,...., If the ASCII art doesn't line up, use a screen ,::::::< font such as courier, monaco or fixedsys. ,::/^\"``. ,::/, ` e`. .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. ,::; | '. ,::| \___,-. c) Ceremonies of the Horsemen ;::| \ '-' The Journal of the IECC Rank and File ;::| _.=\ Issue 5 `;:|.=` _.`\ '|_.=` __\ .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. `\_..==` / jgs .'.___.-'. Editor: Tina Stanton ('-......-') Co-Editor: Chuck Ventimiglia /'-......-'\ Technical Editor: Robert Mueller `"-......-"` Regular Columnist: Steve Ryan TABLE OF CONTENTS - SECTION 1 ----------------------------- Announcements & Editorial...............................Tina Stanton IECC CEO Retires..........................................Kyle Evans Member Biographies.........................Jack Keaton & Jose Mozota Staff Biography.....................................Gertjan de Vries Game Analysis........................................Gerald Fielding Game Analysis.......................................Sasha Goldshtein Web Wanderings............................................Steve Ryan A Bit of Chess History.............................Chuck Ventimiglia Top 100 Wins........................................................ Looking for a Snailmail Chess Opponent from Seattle................. Game Analysis...........................................Roger Miller Game Analysis............................................John Falato The King's Gambit...................................Gertjan de Vries Some Thoughts on the Mechanics of CC Play.................Steve Ryan Software Program for the Mac.............................Edmund Boyd Top 50 in Number of Games Played.................................... Game Analysis......................................Peter van Deursen Game Analysis............................................Stefaan Six Game Analysis...........................................Sauli Tiitta Watch for It..............................................Steve Ryan .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. ANNOUNCEMENTS & EDITORIAL ------------------------- Welcome to Issue 5 of Ceremonies of the Horseman. This issue is in three sections. In this issue we have some very interesting articles, a bunch of game analyses and a top winners and top number of games played list. This is a great issue! The next issued of the journal will not be published until the end of October. I think it's a good time to take a month off as we do have quite a few members away and on vacation. In a months time I will once again be asking for contributions for the journal. Of course if in that time you have any questions, comments or would like to send in any articles, biographies, I am always accepting them. You can send them to me at tatyana@nbnet.nb.ca. I would like to take this time to thank all our members who helped in getting this journal published, especially the staff members of the journal. They put a lot of hard work into getting this out and I most definitely appreciate them. Without the help of our fellow IECC members this journal could not be published. See you next issue! .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. Kyle Evans, IECC CEO, Retires ----------------------------- Two and a half years ago it was my privilege to take over the helm of IECC from our founder, Lisa Powell. Since then it has been my distinct pleasure to get to know many fine people the world over, both as opponents in chess, and as co-volunteers helping to further the cause of e-mail chess through IECC, without question the finest organization of its kind in the world. Over the last several months I have been joined by David Glew as co-CEO, and I'm sure you will agree that in the time he has served in that capacity he has shown himself to be dedicated, thorough, efficient, diplomatic, and above all, kind and courteous, as befits the "Friendly Chess Club". I have been so very proud to serve with him, as well as the other members of the IECC staff -- a truly amazing group of volunteers who bring a high degree of professionalism to their jobs. However, the time has come for me to step aside and let David and the others carry on. My life has sped up quite a bit in the last 6 months -- (all for the good, so not to worry!!!) But the pace of life no longer allows me the time to carry out my efforts on behalf of IECC at the level that is needed of a CEO. I will still remain a member, and sign up for matches as time permits, so you may bump into me over an e-mail chess board soon! I thank you all for the respect you have shown me, and for your friendship. There is not one of you that I have actually met face to face, and yet I feel I know your personalities, kindness, quirks, and senses of humor as well as if we lived nearby. What a truly remarkable organization we have built here, the players and staff of IECC! We are spread around the world, and yet we are neighbors! I will always treasure the many IECC friendships I have made! As CEO I used to get a lot of e-mail from members! Please feel free to keep that up, on a friendly basis! kyle@jump.net will always welcome mail from my many IECC friends! Farewell, and keep up the good work! Kyle Evans Austin, Texas, USA .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. IECC MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES ----------------------- JACK KEATON (842 USA) writes ... I have been playing chess for almost two years but I am new to tournament play -- having only played in IECC and USCF postal games since late 1998. I also am a member of both ICC and FICS. My handle is 'WhatSystem' in both clubs. I don't play very much due to their Blitz and Bullet bias'. I belong to the STC (Slower Time Controls) Bunch which play on both servers. Much like shootouts in soccer and hockey I believe Blitz and Bullet are visually exciting, but ultimately are ruining chess. JOSE MOZOTA (1390 BRA) writes ... I'm 46 years old, born in Spain and have lived most of my life in Venezuela. I went to grad school in Ottawa, for a Ph.D. in Electrochemistry and now live in Sao Paulo, Brazil. I started playing chess at 12, got serious with it in college, where I played for the school team and later on for the professors' team. I am a fanatic of the Najdorf variation of the Sicilian and of the King's Indian Defense with black, but hate playing against a Sicilian with white! Lost contact with chess for a long time as live opponents were difficult to find. E-mail and on-line chess are the best thing that's happened to me, although I have a hard time spending enough time studying the next move (I never played postal chess). I love the thrill of playing Blitz and Bullet games aginst live opponents world wide. You can find me on ICC as 'freman'. .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. MEET YOUR IECC STAFF -------------------- GERTJAN DE VRIES - ASSISTANT TD OF CLASS EVENTS (1833 NED) Last October I met Chuck Ventimiglia in an email tournament elsewhere on the net. He mentioned IECC to me as a friendly organisation and worked me through the New Member Program. After playing for over half a year now I know he was right. I really enjoy IECC, in particular my favourite sections, the Pyramid and the Class Events, in which I am now an Assistant TD. Email chess has been a great way to get back into the chess arena. I used to play chess a lot in high school (I turned 33 on June 11th, so that is about 15 years ago), but once I started working, my time was too limited. Moreover, seven years ago I suffered from a bad car accident, causing brain damage. After years of revalidation I decided to use email chess to train my brain...with success. Though my current health is far from good, I even joined a chess club, Het Zwarte Paard (The Black Knight) here in Schiedam, The Netherlands, which is an average size, but very friendly club. Currently I work at the insurance desk in one of the Vroom & Dreesmann stores in Leidschendam. When not working or playing chess, I enjoy snooker and pool, listening to music (Vanessa-Mae, Pink Floyd and Dire Straits) and am a dedicated Trekkie (Star Trek fan). And, I enjoy playing with my cat (Chimay). She actually seems to like chess, as she is always disturbing the pieces when I am studying a position of one of my IECC games. Maybe I should feed her into the IECC New Member Program. ;-) If you like to know more about me and my interests, perhaps you can take a look at my homepage at http://welcome.to/gertjan. .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. ANALYSIS BY GERALD FIELDING (2118 CAN) --------------------------------------- [Event "M-2578.2"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1999.03.06"] [White "Gruber, Bernd"] [Black "Chao, Ken"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteIECC "1954"] [WhiteCountry "GER"] [BlackIECC "2009"] [BlackCountry "CAN"] [ECO "B21"] [Opening "Smith-Morra Gambit"] 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 {The Smith-Morra Gambit reminds me of the Danish Gambit. I learned to play chess from J. H. Henriksen, who won the Canadian Correspondence Championship twice in the 1930's. One of his first suggestions to me was to play the Danish Gambit and he lent me his book on the opening. But a gambit is a difficult game for a beginner to play. White has to play with verve to make something of his initiative before it disappears and Black has to play carefully because he is always under the gun. So today, I, along with a host of other wimps, refuse the gambit by playing 3...Nf6 and White gets an attack anyway. Taking the pawn has given Black better results.} 4.Nxc3 {A Danish Gambit player would consider that if it's good to give away one pawn then giving away two must be better and play 4.Bc4!? (See Informant 50) or 4...cxb2 5.Bxb2 e6 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.Nbd2 Ficzere-Erickson, En Passant, December 1998, page 21.} 4...Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 {The usual choice. In Chess Life, April 1993, page 6, Master Roy Carl Ervin espouses 6...g6!? 7.O-O! Bg7 8.Qe2 Nf6! but Black hasn't done well in many games with this position. GM Larry Evans in M.C.O. (10th ed.) suggested that 6...a6! "threatening ...Nf6 and ...Bg4, forcing White to lose a tempo with h3 was slightly more accurate". 6...a6 would be my choice. Then 7.O-O Nf6 8.e5 dxe5 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8 10.Nxe5 e6 11.Rd1 Be7 12.Be3 Nd7 was won by Black in Boschetti (2190) vs. Zueger (2398), Ticino, 1993. And in E.C.O. Busted the suggestion was 6...Qc7! 7.Qe2! Nf6 8.Bg5!? and an unclear position.} 7.O-O a6 8.Qe2 Qc7 {Two recurring themes for White in this position are e5 and Nd5 8...Qc7 does something about the first threat but makes the second more potent -- and there are better ways of defending against a possible e5. One of these is the manoeuvre Ne7-g6 which he intends anyway. Perhaps British Columbian Expert Chao chose Qc7 because Black has scored well with the move in this position and has often played Qc7 after 8...Be7 and 8...Nf6. More sensible to me however, seems the standard 8...b5 9.Bb3 Ra7 10.Be3 Rd7 11.Rac1 Bb7 12.Rfd1 Be7 or the slightly different approach that was taken in the IECC Master Class game in 1996, Andrew Nugteren vs. Unes Hassim which went 8...b5 9.Bb3 Bb7 10.Rd1 Rc8 11.Be3 Na5 12.Bc2 Nc4 13.Bb3 Nxe3 14.Qxe3 Nf6 15.e5 Ng4 16.Qe2 Bxf3 17.Qxf3 Nxe5 18.Qe2 Be7 19.f4 Nc4 20.g4 Qb6+ 21.Kg2 Ne3+ 22.Kh3 h5 23.gxh5 Nxd1 24.Rxd1 Rc5 25.Qe3 Rcxh5+ O-1} 9.Bf4 Nge7 (9...Ne5!? has worked here, i.e. 10.Bb3 Nf6 11.Rac1 Qb8 Lachmeyer-Vigh (2420) O-1, 1995 or 10.Bxe5 dxe5 11.Rac1 Ne7 12.b4 Nc6 13.b5 Nd4 Vekidis-Pandavos, 1992, O-1.} 10.Rac1 Ng6 11.Be3 {11.Bg3 also makes sense. If then 11...Be7 12.Rfd1 we have transposed to Anne-Sunnucks vs. Mills, Bognor, 1960 which went 12...O-O 13.Bb3 Rd8 and again 14.Nd5!, 1-O in 27 moves.} 11...Bd7 12.Rfd1 Be7 13.Bb3 b5? {It would be nice to move the QR and prepare a queen retreat to b8 but I think Black has to hurry and castle. Black has prevented e5 very well but the move played again gives Nd5 more force, and White plays.} 14.Nd5! {Now Gruber takes control of the game.} 14...exd5 {It seems to be too late to refuse the offer, i.e. 14...Qb7 15.Nxe7 Kxe7 16.Qd2 Qc7 (16...Qb8 17.Bc5) 17.Bb6 Qxb6 18.Qxd6+ Kf6 19.Rd5+ +-} 15.exd5 Qb7 {If 15...Rc8 16.dxc6 Bxc6? 17.Nd4 Ne5 (17...Qd7 18.Nxc6 Rxc6 19.Bxf7+ Kd8 20.Be6 Qc7 21.Rxc6+-) 18.Bf4 Qb7 19.Nxc6 Nxc6 20.Bxd6 Kf8 21.Qf3 Bxd6 22.Rxd6+-} 16.dxc6 Bxc6 17.Rxc6 Qxc6 18.Bd5 Qc8 19.Rc1 Qd8 20.Bc6+ Kf8 21.Bxa8 Qxa8 22.Rc7 Ne5 {I don't see any good moves for Black. If 22...Bd8 then after 23.Rd7 the Bishop would prefer to be back at e7. If 22...Qe8 23.Qc2 looks good.} 23.Nxe5 dxe5 24.Qc2 Qd5 25.Bc5! Bxc5 26.Rxc5 Qxa2 27.Rc8+ Ke7 28.Qc5+ Kf6 29.Qd6+ Kf5 30.Qd3+ 1-0 {White set himself a difficult task when he played this gambit but he has certainly passed the test!} ANALYSIS BY SASHA GOLDSHTEIN (1977 ISR) ----------------------------------------- [Event "World Championship match"] [Site "Buenos Aires"] [Date "1927.??.??"] [Round "28"] [White "Alekhine, Alexander"] [Black "Capablanca, Jose Raul"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "D67"] [Annotator "Alekhine, Goldshtein"] [PlyCount "85"] [Opening "Queen's Gambit Declined"] [Variation "Capablanca's Freeing Maneuver"] {The match score before this game was 4:2 in Alekhine's favor, with 21 drawn games. Capablanca seems to be demoralized, plays weakly, although after a series of draws. Earlier, according to V. Panov's "Alekhine's 300 best games" and A. Kotov's, Capablanca started to analyze the board position (not abnegated by the arbiter) in another room (on another board), which quite harmed Alekhine's concentration. As you are aware, Alekhine needs to win the match 6:4 if he wants to win the World Champion title. If the score is 5:5, Capablanca maintains the title. Therefore, Capablanca needs 3 more wins, whereas Alekhine now needs 2. Anyway, here is a game where Alekhine surely could have dropped the advantage he has accumulated, although the game itself is quite interesting.} 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Rc1 c6 {Another edition of a system introduced (too) many times in this match. It is the Capablanca Freeing Maneuver, which leads to simplifications in the center after ...d5xc4. Alekhine gives no comments yet, because this opening was played almost during the entire match. (Queen Gambits.)} 8.Bd3 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nd5 10.Bxe7 Qxe7 11.Ne4 N5f6 12.Ng3 Qb4+ 13.Qd2 Qxd2+ 14.Kxd2 Rd8 15.Rhd1 b6 (15...c5?! {was probably worse, in view of} 16.dxc5 Nxc5+ 17.Ke1 Bd7 18.b4! Nce4 19.Nxe4 Nxe4 20.Bd3! {ready to trade (Bxe4) or invade (Rc7)}) 16.e4 Bb7 17.e5 Ne8 (17...Ng4!? {It is hard to imagine that Alekhine and Capablanca didn't see this move. It seems to be quite temptating to play, in view of the threat on f2 and the possibility of the maneuver Nf6-g4-h6-f5 under the opponent's pressure. The possibility of ...c6-c5, floating in the air constantly, would probably force White to look for alternatives and defend the d4 pawn instead of attacking the impolite knight.} 18.h3 (18.Ke1 c5-/+) 18...Nh6 (18...Nxf2 19.Rf1 c5 20.Ke3 Bxf3 21.Kxf3 cxd4 22.Kxf2 Nxe5+/=) 19.Ne4 c5 20.Bd3 Nf5-/+ {Here, Black gets serious pressure on White's center, and it's unclear how White will untie this Gordian knot.}) 18.Ke3 Kf8 (18...c5!? 19.Ne4 cxd4+ 20.Rxd4 Rac8 21.Rcd1 Bxe4 22.Rxe4 Nxe5! 23.Bxe6! fxe6 24.Rxd8 Rxd8 25.Nxe5 Nd6 26.Nc6 Re8 27.Ra4 a5= {after a series of trades, the position reached is an endgame, probably roughly equal with a tiny initiative for White in view of the slightly more active pieces.}) 19.h4 {More logical is the maneuver Nf3-g5-e4. By the text move, White tries to blockade the opponent's kingside. With incorrect (like in this game) counterplay from Black, this attempt should be successful. [Alekhine] Since e4 is a majorly important square for White, any attempts to coordinate pieces there or defend it are only to the good. Furthermore, moves like Nf3-g5-e4, Bc4-d3 and other similar moves would strengthen White's center and make ...c6-c5 harder to promote. Nevertheless, Black's position is still fine and defendable. [Goldshtein]} (19.Ng5 h6 20.N5e4 c5 21.f4! cxd4+ 22.Rxd4 Nc5 23.Rcd1 Rxd4 24.Rxd4 Rc8 25.Nxc5 Rxc5 26.b4 Rc7 27.Ne4! {with a powerful center} 27...Ke7 28.g4˛+/= {The space advantage is in White's hands, and there is a serious initiative. Compare: Ne4-Ne8. Even though Black's position is very passive, there isn't a simple plan to win the game, and that's why it will take a while to realize the advantage from this position.}) 19...Ke7 20.h5 {A normal tendency here would be to ignore White's play, and simply promote ...c6-c5. Alekhine does not mention it at all, but gives the following commentary to the next move: 20...h6 Only in view of this instinctive move, which was insinuated by White, Black should reach a problematic situation. The right answer here would be 20...Nc7, and White could proceed: 21.h6 gxh6 22.Rh1 or 21.Ne4 which would give an equal game after 21...c5. [Alekhine]} (^20...Nc7 21.h6 (21.Ne4 c5) 21...gxh6 22.Rh1 {[Alekhine]; another move to pay attention to is the attempt to break the opponent's center with} 20...f6 {and then ...c6-c5, which lead to complications which eventually favor White.} 21.h6 fxe5 (21...gxh6 22.Rh1) 22.dxe5 c5 A) 23.Bxe6 {was in Black's favor} 23...Kxe6 24.Ng5+ Kxe5 (‹24...Ke7? 25.Nf5+ Kf8 26.e6) 25.f4+ Kf6 26.Nxh7+ Kf7 27.Ng5+ Kg6 {and White's attack will probably fail.}; B) 23.Bb5! 23...Bxf3 (RR23...gxh6 24.Bxd7 Rxd7 25.Rxd7+ Kxd7 26.Rh1 Nc7 27.Rxh6 Nd5+ 28.Kd2 Rh8 29.Ng5 Nf4 30.Nf7+/= {[Goldshtein]}) 24.Rxd7+ Rxd7 25.Bxd7 Kxd7 (25...Bxg2 26.Bxe8 -- 27.hxg7 -- 28.Nh5) 26.Kxf3 {and it's unclear how Black can parry the attack on the kingside. [Alekhine]}) 21.Nh4 {The idea of this move is to win the f5 or g6 square for the knight by the maneuver f2-f4-f5. However, the game flow shows that promoting this plan allows the opponent too many tempi for center play. [Alekhine]} ({The right move would have been} 21.Ne4 {pinning Ne8 with the defense of the d6 square, and stopping the break ...c6-c5 in view of d4-d5, which favors White. Meanwhile, there is no good plan visible for Black, but White will play g2-g4-g5 or g2-g4 and then Nh4 and f2-f4-f5 to achieve a powerful attack on the kingside. [Alekhine]}; {Another option was (controlling e4)} 21.Bd3 c5 22.Be4 Bd5!~ {[Goldshtein]} (22...Bxe4 23.Nxe4 cxd4+ 24.Rxd4 Rac8 25.Rxc8 Rxc8 26.Nd6 Nxd6 27.exd6+ Ke8=)) 21...c5! {[Alekhine]} ({...c6-c5 could not be delayed, because after} 21...Nc7 22.Nhf5+! {would have given White a powerful attack, as in:} (22.Ne4 c5 23.Nd6 Bd5 24.dxc5 Bxc4 25.Nxc4 Nd5+ 26.Kd4 Nxc5 27.Nd6~) 22...exf5 23.Nxf5+ Kf8 24.Nd6 A) 24...Ba6 25.Bxf7 (25.Nxf7 Bxc4 26.Nxd8 Rxd8 27.Rxc4 Nxe5-/=) 25...Nb5 26.Bc4 Nxd6 27.Bxa6 Nb8 28.Bd3=/~ {[Goldshtein]}; B) 24...Rab8 25.Nxf7 Re8 26.Nh8! {[Alekhine]} {In my opinion, Alekhine exaggerates here. Firstly, 22.Nhf5+ isn't as powerful as he tries to present it. Secondly, the attack is not so "powerful" at all.} 26...g5! {eliminating White's center mass} 27.hxg6 Nf6! 28.Nf7 Nfd5+ 29.Ke4 Re6! 30.Bxd5 Nxd5-/+ {[Goldshtein]}) 22.f4 Nc7 (22...cxd4+ 23.Rxd4 Rac8! (23...Nc5 24.Rcd1 Rxd4 25.Rxd4 a5 26.f5-> {White gets a powerful initiative here, with a center attack. Nevertheless, Black's good piece interaction should be sufficient.}) 24.Rcd1 (24.Rc3!? Nc7 {and now White has the alternatives of 25.Ra3 or other moves, which don't change the character of the position. It's meaningful to notice that Black's structure seems to be very tensed and uneasy to roll, but in view of White's poor piece interaction and the several possible pins, White's play might even be worse. (Nh4 is out of play, and f4-f5 is practically unplayable in view of the need to defend Pe5.}) {Therefore, Alekhine has indeed correctly noticed that White's plan is not the best selection in the position a few moves ago.}) 24...Rxc4! 25.Rxc4 Nxe5! 26.Rcd4 Nc4+ 27.Ke2 Rxd4 28.Rxd4 Nxb2 29.Nf3 Nd6!=/+ {IMHO (although those variations aren't forced), after the break in the center (...c6-c5) Black has at least an equal game. In this variation (with the sacrifice on c4) White even gets himself in serious trouble.}) 23.dxc5 {The knight sacrifice on f5 would not work now in view of the intermezzo move Bd5. [Alekhine]} (23...Nxc5 24.Rxd8 {This trade is a necessity. After 24.b4 there is 24...Rxd1 25.Rxd1 Na4 to favor Black. [Alekhine]} (24.b4 Rxd1 25.Rxd1 A) 25...Na4=/+ {[Alekhine] ? [Goldshtein]} RR26.Nhf5+! {I disagree with Alekhine; 26.Nhf5+! gives White the advantage here. [Goldshtein]} 26...exf5 27.Nxf5+ Kf8 (27...Ke8 28.Nd6+ Ke7 29.Nxb7+/-) 28.Rd7 A1) 28...Rc8? 29.Rxf7+ Kg8 (29...Ke8 30.Nd6+ Kd8 31.Nxb7+ Ke8 32.Nd6++-) 30.Ne7++-; A2) 28...Nd5+ 29.Bxd5+/-; B) 25...Ba6!= {[Goldshtein] f.e.} 26.bxc5?! Bxc4 27.c6 Bd5=/+) 24...Rxd8 25.b4 N5a6 {By the thoroughly calculated move in the text Black wins an important tempo by threatening the b4 pawn. [Alekhine]} (25...Na4 {is very dubious now ([Alekhine]) in view of} 26.Nhf5+ exf5 27.Nxf5+ Kf8 28.Bxf7 {(and c7 is threatened [Goldshtein])} 28...Nd5+ (RR28...Rd7 29.Bb3 Nb2 30.Nd6=/+ {[Goldshtein]}) 29.Bxd5 Bxd5 30.Rc7 {[Alekhine]} RR30...Bf7! {Again, Alekhine's analysis seem insufficient to me. In this position, Black definitely has serious chances, and he is not nearly lost yet.} 31.Rxa7 Nc3 32.a3 Nd1+! 33.Ke4 (33.Kf3 Bxh5+ 34.g4 Bf7=/+) 33...Bd5+ 34.Kd4 Bxg2+ 35.Nd6 Bf3 36.a4 Bxh5 37.a5 bxa5 38.bxa5=/+ {[Goldshtein]}) 26.a3 (26.Bxa6 {would be weak after} 26...Nd5+ {and then ...Bxa6=/+ [Alekhine]}) 26...b5 27.Bb3 Bd5 28.Bxd5 ({An alternative was} 28.Bc2 Bc6= (28...Bc4 29.Ne4 Nd5+ 30.Kf3~)) 28...Nxd5+ 29.Ke4 Nb6 (29...Nac7 30.Ne2 f5+! 31.Kf3!<->) 30.f5 {At last White gets a chance to perform the move he has planned to play when playing his 21st move. (21.Nh4) [Alekhine]} 30...Nc4 31.fxe6 fxe6 {Forced, because after} (31...Kxe6? {White could have 32.Nhf5 and Nxe5 is impossible in view of 33.Nd4+ [Alekhine]}) 32.Ng6+ Ke8 33.Ne2 Nd2+ 34.Kf4 (34.Ke3 {probably leads to a repetition (Nc4+ Ke4 etc.)}) 34...Nc4 35.Ke4 Nd2+ 36.Kf4 Nc4 37.Kg4 {Since White was unable to capture the `f' file with the rook, and Black could not allow Nd4, repetition is quite legitimate here. Capablanca offered me a draw here, which I declined in view of the time shortage which disallowed me from analyzing the position thoroughly. However, the further flow of the game suggests that my selection was wrong. [Alekhine]} 37...Nc7 ({Probably} 37...Rd3! {deserved attention in view of:} 38.Nef4 Rxa3 39.Nxe6 Kd7 40.Nd4 Ne3+ 41.Kf3 Nf5+ A) 42.Ke4? Ng3+ 43.Kf4 (43.Kd5 Nxb4+-+) 43...Nxh5+=/+; B) 42.Kf4 Nxd4 43.Rd1 Rb3 44.Rxd4+ Ke8 45.e6 Rxb4 46.Ke5 Rxd4 47.Kxd4 Nc7-/+ {not forced, but gives Black a serious advantage. [Goldshtein]}) 38.a4 a6 39.axb5 axb5 40.Ra1 (40.g3 Nd5 41.Nef4 Nxf4 42.gxf4=) 40...Rd3! {[Alekhine]} (RR40...Rd5! 41.Nef4 (41.Ra7 Nxe5+ 42.Nxe5 Rxe5 43.Rxc7 Rxe2-/+) 41...Nxe5+ 42.Nxe5 Rxe5 43.Ra7 Nd5-/+ {[Goldshtein]}) 41.Nef4 {After White declined the draw without a concrete basis, his position becomes critical. Black threatens to play both Ne3+ and Rb3. I have spent 1 hour and 50 minutes on the move that I have written down before the adjournment--a record time for the entire match!* [Alekhine] ---------- * The time control in the match Alekhine-Capablanca during the game and after the adjournment(s) was 2˝ hours for each 30 moves. [V. Panov]} 41...Rb3 {Aside from this continuation, which I was most afraid of, I had to calculate the possible move} (41...Re3 {In this case, I would have to sacrifice the exchange:} 42.Ra7 Kd8 43.Rxc7! Kxc7 44.Nxe6+ Kb6 (RR44...Kc6 45.Kf4 Re1 46.Nxg7 Rf1+ 47.Ke4 Re1+= {[Goldshtein]}) 45.Kf4 Rb3 46.Ne7! {and now only Black is in the danger to lose. [Alekhine]}) 42.Ra7 Kd8 43.g3! {The key of the saving maneuver started by 41.Nf4! The king may now hide on h3, and the attack of Pe6 gives White sufficient counterplay. Capablanca thought for 40 minutes and offered a draw again, which I accepted. In view of the following variations, this result is quite logical. [Alekhine]} (43.Rb7 Rxb4 44.Rb8+ Kd7 45.Nf8+ Kc6 46.N8xe6 Nxe5+ 47.Kf5 Nxe6 48.Nxe6 Nc4 49.Nxg7 Rb2 50.Kg6 Kc7 51.Rg8 Rxg2+ 52.Kxh6= {was a simple path to a draw. [Goldshtein]; Alekhine's analysis goes:} 43.g3 A) 43...Rxb4 44.Nf8 Nxe5+ 45.Kh3 Rc4! (RR45...Nd7 46.N8xe6+ Nxe6 47.Nxe6+ Ke7 48.Nxg7= {[Goldshtein]}) 46.N8xe6+ Kc8 (RR46...Kd7 47.Nxc7 Rxc7 48.Rxc7+ Kxc7 49.Ne6+ Kd6 50.Nxg7 Kd5 51.Nf5 Nf7 52.g4 b4 53.Kg3 b3 54.Ne3+ Ke4 55.Nc4 Kd3 56.Na3 b2 57.Kf4 Nd6 58.g5 hxg5+ 59.Kxg5 Nc4 60.Nb1 Nd2 61.Na3 Kc3 62.h6 Kb3 63.h7 Kxa3 64.h8Q b1Q 65.Qa8+ Kb2 66.Qh8+= {[Goldshtein]}) 47.Nxg7 Ra4! 48.Rxa4 bxa4 49.Ne2 A1) RR49...Nd5 50.Nf5 a3 51.Nc1 Nf7 52.g4 Nb4 53.Kg3 Nd3 (53...a2?! 54.Nxa2 Nxa2 55.Nxh6 Nxh6 56.g5) 54.Na2 Kd7 55.Kf3 Ke6 56.Nc3 Nb4 57.Ke4 Ng5+ 58.Kd4 a2 59.Nxa2 Nxa2 60.Nxh6= {[Goldshtein]}; A2) 49...a3 50.Nc3 Nd5 51.Na2 Nd3 52.Nf5 N5b4 53.Nxb4 Nxb4 54.Nd4 a2 55.Nb3 A2a) RR55...Nc2!? A2a1) 56.Kg4 Kd7 57.Kf4 (57.Kf5? Nd4+!-+) 57...Ke6 58.Ke4 a1Q 59.Nxa1 Nxa1 60.Kf4 Kf6 61.g4 Nc2-+; A2a2) ^56.g4! Kd7 57.g5 Nd4 58.Na1 hxg5 59.h6= {[Goldshtein]}; A2b) 55...Kd7 56.g4 Ke6 57.g5 hxg5 58.h6 Kf6 59.h7! (59.Kg4? Nd3 60.h7 Ne5+-+) 59...Kg7 60.Kg4= {[Alekhine]}; B) 43...Ne3+ 44.Kh3 Nf5 (RR44...Ned5 45.Nxd5 exd5 46.Kg4 Rxb4+ 47.Kf5 Rb3 48.e6 Rf3+ 49.Nf4 Rxg3 50.e7+ Kxe7 51.Nxd5+ Kd6 52.Nxc7 Rg5+ 53.Ke4 Rxh5= {[Goldshtein]}) 45.Nf8! Nd4 46.Rb7! Kc8 (46...Rxb4? 47.Rb8+ Ke7 48.N4g6+ Kf7 49.Nh7! Ne8 50.Rb7+ Kg8 51.Re7+-) 47.Rb6= {with simplifications. [Alekhine]}) 1/2-1/2 .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. WEB WANDERINGS by Steve Ryan (1482 CAN) ----------------------------------------- A recent Internet search I did using Alta Vista returned 60,920 web pages for the inquiry "Chess". If we reject 95% of these pages as replicates, foreign language and "decoys", such as the Rickmansworth and Chess Valley Hockey Clubs (www.cinnamond.co.uk/rhc.htm), we end up with 3046 web pages of potential interest. At our expected publication rate of 6 issues per year and assuming one review per issue I have 508 years of material available. Perhaps by that time I will have mastered a bit of opening theory. In this installment of WW I'd like to outline the criteria by which I rate each site, something I probably should have done at the start. Feel free to dispute everything I say about each site and if you manage to convince me I will publish your comments. Most likely, I will publish your comments regardless. So here goes - the reasons behind "Ryan's Rating" (not listed in any particular order). I look for: - a well laid out page, no excessive "crowding", each section having a distinct beginning and end and everything planned in a logical sequence for easy maneuvering around. - "readability", i.e,. good spelling, grammar and syntax (except where deliberately distorted "for effect") and background/text colours that don't camouflage each other. - hyperlinks and hypertext that actually work and don't send you out into the "Twilight Zone". - the intrinsic value to chess in general and CC in particular. How does this site promote both CC and "regular" chess and encourage their development? What does it do for our form of the game? What can you learn from it? Would you recommend it to others? - novelty and originality of thought. Many chess sites seem composed almost to a formula, especially those with a heavy commercial content. I want to see something I haven't seen before that grabs my interest and makes me want to return. I also include periodic updates and revisions if I have visited before so the site doesn't seem "frozen in time". Subjective criteria? Absolutely, but there you have it. I won't include an actual review this time around so someone else can have a chance to say something, but look for one in the next edition. If you have a favorite chess site of your own let me know (ryansc@granite.mb.ca) and I will take a look. Finally (you say) if you had trouble with the URL I gave for The Correspondence Chess Message Board in my last WW try this one instead: http://correspondencechess.com/bbs. .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. A BIT OF CHESS HISTORY by Chuck Ventimiglia (1901 USA) ------------------------------------------------------- In the last issue we took a look at the origins of the Ruy Lopez. Both the Spanish Priest and the opening named after him. In this issue we will spotlight the Italians and the very popular opening, the Sicilian Defense. One hundred eighty six years ago, in 1813, the British master, author, and translator of many Italian manuscripts, Jacob Henry Sarratt, gave a popular name to 1.e5 c5. He cited a rare text which called the defense, "Il Giouco Siciliano". Sarratt could identify neither the author, nor the date of this ancient manuscript, but an examination of the games he translated led authorities to believe that the author of that mysterious text was the famous seventeenth century Italian master Gioachimo Greco. Greco noticed that defense in his writings about 1623. It is also believed that the origin of the moves first appears in the works Giulio Cesare Polerio (circa 1590). So the Sicilian Defense seems to have first appeared around 1590. The Sicilian Defense winds its way through centuries of noted players and analysts, but its popularity remained of only secondary importance to the open games where Black responded with 1...e5, until the match between Alexander McDonnell and Louis Charles de la Bourdonnais in 1834. It was after this match that the noted Russian authority on openings, C.F. Jaenisch, wrote that he considered it to be the best defense possible to White's 1.e4. The Sicilian Defense remained fairly fashionable during the middle of the nineteenth century, due primarily to the influences of Howard Staunton and Adolf Anderssen, each of whom adopted it with a degree of regularity in their match play. In our own times the Sicilian Defense has continued, thanks to the incredible amount of analyses and play by Soviet and other world masters, to be one of the most popular, if not the most popular, reply to White's 1.e4. .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. **** TOP 100 WINS **** Full Name W D L --------- --- --- --- 1 Ventimiglia, Chuck 202 101 120 2 Richard, Andy 200 87 333 3 Nagley, Tim 126 77 60 4 Grazinys, Vidmantas 112 67 23 5 Dunn, Michael 108 53 58 6 Dean, Wes 107 70 83 7 Cherner, Lyle 101 27 178 8 de Leeuw, Dirk 98 31 32 9 Varley, Trevor 97 25 151 10 Nowicki, Andrzej 93 45 66 11 Powell, Lisa 89 24 46 12 Burrell, Edward 88 26 30 13 Cousins, Eddie 88 20 3 14 Stein, Rick 83 30 21 15 Ralls, Nelson 82 25 15 16 Fantoni, Franco 79 16 16 17 Mueller, Robert 78 24 15 18 Brookshire, Tommy 77 6 82 19 Newman, Nelson 76 36 29 20 Wenger, Joseph 76 37 51 21 Hassim, Unes 74 35 15 22 Hassan, Bill 71 40 75 23 Galvin, John 69 18 29 24 Bass, Stanley 69 17 36 25 Malmstrom, Jan 68 57 50 26 Vanderven, Tony 67 30 49 27 Camper, Donald 63 36 10 28 Jobe, Tom 63 29 107 29 Cornacchini, Gabriele 60 31 25 30 Bouma, Jan 60 26 65 31 Noy, Ilan 59 30 22 32 Angus, George 56 21 22 33 Henkes, Houston 56 10 9 34 Sadek, Esam 55 15 18 35 Glew, David 54 22 10 36 Malm, Art 54 34 26 37 Theofel, Heiner 53 32 81 38 Femmel, Don 52 38 20 39 Power, Mike 52 29 46 40 Mann, Derek 52 9 58 41 Takeuchi, Toshi 52 12 44 42 Schmidt, David 52 3 41 43 Hughes, Dave 51 25 43 44 Athens, Jim 51 15 40 45 Humen, John 50 16 8 46 Jónsson, Guđbrandur 50 9 43 47 Kent, Kevin 48 23 33 48 El-Messiry, Raouf 48 24 10 49 Haase, Peter 48 11 42 50 City, Hank 48 3 22 51 Goossens, Jack 47 6 0 52 Paetzold, Ortwin 46 13 38 53 Cornell, David 46 19 54 54 Keller, Stephen 45 5 53 55 Smithers, Steve 43 27 11 56 Smith, Chuck 43 41 22 57 Stanton, Tina 43 10 38 58 Wright, Barry 42 26 63 59 Geib, Steven 42 11 39 60 Fernandes, David 42 7 23 61 Tauaf, Rachid 41 12 6 62 Arnold, Lee 41 14 19 63 Possolo, Miguel 41 8 36 64 Fedorko, Andrew 40 29 14 65 Hummeling, Hans 40 31 10 66 Kriechel, Ben 40 16 20 67 Forget, Rémy 40 13 5 68 Van Dusen, Eric 38 12 29 69 Eriksen, Tom 38 10 7 70 Mayer, Eduardo 38 10 1 71 Morihama, Nicolau 37 2 8 72 Genge, Peter 37 8 6 73 Hoefer, Hans-Peter 36 18 14 74 Gosme, Emile 36 17 26 75 Zillmer, Jim 36 7 26 76 Karlsson, Roger 36 10 75 77 Coffield, Alan 35 8 12 78 Hervás, Fernando 35 3 8 79 Gill, David 34 9 0 80 Egold, Hans 34 2 1 81 del Pozo, José María 34 9 13 82 Dunn, Carl 34 32 20 83 Lewis, Matt 34 22 23 84 Leoni, Carlos 34 2 4 85 Dijksman, Leo 33 27 5 86 Ampiainen, Jesper 33 35 22 87 Balev, Jivko 33 2 7 88 Feinstein, Adam 33 5 38 89 Watson, Roger E. 33 16 44 90 Neumann, Ulrich 33 25 7 91 Saleh, Khaled 33 10 5 92 Valverde, Andres 32 32 10 93 Romano, Frank 32 25 22 94 Jaskula, Robert 32 8 3 95 Miller, Roger 32 9 11 96 Roldán, Antonio José 32 27 20 97 Leperlier, Gabriel 32 17 6 98 Weggen, Rick 32 15 4 99 Moston, Mike 32 9 8 100 Zurowski, Dennis 32 5 56 .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. LOOKING FOR A SNAILMAIL CHESS OPPONENT FROM SEATTLE --------------------------------------------------- Jan Kupec is 58 years old and lives in Ceska Lipa, Czech Republic. Besides correspondence chess, he is very keen about reading books on mysterious phenomena in world history. He also likes to collect flags of various countries. Because of a serious illness, he is no longer able to work and correspondence chess and friendly conversations that come with it remain his main connection to the outside world. In spite of his illness, he is a very optimistic and friendly man. He is looking for a chessfriend from Seattle, U.S. as this town seems to be interesting with regard to his second main hobby. He wants to play chess and chat about this topic with the person involved. Unfortunately, he has no e-mail connection and the correspondence would proceed by snailmail. If you are interested or know of someone who is interested, please send an e-mail to Tina Stanton and it will be forwarded to the appropriate person. Thank you! .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. ANALYSIS BY ROGER MILLER (USA 1897) ------------------------------------- [Event "M-2539.1"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1999.02.20"] [White "Syfert, Tertius"] [Black "Pascute, Bruce"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteIECC "1500"] [WhiteCountry "RSA"] [BlackIECC "1376"] [BlackCountry "USA"] [ECO "C30"] [Opening "King's Gambit"] 1.e4 e5 2.f4 (King's Gambit, there is a lot of information on this Gambit. I felt that most have the same idea; that action and a fight can start almost immediately with the charge of the f pawn. Black has to decide on accepting or declining the Gambit. Here I sometimes play as Black d5, Falkbeer Countergambit. It's aggressive against the King's Gambit as I would try to tear the White position with 2...d5 3.exd5 e4 4.d3 Nf6 - now White may play Nd2, dxe4 or Nc3.) 2..Bc5 (Black declines the Gambit and develops normally but now White has the f file half open. This file becomes White's main file to win the game later.) 3.Nf3 d6 4.c3 Nf6 (Classical Variation King's Gambit) 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb6 (Black keeps the Bishop on the diagonal to where the White King should Castle.) 7.Nc3 O-O (d5 was the move for Black instead Black Castles and as a result White attacks with e5. Lets look at 7..d5 8.e5 Ne4 9.Bd3 Nc6 10.Be3 Nxc3 11.bxc3 Bg4 12.Qc2 Qd7 13.O-O O-O-O - a much better position for Black.) 8.e5 dxe5 9.fxe5 Nd5 (What we will see now is an attack on both Queens and a very interesting position for both with White having a slight edge.) 10.Bg5 Nxc3 (A temptation to trade Queens? 11.Bxd8 Nxd1 12.Bxc7 Bxc7 13.Rxd1 Be6 14.b3 Nd7 15.Bc4 Ba5+ 16.Kf2 and White comes out of this line one piece short.) 11.bxc3 Qe8 12.Bd3 f6 13.O-O (I looked at Bf4 instead of the Castle by White but with the Bishop sacrifice White will control the f file and the win.) 13...fxg5 14.Nxg5 Rxf1+ 15.Qxf1 g6 (g6? this move loses instantly. Black could have played 15...h6 but even after this Black is lost: 16.Bc4+ Kh8 18.Qd3+ g6 19.Rf1! and the end is near.) 16.Bc4+... (16.Qf6 is better, although the text move wins too. 16.Qf6 Bxd4+ 17.cxd4 b5 18.Bxb5 now Black cannot take the Bishop because of 18...Qxb5 19.Qf7+ Kh8 20.Qxh7#. But even if Black does not take the Bishop 18.Bxb5 leads to checkmate in a few moves. The Black Queen has nowhere to go: 18...Qf8 19.Bc4+ Be6 20.Bxe6+ Qf7 21.Bxf7+ Kf8 22.Nxh7#. Other moves don't work either, e.g., 18...c6 19.Bc4+ and so on.) 16...Kg7 17.Qf6+ Kh6 18.Nf7+ (Black could sacrifice his Queen and keep the game going but moves his King into a mate with Kh5.) 18...Kh5 19.Qg5# 1-0 ANALYSIS BY JOHN FALATO (2044 USA) ----------------------------------- [Event "Trio-701.4"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1999.03.13"] [White "Bass, Stanley"] [Black "Doyle, Steve"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteIECC "1508"] [WhiteCountry "USA"] [BlackIECC "1272"] [BlackCountry "IRL"] [ECO "D35"] [Opening "Queen's Gambit Declined"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 O-O 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.Rc1 h6 8.Bh4 dxc4 9.Bxc4 Nb6 {Usual at this point is 9...c5 or 9...a6 10.a4 c5. Thematic for Black with this pawn structure is to strive for ...c5, or ...e5. Since ...e5 is impossible, Black must play for ...c5. Failure to get this in always results in a cramped game. And if Black delays too long, but does play ...c5, the resulting opening of the position may be worse than the cramped game. In other words the knight "seems" better at d7.} 10.Bd3 Nbd5 {10...c5 is possible, but White enjoys a nice free development, e.g., 10...c5 11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.0-0 followed by Qe2 and Rfd1.} 11.Qb3 {White avoids 11.0-0 Nxc3 12.Rxc3? (12.bxc3 is forced, but with the c-file closed ...c5 can't be far behind.) Nd5 13.Bxe7 Nxc3} 11...Bb4 12.O-O Nxc3 13.bxc3 {Not 13.Qxb4 Nxa2 14.Bxf6 gxf6! (much better than 14...Qxf6 15.Bh7+ Kxh7 16.Qxf8 Nxc1 17.Rxc1)} 13...Bd6 {13...Be7 immediately is better: 14.e4 c5!} 14.e4 Be7 15.Bxf6 {At first I didn't like this move (giving up the 2 bishops), but the more I looked at the resulting play, the more I liked it!} 15...Bxf6 16.e5 Be7 17.Be4 {White has the better position, and does a good job of making continual threats, not giving the opponent a chance of catching up in development, or countering against the center. This is good technique, constant probing, seeing what shakes loose!} 17...c6 18.Rfd1 Qc7 {Putting the queen on the same line as White's rook doesn't look good, but Black can only mark time, waiting for White's c4 followed by d5. His move may over excite White, and prompt him to rush forward too quickly. :-) } 19.c4 Qa5 20.d5 cxd5 21.cxd5 exd5 22.Rxd5 {Recapturing with a threat. White keeps probing!} 22...Qa6 {Here Black probably should have made a barter with 22...Qa3. A rather lengthy cat-and-mouse, rook-vs-bishop tussle might have followed: 23.Qxa3 Bxa3 24.Rc3 Bb4 25.Rc4 Be7 26.Rc7 Bd8 27.Rc2 Be6 28.Rb5 Bb6 29.Bxb7 Rab8 30.Bc6 Rfc8 31.Rbb2 Bxf2+ 32.Kxf2 Rxb2 33.Rxb2 Rxc6. Rather far fetched? Maybe. But it sure is interesting.} 23.Rc7 Qe6 {23...Qa3 24.Qxa3 Bxa3 25.Rd3 Bb4 26.Bxb7} 24.Nd4 Qg4 25.Qc2 {Not 25.Rxe7 Qxe4 (a) 26.h3 Qe1+ 27.Kh2 Qxf2 (b) 26.g3 Bh3 (c) 26.Kf1 Qh4} 25...Bb4 {OK. Here's a problem for you to solve! Cover the text, it's White to play and win!} 26.Bh7+ {This isn't it! The correct solution is: 26.a3 Bxa3 27.Nb5 Bb4 28.Rc4 winning the bishop on b4 because of the threat of 29.Bh7+ winning the queen.} 26...Kh8 27.Bf5 {Removing the defender of b7} 27...Bxf5 28.Nxf5 {Threatening Rd4 or Rc4} 28...Ba3 {Watch how this bishop's influence over the c1 square affects the play. If 28...Rad8, play might continue 29.h3 (not 29.Rc4 Qg6 30.Rxd8 Rxd8 31.Rxb4 Qxf5) Qg6 30.Rxd8 Rxd8 31.Rxb7} 29.Rd4 {Not 29.Rxb7? Rac8 30.f3 Qf4 and White has problems.} 29...Qg6 {29...Qh5 30.g4 Qg6 is similar to the text move except that White's knight is protected. Note that in what follows.} 30.h3 {30.Rxb7? Rfc8 31.Rc4 Rxc4 32.Qxc4 Qxf5 33. Rxf7 Qxe5 30.Ra4 Rfd8 31.Rxa3 Qxf5 or 30.Ra4 Rfd8 31.h3 Bf8} 30...Qb6 {Or 30...Qe6 (a) 31.Ra4 Rac8 32.Rxa3 Rxc7 33.Qxc7 Qxf5 34.Qxb7 Qxe5 35.Qxa7 Qe1+ 36.Kh2 Qe5+ (b) 31.Ra4 Rac8 32.Nxg7 Rxc7 33.Qxc7 Qxa2 34.Nh5 (c) 31.Rg4 Qxe5 32.Rxg7 Qa1+ 33.Kh2 Bd6+} 31.Rg4 Qa5 {Something's got to give: 31...Rae8 32.Rxg7 Rxe5 33.Rgxf7 Rxf7 34.Rxf7 Qe6 35.Nxh6 Re1+ 36.Kh2 Bd6+ 37.f4 Black is busted.} 32.Rxg7 Bb2? {Black should have tried 32...Qe1+ 33.Kh2 Qxe5+ 34.Rg3, but his position is still difficult. Problem #2. White to play and win.} 33.Qxb2! 1-0 {Correct! After 33.Qxc7 34.e6 is a crusher.} .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. THE KING'S GAMBIT, AN ATTRACTIVE WEAPON FOR THE ATTACKING PLAYER. by Gertjan de Vries (1833 NED) ----------------------------------------------------------------- A good advice to a beginning chess player is to start his games with 1.e4 as White, and to reply to this move with 1...e5 as Black. This series of moves lead to the so called "Open Games", which bear this name because lines are opened almost immediately, pieces can develop quickly onto attacking squares, and both tactical and strategic ideas are very clear in the resulting positions. The very opposite are "Closed Games" (i.e., games with 1.d4 d5) which often require quiet maneuvering and subtle strategic moves, which are not easy to understand. In the old days, when there was no such theoretical chess knowledge like today, leading chess players would almost always play Open Games, seeking an early cut and thrust. Beautiful tactical struggles, like the "Immortal Game" between Anderssen and Kieseritzky (1851), are still there for us to study and admire. In this immortal game, Anderssen played the King's Gambit. What is this King's Gambit? First of all, we have to know what the term "gambit" means. We speak about a "gambit" when a player sacrifices material, often a pawn. By doing this he (or she!!) hopes to get compensation, like attacking chances or better development. There are many well-known gambits, of which the most famous is the often played (Closed Game!) Queen's Gambit: 1.d4 d5 2.c4. The King's gambit looks like a mirrored version of this: first the king's pawn is advanced, and then the king's bishop pawn is being gambited (sacrificed) 1.e4 e5 2.f4. But the resulting positions are very different; even more than other Open Games, like the Ruy Lopez and Giuocco Piano, the King's Gambit can lead to tactical games, which are fun to play and analyze. Now you might ask: OK, so I give up a pawn, but what do I get in exchange? The first answer is: "time". If Black takes the pawn 2...exf4 he has "wasted" a move which also could have been used to develop a piece. After a few moves (when d2-d3 or d2-d4 has been played) White will threaten to recapture the pawn with Bc1xf4, a move which also develops a piece in the process! Should Black decide to hang on to the pawn (e.g. g7-g5), he may even need to "waste" more time, thus giving White a massive lead in development. The second answer is: "center control". As you might know, in the opening and early middle game it is very important to control the center. When you achieve control of the central squares, you can easily move your pieces from one side of the board to the other when needed. Now take a look at the position after 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4. White still has both his central pawns, whereas Black has only his d-pawn left. Should White now at any stage be able to play d2-d4, the center is completely controlled by the White pawns! We still have a third answer left: "space". This is in fact the direct result of both time and center control: if you control the center and if you are ahead in development, it is logical that you have more space. But there is another very significant fact: imagine that White has been able to recapture the pawn with Bc1xf4, has put a knight on f3, the other bishop at c4 and has castled: now the f-file is under control of the White rook! This, combined with the scope of the bishop on c4 makes Black's f7 square very vulnerable, and in many games White's active pieces emerge into a fierce attack against this point. The above scheme leads to games in which White attacks the kingside and Black tries to create counter chances. That is why many attacking grandmasters have championed this aggressive weapon, including former world champion Boris Spassky, Judith Polgar and Nigel Short. Studying it carefully is very useful, as it will increase your understanding of the relationship between material and positional advantages. And, perhaps the most important thing, playing the King's Gambit is fun! .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. SOME THOUGHTS ON THE MECHANICS OF CC PLAY by Steve Ryan (1482 CAN) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Although I would never presume to offer anyone advice on chess strategy or tactics (needing all the advice I can get myself on those subjects), I feel that some 25 years of CC experience qualifies me to talk a little about what we can call the "mechanics" of CC play. First of all, I rarely play over-the-board and have never attempted a "real-time" game on the net with someone at the several sites devoted to that pursuit. My thought processes simply do not work fast enough to allow it, when they work at all. A face-to-face encounter OTB makes me choke up, particularly when my opponent starts to whistle, tap his fingers on the board, etc. Some of my OTB games without a clock or score sheet have ended up with both my opponent and I forgetting who moved next. Always take advantage of this particular situation, by the way, and claim it's your move, especially if you have an inferior position. Don't get the wrong impression here, some of my best friends play OTB. The two forms of the game should compliment each other. So what constitutes sound "mechanics" for CC play? I think we can divide it into the following major categories: accurate record-keeping, taking the time for good play, a conducive atmosphere and a modest chess library. Record Keeping -------------- Any veteran CC'er can tell you plenty of horror stories about games lost to "clerical errors". I personally don't mind getting outplayed (well actually I do but I can live with it), but I absolutely cannot stand to lose by a clerical error such as recording the right move in the wrong game, the wrong move in the right game or sending/receiving an impossible or ambiguous move. Every CC club I know of correctly accepts the principle that any legal move must stand as sent (the equivalent of OTB's "touch move" rule). Do yourself a favour and buy yourself some kind of chess "recorder". They come in "electronic" forms such as ectool, a computer-based e-mail chess record keeping and mailing system, and "manual" types such as the Post-a-Log recorder; a ringed binder with insertable mini chessboards and stick-on pieces, and plain old paper score sheets. You may run into more trouble if you tend to play "thematically" in a multi-player event, such as a "class" tournament, since you will have several simultaneous games going with similar positions. A move intended for game 1 can easily slip into game 2 with closely matching (but rarely identical) positions. The error may go unnoticed by both players until it leads to some impossible/ambiguous move and the subsequent need to unravel the line God-only-knows how far back. More often though it leads to outright disaster. Record incoming moves as soon as you receive them if using postcards and score sheet. Don't rely on your memory and the "I won't forget" attitude. Record them one at a time and at least double check that you have everything right. The same applies to outgoing moves. For e-mail games do not immediately delete the move after having dealt with it. Keep the original message for at least 5 further moves if your club does not require you to transmit the entire game score each time. Under no circumstances should you keep track of the game just by setting up a board and pieces in some "out-of-the-way" corner. Take my word for it, this corner will invariably turn into the rush hour version of a Los Angeles freeway, probably due to your own clumsiness. Then, of course, you have to go through the entire game score to arrive at the current position. I use an electronic and 2 manual systems and still manage to make the odd clerical error because of our next category - time. Take Your Time -------------- Novice players should always start out slowly. Starting too soon with a multiple-game match can lead to many defeats and a discouraging start. I usually recommend a 1 game match to my IECC New Member Program graduates. It takes some time to become accustomed to e-mail play and develop your own record-keeping style. The need to meet club time rules in a big match can lead to hasty record keeping and inevitable mistakes. Experienced players, supposedly able to handle such pressure, can fall into this trap by becoming over confident and simply take on too much. Some top level players have reported total study times of 20 hours or more (over several days) for a single move. Could you do that amount of work? I sure couldn't. I usually quit at my "to hell with it" point where I say to myself "if I don't have it right by now I never will". So, if you plan on that amount of effort you need the 3rd part of my 4 fold method - a conducive atmosphere. Chill Out & Concentrate ----------------------- What comprises a "conducive atmosphere" for chess will vary considerably from person to person. Can you play with the TV blaring, the radio on and the kids on the warpath? I can't, but if you can, go for it. I have to sequester myself away in my little cubbyhole and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist until I'm finished. I also have to have all my moves up-to-date and my "analysis notepad" close at hand. Do whatever works for you including ignoring everything I've said so far. Remember the Fischer-Spassky match in Reykjavik? Fischer's "conducive atmosphere" at one point required all TV camera operators to remove any loose change from their pockets. He also demanded exclusive use of his hotel's swimming pool. I know, Boris and Bobby didn't go to Iceland to play CC, but what else can you expect from OTB'ers? Even though the kids have long since left the nest and I don't have that distraction anymore, can you imagine the response I'd get if I asked my spouse to unplug the phone for a few hours? Buy, Beg, Borrow or Steal Some Books ------------------------------------ If you've stayed with me so far I want to finish off by recommending that you obtain a small chess library. You might think that this suggestion falls more into the category of strategy and tactics but by following a "standard" opening line as written in books like Modern Chess Openings or Encyclopedia of Chess Openings you will minimize your chances of making a mistake. How? Well, unless you have a lot of opening lines already memorized you will have, effectively, part of a game score already laid out for you. This approach won't work if either you or your opponent deviate from this line, but at least it may get you past the opening and postpone your mistakes to the middle game. Then, maybe, your opponent will make one before you do. After all, the longer you can go without making any the better your chances of winning. (c) Copyright 1999 S.R. Ryan .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. **** SOFTWARE PROGRAM FOR THE MAC **** Edmund Boyd (1183 SCO) writes ... I've written a Macintosh program which calculates the rating change that follows a single game between two rated chessplayers. It uses either the IECC rating point value (32) or the FIDE (10). It may be similar to Marcelo Jost's IECC rating program but I've never seen that since it's a Windows program. IECC is mentioned in the documentation and its website address given. I'd like to make my program available for IECC Mac users and the software homepage is http://www.kelvindale.freeserve.co.uk/chesscalc/ I'm 48 and just retired from my job as a computing lecturer and network manager. I've played chess all my life (when I've had time). I'm not very good but the game gives me great pleasure. About 16 years ago I played a couple of seasons in a chess club. That was tremendous; I loved the competitive games. Now that I'm retired I might start club play again. I've always wanted to learn some openings but never seemed to get around to it, even after I've bought opening books! I've played in IECC for about two years now. It's great to play with access to my own coffee and in the comfort of my own chair. I like it that I can play or not on any given day, so I don't need to make moves if I'm not in the mood. I like the quick feedback from the speedy ratings after a game is finished too. I suppose my ambition is to steadily improve my rating and to collect a few games I'm proud of. .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. **** TOP 50 IN NUMBER OF GAMES PLAYED **** Full Name W D L TOTAL --------- --- --- --- ----- 1 Richard, Andy 200 87 333 620 1 Ventimiglia, Chuck 202 101 120 423 2 Cherner, Lyle 101 27 178 306 3 Varley, Trevor 97 25 151 273 4 Nagley, Tim 126 77 60 263 5 Dean, Wes 107 70 83 260 6 Dunn, Michael 108 53 58 219 7 Nowicki, Andrzej 93 45 66 204 8 Grazinys, Vidmantas 112 67 23 202 9 Jobe, Tom 63 29 107 199 10 Hassan, Bill 71 40 75 186 11 Malmstrom, Jan 68 57 50 175 12 Theofel, Heiner 53 32 81 166 13 Brookshire, Tommy 77 6 82 165 14 Wenger, Joseph 76 37 51 164 15 de Leeuw, Dirk 98 31 32 161 16 Powell, Lisa 89 24 46 159 17 Bouma, Jan 60 26 65 151 18 Vanderven, Tony 67 30 49 146 19 Burrell, Edward 88 26 30 144 20 Newman, Nelson 76 36 29 141 21 Stein, Rick 83 30 21 134 22 Wright, Barry 42 26 63 131 23 Power, Mike 52 29 46 127 24 Hassim, Unes 74 35 15 124 25 Ralls, Nelson 82 25 15 122 26 Bass, Stanley 69 17 36 122 27 Karlsson, Roger 36 10 75 121 28 Mann, Derek 52 9 58 119 29 Hughes, Dave 51 25 43 119 30 Cornell, David 46 19 54 119 31 Mueller, Robert 78 24 15 117 32 Galvin, John 69 18 29 116 33 Cornacchini, Gabriele 60 31 25 116 34 Malm, Art 54 34 26 114 35 Cousins, Eddie 88 20 3 111 36 Fantoni, Franco 79 16 16 111 37 Noy, Ilan 59 30 22 111 38 Femmel, Don 52 38 20 110 39 Camper, Donald 63 36 10 109 40 Takeuchi, Toshi 52 12 44 108 41 Athens, Jim 51 15 40 106 42 Smith, Chuck 43 41 22 106 43 Kent, Kevin 48 23 33 104 44 Evans, Kyle 25 4 75 104 45 Keller, Stephen 45 5 53 103 46 Castillo, Germán 31 35 37 103 47 Jónsson, Guđbrandur 50 9 43 102 48 Haase, Peter 48 11 42 101 49 Angus, George 56 21 22 99 50 Paetzold, Ortwin 46 13 38 97 .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. ANALYSIS BY PETER VAN DEURSEN (NED 2154) ----------------------------------------- [Event "CL3-1999.09"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1999.09.31"] [White "Näter, Burkhard"] [Black "Noy, Ilan"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteIECC "1923"] [WhiteCountry "GER"] [BlackIECC "1942"] [BlackCountry "ISR"] [ECO "B07"] [Opening "Pirc Defense"] {This game is interesting, because at first look, it is a highly tactical battle. But at a closer look, the character of this game is merely positional.} 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7 5.Nf3 c5 6.Bb5+ Bd7 7.e5 Ng4 8.e6 Bxb5 {An alternative here is 8.fxe6} 9.exf7+ Kd7 {It all looks extremely sharp, but in fact this is a very frequently played line in the Pirc. Famous players like Timman, Spasski, Tal played this line with Black and paved the way of theory. 9...Kxf7? 10.Ng5+ +-} 10.Nxb5 Qa5+ 11.Nc3 cxd4 12.Nxd4 Bxd4 {This move is played most frequently nowadays. Tal tried 12...h5 here without succes (Beliavsky-Tal 1988 1-0). 12...Qh5 looks playable. In fact this move was played about the first time this line appeared (Krogius-Polugajewski 1958 1/2-1/2): 13.Qf3 Nc6 14.Nde2 Nh6 15.Qxh5 gxh5 =} 13.Qxd4 Nc6 14.Qc4 Qb6 {Spasski tried 14....Rhf8 twice here, but with no succes: Timman-Spasski 1981 1-0 and Tal-Spasski 1988 1-0} 15.Qe2 Nf6 {This voluntary retreat seems suspicious. In my database(s) I found no less than 54 games with the position after 15.Qe2. The game score is +26 -13 =15. So Black has to be careful! Most players continue with the better looking 15...h5, and now the Knight can retreat to h6 or f6 without the threat of g4. It seems only natural that the first game I found where Black played 15...h5 was the game van Wijgerden-Timman 1977 1/2-1/2, because Timman is one of the few top-players who plays the Pirc frequently. The only game I found where Black played 15...Nf6 is Edelman-Silberman 1983 1-0 where White won quickly after 16.Bd2 Rac8 17.O-O-O Rhf8 18.Rhe1 Kc7 19.Qe6 Kb8 20.Be3 Qc7 21.Bf2 Qd7 22.Bh4 Qc7 23.Bxf6 exf6 24.Qxd6 Rxf7 25.Nb5 1-0 If Black wants to retreat his Knight now, then 15...Nh6 looks better. I found the very curious Fernandez-Bogado 1992 1-0 in my database: 15...Nh6 16.Bd2 Qxb2 17.Rb1 Qxc2 18.Rxb7+ Kd8 19.Nd5 Rc8 Black is completely outplayed. However, White throws away all of his tremendous advantage with 20.Qa6?? after which Black ... resigns!} 16.Bd2 Rhf8 17.O-O-O Rxf7 18.Rhe1 Raf8 19.g4! {Puts the maximum pressure on the Black position. White sensibly refuses to play 19.Qe6+; this move, albeit tempting, leads to nothing. The White pieces are nicely centralized and he can play on any side of the board.} 19...Kc8 20.g5 {A better approach would have been the positionally justified move 20.f5! for example, 20...gxf5 21.gxf5 Ne5 22.Bf4 Nfd7 23.Nd5 and White has strong pressure on Black, with f6 as a thread. Black cannot do much in return.} 20...Nh5 21.Nd5 Qc5 {At first I thought that Black should have played 21...Qd8 here, and should be pretty safe after 21...Qd8 22.b4 Kb8! 23.b5 Nd4 24.Qd3 Nf5. This is true, but White has better: 22...Kb8 23.Qc4! and now: (a) 23...Qc8 24.b5 e6 25.Nc3 d5 26 Qc5 +-} (b) 23...e5 24.b5 Nd4 25.fxe5 dxe5 26.Rxe5 Nf3 27.Bc3! +-} 22. Qd3! {Now it is very hard to see what Black can do against Re4 and b4. The Black Queen is an excellent goal for the White pieces, and she can't hide herself now! So Black's next move might be his best chance indeed.} 22...Nxf4!? 23.Bxf4 Rxf4 24.Qh3+ R4f5 25.Ne3 {Plausible seems 25.Nxe7 Nxe7 26.Rxe7 Kb8 27.Qxh7, and wins after 27...Rf2 28.Qxg6 Rc8 29.Qxd6+ Qxd6 30.Rxd6. But Black has the devilish move 27...Rf1! instead, and after 28.Rxb7+? Ka8 he is even lost!} 25...Kb8 26.Nxf5 Qxf5 27.Qxf5 Rxf5? {This must be the decisive error. To develop some pressure with his free f- and e-pawn, Black's Rook should stay on the board. It's not easy then for White to win. Black can play Ne5 and f4 and f3 and I don't see how White has to get further then. Without a pair of Rooks White's remaining rook can easily penetrate the Black position.} 28.h4 Kc7 29.Rf1 Nd4 30.Rxf5 Nxf5 31.Rf1 e6 32.Rh1 d5 33.h5 Kd6 34.hxg6 hxg6 35.Rh7 Ne7 36.a4 e5 37.Kd2 a5 38.Rf7 e4 39.c3 Ke6 40.Rf6+ Ke5 41.Rb6 Kf4 42.Rxb7 Nf5 43.Rb5 Kf3 44.Rxd5 1-0 ANALYSIS BY STEFAAN SIX WITH FRITZ 5.00 (1938 BEL) ---------------------------------------------------- [Event "Swiss-117.1"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1999.04.11"] [White "Jeffrey, J. Thomas"] [Black "Popp, Tony"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteIECC "1258"] [WhiteCountry "USA"] [BlackIECC "1516"] [BlackCountry "USA"] [ECO "A81"] [Opening "Dutch Defense"] 1.d4 f5 2.g3 e6 3.e3 Nf6 4.Bg2 g6 [4...Be7 5.Ne2 O-O 6.O-O d6 7.b3 e5 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Bb2 Nbd7 10.Qd3 g6 11.Rd1 Bd6 12.Qc4+ Kg7 13.Na3 a6 14.Qh4 Qe7 15.Nc4 Bc5 16.b4 Bxb4 17.Nxe5 Nxe5 18.Bxe5 Qxe5 19.Qxb4 Rb8 20.Rab1 Bd7 21.Nf4 Rf7 22.Nd3 Qe8 23.Qc3 Re7 24.Nc5 Bc6 25.Nxb7 Bxg2 26.Kxg2 c5 27.Rb6 Rbxb7 28.Qxf6+ Kh6 29.Rxa6 Rb4 30.Qxf5 Rf7 31.Qd5 Rg4 32.h4 Qe7 33.Re6 Qc7 34.f4 Kg7 35.Qe5+ 1-0 Euwe-Byrne,R/New York 1951] 5.Nc3 c6 6.a3 d5 7.Nf3 Nbd7 8.O-O Bd6 9.Re1 O-O 10.b4 Nb6 11.Nd2 e5 12.Bb2 e4 13.Ne2 g5 14.c3 Nh5 15.a4 f4 16.Nc1? =+ [A mistake which helps Black to exert tremendous pressure. This is what often happens if one plays a bit passive in the opening... a mistake is more likely to occur! An improvement is 16.Nxf4 Nxf4 17.exf4 gxf4 with equality.] 16...f3 17.Bf1 Be6 18.a5 Nd7 19.Ndb3 Rb8 20.Nc5 Nxc5 21.bxc5 -/+ [21.dxc5 Be5 =+] 21...Bc7 22.Nb3 Qc8 [Even stronger is the immediate 22...Qd7] 23.Kh1? [A little help for Black. Tougher would be 23.a6!? -/+] 23...Bh3 24.Bxh3 Qxh3 25.Rg1 Nf6 26.Qf1 Qh5 [Also decisive is 26...Ng4 27.Rg2 fxg2+ 28.Qxg2 Qxg2+ 29.Kxg2 Rxf2+ 30.Kg1 Rxb2 -+] 27.g4 ['Better' but also losing is 27.Rb1 Ng4 28.Rg2 fxg2+ 29.Qxg2 Rxf2 30.Qxf2 Nxf2+ 31.Kg1 Qf3 32.Kf1 Ng4+ 33.Ke1 Qf2+ 34.Kd1 Nxe3+ 35.Kc1 Qc2#] 27...Qxh2# 0-1 ANALYSIS BY SAULI TIITTA (2204 FIN) ------------------------------------ [Event "CL2-1999.10"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1999.01.31"] [White "Elliott, Tom"] [Black "Shields, Glen D."] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [WhiteIECC "2157"] [WhiteCountry "USA"] [BlackIECC "2180"] [BlackCountry "USA"] [ECO "B12"] [Opening "Caro-Kann Advance Variation"] 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 [Advance variation.] 3...Bf5 [It is important to bring the bishop out first and after that play ...e6.] 4.Nf3 h6!? [Rear move!] 5.Bd3!? Bxd3 6.Qxd3 [Is 4...h6 useful in this system?] 6...e6 7.0-0 Nd7 8.Nbd2 Ne7 9.Re1 Nf5 10.c3 Be7 11.b3?! [11.Nb3!?; 11.Nf1!?] 11...c5 12.Qb5?! [12.Bb2] 12...Rb8 13.a4 [Now White had to prevent Black from playing ...a6 and ...b5.] 13...a6 14.Qd3 0-0 15.Ba3 Rc8 [15...Qc7!?] 16.b4!? cxd4!? [16...c4!? After this the whole game would is a totally different nature!] 17.cxd4 Qb6 18.Reb1 [18.a5?! Qb5! 19.Qxb5 axb5 =+] 18...f6 19.a5 Qd8 [19...Qb5? 20.Qxb5 axb5 21.g4 Nxd4 22.Nxd4 fxe5 23.Nxb5 Rf4±] 20.exf6 [20.g4!? fxe5 21.gxf5 e4 22.Nxe4 dxe4 23.Qxe4 Rxf5 (23...exf5 24.Qxb7) 24.Qxe6+ Rf7 25.Rc1 +=] 20...Nxf6 21.Qe2 Qd7 22.b5 axb5 23.Ne5 Qc7 24.Bxe7 Nxd4 25.Qe3 [25.Qd3 Qxe5 26.Bxf8 (26.Re1 Qf4 27.Bxf8 Ng4 28.Qg3 Qxg3 29.hxg3 Rxf8 =+) 26...Ng4] 25...Nf5 26.Qh3 Nxe7 27.Qxe6+ Kh7 28.Nef3 Ng6 29.Qe2 Qd7 [29...Qf7 30.Qxb5 Ne4 31.Rb2 Nh4 32.Qe2 Nxf3+ 33.Nxf3] 30.Qd3 [30.Qxb5?? Rc1+; 30.Rxb5?! Nf4 31.Qf1 Rfe8] 30...Rc5 31.Re1 [White has counterattacked in e-file.] 31...Rfc8 32.Ne5 Qe8 [Only move.] 33.Qf5 [Knight is going to d3. White wins pawn back.] 33...Ne4 34.Nd3 R5c7 35.Qxd5 [35.f3 Nd6 36.Qxd5 Qd8] 35...Nc3 36.Qf5 Qf8 [36...Qf7 is possible] 37.Qxf8 Rxf8 [Now Black's pieces are better placed.] 38.Nb3 Nf4 39.Nxf4 Rxf4 40.Re5 [Now 40...Ra4 is interesting. White doesn't want to change that rook, because after that a-pawn will advance very fast. So White plays 41.Kf1. Then it is not easy to advance.] 40...Re4 41.Rxe4 Nxe4 42.Kf1 [42.Re1?! Rc3 43.Nd4 b4 =+] 42...Kg6? [42...Rc3!? 43.Nd4 b4 with some pressure.] 43.Re1 Nc3 44.Re6+ Kh7 45.Rb6 [Now White has changes.] 45...Rc4 46.f3 [46.Rxb7? Rb4 47.Nd2 Ra4 and Black gets the pawn back with better changes.] 46...Ra4 [46...Rb4?! 47.Nc5] 47.Rxb7 Ra3 48.Nd4 Rxa5 49.h4?! [49.Ne6! Kg6 50.Nxg7 Ra2 51.h4 Nd5 52.g4! and White stands slightly better.] 49...Ra1+ 50.Kf2 Ra2+ 51.Kg1 [51.Kg3!?] 51...Rb2 52.Nf5 [52.h5!? b4 53.Nf5 Ne2+ 54.Kh2 Kh8 55.Rxg7 (55.Nxg7 Nf4 56.Kg3 Rxg2+ 57.Kxf4 Rxg7 58.Rxb4 Rg5=) 55...Nd4 56.Rf7 Nxf3+ 57.Kg3 Ne1 58.Rf8+ Kh7 59.Rf7+=] 52...Ne2+ 53.Kh1 Kg6 54.Nxg7 [54.g4 Kf6 55.Rxg7? Ng3+] 54...Nf4 55.Ne8?! [55.g4] 55...Rb1+ 56.Kh2 Rb2 57.Kg3 Ne2+ [57...Nxg2 58.Rb6+ Kh7 59.Nd6] 58.Kg4 h5+ 59.Kh3 Nf4+ 60.Kg3 Ne2+ 61.Kh2 Nf4 62.Rg7+ Kh6 63.Rg5 b4 64.Nf6 1/2-1/2 [65.Nd5 Ng6!? 66.Nf6 Nf4 =;65.Ng8+ =] .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. WATCH FOR IT by Steve Ryan (1482 CAN) --------------------------------------- Have you ever seen a chess board or game portrayed on TV or the movies? Almost always they will show the board or pieces set up the wrong way. One commercial currently running on Canadian TV shows a woodland setting with some car or SUV driving through it. The car first passes a deer doing an oil painting with a brush in its mouth, a bear on its hind legs at a music stand presumably performing opera, and a (raccoon?) facing off against an owl across a chessboard (driving this vehicle supposedly "makes nature more civilized"). If you look quickly you will see that the chessboard has a BLACK square on the right. Media portrayals of chess seem to make this particular mistake more than any other. Other types of mistakes include the King on the Q's square (vice versa) plus Knights and Bishops interchanged. Everyone seems to get the Rooks and Pawns right for some reason. Also, you will often see those ghastly "theme" chess sets (where the K is Julius Caesar, Cleopatra the Queen, Roman soldiers for pawns, etc.) instead of the traditional Staunton sets. Chicago Hope has its medical consultants to assure accuracy but nobody takes the same trouble for chess. Usually you see only a flash of the chessboard so maybe they hope nobody will notice. Watch for it. .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. Issue 5 End