*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* IECC CHESS BITS & PIECES *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Published by the International Email Chess Club Devoted solely to free E-Mail Correspondence Chess *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Volume 5, Issue 1 January 1, 1998 Editor: Lisa Powell Staff: Mark Brooks, Tim Nagley *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Steven Geib 1297 USA I learned to play chess from my father when I was 8 years old. I played a lot in my high school Chess Club, but I played 90% of the time against one friend who was pretty much as bad as I was. Since then I had hardly played at all until a year ago when, while cruising the info superhighway, I read about IECC. This got me excited about chess again. I've been playing quite a lot, and I think I've improved some over the last year. I have very much enjoyed playing IECC chess and have tried to show my appreciation by helping out as a new member tutor and more recently as Trios TD. By popular demand, I have now added an "updated" picture of myself on the IECC Trios web page! In my non-chess life, I was born in Kansas City, Missouri, but lived most of my life near Philadelphia, PA. Now I'm a 37-year-old chemist, specializing in X-ray Crystallography at the University of Pittsburgh, PA (USA). Some of my non-chess interests include fencing, bicycling, and fiddle-playing. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Mark Brooks 1877 USA My father was stationed in Germany (a MP captain) when I was born in San Antonio. That was on January 6, 1971, so by the time you read this, I'll almost be 27. We lived in Germany for three years before coming back to the US and shuffling around. We landed in Austin, Texas, in 1976. In 1989, I met my future wife at the University of Texas in an off-campus housing cooperative. Karen and I married in 1994 and moved to west Texas (Lubbock and now Amarillo) for her medical school education. This summer she will begin the intern year of her residency...we're not sure where yet. The most important event in our lives occurred this year. Our first child, Dylan Joshua Brooks, was born on Monday October 20, 1997 at 16:19. He weighed 10 lbs, 0.3 oz. He was 21.5 inches long. He has lots of hair, blue eyes, and a serious smirk. I guess that doesn't tell you much about me. At UT I studied symbolic logics and related computer languages (such as LISP and Prolog) in their Philosophy department. I am currently working from home (a telecommuter) for a west coast software developer as an online jack-of-all-trades. You probably would like to hear something about chess. My father, uncle, and grandfather always played chess when I was growing up. I was given a choice - play blocks with my brother who is five years younger than me or learn to put up a good fight in chess. By age eleven I owned the family title. I began to study and started playing in USCF tournaments when I was thirteen in Austin and San Antonio. Chess is something I come back to when everything else in my life is running well. I quit playing tournaments when I was 15. I started again when I was 22. In 9 months my rating went from 1470 to 1808. I quit again when we had to move from Austin. As we get near to moving back to an area with a more robust chess club, I have started studying chess again. With that in mind, I rejoined the IECC in 1997. After my first opponent was on vacation, I complained too much to Ron Marshall and was promptly drafted. In addition to being a tutor for new members, I was also one of the first PGN proofreaders for the IECC. I resigned from the PGN group to start and direct the IECC's FischerRandom event. Lately, I have also helped Lisa with the Newsletter. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Tim Nagley 1811 My father first taught me to play chess when I was very young, but we both lost interest fairly rapidly. He once drew a game with Alekhine in a simultaneous, probably wanted a better class of opponent than I was. When I was about 10, we moved from London to Rome, Italy, and for a few years I spent many hours every week in airports and hotels, reading chess columns and got hold of a pocket set. My interest was dramatically rekindled by all the publicity of the Fischer-Spassky match in 1972. I was in South Africa at the time. When I was 13 we came back to England and I started playing at school in Yorkshire - but badly, in spite of some enthusiastic coaching from a teacher who had once drawn a game with Tal in another simultaneous. I then lived for about five years in Cambridge (law school and researching), and hardly played at all: the chess players there were far too good for me, and I discovered bridge. I was a student for another 6 years in London, this time at medical school, where the chess standard was so low that I was a welcome addition to the team (although I earned my living by playing and teaching bridge part-time). We lost regularly, and after that I stopped playing again during a busy few years. My career then moved along its natural and obvious course: I owned and ran London's biggest bridge club for about 5 years. Like most decent bridge clubs, there's a chess set there, so I used to play quick games once or twice a week. A few years after my retirement from the bridge world and return more-or-less to medicine, I had a very long illness, from which I'm gradually recovering, which prevented full-time work, and prompted my finding more home-based work and leisure. The latter led to the Internet (a dramatic step for a technophobe), and shortly afterwards to the IECC, which was a wonderful discovery. I'm still trying to work out why I consistently seem to do better against higher-rated players than lower-rated ones. I recently became assistant TD of the FischerRandom section of the IECC, which I heartily recommend to anyone wanting to try something fun and "slightly different" (without damaging your rating, as FR-ratings are maintained separately). I'm also hoping to be able to help Lisa Powell out with these Newsletters. I'm 41, a bachelor, I live in West Hampstead, London, and share my home with about 4000 books and a Siamese cat called Mr. Silky, who actually lives next door but thinks he lives here too. He quite likes the IECC, but prefers to sleep in front of the parliamentary channel on Cable TV. Apart from chess, my other interests include reading, psychology, neurology and psychiatry (old habits die hard), the performing arts, old cars, wining, dining, intelligent conversation and, as an afterthought, nutritional medicine (which I also teach). *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Analysis by Don Camper 2385 Schneider, Helmut (1724) - Hinkle, Chuck (1784) P-540 IECC, 1997 1724 Helmut Schneider 2-1-1 GER +20 1784 Chuck Hinkle 1-0-3 USA -20 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 {Caro-Kann Advanced Variation} 3...Bf5 4.Nc3 e6 5.g4 Bg6 6.Nge2 c5 {The most thematic continuation. 6...f6 is an alternative.} 7.h4 h6 {7...Nc6!? 8.h5 Bxc2!? 9.Qxc2 cxd4 10.Nb1 Rc8 11.Qa4 Qb6 ("unclear" -Kotronias) Kotronias-Djuric, 1993 1-0; 7...cxd4 and h5!? are other alternatives.} 8.Nf4 {8.Be3!} 8...Bh7 9.Bb5+ {Leaving my book. 9.Be3 is another alternative.} 9...Nc6 10.dxc5?! {Why voluntarily develop your opponent's pieces and weaken your own king pawn? 10.Be3 deserves attention as development is most important for White.} 10...Bxc5?! {10...Qc7 is a better choice which directly supports queenside castling.} 11.Nh5 Qc7 12.Bxc6+ Qxc6 13.O-O {13.Nxg7+?? Kf8 14.Nh5 d4 -+} 13...g6 {13...O-O-O. Why block in the bishop with the nice open diagonal? The g-pawn looks very dangerous for White to take: 14.Nxg7 d4 15.Ne2 d3 16.Nf4 dxc2 17.Qe2 Bd4 =+} 14.Nf4 {14.Ng3 may be safer.} 14...O-O-O {14...g5! is worth a look.} 15.a4 g5 16.Nd3 gxh4 {16...d4 17.Nb5 gxh4 18.Nxc5 Qxc5 19.Nd6+ Rxd6 20.exd6 Bxc2 =/+} 17.Nb5 Bxd3 {Why give up a perfectly good bishop? 17...Bb6 18.Nb4 Qc4 19.c3 h3 20.Re1 h5 21.Bg5 f6 22.exf6 hxg4 =+; 17...d4 18.Nxc5 Qxc5 see above.} 18.cxd3 Qb6?! {18...Kb8 appears to be the more flexible move.} 19.b4 Bd4?! {19...Bxb4!? 20.Rb1 a5 (20...Bc5 21.Nd6+ Rxd6 22.Rxb6 Rxb6 +/=) 21.Bd2 Kb8 22.Bxb4 axb4 23.Rxb4 Ne7 24.Rb3 Rd7 unclear.} 20.Nxd4 Qxd4 21.Be3 Qxe5 {21...Qxb4 22.Rb1 Qe7 (22...Qa5 23.Qc2+ Qc7 24.Qxc7+ Kxc7 25.Bxa7 Rc8 26.Rfc1+ Kd8 27.Bb6+ Kd7 28.Rxc8 Kxc8 29.Rc1+ Kb8 30.Rc7 h5 31.g5 +-) 23.Bxa7 +-} 22.Bxa7 Ne7?! {22...Nf6!? is an interesting try; the White king is poorly protected too: 23.f4 Qd6 24.Bc5 Qd7 (24...Qa6 25.Bd4 Nxg4 26.Bxh8 Qb6+ 27.d4 Rxh8 28.Qxg4 Qxd4+ 29.Kh1 Qxb4 30.Qg7 +=) 25.Rc1 Kb8 26..Bd4 Nxg4 27.Bxh8 Rg8 28.Kh1 e5 29.f5 (29.Qe2 Rxh8) 29...h5 30.Bxe5+ Nxe5 31.d4 Ng4 32.Qd2 Re8 33.Qf4+ Ka7 34.Rc7 Qxa4 35.Rc5 Qd7 (35...Re3 36.Ra5+ Qxa5 37.bxa5 Rh3+ 38.Kg2 Rg3+ 39.Qxg3 hxg3 40.Kxg3 +=) 36.Ra1+ Kb6 37.b5 Re2 38.Qb8 Nf2 +=} 23.a5 {23.Bb6 is possibly a better alternative: A) 23...Rd7 24.a5 Rg8 25.a6 Kb8 26.axb7 Qf4 (26...Rxb7? 27.Qa4 +-) 27.Ra8+ Kxb7 28.Rxg8 Nxg8 29.Be3 (29.Qa4 =) 29...Qxb4 30.Qa1 Qxg4+ 31.Kh2 d4 32.Qa5 +-; B) 23...Rdg8 24.Rc1+ Kd7 25.Rc7+ Ke8 26.Rxb7 Qf4 27.Kh1 +=} 23...Rdg8 {Best choice; it maintains control of the g- and h-files.} 24.Rc1+ {24.a6 looks very strong too: A) 24...Nc6 25.axb7+ Kxb7 26.Qa4 Rxg4+ 27.Kh1 Rxb4 28.Qa6+ Kc7 29.Rfc1 (29.Rac1 Qd6 30.Bc5 Qf4 31.Bxb4 Qf3+ 32.Kh2 Qf4+ 33.Kh3 Qf3+ 34.Kxh4 Qf4 +=) 29...Qd6 30.Bc5 Qf4 31.Bxb4 Qf3+ 32.Kg1 Rg8+ 33.Kf1 Qg2+ 34.Ke2 Qg4+ 35.f3 Qg2+ 36.Kd1 Qxf3+ 37.Kc2 Rb8 38.Rab1 Qf2+ 39.Bd2 Qc5+ 40.Kd1 Rxb1 41.Rxb1 Qg1+ 42.Be1 Qg4+ 43.Kc2 Qg2+ 44.Bd2 +-; B) 24...bxa6 25.Qa4 Rxg4+ 26.Kh1 Qd6 27.Bc5 Qc6 28.Bxe7 Qxa4 29.Rxa4 Re8 30.Bd6 Kb7 31.Rfa1 +=} 24...Kd7 25.Bb6 1-0 {However, a further look! After 25...Qf4, White is winning, but Black should have made his opponent show him the win! Any mistake and Black can possibly draw.} 26.Rc7+ Ke8 27.Rxb7 Rxg4+ 28.Kh1 Nc6 {28...Rhg8 29.Be3 +-} 29.Rg1 {29.Bc7 Qf5 30.Bh2 Rxb4 31.Rxb4 Nxb4 32.Qa4+ Kd8 33.Qxb4=; 29.a6 Rg2 (29...Rhg8 30.a7 Nxa7 31.Be3 Qd6 32.Qa4+ +-) 30.Kxg2 Rg8+ 31.Kh1 Qf5 32.Kh2=} 29...Rhg8 {29...Rxg1+ 30.Qxg1 Qf3+ 31.Qg2 Qxd3 32.Qg7 Qe4+ 33.Kg1 +-} 30.Rxg4 Rxg4 {30...Qxg4 31.Qxg4 Rxg4 32.b5 Ne5 33.f4 Rxf4 34.a6 Ra4 35.a7 Nxd3 36.Rb8+ Kd7 37.a8Q Rxa8 38.Rxa8 +-} 31.a6 Rg6 {31...Qf5 32.a7 Nxa7 +=} 32.a7 Nxa7 33.Rxa7 Qf5 34.Ra8+ Ke7 35.Bc5+ Kf6 36.Qa1+ e5 37.Ra6+ Kg7 38.Rxg6+ Kxg6 39.Qf1 += *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Analyzed by Andres Valverde and by Nelson Ralls [Event "KO-302.2.2"] [White "Valverde, Andres"] [Black "Ralls, Nelson"] [Result "1-0"] 2242 Andres Valverde 29-24-6 ESP +14 2272 Nelson Ralls 77-23-8 USA -14 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 Be7 5.Bg2 O-O 6.O-O dxc4 7.Qc2 a6 8.a4 {AV: It is usual to capture the c-pawn, but Black obtains a pretty good position with b5 etc.} 8...Bd7 9.Qxc4 Bc6 10.Bg5 h6 {AV: I saw 10.Nc3 b5!?, then played a quiet move.} {NR:I left my meager book here. Andres has won the opening battle by getting me into unfamiliar territory. Here or earlier I should have taken the time to do some research. There's plenty of material available, but I was lazy. My excuse: going on a business trip to Dallas.} 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.Nc3 Nd7 13.a5 Re8 14.e4 Nf8 15.Rfd1 Ng6 16.Rac1 Qb8 17.Ne1 e5 18.d5 Bd7 19.Nd3 Be7 {AV: White has space advantage and black the pair of bishops. Here I felt comfortable, knowing that Nelson might fight for a win to advance in the K.O. tournament; our first game was a draw.} {NR: Well, I now have pretty passive position and I'm staring at Andres' center pawns and nice space advantage. What to do? Well, I've been thinking about getting some space back on the queenside. The next few moves are played with that idea in mind. If I didn't have to win this game to advance, the prudent thing to do would also be to try and effect some exchanges and try to lock in a draw.} 20.h3 b5 21.Qb3 Qa7 22.Ne2 Rac8 23.Nb4 Bc5 24.Nd3 Bd6 25.Nb4 Ne7 26.Nc3 Bxb4 {AV: At this moment I didn't want to take any risk, and made only "secure" moves. Of course, against Bc5 I would have repeated Nd3.} {NR: Here I exchanged after some maneuvering. Andres might have repeated moves if I'd tried that, since then he would have advanced.} 27.Qxb4 c5 28.Qb3 c4 {NR: Maybe a little too much, definitely some weak dark squares in my camp after the queen jumps on the a3-f8 diagonal.} 29.Qa3 f5 {AV: 28...c4 was not good, dark squares were weakened, but this move is an error. I thought and still think that Nelson evaluated his position as inferior and tried to create complications. From this moment I forgot the draw and played to win.} {NR: Most likely the fatal move. I create some complications, but the White queens's arrival on d6 proves my undoing. My hope is to plant my knight in the center and effect the liquidation of White's center, but of course this frees the White king bishop. Sort of an ill-conceived bid for counterplay. Too many positional negatives add up to a lost game.} 30.Qd6 fxe4 31.Nxe4 Nf5 32.Qb6 Ra8 33.d6 Nd4 34.Nc5 Reb8 35.Qc7 Rc8 36.Qxd7 Rxc5 37.Qb7 {AV: Takes me so much time to find this move.} 37...Qxb7 38.Bxb7 Rb8 39.b4 {AV: Now 39...Ne2+ fails: 40.Kg2 Nxc1 41.bxc5 and the two joined pawns run to the promotion.} {NR: Earlier I had placed some faith in the Ne2+ fork, but then pawns rain down on my 8th rank. So now a draw looks REAL GOOD so I decided giving up the exchange gave me the most chances.} 39...Rcc8 40.Bxc8 Rxc8 41.Kg2 Rd8 42.f4 Nc6 43.fxe5 Nxe5 44.d7 {AV: I thought that this move would make us arrive at an easily won ending, any suggestion?} 44...Rxd7 45.Rxd7 Nxd7 46.Kf2 Ne5 47.Ke3 Nd3 {NR: Well, one extra pawn and a centralized knight for the endgame. Number one on the agenda is to keep White's rook from penetrating into my position. My pokey knight can't cover both sides of the board.} {AV: I analyzed the position quietly and my conclusion was that I must win but I couldn't see how.} 48.Rb1 Kf7 49.Kd4 Ke6 50.Kc3 g6 51.Rf1 Ke7 52.Rf3 Nc1 53.Kb2 Nd3+ 54.Ka3 Nc1 55.Rf1 Nd3 56.Rf3 Ne5 57.Re3 Ke6 58.Re4 h5 59.Rd4 Nc6 60.Rf4 Ke7 61.g4 hxg4 {AV: My plan is formed: to open up files on which my rook can penetrate to Black's 8th rank.} {NR: The battle is lost now, after g4 the rook can't be kept at bay.} 62.Rxg4 Kf6 63.Rh4 Ke5 64.Rh8 c3 65.Rc8 {AV: This is my best move. 65...Kd5 is forced, distracting the king from protecting the kingside.} {NR: A pretty move since now the king will be offside and unable to protect the g-pawn.} 65...Kd5 66.Kb3 c2 67.Kxc2 Nxb4+ 68.Kc3 Nc6 69.Rg8 b4+ {AV: Without my 65.Rc8, Nelson could play 69...Kf5. Now it is not good as 70.Kb3 Nxa5+ 71.Kxb4 Nc6+ and Ne5 is a possible draw.} {NR: Hoping for the swindle 70.Kb3 Nxa5+ 71.Kxb4 Nc6+ 72.K? Ne5, with good drawing chances now that the g-pawn is safe. White fails to be so obliging.} 70.Kb2 Nxa5 71.Rxg6 Nc4+ 72.Kb3 a5 73.h4 Nd2+ 74.Kc2 Nf3 75.h5 1-0 *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Phil Hildenbrandt 1903 USA Henk Zeeman - Barry Wright 1-0 Swiss-53.1 1259 Henk Zeeman 4-0-0 RSA +31 1736 Barry Wright 35-20-34 CAN -31 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 {The advance variation of the French has often been condemned as a drawish variation. This is true, but what is better - play e5 now or to delay it a move or two - is debatable.} 3...c5 4.Nf3 {In my opinion, 4.c3 had to be played.} 4...cxd4 5.Nxd4 a6 {5...Nc6 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Nc3 Bd7 8.Be2 Qb8 9.f4 Qb6 10.Na4 Qa5+ 11.Nc3 Nh6 12.O-O Bc5+ 13.Kh1 Nf5 14.Bd3 g6 15.Bd2 Ne3 16.Nxd5 Nxd1 17.Bxa5 Nf2+ 18.Rxf2 cxd5 19.Rff1 Rb8 20.b3 Ke7 21.g4 h5 22.g5 Bc6 23.h4 Rb7 24.a4 Rhb8 25.Kh2 Bd4 26.Rad1 Be3 27.Bd2 Bc5 28.Ba5 1/2-1/2 Dornelles,Hilton-Ferraro,Fabian/Ch PamAm 96 (16B), Laguna (BRA) (2) 1996.} 6.Nd2 {Possible was 6.Bd3.} 6...Nc6 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.Bd3 Ne7? {8...Qg5 gives Black an advantage.} 9.Nf3 Ng6 10.O-O Be7 11.c3 O-O 12.Qc2 a5 13.Re1 Ba6 14.c4 d4 15.Bd2 Bb7 16.c5 Qd7 17.Rad1? {17.Re4 Qd5 18.Rxd4 Qxc5 19.Rd7, and White's advantage is overwhelming.} 17...Bd8? {17...Qd5 was Black's last chance.} 18.Re4 {White now has a decisive advantage.} 18...Bc7 19.Rxd4 Qe7 {19...Qe8 was slightly better.} 20.Bg5 Qe8 21.Be4 Bc8 22.Qa4 Ra6 23.Bc2 f6 {23...h6 was much better but Black is already lost.} 24.exf6 gxf6 25.Bh6 Rf7 26.Bb3 Rd7 27.Rxd7 Bxd7 28.Qd4 1-0 *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ Analyzed by Mark Brooks 1877 USA A Not-So-Quick Glance at Opening Preparation 1958 Peter Cijs 0-0-1 NED -18 1948 Jesper Ampiainen 8-2-6 SWE +18 One of the newer books that I own is Opening Preparation by Mark Dvoretsky and Artur Yusupov. I hope to use some of their comments to help analyze this game. A word of warning: both of the players are higher rated than I am. I am relying on research to ensure that some of these comments are on the mark. If something doesn't ring true, it could be an error on my part. The first chapter of Opening Preperation is devoted to principles of opening play. Rephrased, the principles cited by Yusupov are: 1) speedy development (don't relocate a piece or indulge in prophylactic moves) 2) place your pieces accurately (especially the queen) 3) prepare your attack thoroughly (don't grab a pawn and end up falling behind in development) I mention this because the players in this game violate the three principles. It's fine to do this, provided there is "serious justification" to quote Yusupov. I suppose that learning what is and is not serious justification is an important part of becoming a good chess player. I hope that by looking at what these players thought was "serious justification" I can help clarify the concept for myself. [Event "Quad 374.12"] [White "Ampiainen,Jesper"] [Black "Cijs,Peter"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "A46"] [Opening "Queen's Pawn Game"] 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 e6 3.b3 {This position is a seldom-used transpositional interchange, with access to ECO codes A46, D05, E04 and E14. White might be hoping that this move order is a simple transposition to 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 d5 4.b3 which brings up several choices for Black (4...c5, 4...Be7, 4...b6, 4...Bd6, 4...Bb4+, 4...Nbd7 and 4...Ne4). Most of those lines seem to favor White. Unfortunately for White, Black does not have to cooperate by playing 3...d5. Out of the other games from my database that use this move order (3.b3), none of them includes the move 3...d5. The choice reply here is usually either 3...b6 or 3...c5. Of these, White scores well under 40%. The point here is that White is trying to surprise Black out of his opening book (probably through a transposition), but that the move he has chosen is not completely safe. He may be relying too much on the hope of automatic play by Black. According to Yusupov, when an unusual variation presents itself, it is very important to stay calm and fight for the initiative so that you can then dictate the course of the opening. Black came up with a unique response to this challenge.} 3...Ne4!? {As surprising as b3 was, it is not quite as surprising as Ne4. 3.Ne4!? also violates the first principle quoted above. The question then is: is there serious justification for this move? Probably not in the strict sense of the position on the board, but it's counter-surprise value is immense. Surprise is a factor that Yusupov claims must be taken into account. Beyond that, there is almost serious justification from the board itself. In most of these Colle-like queen pawn openings, there is a struggle over control of the e4 square. If Black can secure a piece there, he severely hampers any of White's plans. The piece is not quickly removed either. By occupying the square now, Black creates some development problems for White. Often in these games, White's light square bishop is placed on d3 to help control e4 and attack along the b2-h7 diagonal. If necessary, this bishop can then be used to dislodge the knight from his post.} 4.Bb2 d5 5.e3 {At this point, we have transposed (again) into a line from H. Dahl Pedersen - F. Deketelare (Copenhagen 1996, 1-0, 50). That game continued: 5...Bd6 6.Bd3 f5 7.c4 c6 8.Nc3 Nd7 9.Qc2 Qf6 10.O-O-O a5 11.h3 b6 12.Kb1 Ba6 +=. See the complete game below.} 5...Bd6 {Better is 5...b6 which should nearly equalize for Black.} 6.c4? {6.Bd3 was necessary to reassert some influence over the e4 square. 6.Be2 is probably playable as well, although it conceeds the e4 square for some time to come. 6.c4?, on the other hand, violates another of the principles above - it is a case of not preparing an attack thoroughly. White cannot make the pawn break until the light square bishop is properly placed and the king's safety is ensured. The text move may seem to have serious justification because of White's slight edge in development. The exchange on c4 would free the bishop and the option of pushing with c5 is interesting. The problem is that Black is not forced to resolve the center now. The other thing 6.c4? does is remove the c-pawn's ability to act as a buffer on c3 if Black decides to check. In fact, White is so weak on the queenside dark squares that he will lose the initiative and perhaps material.} 6...Bb4+ {This time there is serious justification for moving the piece twice. If White interposes the f3 knight, he not only moves the same piece twice himself, but he also will have trouble developing the b1 knight. After 7.Nfd2 Qf6 (7...Qh4 8.Qf3 Nc6 =+) 8.Qe2 dxc4 9.bxc4 =+, Black has equalized. The other choice is the b1 knight.} 7.Nbd2 {It is not better. After Black's next two moves, he has a small attack. The knight on e4 cannot be budged while White's bishop is buried and his king caught in the middle.} 7...Qf6 8.Qe2 {White is forced into placing his pieces in an awkward arrangement. Most other moves will lose the knight on d2 due to the threat of mate. For example: 8.Bd3? Bxd2+! 9.Kf1 (9.Nxd2 Qxf2#) 9...Ba5 -+. This tactical threat keeps the e4 knight safe.} 8...dxc4 9.bxc4 c5 {9...O-O is an alternative, as is 9...Nd7.} 10.Rb1 {A desperate move...the queen is still forced to guard f2 (10.Qd3 Bxd2+). The only other choice is to break the pin by moving the king (10.O-O-O!? looks to be the best at diffusing the current attack, but it will leave White vulnerable later). White could harass the bishop with 10.a3, but there is nothing to follow up with after 10...Ba5.} 10...O-O {Now that White is rocking on his heels, Black can relax right? Yes, if he is willing to miss a chance at increasing his advantage. White's queen and rook can be forked by a knight on c3. Using that as a threat, Black can try to force White's dark square bishop to retreat to his home square: 10...Bc3 11.Bc1 (11.Bxc3 Nxc3 12.Qd3 Nxb1 13.Qxb1 cxd4 and Black is up the exchange; 11.Qd3 Bxd2+ 12.Ke2 Qf5 is better for Black, too) Nc6 12.dxc5.} 11.Rc1 {11.dxc5 improves on the text for White, but leaves Black with an edge.} 11...Rd8 {11...Nc6 is an alternative. The d-pawn has become the target of a vicious attack.} 12.Rc2 {White can play 12.a3 Ba5 first. White has moved the rook three times in a row because his other pieces are stymied.} 12...cxd4 13.exd4 Nxd2 14.Rxd2? {White is begging for relief. The offer of the exchange is not enough to free up his game, though. It would be best to play 14.Nxd2 Nc6 -+ and let the d-pawn die.} 14...Nc6 {There's no hurry to take the rook. It is better to prepare the follow-up attack by deploying the remaining pieces. Qf5 is another option.} 15.Qe4 Bxd2+ {Now White must either give up castling or retreat the knight to recapture.} 16.Kxd2 Nxd4 {16...Qe7 and 16...Qh6+ are alternatives.} 17.Nxd4 {It is best to keep the bishop, whose power is greater in this open position, than it is to keep the limited knight.} 17...e5 18.Bd3 {The bishop finally moved where it belongs.} 18...Qh6+ 19.f4 exd4 20.h3 Bd7 21.g4? {The game was lost, so it is easy for this kind of mistake to happen.} 21...Bc6 0-1 {The skewer wins more material: 22.Qxh7+ Qxh7 23.Bxh7+ Kxh7 24.Re1 Rd7 25.Kd3 Rad8} Supplemental Games: A. Mortazavi - M. Adams, Blackpool (Br. Ch.) 1988 [ECO "A46", "Queen's Indian D"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.b3 c5 4.e3 b6 5.Bb2 Bb7 6.Bd3 Be7 7.Nbd2 d6 8.O-O O-O 9.Re1 Nbd7 10.c4 Re8 11.e4 cxd4 12.Bxd4 Qc7 13.Rc1 Rad8 14.Bb1 Ne5 15.b4 Qb8 16.Qb3 Nfd7 17.Bb2 Bf6 18.Nd4 Bg5 19.Rcd1 Rc8 20.N2f3 Bf6 21.Rc1 Ba6 22.Nxe5 Nxe5 23.Nb5 d5 24.exd5 exd5 25.Qa3 Bxb5 26.cxb5 Rxc1 27.Rxc1 Nc4 28.Qh3 Bxb2 29.Qxh7+ Kf8 30.Qh8+ Ke7 31.Re1+ Be5 32.Qxg7 Kd8 0-1 H. Dahl Pedersen - F. Deketelare, Copenhagen 1996 [ECO "D05", "Queen's Pawn Game"] 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.b3 Ne4 5.Bb2 Bd6 6.Bd3 f5 7.c4 c6 8.Nc3 Nd7 9.Qc2 Qf6 10.O-O-O a5 11.h3 b6 12.Kb1 Ba6 13.Rc1 Qe7 14.Ne1 Ba3 15.g4 Qb4 16.f3 Bxb2 17.Qxb2 Nxc3+ 18.Rxc3 dxc4 19.Bxc4 Bxc4 20.Rxc4 Qd6 21.Qc2 c5 22.gxf5 O-O 23.fxe6 Qxe6 24.dxc5 Nxc5 25.Rh4 Qf5 26.Qxf5 Rxf5 27.Rd4 Rf6 28.Rf1 Re8 29.Nc2 Rh6 30.h4 Rf8 31.Rg4 Rhf6 32.Nd4 Ne6 33.Nxe6 Rxe6 34.e4 Ref6 35.f4 h5 36.Rg5 Rxf4 37.Re1 Rxh4 38.e5 Re8 39.Rg6 Rb4 40.Kb2 Kf7 41.Rg5 h4 42.Reg1 g6 43.Rxg6 Rxe5 44.Rg7+ Ke6 45.R1g6+ Kd5 46.Rh6 Kc5 47.Rc7+ Kb5 48.a4+ Ka6 49.Rhh7 b5 50.Rh6+ 1-0 *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* Games from a FischerRandom Match (FR-15) Part 2 (of 2) : FR-15.2 The analysis of these games was a collaboration between Mark Brooks and Tim Nagley, and can be improved upon by better players, we're sure. Tim's opponent was Jose Carrillo-Muniz. [White "Carrillo-Muniz,Jose"] [Black "Nagley,Tim"] [Result "0-1"] {This is the counterpart game to the one discussed in the previous newsletter (No. 29, 15th December 1997), and has the same starting position as that game, namely:} [FEN "bbrkrnnq/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/BBRKRNNQ"] {From this set-up, the most obvious weak points are the entirely unprotected f2 and f7 squares (which cannot, however, readily be attacked). The b2, b7, g2 and g7 squares are also relatively unprotected. Note that a natural development-plan involves activating the bishops by playing b3 (b6) and c4 (c5), and that it seems most natural to plan to castle h-side, probably after the scope of the opposing bishops has been somewhat reduced. As in the previous game (and all FR-games), two considerations apply: opening book knowledge and habits are of little use, although understanding the ideas behind the openings remains immensely valuable; and the nature of the position gradually becomes less unorthodox as the game progresses.} 1.c4 c5 {"English" again! Mark (as either player) would rather have opened a long diagonal to get the queen developed with g3 (g6).} 2.g3 {This appears to hinder Black somewhat in developing his light square bishop.} 2...Nf6 {Black could have played Be5, though. This not only develops his dark-square bishop, but also prevents 3.b3 and threatens 3...b5, attacking both the queen and the unprotected c-pawn. Defending against these threats would concede the a8-h1 diagonal to Black and make the development of White's queen more difficult.} 3.b3 Bc7 {Now, in order to contest the a8-h1 diagonal, the bishop must make a tiny step.} 4.Nf3 {White might have tried 4.Bxf6, hoping that doubling the pawns would give him some advantage. However, knowing that if Black is to castle, it will probably be h-side, it might be best to reserve the pressure of that bishop.} 4...b6 {Black takes the opportunity to activate his light square bishop, pinning White's knight.} 5.Ne3 Ne6 6.O-O {White's king is now on g1; his rook on f1.} 6...Nd4 7.Bxd4 cxd4 8.Nf5 e5 9.Qg2 {9.Ng5!? threatening Nxf7#.} 9...g6 10.Nh6 Qg7 11.Qh3 d3 {11...Nh5 is interesting: if 12.Ng5, Black can respond with 12...Re7. This, if White accepts the trade of two knights for a rook and a pawn, would certainly defuse White's activities on the h-side. Alternatively, if 12.Nf5, not 12...gxf5? (13.Qxh5!), but 12...Qf6! (e.g. 13.Qh4 Qxh4 14.N5xh4) seems to stall White's attack and perhaps paves the way for a strong counter-attack.} 12.Ng5 {White might try 12.e4, virtually inactivating Black's light square bishop.} 12...dxe2 13.Nhxf7+ {13.Ngxf7+ seems better; the h-knight will stay protected by the queen.} 13...Ke7 14.Rfe1 Ng8 15.Rxe2 {White has to lose the knight for one or possibly two pawns. The question is: what positional advantage can he develop from it? One idea might be 15.Nxe5. Black has two alternatives to avenge the pawn: Qxe5 and Bxe5. If 15...Qxe5, Black loses significant material (at best) after 16.Qxh7+ (16...Kd8 17.Nf7+; 16...Kf8 17.Qf7#; 16...Kf6 17.Qf7+ Kxg5 18.Qxg6#; 16...Kd6 17.Nf7+). If 15...Bxe5, then 16.Rxe2 pins the bishop with the threat of d4 or of f4. While not necessarily decisive, this line allows White to devastate Black's h-side in exchange for the knight.} 15...h6 16.Nxh6 Qxh6 17.Qxh6 Nxh6 18.Rc3? {After this move, Black felt he should be able to win the game. He had anticipated 18.f4, i.e. White continuing an h-side advance, probably bringing the c-rook behind this pawn, maintaining improved counterplay for his material disadvantage.} 18...Nf5 19.Be4 Nd4 20.Re1 Bxe4 21.Rxe4 Rh8 {Black might even try Kf6!? e.g. 22.f4 d6 23.Nf3.} 22.h4 d6 {22...Ne6 is also an option; Black can afford to exchange pieces.} 23.Nf3 Nxf3 {White, on the other hand, really cannot. 23.Nf3 is perhaps a mistake, but of the type so universally available in poor positions.} 24.Rxf3 b5 {Envisaging, for example, 25.d4 bxc4 26.bxc4 Rb8 27.Rb3. Another option might be to move a rook to the f-file and try to entice White into more exchanges.} 25.cxb5 Bb6 {This frees the file for the rook.} 26.a4 Rc2 {26.Rc3 is probably better for White.} 27.Re2 Rhc8 28.Kf1 Rb2 29.Rd3 Rcc2 {Over the last four moves, White has been effectively powerless to prevent Black's natural rook development.} 30.f4 Ke6 31.fxe5 dxe5 {31.g4, preparatory to an h-side pawn advance, might be better here. Since giving up the knight much earlier on, White's best chance has probably been this sort of line.} 32.g4 Rc1+ 33.Re1 Rc8 34.Re2 {34.Ke2 is better.} 34...Rb1+ 35.Re1 Rf8+ 0-1 {35.Kg2 was essential.} We hope you've enjoyed this game, and that you'll soon join the ever-increasing band of IECC players 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. Further information is available on the IECC's FischerRandom Pages: Mark Brooks, FischerRandom TD Tim Nagley, FischerRandom Asst TD *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* If you have won an IECC game against a higher-rated player, please submit that game to Lisa Powell Wanted: High-rated members to analyze games. Also wanted: Members wanted to submit biographies. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+