+ 17.Bxf1 Qe1) 14...Ng5 {and White's prospects look bleak.}) (12.Bxf7+ Kd8 13.Qd1 Nxe4 14.Re1 Qxg5 15.Rxe4 Qh4 16.Qa4 Nf3+ 17.Kf1 Qh1+ 18.Ke2 Qxg2+ 19.Kd3 Ne5+ 20.Rxe5 dxe5 0-1 {Mandoli-Bucczko, corres., 1980.}) 12...Ne6 13.Nxe6 Bxe6 14.Bxe6 Qxe6 15.Bxf4 {Regaining the pawn, but Black has a strong initiative.} 15...O-O-O 16.Qa4 a6 17.Nd2 Rde8 18.Rae1 Nd7 19.Nf3 Nc5 20.Qc2 Qc4 0-1 {Faced with the loss of a pawn in an inferior position, White resigns.} *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Volume 1, Issue 3 -- End