*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

                 IECC CHESS BITS & PIECES

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

       Published by the International Email Chess Club
      Devoted solely to free E-Mail Correspondence Chess

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Volume 4, Issue 28                         December 1, 1997
Editor: Lisa Powell
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

IECC's Rating Algorithm
by Kyle Evans, IECC CEO

Many members ask me how their rating is computed after the
conclusion of each game. I thought I would take this
newsletter opportunity to explain it so that the entire
membership can understand how it is done.

And so, here is the rating algorithm, in a nutshell. As you
will see, it depends only on the outcome of the game and the
players initial ratings.

Assign a game score 's' to each player:
Win = 1, Draw = 0.5, Lose = 0.
Assign a rating difference to each player:
	For white:  d = Whiterating - Blackrating
	For black:  d = Blackrating - Whiterating
Assign a 'Delta K' to each player:
	if rating <= 2100 then  deltak = 32
	else if rating <= 2400 then deltak = 24
	else (rating is over 2400)  deltak = 16
Assign a probability that a given player will win the game:
       p = 1 / (1 + (10.0 ^ -(d/400.0)))   [for each player]

Now, adjust each player's current rating by:
       adj = deltak * (s - p)
       [rounded to the nearest integer]

Both players will be adjusted by the same amount (although
in different directions) as long as they have the same DeltaK.
The different DeltaK values for higher rating brackets cause
lower-rated players to be penalized less for losing to higher
ranked players, and rewarded more for beating them.

Of course, this formula never gets a chance to be applied if
members forget to submit their games for rating! Please
remember that it is the WINNER's responsibility to report
the game to our Proofreading Department (or the WHITE player
in the event of a draw.)  Send ALL game reports to:
	Raouf El-Messiry <Raouf@ThePentagon.com>
and ALSO to the TD who issued the match.

In addition to having the game affect your rating,
submitting the games helps us keep track of which games are
still in progress, concluded, in trouble, etc. So, please
don't forget to submit ALL concluded games!

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

Jean-Pierre Picchiottino  1689  FRA

My name is Jean-Pierre Picchiottino, and I have the
privilege to be Don Camper's assistant for KO-Tournaments.

I was born 40 years ago in Grenoble, France, but I now live
in Annandale, Virginia (USA) with my wife, Kathy, and VERY
soon (November 21st or 22nd) the new IECC Champion
(well, in a few years) Julia or Joseph.

I joined the French Air Force when I was 18, and I
discovered Chess when I was 25, on a very little island in
the Indian Ocean, La Reunion, where I spent two years, as an
assignment with the Air Force. Chess rapidly became a
passion, and I soon started to browse for anything related
to chess. I soon discovered two other passions related to
Chess: the Ruy Lopez opening and organizing tournaments.

After my assignment in La Reunion, I moved to Paris where I
soon created the first military chess team playing inside
the F.F.E (Federation Francaise des Echecs - French Chess
Federation). The team won its first regional championship
the very first year it joined it and continued to progress
until eventually, players were assigned to other positions
inside the French Air Force, which led to the team's
dispersion.

My last assignment with the French Air Force brought me to
the French Embassy, in Washington DC, where I soon
discovered the Internet and, therefore, IECC, in 1995.

After a few months where I became more and more familiar
with IECC, I joined the Tutorial Program, a very important
asset of IECC; then switched to KO-Tournaments which had
just been assigned to Don.

The assignment in Washington DC was also the end of my
career with the French Air Force. I now work as a Defense
& Aerospace consultant, in the Washington, DC, vicinity.
It was, on the other hand, the beginning of my devotion to
E-mail Chess, which led me to IECC and also to other
tournaments I organize outside IECC. Ask my wife what she
thinks about e-mail chess and her answer will always be:
"Don't you think it would be better if you met REAL people?"

I would like to take advantage of this presentation to say
how I am thankful to have "met" people like Lisa Powell
(God bless her), Don Camper and all the nice IECC staff
members and players.

Sincerely,  Jean-Pierre

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

Andrey Voronin  2400    RUS

I am 25. I live in the Russian Far East, Khabarovsk-city.

I am a post-graduate student of the Institute of Economical
Research of the Far-Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of
Science.

The theme of my scientific work is "Selection of form of
tax optimization in the post-socialist type of
transitional economy".

I had Premium of Murav'ev-Amurskiy: Premium of
Murav`ev-Amurskiy is a regional premium for the best
post-graduate student. Murav`ev-Amurskiy (1809-81); Count,
Russian statesman and diplomat. During 1847-61 he was
governor-general of East Siberia. He assisted in the
exploration and development of that country. During
1854-1855, he lead an expedition on Amur. He concluded the
Igunskiy [`aigu:nski:] pact with China in 1858.

Further, I work as a financial consultant in the consulting
firm "Bogeria".

I played chess 17 years. I have class 1 in Russian Chess
Federation. Some years ago I was a champion of Amur region
from youth. I collect chess books on any language.

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

Neil Todd
1486   1- 1- 2    ENG

I started playing chess at 9 years old after my brother
taught my father while I watched. I asked if I could play
and they said no because I did not know how. Needless to
say they did let me play and I beat them both.

I played chess for my senior school and for my home town
Barnsley. At age 12 I played board one in my age group,
but I also played for the under-18 team.

I discovered football (soccer in America) and dropped chess
for 15 years until 1993 when Nigel Short played Gary
Kasparov in London for the World Championship.

I play evening league chess, captaining a team at my local
club where I am also Secretary.

I have recently won the President's Trophy for that Club
and also the Holroyd Trophy and Shapero Trophy in the
Sheffield Individual Championship.

I am married to Julie, my childhood sweetheart (we have
known each other since we were 7 years old - we are now 34)
We have a five year old daughter Bethany Grace - the apple
of our eye.

I work for a bank (Abbey National), and I manage a team
working in a Call Centre.

I enjoy listening to music, riding my mountain bike and
surfing the net.

I found the IECC by accident and have been playing email
chess ever since. I think that it is great communicating
with people from all over the world, and I look forward
to many happy years with this great organization.

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

Carlos Rivas    1500
Dominican Republic

I am Carlos from the Dominican Republic. I am 23 years old
and I've been playing chess for about 2 years now ... that
is playing serious chess!

I like playing here on IECC because I don't have much time
to visit chess clubs.

I wish I could make chess more popular here in my country.
Lots of kids play chess, but when they grow up, they forget
about the game -- mostly because our chess federation does
not care much about our sport.

Back to me: I am a computer programmer, so I enjoy playing
chess computers and software. But don't worry! I won't use
computers on e-mail chess! In fact, I hate computers when
it comes to e-mail chess!

Instead of asking my computer, I prefer to put a few good
hours to a "critical move."

I also have another problem: I read a lot of chess! I read
chess books to study, I read chess books when I want to have
fun, and I read chess books when there's nothing else to do!

I wish I had more time to put into chess. I play good chess
from time to time, but I cannot say that I can beat a
Class A player. Who knows, time will tell... watch out!

I am taking a Monday night chess class with Cuban
International Master Nelson Pinal. My current rating is 1500.
My goal is becoming a Class A player. (1900 IECC)

I may sound like a 'serious chess player' but if you play a
few games with me, you'll see we can have fun and learn
about each other's culture. That's one of the good parts of
IECC: Getting to know you, and you ...and you too!

See you all in the electronic world...

Carlos Rivas

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

Giancarlo Bassi   2195

I'm 44 years old, graduated in mathematics since 1976,
teacher of mathematics in a secondary technical school,
divorced, a 15 years old daughter. I have played chess
since 1969.

I became '1^ Nazionale' (1800 Elo points) in 1973 in the
International Tournament of Imperia, Italy (2nd in the list)
after participating in 'Campionato italiano dei giovani' in
Torino (Turin).

Then I played several International Tournaments (festivals)
in Italy:
Marina Romea 1974, open of S. Benedetto del Tronto 77 (1st),
Catanzaro 77, Bagni di Lucca 1982 (3rd).

I played also in the local club CSB (Circolo Scacchistico
Bolognese). I like the 'blitz' games too.

Five years ago I began to play chess by correspondence via
snail-mail: 3rd in italian tournament from ASIGC
(Associazione Scacchistica Italiana Gioco per Corrispondenza).

I played also in two European tournaments with score 6/6 and
12.5/14 and in a world tournament which I terminated with 6/6.

Then I obtained the access via Internet, first from the local
Computer Club and then from the local municipality so I
discovered EMail Chess and I quitted the snail-mail for it.

Other hobbies: bike, swimming, music.

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

The Two Bishops Attack by Bill Wall

Ilan Noy (1824) - Ariel Halabie (2170), IECC 1997

1.e4 c6

{the Caro Kann Defense}

2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.h3 Bxf3

{the alternative is 4...Bh5}

5.Qxf3 Nf6 6.d3 e6 7.Bd2 Bc5

{7...Nbd7 8.g4 h6 9.Bg2 Bb4 10.Qd1 Qe7 11.a3 Ba5 12.O-O
Keres - Yanofsky, Winnipeg 1967;
7...Bb4 8.e5 Nfd7 9.Qg3 g6 10.O-O-O a6 11.h4 h5
Van der Wiel - Gulko, Netherlands 1994}

8.O-O-O O-O 9.g4 b5

{perhaps 9...a5 or 9...Nbd7 and 10...Ne5}

10.g5 Nfd7 11.exd5 cxd5

{11...exd5 may be best here}

12.Nxb5 Qb6

{perhaps 12...a6 13.Nc3 Nc6 and 14...Rb8}

13.d4 Bxd4 14.Nxd4 Qxd4 15.Bc3 Qb6

{if 15...Qa4 16.Bd3 Qxa2 17.Bxh7+ Kxh7 18.Qh5+ Kg8
19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.Qh6+ Kg8 21.g6 Qa1+ 22.Kd2 Qa5+ 23.c3 Nf6
24.g7 Nh7 25.Qxh7+! Kxh7 26.gxf8=Q and White is a piece up}

16.Bd3 Nc5?

{if 16...Nc6? 17.Bxh7+! Kxh7 18.Qh5+ Kg8 19.Bxg7 Kxg7
20.Qh6+ Kg8 21.g6 Nf6 22.g7! wins for White;  best may be
16...g6}

17.Bxh7+! Kxh7

{17...Kh8 fails to 18.Qh5, leading to mate}

18.Qh5+ Kg8 19.Bxg7! Kxg7 20.Qh6+

{20...Kg8 21.g6 fxg6 22.Qxg6 Kh8 23.Rhg1 and White will
checkmate after the threat of 24.Qh6+}

1-0

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

Analyzed by Erhard Frolik   2455

[Event "M-923.2"]
[White "Wolinski,Francis"]
[Black "Steadman,Ted"]
[Result "1-0"]

1506  Francis Wolinski         1-0-1        FRA  +20
1547  Ted Steadman             5-0-3        USA  -20

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Ne4 3.Nc3 Nxc3 4.bxc3 d6 5.Nf3 dxe5 6.Nxe5 Nd7
7.f4

{7.Nf3 e6 8.d4 b6 9.Bb5 Bd6 10.Bg5 f6 11.Bd2 Bb7 12.Qe2 Qe7
13.O-O a6 14.Bd3 e5 15.Rae1 O-O 16.Nh4 Qf7 17.Qg4 e4
18.Nf5 Qg6 19.Bc4+ Kh8 20.Qxg6 hxg6 21.Re3 1-0
Hausner,I-Pribyl,J/Policka 1993}

7...Nxe5 8.fxe5 Qd5 9.Qe2 e6 10.d4 Bd7 11.Qf3 Qxf3 12.gxf3 Bc6
13.Kf2 Be7 14.Rg1 Bh4+ 15.Ke3 f6

{after 15... g6 16. Ba3 is black slightly better}

16.Rxg7 fxe5 17.Bd3 Bf6

{17...exd4+ 18.cxd4 O-O-O with equal game}

18.Rxh7

{after 18.Rxc7 Be7 (18...exd4+ 19.cxd4 e5 20.Bb2) 19.Be4 Kd8
20.Rxe7 exd4+ 21.cxd4 Kxe7 is black better}

18...Rxh7 19.Bxh7 O-O-O 20.Bb2 Rh8 21.dxe5 Bxe5 22.Bd3 Bxh2
23.c4

{23. f4? Rh3+}

23...Rh4 24.Rf1 Bf4+ 25.Ke2 a6 26.Bd4 Rh2+ 27.Rf2 Rh3

{Attacking the isolated pawn on f3}

28.c3

{28.Be4 Bxe4 29.fxe4 e5}

28...e5

{better seems 28...Kd7 29.Be3 Bg3 30.Rg2 Be5}

29.Be3

{after 29.Bf5+ Bd7 30.Bxh3 Bxh3 31.Be3 Bg3 white has an
easy draw}

29...Kb8

{this king will never come back into the game!}

30.Bxf4 exf4 31.Bf5 Rh1 32.Be4 Ra1 33.Kd3 Rd1+ 34.Rd2 Bxe4+
35.fxe4 Rf1 36.Ke2 Rc1 37.Rd8+ Ka7 38.Rd3 Rc2+

{38... Kb6!}

39.Kf3 Rxa2

{39... Kb6!}

40.e5! Ra1

{40...Kb6? is now no longer possible and leads to
a beautiful variation: 41.e6 Ra1 42.Re3!!
{42.Rd2? Re1 43.Re2 Rxe2 44.Kxe2 Kc6 45.c5 a5}

41.Kxf4 Re1 42.c5 a5

{42...fxe3 43.e7}

43.Ke2!

{43.Kg2? fxe3 44.e7 (44.Kxf1 Kc6) 44...e2}

43...Rf2+

44.Ke1! and white is winning} (44.Kxf2? fxe3+ 45.Kxe3 Kc6
46.c5 a5))

41.Kxf4 Re1 (41... Kb6 42. e6) 42.c5!

{Now White gets in control due to the king on a7!}

42...a5 43.c4 Ka6 44.Re3 Rh1 45.e6 Rh8 46.e7 Re8 47.Re6+ c6

{if 47...Ka7 then 48.Ke5 Kb8 49.Kf6 Kc8 50.Kf7 Kd7
51.c6+ bxc6 52.c5 a4 53.Re4 and white wins.)

48.Ke5

{finishing the game}

48...b5

{48...a4 49.Kd6 Ka5 50.Kd7 puts the final touch}

49.cxb6 Kxb6 50.Kd6

(and the rest is history)

50...a4 51.Re1 a3 52.Kd7 Ra8 53.e8=Q Rxe8 54.Kxe8 Kc5
55.Rc1 a2 56.Kd7 a1=R 57.Rxa1 Kxc4 1-0

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

Analyzed by Phil Hildenbrandt     ????

[Event "P-676"]
[White "Butler, Kevin]
[Black "Boys, Ken]
[Result "1-0]

1874  Kevin Butler    13-3-2       CAN  +18
1885  Ken Boys        20-6-4       USA  -18

1.e4 d5

{The Scandinavian Defense, seems to be Ken's favorite. David
Bronstein once said that an eventual d5 usually frees
Black's game in King's pawn openings. Why shouldn't Black
play it on move 1? The remainder of this game will give an
answer to this question.}

2.exd5 Qxd5

{This is not so much a waste of time as was once thought.}

3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.Ne5

{The text gives Black, in my opinion, a slight edge but
8.Bd2 would have led to a safe equality. Extremely
interesting is the pawn sac 8.b4!? as the variations below
show.

{8.b4!? Qxb4 (8...Qb6 9.Bd2 e6 10.b5 c6 11.Rb1 Qc7 12.Ne5 c5
13.Bf4 Qa5 unclear 9.Bd2 Qd6 10.Rb1
A) 10...b6 11.Bg2 c6 12.Ne5 Qxd4 (12...Nd5=) 13.Nxc6;
[clear advantage to White
B) 10...Nd5=+]}

8...e6 9.Bg2 c6 10.Bd2 Qb6

{We are following Ramos - Verde World Under 16 Championship
1995 1-0. Verde, suffering from extreme nervousness,
blundered a pawn on move 13 and a piece on move 14. She
resigned on move 15. She played 10.Qd8 with an approximately
equal game. Here I believe the text to be slightly better.}

11.Nxg6

{A Cross your fingers and hope move. Never play a move
hoping your opponent does not see an obvious threat, such as
what follows after 11... fxg6. Much better than the text was
11.Ne2 protecting the tender spot d4.}

11...hxg6

{A clear advantage to White if Black erred and played
11...fxg6. The text keeps thing equal.

[11...fxg6? 12.Qe2 Be7 13.Qxe6 Nbd7 14.O-O-O Nf8 15.Qe2}

12.Qe2 Qxd4 13.O-O-O Nbd7 14.Be3 Qe5

{In assessing this position I find that Black has an edge
based on control of the center, advanced squares at his
Knight's disposal and a centralized Queen. Well, that
assessment changes when it is considered that White is to
move. White has a growing initiative, control of the only
open file that matters and much better King safety.
Considering all that, it is not surprising that White's
advantage will grow quite rapidly.}

15.f4 Qa5 16.g5 Nh5 17.Qc4 Be7 18.Bxc6?

{18.Rd2 would have retained the advantage. Now the
initiative is gone and with it Black now has a decisive
advantage.}

18...bxc6 19.Qxc6 Rd8 20.Nb5!

{This move deserves an exclamation mark for the shock value.
It probably would have worked quite well in OTB play but it
has a teeny tactical refutation.}

20...O-O?

{I really can't really blame Black for missing the correct
move. The refutation of White's play lay hidden beneath a
fierce White attack. What player besides Tal and Bronstein
(and myself) would want to face such an attack AND put his
Queen out of play to boot?

{20...Qxa2 21.Nc7+ Kf8 22.Rxd7 Rxd7 23.Qxd7 Kg8 24.Qc8+
(24.Qxe7 Qa1+ 25.Kd2 Qxh1 26.Qe8+ Kh7 27.Qxf7 Rd8+
28.Kc3 Qe1+-+) 24...Kh7 25.Qa6 Qxa6-/+]}

21.Rxd7 Rxd7 22.Qxd7

{Now the game is back into a calm equality but I'm sure the
players can change that!}

22...Ng3 23.Qxe7 Nxh1 24.Nc3?

{Ok, Kevin is the winner in this "Give the Advantage"
contest.}

24...Qa6 25.b4 Qc4?

{Keeps the advantage but I'd prefer the win.
[25...Qa3+-+]}

26.Bc5 Qxf4+ 27.Kb2 Rc8 28.Qb7!?

{Interesting, a Queen trade is in the offing but Black
should not accept.}

28...Qb8?

{At least this is instructive.}

29.Qxa7 Qxa7 30.Bxa7 Ng3

{Now Black's on-again off-again decisive advantage is back
to off and there is a clear equality.}

31.Kb3 f6 32.b5 Nf5 33.Ne4

{33.b6 held the equality. The text gives Black a slight
edge.}

33...Ra8 34.Bf2 Kf7 35.c4 Rh8?

{Now the pawns get dangerous. 35...e5 had to be played.

[35...e5 36.b6 Nd4+ 37.Kb2 Rb8 38.c5 Ke6 39.Kc3 Kd5
40.Nd2 Kxc5 41.Nb3+ Kd5-/+]}

36.Kb4 e5

{Move order is vital.}

37.a4 Rxh3

{Should White worry about a mere pawn?}

38.a5 Ne7?

{Now d4 was prepared for the Knight, the text is totally
illogical.}

39.a6 Rh8

{Rook is no help now.}

40.b6 f5 41.b7 fxe4 42.Kb5 Rb8 43.c5 e3 44.Bxe3 Nd5
45.c6 Nc7+

{Rook and knight are utterly helpless.}
                  might be perplexed]

46.Ka5 Rh8 47.a7 Rh1

{A final attempt at harassment? There ought to be a law
against that.}

48.b8Q 1-0

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

Analyzed by Ian Peddie

[Event "Swiss 201.1"]
[White "Dunn,Michael"]
[Black "Dias,Helena"]
[Result "0-1"]

1940  Michael Dunn             64-24-15     NZL  -25
1770  Helena Dias              25-1-10      BRA  +25

1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6

{3.Nf3 e4 4.Ng5 b5!? is the Bellon Gambit}

4.d4 exd4

{4...e4 5.Nd2 Nxd4 6.Ndxe4 Nxe4 7.Qxd4 Nxc3 8.Qxc3 d6 =}

5.Nxd4 Bb4

{This is the Four Knights variation of the English Opening.
Both players have followed established theory so far, though
white's next essays a new move order in what is a well known
position}

6.Nxc6?! bxc6

{6.Bg5 is book}

7.Qb3 Qe7

{7.Bg5 looks slightly better}

8.Bg5 h6

{Forrest-Smith, USA 196? went: 8.g3 O-O 9.Bg2 Re8 10.e3 Ba6
11.O-O d5 12.Qa4 Bxc4 and 0-1 (22)}

9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Rd1 Ba5

{White's idea of centralizing a rook is sound, but why not
combine it with moving the king to safety?  Hence 10.O-O-O
looks better.  Black's 10...Ba5 seems to serve no point.
A developing move would aid black's cause, and the choice
lies between 10...Rg8 or 10...Ba6}

11.Rd3?

{Ye olde rook lift. But this move is completely out of place
here. The simple 11.e3 is far superior}

11...Bb6

12.g3?!

{I'm far from convinced with this. The move e3 must be
played sooner rather than later, and now looks a good time
for that move. Perhaps white was reluctant to play such a
move because of the embarrassing position of the rook on d3?}

12...Ba6

{12...h5 at this stage looks intriguing}

13.Bh3 O-O-O 14.O-O Rhe8 15.Rfd1 f5 16.Bxf5?

{If white had played e3 earlier then this capture would have
been possible. Considerably better is 16.Qa4 Bb7 17.e3 when
white is okay. The move played in the game introduces a
tactical sequence that highlights the absence of a pawn
on e3}

16...Qc5 17.Bxd7+ Rxd7 18.Rxd7 Bxc4 19.Qa3 Qxf2+ 20.Kh1 Bc5
21.b4??

{Loses immediately, though white has been drifting for a
while. Strangely enough white has a forced draw here through
21.Qa5! after which 21...Bb6 is black's only move. White
then counters with 22.Qa3! and black must take the draw}

21...Bd6 22.R7xd6 cxd6 23.Qa4 Kb7 24.b5 Bxe2 25.Qa6+ Kb8 0-1

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

Analysis by Mark Tolliver

[Event "CL2-1997.7"]
[White "Lorente,Ricardo"]
[Black "Tolliver,Mark"]
[Result "0-1"]

Ricardo Lorente - Mark Tolliver   0-1   CL2-1997.07
2034  Ricardo Lorente          1-1-2        ARG  -17
2042  Mark Tolliver            4-2-0        USA  +17

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5
7.Bb3 O-O

{Black is waving the Marshall flag. My experience has been
that most players avoid it. I myself like playing against
the Anti-Marshall lines.}

8.c3

{White accepts the challenge.}

8...d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5	c6 12.d3

{The first crossroad. White selects the Smyslov system,
introduced in Smyslov-Sokolsky Moscow 1949.}

12...Bd6 13.Re1	Qh4

{Another crossroad. Black selects the aggressive attacking
line with its attendant risks. The alternative 13...Bf5
frequently leads to black recapturing his gambit pawn, but
white uses the time to develop his queenside with
approximate equality. An example of this line is 13...Bf5
14.Nd2 Nf4 15.Ne4 Nxd3 16.Bg5 Qd7 17.Re3 Bxe4 18.Rxe4 Rae8
19.Qg4 Qxg4 20.Rxg4 Be5 21.Rb1 h5 22.Rh4 Nxb2 23.Be3 Nd3
24.Rd1 Nb2 25.Rb1 Nd3 Drawn Georgiev-Nunn Dubai 1986.}

14.g3 Qh3 15.Re4

{This was the point of 12.d3. Black cannot answer with
15...g5 because 16.Bxg5 Qf5 is no longer an attack on two
pieces ...  because the rook is protected.}

15...Bd7

{Black proceeds with his development. Numerous other ideas
have been tried here. i.e. 15...Nf6, 15...Qf5, 15...Bb7,
and 15...Qd7. Years ago all these moves were thought to lead
to an advantage to Black (see Wade & Harding "The Marshall
Attack"); However, a review of recent games showed that
White has found numerous improvements.}

16.Nd2 Rae8

{Kamsky has played a few games trying 16...g5. I rejected
this in favor of fast development, following the game
Murey-Geller 1987.}

17.Rh4 Qf5 18.Nf1

{White also follows Murey-Geller 1987. Both 18.a4 and Ne4
seem to be better alternatives.}

18...Qg6 19.Bd2 Bf5

{Black cannot capture on d3. 19...Qxd3 20.Bc2 and wins.}

20.Bxd5	cxd5 21.Ne3 Bxd3

{Geller played 21...Be6, maintaining the tension. Although
he eventually lost the game, it does not seem to be the
result of the opening struggle. I thought this exchange of
d pawns would lead to more open lines and I expected to be
the beneficiary. My analysis proved faulty, since White will
have an opportunity to return the pawn and reduce material
to a fairly balanced position.}

22.Nxd5	Be2 23.Qc1 Bf3

{I had given some thought to 22...Re5 and the pretty
continuation of 23.Nf4 Qf5 24.Nxe2 Rxe2 25.Be3 Rfe8
26.Qf1 Qf3 27.Rd1 Bxg3 28.hxg3 R1xe3 29.Rd8+
(29.Rf4 Qh5) 29...Re1 30.Rxe1+ Rxe1, and the position is
balanced with little in the way of chances.}

24.Ne3?

{White was much better off with 24.c4 (despite the strange
appearance}

24...Rc8 25.Bb4 Bxd5 26.Bxd6 Qxd6 27.Qb1 f5 28.cxd5 Qxd5
29.Qd1 Rd8 30.Qxd5 Rxd5 31.Re2 and Black's more active rooks
give some advantage, but not nearly enough to win against
accurate defense.}

24...f5 25.Ng2 Be7

{Black sets his sights on the wayward rook while reorganizing
his pieces with tempo.}

26.Rd4 Qc6 27.Qf1 Bc5 28.Rf4 g5 29.Rxf3	Qxf3 30.Bxg5 Re2
31.Ne3

{This leads to a quick end. After 31.Be3 Bxe3 32.fxe3
(32.Nxf3 f4 leads to a quick win also) Qxf1+ 33.Rxf1 Rxb2
Black will have an easy time winning with all the loose
pawns as targets.}

31...f4 32.Bxf4	Rxf4 0-1

{After 33.gxf4 Rxf2 34.Qxf2 Bxe3 35.Rf1 Qxf4 36.Kg2 Bxf2
37.Rxf2 Qe4+, Black will have an easy time converting his
advantage.}

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

Analysis by Phil Hildenbrandt

Istvan Kathi - Alan Brian Jones   1-0   KO-119.1.6
1120  Istvan Kathi             9-1-2        SWE  +22
1216  Alan Brian Jones         0-1-7        USA  -22

 [Event "KO-119.1.6"]
 [White "Kathi,Istvan"]
 [Black "Jones,Alan Brian"]
 [Result "1-0"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5

{The Rossolimo variation of the Sicilian.}

3...Qc7 4.O-O

{Below we see an example of this variation as early as 1927.
The text move is more modern, but also follows well trodden
paths. [4.c3 a6 5.Ba4 Nf6 6.Qe2 e5 7.0^Ö0 Be7 8.d4 cxd4
9.cxd4 Nxd4 10.Nxd4 exd4 11.e5 d3 12.Qe3 Nd5 13.Qg3 g6
14.Bb3 Nb4 15.Bxf7+ Kd8 16.Bh6 Nc2 17.Nc3 Nd4 18.Qxd3 Qxe5
19.Rfe1 Qf6 20.Rxe7 1-0
Nimzowitsch Aaron-Gilg,K/Kecskemet-S1 (7) 1927]}

4...d6

{4...Nf6 could have led to a draw. The text gives White
an advantage.}

5.c3 e5

{White's advantage is beginning to become clearer.}

6.Bc4

{6.d4 or even d3 would have increased the advantage even
more than the text.}

6...Be7 7.d4?

{One move ago, this was an extremely strong move. Here it
loses all advantage, and even transfers it to Black.
[7...cxd4 8.Qd3 dxc3 9.Nxc3 Nf6 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.exd5]}

7...cxd4 8.cxd4?

{This allows 8...Nxd4 with a growing advantage to Black.}

8...exd4?

{See the above variation. The text hands the advantage right
over to White. Guess one good mistake deserves another. They
say misery loves company.}

9.Nxd4 Nxd4 10.Qxd4 Bf6 11.Qd3

{Seems like 11. Bb5+ would be just as good as the text but
it is generally a good idea to refrain from checks that may
make the defense easier.}

11...Ne7 12.Nc3 O-O

{12...a6 may have been slightly better.}

13.Bf4

{13.Nb5 would keep the advantage. After the text the
advantage still remains but it is of a more transient
nature.}

13...Be5 14.Bxe5 dxe5 15.Nd5 Qd6 16.Rad1

{Wrong Rook but it works anyway.}

16...Be6??

{16...Nxd5 was needed. Now Black most likely wants to crawl
under a rock.}

17.Nf6+ 1-0

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

Analysis by Phil Hildenbrandt

Earle Bruce - Richard Chai   1-0   Trio-324.2
1754  Earle Bruce              2-1-1        CAN  +21
1827  Richard Chai             4-1-14       NZL  -21

 [Event "Trio 324.2"]
 [White "Bruce,Earle"]
 [Black "Chai,Richard"]
 [Result "1-0"]

1.e4 g6

{The Modern defence. A solid defense with easily understood
strategic ideas. Black's main idea is to control e5 and d4.
As long as Black keeps that in mind, he (or SHE) can't stray
far from the correct move.}

2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 c5

{Notice how Black's last two moves hit at e5 and d4.}

4.d5

{Although the text is playable and becoming more popular,
in light of Black's strategic ideas I must opt for either
4.Be3 or 4.Nf3. Why should White just give up a defender of
e5 and ease the central tension?}

4...d6 5.Nf3 f5

{5...Nf6 also gives Black winning chances. The text hands
White a small advantage. In the game below, Bxc3 transforms
the game into a hybrid Benoni complex (Yes, I read Hans
Kmoch) that appears to be favorable to Black. Opening
transpositions are something we all should be aware of, even
in the middlegame.
[5...Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Qa5 7.Bd2 Bg4 8.Be2 Bxf3 9.Bxf3 Nd7
10.c4 Qa4 11.Be2 Ngf6 12..f3 Ne5 13.c3 Qa6 14.Qb3 b6
15.Qb5+ Qxb5 16.cxb5 O-O 17.Bf4 Nfd7 18.Bxe5 Nxe5 19.f4 Nd7
20.O-O e6 21.dxe6 fxe6 22.Bg4 Nf6 23.Bxe6+ Kg7 24.Bd5 Nxd5
25.exd5 Rae8 26.g3 Re3 27.c4 Rc3 28.Rac1 Rxc1 29.Rxc1 Re8
30.Rc2 Gergs S-Jachnowitsch K/3, DEM U13 Pinneberg 1996/0-1]}

6.Bb5+

{As long as Black doesn't answer this with 6.Nd7 he has an
equal game. This is an example of a needless check. Although
Robert J. Fischer once said "always check, it might be
mate", it very often serves to make the defending sides task
a bit easier.}

6...Bd7 7.Bxd7+ Qxd7

{Again 7...Nxd7 gives the advantage to White. The text again
maintains equality.}

8.exf5

{I would have opted for 8.Qd3 when Black has nothing better
than 8...fxe4 9.Nxe4, and White stands better.}

8...Qxf5 9.Nb5 Qc8?

{The text is the wrong way to defend c7. 9...Na6, although
in my opinion an ugly square for a Knight, is the proper
way. White's advantage would then be minimal. The text
allows 10.Ng5 with the idea of Ne6 totally discombobulating
Black's game. Nimzowitch once said such a Knight is like a
rusty nail in your knee. The reason why this constitutes a
winning advantage is that Black's queenside can only
communicate with the kingside through e8. That spells
trouble for Black's King.}

10.c4?

{Need I say that a move such as 10.Ng5 should be totally
automatic for all Chess players.}

10...a6 11.Nc3 Nh6 12.Ng5

{Kudos to Mr. Bruce.}

12...Nf5 13.Ne6

{That nail in Black's knee must hurt pretty bad.}

13...Bf6 14.a4

{I'll be the first to agree -- since I'm writing this I
guess I am -- that Black's position is totally lifeless and
should lead to defeat. Why Black made it easy on White and
resigned I can't really understand. This game should serve
as an example of the human element of Chess. It's the human
element that makes Chess take such unexpected turns at times.
Because of this human element, I really don't think we have
to worry about computers ever solving the problem of Chess.}

1-0

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

If you have won an IECC game against
a higher-rated player, please submit that game to
Editor: Lisa Powell  <drpowell@uoguelph.ca>

Wanted: Higher-rated members to analyze games.
Also wanted: Members wanted to submit biographies!

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+