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

                 IECC CHESS BITS & PIECES

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

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

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*
Volume 5, Issue 2                          January 15, 1998
Editor: Lisa Powell                       Staff: Tim Nagley
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

For those of you who face destruction against a
higher-rated opponent in a Pyramid game, please observe
the performance of Francois Bertin, who played in one of my
chess groups before I started IECG, and then IECC. Two of
our analysts, Dale Whitehead and Phil Hildenbrandt, have
both analyzed this game.

Lisa Powell

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

Jan Malmstrom

After having completed +100 games in IECC, I feel it's time
I present myself. I was born June 6, 1950 -- the Swedish
national day - but don't recall much of what happened.

Our family moved to Stockholm when I was 6, and a few years
later, I started medical studies at 19, having completed my
medical exam. I moved to Harnosand in 1976 and from there to
Eskilstuna 1983 then being examined as a family doctor (GP).
I moved to Grangesberg in 1989 where I met my wife Yvonne.
We live in a nice house with my mother-in-law who has been
operated for kidney cancer, but is now recovering very well!

I work in a small village called Fredriksberg caring for
around 1200 people as "house doctor" -- a very rewarding job.

My chess life started in 1956 when my father taught me to
play. A few years later he refused to play me anymore (he
started losing games). I played some chess in school; our
team placed 2nd in the Swedish school championship but not
because of me; my results were mediocre. In 1970 I joined a
chess club in Stockholm playing for a second class team. I
also played in the Swedish Championship 1980-1990
alternately class I and class II. My rating never reached
2000.

In 1977 I discovered correspondence chess and was hooked! I
have played in all classes up to Master class where I now
dwell.

Almost 2 years ago I discovered E-mail chess and was hooked
again -- this time even stronger! I play in all the major
organizations-IECC,IECG,SEMI,ICCF,ICL and some minor. My
rating goes up and down, but seems to stabilize round 2300.

I like to play fast (and much) but will try to take it a
little slower in a just started ICCF Master Norm Tmt
(EM/MN/003). I mostly open 1.e4 and like to play gambits,
especially the Latvian Gambit where the specialists have
their own World Championships organized by Mr.John Elburg
from Holland.

I will not present any of my games since there are lots of
them in the IECC and IECG files.

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

Tim Barnes

I was born in 1955 at St. Mary's Hospital in Grand Rapids,
Michigan. It was, I presume, a cold day: the month was
February.

I have, with a few exceptions, never been more than a couple
hours away from the point of my birth. The exceptions being
my honeymoon, and a vacation one year to Florida.

I like the definitive changes of season, and I love the
snow. I like cold weather, ice, freezing rain, and even that
feeling when you get a little sliver of snow melting its way
down your back.

In a word -- and my wife uses this word quite frequently --
I'm crazy. I have a good, if unusual, sense of humor.

We have a daughter aged 17 whom I adore. I am a band booster
for her marching band.

I work for the world's largest toy store chain, so as of
this writing it is plunging into my busiest time of the

year. I love the Christmas season, even if some shoppers
drive me up the wall sometime. 90 percent are great people,
and that makes it easy to work with the rest.

Now that we have the boring stuff done, I will tell you
about me and Chess. I'm lousy. I love chess, and am
above-average if you count everybody in the world, but
amongst those that play more than a game a week, I'm lousy.
I rarely have sense to ask for a draw, unless I am in a
hopeless position, and then I will try to bluff my way to a
draw. Usually that doesn't work; in fact, it has never
worked, because those I have tried it on know they have me
beat anyway.

My main problem is I'm not logical. I actually am better
if I'm told to play with a clock and am under pressure. I
react better, and the time constraint tends to level the
playing field. Time limits tend to put more pressure on
logic than abstract theory. I can think a couple moves
ahead, but usually lose my train of thought after about the
4th or 5th move. I recognize openings, and know the usual
response to them, just because of repetition. Then something
goes awry in my head; I make the wrong move; bang I'm down
a pawn and have the enemy queen glaring directly at my king.

I learned the game at the age of 9 or 10, progressed until
about 16, and am at about the same level of play here 25
years later. In short: lousy.

I played in my first tournament in Jr. High School. It was
a single elimination with 8 players. It was played over the
3 Fridays just before school let out for the summer. I
figured I might make it one round. I didn't. The guy I
played beat me in 3 moves. This was bad, but the fact that
he ran down the hall shouting that if he hurried he could
still catch his bus was rather discouraging.

I will upon occasion catch someone napping, but not often.
However, I do love the game. I like the people I meet.
That is the real reason I keep going.

I love e-mail chess: it's cheaper and faster than snail
mail. In the old postal days it cost me $30 in post cards,
and a year in time to figure out that I was LOUSY.

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

Analyzed by    Andres Valverde        2244

Heiner Theofel 1646  (+26)  1668
Eric Van Dusen 1910  (-26)  1884

[Event "Swiss 27.3"]
[Site "IECC"]
[White "Theofel,Heiner"]
[Black "van Dusen,Eric"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.f4 Qc7
7.Nf3 Nbd7 8.Bd3 g6 9.O-O Bg7 10.Qe1 b5!?

{This is an unusual line in the Najdorf variation of the
Sicilian defense.  White has prepared to play 11.e5! and
Black has taken no action to avoid this.}

11.e5! dxe5 12.fxe5 Ng4 13.e6! fxe6 14.Bg5

{14.Qe4 was also good.}

14...Qb6+ 15.Kh1 Bb7 16.Be4!

{the bishop exchange will weaken Black's position quickly.}

16...Ra7 17.Bxb7 Rxb7 18.Nd5! Qc5

{Black has already lost the game!}

19.Qxe6 Ndf6 20.Bxf6 Nxf6 21.Ne5 Rf8 22.Nxf6+ Bxf6
23.Rad1 Rc7 24.Rxf6

{Heiner Theofel suggests: 23...Bxe5 28.Rd8+ Kxd8
29.Rxf8+ Kc7 30.Rc8#.}

{Short and sweet: 24...Rxf6 25.Qg8+ Rf8 26.Qxf8+! or
26.Rd8+!}

1-0

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

Analyzed by Jack Berry    2182

Flemming Storgaard       1909  (+24)  1933
Alfonsino Lannaaioli     2087  (-24)  2065

[Event "TH-M-60.2"]
[Site "IECC"]
[White "Storgaard, Flemming"]
[Black "Lannaioli, Alfonsino"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5

{The Budapest defense gives Black good tactical prospects
because of his active pieces at the cost of a pawn.
There are ways, though, for White to return the pawn, avoid
the real sharp lines, & potentially keep a slight edge.}

3.dxe5 Ng4 4.Nf3

{4.Bf4 is more ambitious but I like 4.Nf3 too because it
seems to minimize Black's tactical potential.}

4... Nc6 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.Nc3 Ngxe5 8.e3

{Simple & good. White has a slight edge because of the
strong d5 square for his knight.}

8...O-O 9.Nd5 Nxf3 10.Qxf3 Qe5 11.Bd3

{Good! White ignores the threat to his b-pawn confident
that the pawn will be a great investment after 11...Qxb2

12.O-O}

12...Nb4

{A blunder.}

12.Nxb4

1-0

{If 12...Qxb2 13.Rb1 Qc3+ 14.Ke2, White consolidates
smoothly and Black has nothing to show for his missing
knight, other than a somewhat prettier pawn structure.}

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

Analyzed by    Samuel Grabski        1746
               James Smith           1948

Samuel Grabski     1694  (+27)  1721
James Smith        1983  (-27)  1956

[Event "M-1234.2"]
[Site "IECC"]
[White "Grabski,Samuel"]
[Black "Smith,James"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e5
7.Nb3 Be7 8.O-O O-O 9.Be3

{SG: There are other quite popular possibilities here:
a) 9.f4 b) 9.Re1 c) 9.Kh1 d) 9.a4}

9....Be6

{SG: Very solid response but White has a lot of choices:
a) 10.f4 b) 10.Qd2 c) 10.Nd5
I have decided to play the less popular 10.Nd5}

10.Nd5 Nbd7 11.Qd3 Bxd5 12.exd5

{SG: Black can choose from:
a) 12...Qc7 b) 12...Ne8 c) 12...a5!? d) 12...Re8 e)12...Nc5}

12...Nc5 13.Nxc5

{SG: ECO B3 recommends 13.Qd2 instead of 13.Nxc5 but White
dared to disagree. The potential power of the pawn on d5
should not be underestimated. In fact, I was planing to win
this game using d5 pawn}

13...dxc5 14.Bf3

{SG: New move!}

{JS: This move deviates from the model game King - Browne
Reykjavik 1990
14.Rfd1 e4 15.Qd2 Bd6 16.a4 Qc7 17.g3 Rae8 18.a5 Nd7
19.Bf4 Ne5 20.c4 f5 21.Rac1 h6}

14...Qc7!

{SG: James has found the best counter move!}

15.c4

{SG: Practically, It is the best move available here.}

{JS: 15.Rfe1 seems to be weaker: A) 15...c4? This move
drives the Queen away from the square Black needs it to
prevent the Kingside from falling apart. 16.Qd2 Bd6
(16...Rad8 17.Re2 Bd6 18.Bg5 e4 19.Bxf6 Bxh2+ 20.Kh1 gxf6
21.Rxe4 +=) 17.Bg5 e4 18.Bxf6 Bxh2+ 19.Kh1 Bf4 20.Qc3 exf3
21.Bxg7 Rfd8 22.Bh8 f6 23.Bxf6 Qf7 24.g3 Rd6 25.Bh4+/-
B) 15...Bd6! 16.Bg5 e4 17.Bxe4 18.Qxe4 Bxh2+ 19.Kh1 f6
20.Qe6+ Kh8 =+
In spite of the passed White d pawn, Black's King is more
protected and the pawn is easily blocked.}

15...Ne8?!

{SG: knight is going to block d5 pawn a la Nimzovitz but it
costs tempi.}

{JS: Better would have been to stick to the plan: 15...Bd6}

16.Be4

{SG: Beginning of the long term plan.}

16...h6?!

{JS: Better to have eaten crow with 16...Nf6}

17.Bh7+

{SG: An important check cornering Black's King.}

17...Kh8 18.Bf5 b5!?

{SG: Interesting move. Black offers a pawn for an active
play!}

19.b3

{SG: After 4 days of thinking I decided to refuse James's
offer for a draw, and play 19.b3. First, I was under
influence of another game with James where his pawn offer
was a brilliant trap. Secondly, I wanted to preserve chain
of pawns (c4, d5) which was my plan for a win. 19.b3 is
passive move though. More adventurous would be 19.cxb5!?}

{JS: [19.cxb5 c4 (19...axb5 20.Qxb5 +/-) 20.Qd2 axb5
21.Bxh6!! Nd6 (21...gxh6 22.Qxh6 Kg8 23.Qh7#) 22.Bc2 +/-]}

19...Nd6

{SG: Very good square for knight! Black has almost a
comfortable position.}

20.f4!?

{SG: The most difficult decision in the whole game. White
wants to exchange e5 pawn and gain more control in the
center.}

20...Bf6 21.Rae1 Rfe8 22.Bd2 Re7

{JS: or 22...Rab8 seeking to create an opening for the Rook
on the b-file.}

23.fxe5

{SG: White goes for the e5 exchange despite that it slightly
weakens dark squares in his camp.}

23...Bxe5 24.Bg4 Bd4+ 25.Kh1 Rae8 26.Rxe7

{SG: If you remove all the pieces from the board (except
Kings, of course) White has a winning advantage due to
passing the d5 pawn!}

26...Qxe7 27.Bf3

{SG: White has better pawn structure, but this positional
advantage is totally counterbalanced by active placement of
Black pieces.}

27...Qe5

{SG: 27...Be5 could lead to a draw e.g. 27...Be5 28.Be1 Qg5
29.Bf2 bxc4 30.bxc4 Qf4 31.g3 forcing a draw
31... Qxc4 32.Qxc4 Nxc4 33.Bxc5 Nd2 34.Rf2 Nxf3 35.Rxf3=
or 27...Be5 28.Be1 Qg5 29.g3 with equal chances.}

{JS: 27...Be5 =+}

28.g3 bxc4


{SG: That exchange benefits White; not Black!}

29.bxc4 Qf5?

{SG: Black forces another unnecessary exchange. The Queen is
needed for dynamic play to compensate White's pawn structure.
Better was 29... Qf6 +=}

30.Qxf5 Nxf5 31.Bf4!

{SG: The point! It denies the knight his best square. Black
is doomed now.}

31...Kg8

{SG: 31... Be5 could prolong the fight a little bit.}

{JS: Black needs to stop the d pawn, but it appears to be
too late.}

32.Bc7

{SG: The best. It controls key squares: d6 and d8.}

32...Re3

{SG: Quiet 32...Rf8 might be worth investigation.}

{JS: 32...Ne3 33.Re1 Kf8 34.d6 Nxc4 35.Rxe8+ Kxe8
36.Bc6+ Kf8 37.d7 Bf6 38.Bb7 +-}

33.Bg4 Ne7 34.d6 Nc6 35.d7 Bf6! 36.Rb1 1-0

{JS: There is no defense to losing decisive material.}

{SG: 36...Nb4 37.Rd1! +- 36... Bg5 (or 36...Be7) 37.Rb6 +-}

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

Analyzed by    Phil Hildenbrandt     1913

George Angus     1879  (+20)  1899
Kevin Kent       1976  (-20)  1956

[Event "M-1132.2"]
[Site "IECC"]
[White "Angus,George"]
[Black "Kent,Kevin"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 d5

{The Scandinavian defense, an attempt by Black to remove
White's opening advantage. On general principles, this is
not such a great opening -- but in practice, it is quite
difficult for White to meet it correctly. David Bronstein
once wrote that in king pawn openings, d5 is usually a
freeing move for Black so why shouldn't it be played on
move one.}

2.exd5 Nf6 3.c4

{The text was the move I tried the first time I saw the
Scandinavian defence in a game. Although in practice
White does obtain an advantage, the attempt to force
matters by holding on to the pawn can and often does
cause White to make enough positional concessions to lose
in an endgame. In my opinion, the correct treatment is to
give the pawn back with 3.d4.}

3...c6 4.Nc3

{Not 4 dxc6 as in Michael Chandler - Michael Adams:
Hastings 1989 0-1 in 56 moves.}

4...cxd5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.Nf3 Nxc3

{Seems Kevin opted for equality while a win was in site.
[6...Nc6 7.d4 Bg4 8.Qb3 Nb6 9.Be3 (9.d5 Bxf3 10.gxf3 Nd4
11.Qd1 e5 12.dxe6 fxe6 13.Be3 Bc5 14.Bg2 Qh4 15.O-O Bd6
16.h3 Nf5 17.Nb5 Rd8 18.Nxd6+ Rxd6 19.Qe2 Kf7 20.Rfd1
Nd5 21.Rd2 Rhd8 22.Rad1 b6 23.a3 g6 24.Rd3 Qc4 25.Bf1 Qh4
26.Bg2 R8d7 27.Bc1 Rc7 28.Qe4 Qf6 29.Qg4 Rdc6 30.Bg5 Qxb2
31.h4 h5 32.Qe4 Nf6 33.Qe1 Rc5 34.Bf4 Re7 35.Bh3 Qb5
36.Bg5 Rec7 37.Bf1 Qa4 38.Bg2 Nxh4 39.Rd4 Rxg5 40.Rxa4 Nxf3+
0-1 Winants L-Adams Michael (ENG)/Wijk aan Zee op 62/126
1995; 9...Bxf3 10.gxf3 e6 11.O-O-O Be7 12.Rg1 O-O 13.d5
Nxd5 14.Nxd5 exd5 15.Rxd5 Qc7 16.Qc3 Bf6 17.Qc4 Rad8 18.Rh5
g6 19.f4 Bd4 20.Be2 Qe7 21.Rh3 Qf6 22.Qb5 a6 23.Qh5 Qg7
24.Qh4 Bxb2+ 25.Kb1 Ba3 26.Bc1 Bxc1 27.Rxc1 Rd2 0-1
Ehlvest J-Oll Lembit/08, Riga zt 1995]}

7.bxc3 Bg4 8.Bc4 e6?

{This allows a nice combo.}

 9.Qa4+ Ke7?

{9...Nd7 10.Ne5 a6 11.Nxg4 b5 Now White's advantage is
clear, but it is in no way decisive.}

10.Ne5 Bf5

{I don't think Black should worry about the bishop.}

11.Qb4+ Ke8

{11...Kf6 loses also.}

12.Qxb7 1-0

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

Analyzed by  Mark Tolliver         2069

Miguel Possolo     1063  (+19)  1082
Andy Richard       1119  (-19)  1100

[Event "CL7-1997.9"]
[Site "IECC"]
[White "Possolo,Miguel"]
[Black "Richard,Andy"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3

{One popular way to meet Alekhine's Defense is 2.e5 Nd5
3.d4 d6 4. Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 Nc6 6.c4 Nb6 7.exd6 exd6. White
attempts to establish a positional advantage. Many of the
other methods of meeting this defense are too aggressive,
and allow Black good chances to counterattack and achieve
a dynamic equilibrium.}

2...d5

{Also possible is 2..e5, transposing into the Vienna.}

3.exd5

{3.e5 Nfd7 4.d4 e6 transposes into an ancient variation of
the French Defense that offers White little in the way of an
opening advantage. 3.e5 Nfd7 4.e6 fxe6 5.Nf3 g6 6.Ng5 Nf6
7.d4 Bg7 and White doesn't seem to have enough pull for the
pawn. Nevertheless, some players as Black have played

3.e5 Ne4!? avoiding the sac line.}

3...Nxd5 4.Nxd5.

{This simplification does little to advance White's
development. Another try is 4.Bc4, and if 4...Nxc3 5.Qf3! e6
6.Qxc3, and White has moved ahead in the development race.}

4...Qxd5 5.Qf3 Qxf3

{This allows the natural development of the White knight
with tempo. Better was 5...Qc5 6.Qc3 e5 7.Nf3 Nc6
8.Qxc5 Bxc5 and, Black has taken a slight lead in the
development race.}

6.Nxf3 Nc6 7..Bb5 Bd7 8.c3 O-O-O 9.O-O e6 10.d4 f6
11.Re1 Bd6 12.Bd2 h6?

{Thus far both sides have done well finishing their
development. Black should have played 12...Rhe8, maintaining
an equal position.}

13.Nh4?

{Premature. Better was 13.Bxc3, and if Bxc3 14.Rxe6. The
reason this is better now (as opposed to the last move) is
that with White's Bishop on d2 White can win the pawn and
still hold on to the e file.}

13...Rhe8

{Black should force the knight back with 13...g5
(14.Ng6?? Rg8! wins the wayward knight) before the Rook
move.}

14.Ng6 a6 15.Bc4 Na5

{Better is 15...Ne7, attempting to eliminate the advanced
knight. Note that Black did well not to fall into the trap
15...e5? 16.Bf7! exd4 17.Bxe8 Bxe8 18.Nh4 dxc3 19.Bxc3; with
the exchange to the good White would be on the road to
victory.}

16.Bd3 Kb8 17.b4 Nc6 18.b5?

{18.a4 was clearly better. Black would have to take great
care not to get eaten alive on the queenside.}

18...axb5 19.Bxb5 Na5

{Black should have availed himself of the opportunity to
play e5. i.e. 19..e5 20.dxe5 Nxe5 21.Bxd7 Nxd7 22.Bf4 Bxf4
23.Nxf4 Nc5, and the position slightly favors Black --but a
draw is the most likely outcome.}

20.c4?

{Not a good choice. 20.Bd3 leaves White slightly better. Now
Black grabs the advantage.}

20...Bxb5 21.cxb5 Nc4! 22.Be3 Nxe3?

{Oops!! Black overlooks the win of a pawn by 22..Na3!, and
after 23.Rec1 Nxb5 24.a4 Na7 Black consolidates his position
with a pawn to the good.}

23.Rxe3 e5?

{This helps white liquidate one of his nagging weaknesses:
the isolated d pawn.}

24.dxe5 Bxe5 25.Nxe5 Rxe5 26.Rxe5 fxe5 27.Re1 Rd2

{This position is quite even and should quickly fizzle to a
dead draw. But Rook endings can be tricky.}

28.h3 Rd5?

{Inconsistent. Why not trade pawns? 28...Rxa2 29.Rxe5 Rb2,
and Black has the first passed pawn. The text still
maintains an even position.}

29.a4 g5?

{One key principle to remember in Rook endings is not to
advance pawns on the side of the board where you are weaker.
This important principle applies to other endings as well.
Following this principle, Black should play 29...c5 creating
a passed pawn. It may not have been enough for Black to win,
but it was clearly the right strategic plan.}

30.g4 b6?

{Passive play. Despite this, Black is a long way from losing
this position.}

31.Kg2 Kc8 32.Re4 Kd7 33.Rc4 Kd6??

(This loss of the h pawn is probably fatal. The simple
33...Rd4 would have kept the game in the draw zone.}

34.Rc6+ Kd7 35.Rxh6 Rd4

{Black's best chance to hold the game would have been with
35...e5, but after 36.h4 gxh4 37.Rxh4 Rd4 38.g5 Ke6
39.Rf4 Rxa4 40.g6 Ra8 41.Rxe4+ Kd4 42.Re7 Rg8 43.g7 Kd6
44.Rf7 c5 45.bxc6 ep Kxc6 46.f4 b5 47.f5 b4 48.f6 b3
49.Rf8 b2 50.Rxg8 b1=Q 51.Rc8+ Kb7 52.g8=Q and wins.}

36.Rg6 Rxa4 37.Rxg5 e4 38.h4 Ra2 39.Re5 Ra4 40.h5 e3
41.fxe3? ...

{This will win, but 41.f3 would have made things easier. No
further comments are necessary.}

41...Rxg4+ 42.Kh3 Rg7 43.Kh4 Rh7 44.Kg5 Kd6 45.Rf5 Ke6
46.Kg6 Rd7 47.h6 Re7 48.e4 Kd6 49.h7 Re8 50.Kg7 Re7+
51.Rf7 Re8 52.h8/Q Rxh8 53.Kxh8 c5 54.bxc6 Kxc6 55.Rf5Kd6
56.Kg7 Ke6 57.Kf8 Kd6 58.Kf7 Kd7 59.e5 b5 60.e6+ Kd6
61.Rxb5 Kc6 62.Rh5 Kd6 63.e7 Kc7 64.Rh6 Kb7 65.e8=Q Ka7
66.Qe7+ Ka8 67.Rh8# 1-0

{Despite some criticisms, my hat is off to both of these
players. I definitely think they played well above their
rating levels.}

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

Analyzed by Dale Whitehead        2301

Francois Bertin   1245  (+30)  1275
Steve Guidi       1677  (-30)  1647


[Event "P-315"]
[Site "IECC"]
[White "Bertin,Francois"]
[Black "Guidi,Steve"]
[Result "1-0"]

{This is an interesting, hard-fought contest. Black errs
early in the middle game losing tempos on the queenside.
After regrouping, she transfers to the kingside where she is
eventually trapped. Despite these problems, black mounts a
very tough defense and just barely runs out of time.}

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d3

{A solid alternative to the more usual d4. The Closed
Sicilian allows white to avoid early confrontations and
complete development.}

3...g6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 e6

{Preparing d5. While this move doesn't lose material, it
blocks the development of the bishop at c8 and weakens d6.
5...d6 would be better.}

6.0-0 Nge7

{The knight develops at e7 instead of f6 to avoid allowing
e5.}

7.c3 O-O 8.d4

{White has the right approach, but needed to prepare the
move first with Be3.}

8...cxd4 9.cxd4 d5 10.e5

{The pawns at d4 and e5 limit the scope of the bishop at g7.
While no serious errors have been made by black, the white
army is beginning to take aim at the black king.}

10...Qb6 11.Nc3 Nf5

{The opening has been completed.  Both sides should be happy
with their position. White has attacking chances on the
kingside and black has a solid position.}

12.Na4 Qb4?!

{This is the first serious error in the game. While it
doesn't lose any material, white is able to gain tempos by
attacking the queen. Better would have been Qc7 or d8 to
redeploy the queen later in the game.}

13.a3 Qa5?!

{Same reason as on move 12, just helping white to develop.
Much better was Qe7.}

14.b4 Qc7

{Safe at last. But, look at the cost, white has been allowed
to expand on the queenside by playing a3 and b4 for free.}

15.Bf4 Bd7 16.Rc1 a6 17.Qd2 b6 18.Nc3 Qd8

{Another queen move, either Rac8 or Rfc8 to contest control
of the c-file would have been preferred.}

19.Rc2 Rc8 20.g4

{The attack begins! The position is slightly in favor of
white, but when a battle starts, the risk for both sides
increases.  Watch carefully.}

20...Nh4 21.Nxh4 Qxh4 22.h3 f6

{Black has to free his game and f6 is the correct choice.
Unfortunately, this also cuts off the queen.}

23.Bg3 Qh6 24.f4 fxe5 25.dxe5 Rfd8 26.Na4 Rb8 27.Qf2?

{Drops a pawn. Bf2 or Nc3 would be better choices as this
allows black to exchange pieces with a combination.}

27...Nxb4 28.axb4 Bxa4 29.g5 Qh5 30.Kh2 h6 31.Bf3 Qxf3

{She finally dies, after a valiant fight. But black receives
a rook, bishop and pawn in exchange.}

32.Qxf3 Bxc2 33.Qe2 Bb3 34.gxh6 Bxh6 35.Qg4?

{White misses a shot for an outright win. Qd3 attacks both
Bb3 and the pawn at g6.}

35...Kf7 36.f5! exf5

{If 36...gxf5 37.Qh5+ Kg8 38.Qxh6+ wins.}

37.e6+ Kf6 38.Qd4+

{Sharper was 38.e7! Re8 (38...Kxe7 39.Qxg6 Bd2 40.Rxf5 Rh8
41.Rf7+ Kd8 42.Qf6+ Ke8 43.Qe7 mate) 39.Bxb8 Bc4 wins.}

38...Kxe6 39.Re1+ Kf7 40.Qh4 Bf8 41.Qh7+ Bg7 42.Be5 Rg8
43.Rg1 1-0

{Black has no defense. An excellent win for a player rated
over 300 points below his opponent!}

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

Analyzed by   Phil Hildenbrandt     1913

Francois Bertin    1245  (+30)  1275
Steve Guidi        1677  (-30)  1647

[Event "P-315"]
[Site "IECC"]
[White "Bertin,Francois"]
[Black "Guidi,Steve"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d3!?

{Quite an odd looking move; this is a valid line of the
Sicilian defense. As an independent line, Black has an
advantage if he plays energetically. If he just develops
normally, he must watch for a transposition into a favorable
line of the Closed Sicilian (2.c3).}

3...g6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 e6

{5...e5 and 5...d6 have both been played here.}

6.O-O Nge7 7.c3

{We now have a variation of the Closed Sicilian that is
favorable to White. Black must play accurately or he has no
winning chances.}

7...O-O 8.d4 cxd4

{The text appears to lead to equality but appearances can
often be misleading. Correct was 8...d5 9.e5 Qb6 10.Na3 cxd4
11.cxd4 f6 12.Re1 Bd7 13.Rb1 Rac8 14.Bf4 fxe5 15.dxe5 Rxf4

16.gxf4 Qb4 17.Qb3 Rf8 18.Rbc1 Qxb3 19.axb3 Rxf4 20.Nc2 Nf5
21.Re2 h6 22.Nce1 g5 23.Nd3 Re4 24.Ree1 g4 25.Nd2 Rd4
26.Nc5 Rxd2 27.Nxd7 Nfd4 28.Nc5 Nxe5 29.Kh1 b6 30.Nb7 Nd3
31.Rc8+ Kh7 32.Rf1 Nxf2+ 33.Kg1 Nf5 34.Rc7 Nd1 35.Nd8 Nde3
36.Rf2 Rd1+ 37.Bf1 Nd4 38.Rff7 Ndf5 39.Kf2 Rxf1+ 40.Ke2 Kg6
41.Nxe6 Bxb2 42.Nf8+ Kh5 43.Ne6 d4 44.Rcd7 Rh1 45.Kd3 Rxh2
46.Ke4 Ng3+ 47.Kd3 Ngf5 48.Ke4 g3 49.Rxf5+ Nxf5 50.Kxf5 Rf2+
51.Nf4+ Kh4 52.Rh7 Rxf4+ 53.Kxf4 Bc1+ 54.Kf3 d3 55.Rd7 d2
56.Rd6 h5 57.Rd5 a5 58.Rd4+ Kh3 59.Rd8 h4 60.Ke2 b5
61.Rg8 a4 62.bxa4 bxa4 63.Ra8 a3 64.Ra4 g2 65.Ra8 d1Q+
66.Kxd1 g1Q+ 67.Kc2 Qc5+ 68.Kd1 Qd5+ 69.Kxc1 Qxa8 70.Kd2 Qc6
71.Ke3 a2 0-1 Bologan,V-Ivanchuk,V/PCA Kremlin
g/25, Moscow RUS (1.2) 1996}

9.cxd4 d5

{Necessary otherwise White's central pawns could become
menacing while they sweep all opposition from their path.}

10.e5 Qb6 11.Nc3 Nf5 12.Na4 Qb4 13.a3 Qa5

{13...Qe7 14.b4 Bd7 15.Nc5 b6 16.Nb3 Rac8 17.b5 Nb8
18.a4 Rfe8 19.Re1 Rc7 20.Ba3 Qd8 21.Bf1 Bh6 22.Bb4 Bf8
23.Bxf8 Rxf8 24.Qd2 Qe7 25.Bd3 Rfc8 26.Reb1 Be8 27.h4 Nd7
28.Ng5 Rc3 29.Bxf5 exf5 30.Nh3 Rc2 31.Qh6 f6 32.Re1 fxe5
33.dxe5 Nxe5 34.Qf4 R8c3 35.Rxe5 Qf8 36.Rae1 Bf7 37.Nd4 Rc4
38.Ng5 1-0 Levacic,Patrik-Svobodova,Michaela/It (cat.2), XI,
Budapest (Hungary) (2) 1995}

14.b4

{After the retreat of Black's Queen, White has an advantage.
White's advantage consists of his central pawn chain, his
huge lead in space and a developmental advantage. After an
eventual Nc5, White must take care that d4 doesn't become
too weak or Black may take the advantage.}

14...Qc7 15.Bf4 Bd7

{15...b5 seems to be better. When you defend, as Black is,
you should be prepared to make concessions to the attacker,
because if you try to hold everything something will usually
crack. It was better to allow 16.Nc5 than 16.b5. After 16.b5
White can slowly strangle Black.}

16.Rc1 a6 17.Qd2

{Also possible was 17.g4 followed by a general squeeze of
Black's entire position.}

17...b6 18.Nc3?

{Once again 18.g4 was the proper move.}

18...Qd8 19.Rc2 Rc8

{After 19...f6 White's advantage would be very small.}

20.g4

{This was strong on the last two moves. Here it allows the
advantage to slip away.}

20...Nh4

{20...Nfe7? 21.Bh6 f6 22.Bxg7 and White has a won game.}

21.Nxh4 Qxh4 22.h3 f6 23.Bg3 Qh6 24.f4

{24. Bf4 was slightly better.}

24...fxe5 25.dxe5 Rfd8

{The odd retreat 25...Na7 appears to be stronger.}

26.Na4 Rb8 27.Qf2!?

{It was better to place the Bishop on f2 and keep the Queen
defending the pawn on b4.}

27...Nxb4 28.axb4 Bxa4 29.g5 Qh5 30.Kh2 h6?

{30...Bxc2 31.Bf3 Qxf3 32.Qxf3 and Black extricated himself
from a worse position with material equality. The game
follows a similar variation, but without Black's pawn on h6.
Such a simple little feature would change the resulting
position.}

31.Bf3 Qxf3 32.Qxf3 Bxc2 33.Qe2 Bb3 34.gxh6

{34.Qd3 Bc4 35.Qxg6 and White wins.}

34...Bxh6?

{34...Bc4 otherwise 35.Qd3.}

35.Qg4?

{One good misstep deserves another!}

35...Kf7 36.f5 exf5 37.e6+ Kf6 38.Qd4+?

{Admittedly, White is still winning but 38.Bh4 was the
correct move.}

38...Kxe6 39.Re1+ Kf7 40.Qh4 Bf8 41.Qh7+ Bg7

{41...Kf6 42.Qg8 Kg5 43.Qh8 Bh6 44.Qd4 f4 45.Qe5#}

42.Be5 Rg8 43.Rg1 1-0

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

                   NEW PUBLICATION!

               Ceremonies of the Horsemen
           The Journal of the IECC Rank and File

After long discussions among some of the IECC staff and
members, it's been decided that there should be an IECC
Magazine in addition to the existing IECC Newsletter. The
new Magazine will be edited by Mark Brooks and Tim Nagley.
The first issue - doubtless a collectors' item - will appear
February 8, 1998, and further issues will come out monthly.

Both the content and context of Ceremonies of the Horsemen
will naturally be different from those of this Newsletter.
The Magazine will be predominantly features oriented with a
focus on instruction, articles, in-depth analysis, and book

reviews. In addition, both Mark's "A Not-So-Quick Glance"
articles and the FischerRandom games will move over to the
new publication.

It's anticipated that this Magazine will be longer than the
average Newsletter, and it will be e-mailed in more than one
section to make it easier for members to receive and read.
The Magazine will also have a web edition, possibly with an
occasional extra article or chess problem.

IMPORTANT: If you're interested in this new project, feel you
might have something to contribute, would like to try your
hand at writing an article, or have any thoughts on the
subject you'd like us to know about, please don't hesitate
to contact:

        Mark Brooks <chess@life-online.org> or
        Tim Nagley <timn@globalnet.co.uk>.

We'll be very pleased to hear from you.

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

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

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

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