,...., 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 6 `;:|.=` _.`\ '|_.=` __\ .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. `\_..==` / 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 Member Biographies.............Alejandro Bienkowski, Dr. Syed Padsha ...............................Michael Nowicki, Aleksandar Vujanovic Staff Biography....................................Chuck Ventimiglia Games Won by Country..........................compiled by David Glew Game Analysis..........................................Tayhan Tayhan Game Analysis.......................................Sasha Goldshtein Web Wanderings............................................Steve Ryan News from the New Member Department.....................Roger Miller A Bit of Chess History -- The Caro-Kann............Chuck Ventimiglia Top 100 Wins..............................................Joe Wenger Game Analysis.........................................Erwin Oorebeek Game Analysis............................................Stefaan Six Chess-Chesmayne.........................................Raymond Reid Ryan's Ramblings..........................................Steve Ryan My Town's Chess Club......................................Jesus Paul Book Review.........................................Gertjan de Vries Top 50 in Games Played....................................Joe Wenger Game Analysis...........................................Sauli Tiitta PGN Notation and Game Reports........................Michael McShane .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. ANNOUNCEMENTS & EDITORIAL ------------------------- Welcome to Issue 6 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! I would like to take this opportunity to say I've enjoyed my time editing the journal but it has become almost a full-time job. It's quite a busy position and I no longer have the time to do it. I'm sure in the coming year another will accept the challenge of editing the journal so until then enjoy this issue. ;o) Also I would like to thank all who have contributed game analyses, articles, statistics, etc., in the last 3 issues. Without all your help we wouldn't have a journal. I very much appreciated all your helpful tips and contributions. I would also like to thank my staff members, Chuck Ventimiglia, Robert Mueller and Steve Ryan. Without their help I don't feel I could have done my job as editor at all. I appreciated their help and support throughout my term as editor. Once again, thank you very much and hopefully some time in the new year we will once again read another chess journal. .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. IECC MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES ----------------------- ALEJANDRO BIENKOWSKI (1170 USA) writes ... My name is Alejandro Bienkowski and I was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina on February 5,1963. When I was 6 years old, one day my father came home with a chess set and taught me to play. From that moment I've loved chess but have never taken it seriously. I now live in the U.S. (Utah), I'm 36, I work in construction, and when I have any opportunity I play chess. DR. SYED PADSHA (1072 IND) writes ... My name is Dr. Syed Padsha and I live in Madras, India. I'm married to Dr. Amtul Padsha M.B.B.S., D.R.C.O.G. - an obstetrican who has worked in India, Pakistan, United Kingdom and Uganda. For my own work I am writing self-learning interactive programs for Physiology and related subjects. My two main hobbies are Chess and Bridge. I play bridge with my friends and relatives. I participated in the American Bridge League Tournaments a few times. I like playing chess against a computer program and learning from the analysis of the chess tournaments. MICHAEL NOWICKI (1498 USA) writes ... Hi my name is Michael Nowicki and I just recently joined IECC. I am an English Teacher at a couple of community colleges in my area. I only used to play chess through the mail and I still do. I play Transcendental Chess which is where the major pieces are all transposed so once you make the first move you are already in the middle game. It is through snail mail but it is still quick and fun. ALEKSANDAR VUJANOVIC (2231 YUG) writes ... My name is Aleksandar Vujanovic. I was born and currently live in Belgrade, 30 years old and work as an economist. I started to play tournament chess when I was 13 years old. When I was 20, I started to play correspondence chess. I played only Yugoslav correspondence tournaments. I have no ELO at this moment. My best ELO was 2270. I am a candidate for master in chess and master class in correspondence chess. .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. MEET YOUR IECC STAFF -------------------- CHUCK VENTIMIGLIA - TD 2-GAME/TRIOS MATCHES (1904 USA) Hello everybody, I'm Chuck Ventimiglia!! I have been a member of the IECC going on two years and have made many friends and a few very good friends. During the numerous games I have completed and the many games I have ongoing, a lot of people have written little biographies and have asked the same from me. With this issue of the Journal I thought I would do a short autobiography about myself for my opponents past and future. I was born Oct.28, 1942 in New York City. I started playing chess in 1957 when I would visit Washington Square and challenge all the players that could be found on weekends playing on the park benches. I joined the USCF about 1960 and would play in the many park tournaments that abounded throughout NYC. I would visit and play in the Marshall and Manhattan Chess Clubs and got to meet many up and coming players of the early 60's. Some of who I am sure are Masters and Grand masters of today. In 1960 I went to St. Francis College in Brooklyn, N.Y. We had a little chess club in which we would challenge area colleges to "unofficial" tournaments. In 1962 or '63 Bobby Fischer was giving a simul. at one of the hotels in N.Y.C. and I was invited to be one of the 50. I lost, of course, but would never forget the experience. I graduated in 1965 and from there joined the Air Force. My chess playing came to an abrupt end. I retired from the Air Force in 1985 and remained in San Antonio, Texas. It was about that time that I started dabbling in correspondence chess. I entered many of the "snail mail" tournaments that was offered by USCF. It was in 1985 that I started to have a relapse and fall ill to the "chess bug" again. In 1997, a very important milestone in my life, four very important events occurred. My son got married and left home, my daughter graduated college and left home, I retired from the Postal Service [I did not leave home :-)], and I bought a PC. It was shortly after that I found the IECC. I was introduced to email chess and have been playing ever since. I can honestly say that the IECC is the "best chess site on the net". I have offered my help to many of the IECC's functions because I want to make sure it stays around a long while. I really enjoy the tough competition and friends that I have made and am going to make. To all my future opponents I send repeats at 4 & 8 days and a Time Complaint is automatically generated by my PC at 12 days. :-] .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. Below is a list of games won by country, with a minimum of 25 games played and compiled by David Glew (1929 ENG). Country Players Games Won Drawn Lost USA United States 970 15268 6260 2394 6614 ENG England 190 2677 1268 522 887 CAN Canada 165 3884 1530 602 1752 GER Germany 139 2068 1018 519 531 NED Holland 105 1942 960 467 515 FRA France 75 869 433 186 250 ITA Italy 70 867 453 171 243 AUS Australia 68 547 276 64 207 SWE Sweden 65 1179 517 262 400 ESP Spain 59 815 393 192 230 BRA Brazil 46 719 374 146 199 RSA South Africa 44 580 265 78 237 POL Poland 40 826 357 205 264 BEL Belgium 32 396 155 66 175 FIN Finland 32 363 119 82 162 RUS Russia 28 258 103 65 90 ARG Argentina 25 347 171 96 80 POR Portugal 24 486 216 118 152 DEN Denmark 22 118 52 19 47 IRL Ireland 22 184 92 30 62 NZL New Zealand 22 475 223 84 168 AUT Austria 17 308 171 79 58 ISR Israel 17 415 191 92 132 SCO Scotland 17 372 179 53 140 MAS Malasia 16 212 89 43 80 SUI Switzerland 15 156 72 43 41 NOR Norway 14 151 84 31 36 TUR Turkey 13 148 56 49 43 EGY Egypt 11 299 176 67 56 SIN Singapore 11 64 27 6 31 IND India 10 55 24 12 19 MEX Mexico 10 65 32 7 26 WLS Wales 9 34 15 9 10 YUG Yugoslavia 9 181 69 77 35 CZE Czech Republic 8 94 30 34 30 GRE Greece 8 91 51 23 17 ROM Rumania 8 34 22 2 10 URU Uruguay 8 59 39 11 9 CHN China 7 73 32 12 29 SLO Slovenia 7 62 36 16 10 PUR Puerto Rico 6 52 30 6 16 UKR Ukraine 6 51 27 7 17 PER Peru 5 43 13 5 25 VEN Venezuela 5 151 43 42 66 ISL Iceland 4 115 52 9 54 JPN Japan 4 50 29 15 6 GUA Guatemala 3 75 45 14 16 HKG Hong Kong 2 68 41 2 25 INA Indonesia 2 26 6 6 14 LTU Lithuania 2 225 125 76 24 MLT Malta 2 30 8 5 17 THA Thailand 2 36 21 8 7 BUL Bulgaria 1 44 33 3 8 DOM Dominican Rep 1 26 9 5 12 ECU Ecuador 1 82 24 17 41 KSA Saudi Arabia 1 48 16 3 29 .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. ANALYSIS BY TAYHAN TAYHAN (2484 TUR) ------------------------------------- [Event "Th-M-356.1"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1999.03.08"] [White "Van Dam, Carl"] [Black "Berkley, Stephen"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "C63"] [Opening "Ruy Lopez/Schliemann Gambit"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5 [Known as the Schliemann Gambit.] 4.Nc3 [White declines the gambit.] 4...fxe4 5.Nxe4 d5 6.Nxe5 [This sacrifice is well known in this variation. Earliest: Suechting, H-Bernstein, O/1905/HCL 1-0.] 6...dxe4 [Black can decline to take the knight with 6...Qe7 but after 7.d4 Bd7 8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.Nc5 Black may have problems if he castles queenside.] 7.Nxc6 Qg5 [After 7...bxc6!? 8.Bxc6+ Bd7 9.Qh5+ Ke7 10.Qe5+ Be6 11.Bxa8 Qxa8 12.Qxc7+ Ke8 position is unclear. Black can hit back with minor pieces because White's pieces are not developed, his rooks behind the pawns are almost useless and his queen is exposed.] 8.Qe2 [8.Nd4+ c6 9.Bc4 Qxg2 10.Qh5+ Kd8 11.Rf1 Bh3 12.Ne6+ Bxe6 13.Bxe6 Nf6 is an interesting continuation.] 8...Nf6 [8...Qxg2?? 9.Qh5+ and White's attack is intense.] 9.f4 [9.0-0 a6 10.Ba4 Bd7= and Black can equalize.] 9...Qxf4 10.Ne5+ c6 11.d4 Qh4+ 12.g3 Qh3 13.Bc4 Be6 14.Bf4 Bd6 [Perhaps a novelty in this line. Black is trying to keep the tension in the centre. (14...Be7 15.0-0-0 0-0 16.Bg5 was played -> Balenovic, Z (2270) - Zelic, M (2275)/Medulin 1997 1-0)] 15.0-0-0 Rd8 16.Kb1 0-0 17.Nf3? [White's change of plan to create tactical lines in this position is unnecesary. (17.Rde1 White better.)] 17...Bd5 18.Ng5 Qf5 19.Bxd6 [19.Bxd5+ cxd5! (19...Qxd5 20.Bxd6 Rxd6 21.h4=; 19...Nxd5 20.Bxd6 Rxd6 21.h4 White slightly better.) 20.h4 Bxf4 21.Rdf1 (21.gxf4?! Rc8 Black is better.) 21...Qg4 22.Qxg4 Nxg4 23.Rxf4 Rxf4 24.gxf4 Ne3 and Black seems to have better pawns.] 19...Rxd6 20.h4 h6 21.Nh3 Bxc4 22.Qxc4+ Qd5 23.Qb4 Rd7 24.Nf4 Qd6 25.Qb3+ Kh7 26.Ne6 Rff7 27.Nc5 Rde7 28.Qe3? [From this move on, White simply loses. (Better is 28.Rhe1 Qd5.) 28...b6 [Also 28...Ng4 29.Qb3 Nf2 30.Rhf1 e3 31.Rde1 b6 32.Nd3 Qxd4 is good enough to win.] 29.Nb3 Ng4 30.Qe2 Nf2 31.Rdf1 Nxh1 32.Rxf7 Rxf7 33.Qxe4+ Kg8 34.Qxh1 Qxg3 0-1 [Black can simply force the exchange of queens, win the h pawn and advance his g and h pawns for queening. (For example, 35.a3 Qf3 36.Qh2 Qf4! 37.Qe2 Qf1+ 38.Nc1 Qxe2 39.Nxe2 Rf2 40.Nc3 Rf4)] ANALYSIS BY SASHA GOLDSHTEIN (1972 ISR) ---------------------------------------- [Event "World Championship match"] [Site "Moscow"] [Round "23"] [White "Botvinnik, Mikhail"] [Black "Bronstein, David"] [ECO "D71"] [Annotator "Goldshtein, Botvinnik"] {The decisive game of the match Botvinnik-Bronstein, World Championship 1951. Bronstein leads in the score: 11 1/2 - 10 1/2. Botvinnik plays White for the last time, and must win the game to draw the match and keep the World Champion title.} 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.g3 c6 {"Usually Bronstein would choose more complex systems, but this time he would be satisfied with a draw" -Botvinnik} 4.Bg2 d5 5.cxd5 {"The most inconvenient variation for Black in this opening. It is hard for Black to achieve any counterplay, and White can use the advantage of a tempo." -Botvinnik Compare to the Exchange Slav in the Queen's Gambit Declined: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.cxd5 cxd5 and now pressure on the c-file!} 5...cxd5 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.Nh3 {An unusual move, but it seems that Botvinnik wanted to avoid the defaults, of course.} (7.Nf3 0-0 8.Ne5 e6 9.0-0 Nfd7 10.f4 Nc6 {is one of the most popular variations in this line}) 7...Bxh3 {"Seems quite logical, because Black wins some time for development and trades pieces. However, when the game becomes open (perspectively) the presence of White's two active bishops could be important. [so the game. -S.G.] Sufficient to maintain equality is the next line:" -Botvinnik} (7...0-0 8.Nf4 e6 9.0-0 Nc6 10.e3 {More popular in our days is 10...b6} 10...Bd7 (10...b6 11.Bd2 Bb7 12.Qa4 Qd7 13.Rfc1 Rfc8 {and so forth}) 11.Nd3 Rc8 12.Nc5 b6 13.Nxd7 Qxd7) 8.Bxh3 Nc6 9.Bg2 {The bishop returns, with a waste of several tempi, though. Black has already achieved an advantage in development, but this is not what matters in a closed position of that kind, and there is no way to open it (e.g. ...e7-e5) in the meantime. On the long range, White has two powerful bishops which can dominate over several diagonals: a1-h8, h1-a8, h2-b8 etc.} 9... e6 10.e3 {Might seem like a dubious decision: why shutting up the bishop on c1? This has a certain justification in this position, and developing the bishop to f4 would not yield much fruits after the defensive ...a7-a6: there are no ways to attack e5 without wasting too much time: e5 will be Black's fortress.} 10...O-O 11.Bd2 Rc8 12.O-O Nd7 {"Bronstein loved such unclear maneouvering, when pieces move back and forth, and return to their original positions. Easier to understand was the maneouver 12...¤e8 and 13...¤d6 which guaranteed Black with equal play." -Botvinnik In my opinion, it's not really equal play, but might even get better for Black. See line.} (12...Ne8 13.Rc1 Nd6 14.b3 Qd7 {...and Black conquers the c-file before White can do so!}) 13.Ne2 {White is moving his knight to d3, via f4.} 13...Qb6 14.Bc3 {"Capablanca's standard maneouver in such positions is widely known. In 1916 against Janowski he played 5...Qb6 after 5.Qb3. I was to play 14.Qb3 too, but how can I trade queens in a game that I must win?" -Botvinnik As a result of that, the bishop is placed quite poorly, and there is a possibility to place the knight on c4, because the bishop will be quite hanging after b2-b3.} 14... Rfd8 {Black creates the threat of Bg7-f8-b4 which is quite dangerous. b4 needs defending immediately, and it obviously can't be done via a2-a3 because c4 will be weakened terribly and play on the light squares of the queenside will be easily possible. Thus, Botvinnik moves the knight to d3.} 15.Nf4 Nf6 {"A good move." -Botvinnik} 16.Qb3 (16.Nd3 Ne4 17.Be1 {"...makes Black ready to play ...e6-e5, White regains the idea of Capablanca's maneouver." -Botvinnik}) 16...Ne4 {"Bronstein, too, knows that one should not fear doubling the pawns in this case. That's why Black easily maintains equality." -Botvinnik} (16...Qxb3 {Quite ignored by Botvinnik. The trade is not with the idea of doubling pawns, period, but creating several options on the queenside. For instance:} 17.axb3 Rd7 18.Rfc1 Rdc7 19.Nd3 {...and although so far White is able to defend against the threats, it is possible to utilize the potential weaknesses on White's queenside via exhaustive play, especially granted the fact White's bishop on g2 is quite offside, whereas Black's ¥g7 can easily be activated via b4, for example.}) 17.Qxb6 axb6 18.Be1 {Botvinnik wants to keep both bishops -- his only practical tool to continue struggling for the win in this game.} 18...Na5 19.Nd3 Bf8 (19...Rc2?! {was not very effective in view of:} 20.Nb4 Rxb2 21.Bxe4 dxe4 22.Bc3 Re2 23.Rfc1 {and 24.Kf1 winning material -Botvinnik}) (19...Nc4 20.Bb4 Bf8 {leads to equal play, so Botvinnik. I allow myself to disagree:} 21.Bxf8 Kxf8 22.Rfc1 Ncd6 23.f3 Nf6 {and White gains a pretty meaningful advantage on either flank or in the center with preparation of e3-e4, his position is consolidated, Black has holes on e5 and b5, the c-file is so far controlled, White's king has more opportunities to get into play on the queenside than Black's -- probably quite sufficient to get very good chances to win. Botvinnik, nevertheless, recommends 19...Nc4.}) 20.f3 {Botvinnik treats this move too seriously, in my view. In his opinion, this is the proof that Black's last move was not best. Of course it is important to chase the knight away and get some alternatives in the center, but it is not as meaningful here.} 20...Nd6 21.Bf2 {An invasion on c2 would be quite ineffective now, because of massive trades on c1} (21.Rf2 Nac4 22.Re2 Nf5 23.Bf2 Bh6 24.Rae1 Ra8 25.a3 {and White will free his position very quickly within the next 2-3 moves. This was better than the game text, according to Botvinnik (who gives the variation up to 23.Bf2)}) 21...Bh6 22.Rac1 (22.e4 {also deserved attention} 22...Nc6! {and White has no clear ways to influence the position anymore}) 22...Nac4 (22...Nf5! 23.f4 {"leaves White no winning hopes" -Botvinnik}) 23.Rfe1 Na5 {"Apparently, Black hopes for the variation 24.Rxc8 Rxc8 25.Rc1 Rxc1+ 26.Nxc1 Nc4 which wins a pawn" -Botvinnik} (23...Nf5 24.g4 Nfxe3 25.Bh1 Nxg4 26.fxg4 Bxc1 27.Rxc1 Nd2=/+) 24.Kf1 (24.Rxc8 Rxc8 25.Re2 {and then e3-e4 could be a viable alternative}) 24...Bg7 25.g4 (25.e4 Rxc1 26.Rxc1 Nc6 27.exd5 exd5 {and Pd4 is undefendable}) 25...Nc6 {proceeding the maneouvering} 26.b3?! {"Just as White got everything running, two inaccurate moves follow one after the other." -Botvinnik} (26.Rc2 {deserves attention -- White's advantage is starting to wear serious countenance}) (26.Bh4 {Rd7 and not 26...f6 which Botvinnik wanted to provocate in this variation}) 26...Nb5 {Yet, it seems to me, b2-b3 was not such a bad move after all. It is possible to build up the pressure now with 27.Bh4} 27.Ke2?! (27.Bh4 Rd7) (27.a4 {limits Black's play, as well} 27...Na3 {is not so effective anymore}) 27...Bf8 28.a4 Nc7 29.Bg3 Na6 {and Black has conquered b4: the square that the struggle for was quite an important motif in the opening} 30.Bf1 f6?! {Quite a pointless move. According to Botvinnik, either 30...Ncb4, 30...Ba3 or 30...Na5 would equalize the game.} (30...Na5 31.Rb1 Rc3 {and Black is fine}) 31.Red1 (31.Kd2 Na5 32.Rc3 Rxc3 33.Kxc3 Rc8+ 34.Kb2 Nb4 35.Nxb4 Bxb4 {"...was what Black hoped for." -Botvinnik}) 31...Na5 32.Rxc8 Rxc8 33.Rc1! Rxc1 34.Nxc1 Ba3 35.Kd1 Bxc1?! {A wicked idea arises in Bronstein's mind: win a pawn for the endgame and possibly: finish the match a game earlier?! Unfortunately for him, the extra pawn in the arising endgame has absolutely no importance, whereas White's two active bishops are to rumble all over the board.} (35...Kf7 {gave Black the equality: (-Botvinnik)} 36.Bxa6 (36.Kc2 Nb4+ 37.Kb1 Na6) 36...bxa6 37.Bc7 Bxc1 38.Kxc1 Nxb3+ 39.Kb2 Na5) 36.Kxc1 Nxb3+ 37.Kc2 Na5 38.Kc3 Kf7 39.e4 f5?! {weakens h7} 40.gxf5 gxf5 41.Bd3 Kg6 {"Here White had to seal a move. The general plan is clear: move the bishop to d6, trade on d5 and play Ba2 to win the central pawn. For 20 minutes I thought which move was better: 42.Bd6 or 42.Bb1. General considerations suggested that the first one is better." -Botvinnik} 42.Bd6?! (42.Bb1! {was better, as Botvinnik figured from the following analysis at home:} 42...Nc6 (42...Nc4 43.Bf4± and 44.Ba2; 42...fxe4 43.fxe4 dxe4 44.Bxe4+ Kg7 {allowed the White bishops to dominate the board! Flohr suggests:} 45.Bxb7!! Nxb7 46.Kc4 Kf6 47.Kb5+-) 43.exd5 exd5 44.Ba2 Ne7 (44...Nab4 45.Bb3±) 45.Bh4±) 42...Nc6 43.Bb1 Kf6?! {Is something that certainly has a better alternative: (-Botvinnik)} (43...Na7! {an exceptionally original but strong move, which Botvinnik misevaluated} 44.exd5 exd5 45.Ba2 b5 46.a5 b4+! 47.Kd3 Nb5 48.Be5 Nac7 49.Kc2 Kf7 50.Kb3?! Na6 {would yield Black excellent chances, and Bronstein could become the next World Champion. After the natural 43...Kf6 a surprise awaited him}) 44.Bg3!! {"Now, a zugzwang position is created. The point is that after 44...Nab4 45.Be5+! the king is dragged to g6: 45...Kg6 46.Bd6 Na6 47.exd5 exd5 48.Ba2! wins the game. However, 44.Bf4 does not work as effectively: 44...Ne7! defends everything. After 44.Bg3!!, however, 44...Ne7 is met by 45.Bh4+ winning a pawn." -Botvinnik} 44...fxe4 45.fxe4 h6 {"saving the h7 pawn" -Botvinnik} 46.Bf4 h5 47.exd5 exd5 48.h4 Nab8 49.Bg5+ Kf7 50.Bf5 Na7 (50...Ne7 {lends White several good options:} 51.Bxe7 (51.Bh3 Nbc6 52.Bg2 Kg7 53.Bxe7 Nxe7 54.Kb4 Nc6+ 55.Kb5 Nxd4+ 56.Kxb6 {-Botvinnik}) 51...Kxe7 52.Bg6 Nc6 53.Bxh5 Na7 54.Kb4 {-Botvinnik}) 51.Bf4 Nbc6 52.Bd3 Nc8 53.Be2 Kg6 54.Bd3+ Kf6 55.Be2 Kg6 56.Bf3 N6e7 {It is noticeable immedaitely now Black's position is passive, his pieces defending weaknesses, and his extra pawn having absolutely no value here. With only three pawns left on the board, Botvinnik uses the two bishops in an extraordinarily expert way, to bring the final zugzwang position after his 57th move} (56...N8e7 57.Bg5 (57.Bc7 Nf5 58.Bxd5 Nfxd4 59.Bxb6 {is also satisfactory}) 57...Nf5 58.Bxd5 Nfxd4 59.Be4+ Kf7 60.Kc4) 57.Bg5! 1-0 {"Still maintaining the extra pawn, Black forfeits because of zugzwang, another one in one game. For example see lines." -Botvinnik After 40 minutes of thinking Black resigned. The match score became equal, and in the last (24th) game Botvinnik managed to make a draw and maintain the title of the World Champion.} (57.Bg5 Nc6 58.Bxd5 Nd6 59.Bf3 Kf5 60.Bc1 b5 61.Bxc6 bxc6 62.a5 {-Smyslov}) .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. WEB WANDERINGS BY STEVE RYAN (1482 CAN) ---------------------------------------- The Internet has become new ground for commercial ventures of all kinds including those devoted to chess. This edition of WW looks at one of those sites, "The Week In Chess" (TWIC). TWIC, a UK based web site founded and edited by Mark Crowther, offers more for OTB players than for CC devotees but does a solid workmanlike job on its content. You won’t find anything particularly innovative at this site but it makes itself felt by posting the latest developments in the chess world. At my visit (August 06) the main topics concerned the Kasparov vs ROW match and the FIDE World Championship in good old "Lost Wages", Nevada. In keeping with Las Vegas tradition you can see the latest odds on who will win the tournament. Thankfully, an on-line betting link does not accompany this information but I expect you could find one somewhere on the net without too much trouble. TWIC offers a good variety of commercial fare including books and book reviews, CD’s and chess supplies of all kinds. In ordering from overseas suppliers I think it pays to look at equivalent items from North American sources. The shorter shipping distances involved could give you a price break unless you want a "one-of-a-kind" item available only from this web site. TWIC has an adequate page layout with easy to read text. Every hyperlink I tried takes you to the correct place, no fuss no muss. For some reason I don’t personally understand though this site uses a 2 column format for a large part of the total layout, but as you scroll down the page the left hand column disappears and you see nothing but a blank screen on that side for a very long interval. I do not claim any expertise in web site design, but this vanishing act seems odd to me. If any IECC member with web site design experience takes a look and knows the reason why it appears like that, please let me know and enlighten my ignorance. Kasparov vs ROW and the FIDE championship will probably have wound up by the time this column appears but drop by TWIC once in a while to stay up to date on all the latest chess news. A big thank you goes out to IECC member Steve Sanders for suggesting this site. The Week In Chess - http://www.chesscenter.com/twic/twic.html Ryan’s Rating ***/5 Know of a good chess web site? Do you have one of your own? Let me know and I will feature it in a future edition of WW (ryansc@granite.mb.ca). .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. NEWS FROM THE NEW MEMBER DEPARTMENT BY ROGER MILLER (1883 USA) --------------------------------------------------------------- Hello everyone, I thought I would take a few moments to share some news about some recent changes in the New Member Program. The IECC is growing and growing fast. New members are applying daily at an alarming rate. I receive an average of 25 or more a week. In order to keep up with the new players applying, changes were needed in the New Member program and here are some that were made. The application form to join was revised. More information from the new players is now required which gives us a clear idea of the amount, if any, of training new applicants need. A Fast Tracker System is in place also for experienced e-mail chess players and the waiting time to start playing has been reduced to days. To top it all off new guides have been added with more to come to cut the number the current guides are working with. Special thanks go to Art Malm who has been able to train the new guides. Thanks Art! Also I wish to thank the current guides who took on a large amount of new players. As a result of all the changes and the extra efforts by the guides I would like to report that our waiting list has gone from an all time high of 130 waitng to none. That's right, none! Assignment of a guide is down to less than a week. More changes are being reviewed. If we continue to change with our growth we can keep this working. All ideas are welcome any time, so just drop me a line at . I would like to hear from you. .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. A BIT OF CHESS HISTORY by Chuck Ventimiglia (1904 USA) -------------------------------------------------------- One of my favorite openings for black against 1.e4 is the Caro-Kann, 1.e4 c6. This opening has been a favorite weapon of many of the greatest chess masters down through history to current day Grand Masters. A book that I purchased a year or so ago "Complete Defense to King Pawn Openings" by Eric Schiller deals exclusively with the CK and it's many variations. All of White's strategies are explained in detail and a plan is given for Black to combat them all. The plan is to play 2....d5 no matter what white replies. The d5 pawn will be supported by the pawn at c6, which unlike the e6 pawn in the French defense, does not block the entrance of the bishop at c8 into the game. The Caro-Kann defense, named for Horatio Caro and Marcus Kann, tournament players in the 19th century, has appealed to many players both amateur and champion alike. Unlike the Sicilian defense 1....c5 the size of it's repertoire is much smaller. Even so the CK gets to pare down the number of potential enemy strategies very quickly. The stronger your endgame skills, the better, since the CK often leads to endgames which are difficult for White to win or even draw. Black's goals in the Caro-Kann defense is to contest the center and to develop without creating major weaknesses. As White marches his pawns down the center the CK seems to be able to turn those advancing pawns into weaknesses for White in the endgame. Even though the CK is one of my favorites it is not the panacea for winning all the games in which White opens 1.e4. I have found that playing the CK against comparably rated players, to myself, will give me a "leg up" going out of the opening and entering the middle game. In many cases this seems to be all that is needed to win or at least draw against stronger players. In the "Complete Defense to King Pawn Openings" many different variations of White's play is studied and annotated. A strong reply is offered and the game continues on even pare out of the opening and into middle and endgame. White usually replies with 1.e4 c6 2.d4 trying to control the center. Since the plan of the CK is to answer 2...d5 to whatever White replies many different variations for White's play has come about to combat this move to 2...d4 and challenge the center. Some of them are: The Accelerated Panov Attack 2.c4, The Two Knights Variation 2.Nc3, The Goldman Variation 2.Nf3, The Ulysses Gambit 2.Nf3 d5 3.d4 and the Indian Variation 2.d3. There is much more but I have found this book not only to be interesting to read and study but very helpful in developing tactics to combat 1.e4. I recommend this book to be in every CK players inventory. I believe they will both like it and benefit from it as I have. .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. TOP 100 WINS compiled by Joe Wenger (1893 USA) ------------------------------------------------- 1 1904 Ventimiglia, Chuck 226 2 1299 Richard, Andy 210 3 2011 Nagley, Tim 146 4 1754 Dunn, Michael 116 5 2145 Grazinys, Vidmantas 115 6 2021 Dean, Wes 108 7 1988 de Leeuw, Dirk 105 8 1183 Cherner, Lyle 105 9 1813 Nowicki, Andrzej 101 10 2087 Newman, Nelson 99 11 1394 Varley, Trevor 98 12 1976 Cousins, Eddie 95 13 1916 Stein, Rick 90 14 1640 Powell, Lisa 89 15 1893 Wenger, Joseph 89 16 1724 Bass, Stanley 84 17 1599 Fantoni, Franco 83 18 1134 Brookshire, Tommy 83 19 2156 Ralls, Nelson 82 20 2202 Mueller, Robert 79 21 1678 Jobe, Tom 79 22 1689 Hassan, Bill 78 23 2339 Hassim, Unes 74 24 1499 Vanderven, Tony 74 25 1971 Galvin, John 72 26 2169 Malmstrom, Jan 69 27 2055 Angus, George 64 28 2367 Camper, Donald 64 29 1581 Cornacchini, Gabriele 62 30 1876 Mann, Derek 62 31 1949 Noy, Ilan 61 32 2067 Femmel, Don 60 33 1619 Bouma, Jan 60 34 1871 Henkes, Houston 57 35 1929 Glew, David 57 36 2071 Hughes, Dave 56 37 1684 Humen, John 55 38 1586 Sadek, Esam 55 39 1571 Arnold, Lee 55 40 1668 Athens, Jim 55 41 1940 Kent, Kevin 55 42 1865 Malm, Art 55 43 1597 Theofel, Heiner 54 44 1496 Schmidt, David 52 45 1580 Takeuchi, Toshi 52 46 1865 Power, Mike 52 47 2095 Fedorko, Andrew 51 48 1212 City, Hank 50 49 1249 Possolo, Miguel 50 50 1179 Jónsson, Guðbrandur 50 51 1295 Haase, Peter 49 52 1569 Goossens, Jack 48 53 1780 El-Messiry, Raouf 48 54 944 Karlsson, Roger 48 55 1933 Paetzold, Ortwin 46 56 1624 Cornell, David 46 57 1802 Mayer, Eduardo 45 58 923 Keller, Stephen 45 59 1947 Smith, Chuck 45 60 1434 Wright, Barry 45 61 1699 Eriksen, Tom 44 62 1953 Tauaf, Rachid 44 63 1507 Stanton, Tina 44 64 2458 Smithers, Steve 43 65 1436 Geib, Steven 43 66 1981 Roldán, Antonio José 43 67 1319 Huang, Peter 42 68 1428 Fernandes, David 42 69 1779 Kriechel, Ben 42 70 2101 Hummeling, Hans 42 71 1919 Dunn, Carl 42 72 2119 Dijksman, Leo 41 73 1688 Brooks, Mark 41 74 1451 Lilja, Gunnar 40 75 1506 Forget, Rémy 40 76 1139 Hutton, Andrew 40 77 1869 Hoefer, Hans-Peter 40 78 2146 Morihama, Nicolau 39 79 1845 Lewis, Matt 39 80 1770 Van Dusen, Eric 38 81 1351 Zillmer, Jim 38 82 1505 Johnson, Bernie 38 83 1952 Genge, Peter 37 84 1909 Jaskula, Robert 37 85 1832 Gosme, Emile 37 86 2427 Gill, David 36 87 1369 Zurowski, Dennis 36 88 1986 Castillo, Germán 36 89 2053 Egold, Hans 35 90 1455 Hervás, Fernando 35 91 1584 Coffield, Alan 35 92 1992 Surender, Anil 35 93 1503 Watson, Roger E. 35 94 1451 Leoni, Carlos 34 95 1903 del Pozo, José María 34 96 2007 Romano, Frank 34 97 1995 Ampiainen, Jesper 34 98 1362 Boyce, Harry 33 99 1867 Balev, Jivko 33 100 1473 Saleh, Khaled 33 101 1716 Weggen, Rick 33 102 1527 Neumann, Ulrich 33 103 1698 Feinstein, Adam 33 104 1689 Foch, Louis 33 .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. ANALYSIS BY ERWIN OOREBEEK (2386 NED) -------------------------------------- [Event "KO-500.1.2"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1999.04.24"] [White "Arnold, Lee"] [Black "Clark, Mark"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C15"] [Opening "French Defense"] 1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.Qg4 [Nowadays, one of the main lines against the French Winawer. Formerly, the positional approach with Nf3 and/or a4 would be played more often.] 7...Qc7 [The main alternative is 7...O-O, though the odd-looking but interesting 7...Kf8 is also seen.] 8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7 cxd4 10.Kd1!? [Euwe's move. By far the most played here is 10.Ne2. Kd1 looks unnatural, but since the White King won't be able to castle anyway in this line, it takes a side-step to avoid Qxc3+ and to be able to develop "more naturally" with Nf3, followed by the aggressive Ng5. "More naturally", since the main drawback of Ne2 is a sort of "piece congestion" (Bf1 blocked, Rh1 hard to develop; f4 is to follow, so Bc1 won't have much space either, and consequently neither does Ra1). But, of course, this is only a theoretical drawback; otherwise we wouldn't have seen all these Ne2-games, even up to the highest level! Still, even though the modern grandmasters don't seem to agree, Kd1 is a highly interesting move, as a result of which often very complex positions arise. By the way, Short recently gave it a try. He mustn't have enjoyed it, though, because he was mated in only 26 moves by an opponent with a rating of about 250 points below him.] 10...Nd7 [10...dxc3 and 10...Nbc6 are more often seen, most of the time leading to the same line. E.g., the Short game referred to above: Short (2697) - Neelotpal (2436), 4th Utd. Insurance, Dhaka, Bangladesh, Feb. '99 10...dxc3 11.Nf3 Nbc6 12.Ng5 Nd8!? (novelty?) 13.f4 Bd7 14.h4 Qc5 15.h5 Bb5 16.Bxb5+ Qxb5 17.h6 Rg6 18.f5 (probably a big mistake; 18.Qh8+ might have been better (18...Rg8? 19.Qxg8+! Nxg8 20.h7 +-)) 18...Nxf5 19.Qh8+ Kd7 20.h7 Rh6 21.Re1 Rh2 22.Nxe6 Nxe6! 23.Qxa8 Rxg2 24.Ra2 Ne3+! 25.Bxe3 (25.Rxe3 Qf1+ 26.Re1 Qf3+ and mate) 25...Qb1+ 26.Bc1 Rd2 mate.] 11.f4 [And here almost all examples continue with 11.Nf3 instead, with the line 11...Nxe5 12.Bf4 Qxc3 13.Nxe5 Qxa1+ 14.Bc1 leading to one of those complex positions, which are normal for Kd1-players. I could only find one game with f4, which wasn't a big success for White: Gozzi - Ruzza, Italian corr. '89: 11.f4 Nc5 12.Bd2 Bd7 13.cxd4 Ne4 14.Nh3 Ba4 15.Ra2 Qb6 16.Kc1 Qxd4 17.Bd3 Bxc2 18.Bb5+ Kd8 19.Bb4 Rxg2 20.Re1 Nc5 21.Bxc5 Qd2+ 0-1 I think f4 must be too slow and hands the initiative to Black. It also seems to be a mix-up of ideas. If you want to play f4, combine it with Ne2, not with Kd1.] 11...Nc5 12.cxd4 Ne4 13.Nh3 Qc3 [Black now has complete control of the game, which, of course, never could have been Euwe's intention. White already has to struggle to stay alive, which he eventually does with a little help from his Black chessfriend.] 14.Rb1 Qxd4+ 15.Ke1 Nc3?! [I don't really like this move. Maybe Black already thought it would soon be over, starting with Qd1+ on the next move, but this proves not to be true. Why not start with 15...Bd7, threatening Nc3, Qd1+, Qxc1? Of course, you can say, that White will then try to prevent Nc3. But Bd7 is a useful move, any way you look at it (Ba4 becomes a possibility, as well as O-O-O), which at this moment cannot be said of Nc3. In fact, it has a major drawback, the opening of the diagonal h7-b1, as a result of which the White Queen could come to the rescue. When checking on some of the analysis with Rebel 8.0, the programme wanted to take the draw by Qc3+, Kd1, Qd4+ etc. I honestly cannot imagine why Black would want to do that.] 16.Rb3 a6? [16...Qd1+ 17.Kf2 Qxc1?? was impossible because of 18.Bb5+. Instead of Qxc1??, 17...Ne4+ might seem a nice follow-up, until you see 18.Qxe4! and 19.Bb5+. Also note that the pawn on c2 is nicely covered from afar by the White Queen on h7. Here 16...Bd7 would still have been a possibility, since it develops a piece, makes the threat Qd1+, Qxc1 real and opens the way for O-O-O. In reply to Bd7, 17.Rxb7 would not have been possible: 17...Qd1+ 18.Kf2 Qxc1 19.Rxd7 (with the idea 19. . Kxd7?? 20.Bb5+) 19...Qd2+ and 20...Kxd7. But if White would wisely go into the defensive with 17.Qd3, forcing the exchange of Queens, he would probably be better.] 17.Nf2 [Still, 17.Qd3 would have been preferable.] 17...b5 18.g3 Bd7 19.Bd3? [And now, after both of them have secured their pawns on the half-open b- and g-file, 19.Qd3 would definitely have been preferable. After the forced Queen exchange, White's position would already have been much better: pawn up, bishop pair, very bad Black bishop indeed (just because of the pawn-saving moves a6 and b5); White's passed pawn on h2 would probably eventually have decided the game. You might say: "Hey, what's new? This is the whole sum-up of all the advantages White always has in the Qg4-line of the Winawer." The big difference is that with 19.Qd3 and the exchange of Queens White would have ruled out all the attacking chances Black normally has in this line and, consequently, could have started doing something with his positional advantages. Now, however, White hands back a dangerous initiative to Black.] 19...Rc8 20.Kf1 Na4 21.Kg2 Bc6 22.Bd2 Qb6 23.Rc1 d4+?! [I would have preferred to keep this move in reserve. Of course, d5-d4 is a threat and you want to open the h1-a8-diagonal at some time, but for the time being it's not that strong and White cannot do much to prevent it. In my humble opinion, 23...Kd7 or 23...Nc5 followed by Kd7 would have been much stronger, threatening things like Rh8, Ne4 or Nxd3 and at some point d4+ and/or Rxh2+. In this way, Black would have kept all his options open. It's hard to give concrete analysis, though, since during analysis White's position proved more difficult to crack than I at first thought. Rebel didn't even agree with my assumption that eventually this would happen and gave White a small plus. But, of course, for a computer programme a pawn is a pawn.] 24.Kg1?! [24.Be4 would probably have been safer. After 24...Bxe4 25.Nxe4 Qc6 there is 26.Kf2; and after 24...Nc5 a possibility is 25.Bxc6+ Qxc6+ 26.Rf3.] 24...Nc3 25.Bxc3!? [At first, I thought that 25.Re1 would have been better, since this move reopens the g1-a7-diagonal. There is, however, also an advantage, since now White gets some attacking chances as well through the d-file.] 25...dxc3 26.Re1 [26.Rxc3?? Qe3! and either Qf3 or Rxg3+ will follow. 26.Be4, however, was certainly possible.] 26...Bd5 27.Rbb1 Kd7 28.Qh5 Rh8 29.Bh7 [Not 29.Qe2 Rxh2+ 30.Kxh2 Rh8+ 31.Kg1 Rh1 mate.] 29...Rc4!? [A nice idea, probably already intending the double exchange sacrifice which is to follow. Having the big advantage of hindsight, I wonder, however, whether there wasn't something more convincing. But after some tries like 29...Ng6 30.f5!?; 29...Rcg8 30.Qxf7 Rf8 31.Qg7; and 29...Nf5 30.Rbd1! (not 30.Qxf7+ Kc6 31.Bxf5 Rxh2!!) I got the feeling I was looking for the grail which was no longer there.] 30.Qxf7 Rd4 31.Bd3 [White just achieves to stop Black's direct threats (Qh5 to be able to put the Bishop on h7, temporarily blocking the h-file; now returning with the Bishop to d3 to prevent Rd2), but Black continues roughly with a double exchange sacrifice.] 31...Rxd3!? 32.cxd3 c2 33.Rbc1 Rxh2!? [This had already been "in the air" for a long time. White has no choice but to accept.] 34.Kxh2 Qxf2+ 35.Kh3 Qg2+ [This, however, doesn't seem to be the right follow-up. 35...Bg2+!? (35...Bf3!? 36.Rg1 Qxg1!? 37.Rxg1 Bd1) 36.Kh4 Bf3! would have been better and seems to give Black good chances. E.g.: - 37.Rh1? Bxh1 38.Rxh1 Qg2 39.Rc1 Qd2! (39... Qh2+?! 40.Kg5 Qd2 41.Kf6!) 40.Rxc2 (40.f5 Qh6+! 41.Kg4 (41.Qh5 Qxc1 42.fxe6+ Kc7 43.Qf7 Qh6+ 44.Kg4 Qg6+ 0-1) 41...exf5+ 42.Kf3 Qh1+ eventually forcing White to let Black Queen with check) 40...Qxc2 41.f5 Qh2+ etc.) - 37.f5? Qh2+ 38.Kg5 Qd2+! (38. ... Qxg3+ 39.Kf6 Qh4+ 40.Kg7 unclear) followed by 39... Qh6+ and checkmate in a few moves. Unfortunately, these are the kind of positions in which computer programmes cannot be beaten. So Rebel had some better ideas for White, leading to won positions: (a) 35...Bf3 36.Rg1 Qxg1 37.Rxg1 Bd1 38.f5! exf5 39.e6+ Kd6 40.Qe8 c1Q 41.Qd8+ Ke5 42.Qxe7 and White will eventually win; (b) 35...Bg2+ 36.Kh4 Bf3 37.Rg1! Bd1 (37...Qxg1? 38.Rxg1 Bd1 39.Kg5! +-) 38.Rcxd1 Qh2+ 39.Kg4!! (39.Kg5 cxd1Q 40.Rxd1 Qxg3+ 41.Kh6 and White is better, but it's not totally clear) 39...Qe2+ 40.Kg5 cxd1Q 41.Rxd1 Qxd1 42.Kf6! and it's all over.] 36.Kh4 Qh2+? [Black's last chance to complicate matters was 36...Bf3, though after 37.Rg1 we would be back in the above Rebel lines.] 37.Kg4 Bg2 38.Re3! [Covering the vital square g3.] 38...Bd5 39.d4 Qd2 40.Ree1 Qf2 41.Rg1 Qh2 42.Kg5 Bf3 43.g4 Bd1 44.Rgxd1! [The exchange is not important, the c-pawn is.] 44...cxd1=Q 45.Rxd1 Qe2 46.Rh1 1-0 [If it had only been an exchange, Black could have still continued. But that, of course, is absolutely not the only advantage to White. Threats like Kf6, Rh7, d5 and f5 are all there, each one of them killing. It's a pity that the double exchange sac didn't work out; even though it was probably incorrect, it had surely deserved a better fate than the one it got.] ANALYSIS BY STEFAAN SIX (1920 BEL) ----------------------------------- [Event "Swiss-71.2"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1999.06.16"] [White "Jobe, Tom"] [Black "Wallace, Richard"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C02"] [Opening "French Defense Advance Variation"] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Ne7 4.Nf3 c6 !? [An interesting move, although somewhat passive since it doesn't develop a piece or helps in developing a piece. Therefore I would prefer 4...b6.] 5.Bd3 Nd7 6.c3 g6 7.Bg5 f6 ?? [Still early in the game, this terrible blunder occurs. Perhaps Black made a typing error when sending his move, but quite obviously 7...h6 8.Bf4 Bg7 with equal play is a lot sounder. In fact it's all over already; the rest of the game is just Blood and Murder. For beginning players, I would suggest you take a good look at how to win a won position and thereby perhaps strengthening your 'finishing touch'.] 8.exf6 [Why is this better than taking with the Bishop? I won't give you the answer. Think of at least one for yourself. Having a winning position doesn't mean you should stop thinking.] 8...Nxf6 9.Bxf6 Qa5 ? [How would you continue after 9...Rg8? There are several good possibilities, just think of one of them. I'm not even going to give you one.] 10.Bxh8 Bd7 11.b4 Qc7 12.a4 [Do have a look at 12.Ng5. What happens after 12...h6? (the answer being 13.Nh7 Nf5 14.Nxf8 Kxf8 +-)] 12...O-O-O 13.Be5 Qb6 14.a5 Qc7 15.Bxc7 Kxc7 16.Ne5 Bg7 17.f4 Rf8 18.O-O Bh6 19.Qg4 Kd8 20.Nd2 1-0 .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. CHESS-CHESMAYNE BY RAYMOND REID ------------------------------- Chesmayne is not a variant of chess but a global form of the game in which traditional western chess, Shatranj, Japanese, Chinese, Burmese, Cambodian, Korean, Thai, Draughts and many other levels of chess can all be played quite easily for the first time in the same format with a new type of chess-set. Sample games are provided for each game-tree so that you will be up and running as quickly as possible. This is the LARGEST chess dictionary in the world and is available at http://homepage.eircom.net/~rayreid - the best things in life are FREE! 5,000+ chess related words are listed in a convenient A to Z format. The complete dictionary runs to 2,000+ pages of A4 text with hundreds of diagrams, tables, boards and pieces. All of the chess sets and boards from around the globe are also available for free and may be printed to your own printer. Any of the chess sets can be made in about 20 minutes! .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. RYAN'S RAMBLINGS BY STEVE RYAN (1482 CAN) ------------------------------------------ Below, for your approval, I present a miscellaneous list of interesting, but often contradictory, chess trivia and quotes: "Barrister Edwyn Anthony, who was also chess correspondent of the Herford Times at the turn of the century, worked out that there were 169,518,829,100,544 QUADRILLION (15 zeroes) ways of playing the first 10 moves alone. For an entire 40-move game, the number has been estimated at 25x10^115". (1) "Back around the turn of the century chess writer James Mortimer summed up a study on the intelligence of chess masters in these terms 'It will be cheering to know that many persons are skillful chess players, although in many instances their brains, in a general way, compare unfavourably to the cogitative qualities of a rabbit'." (1) "It is said that, at the end of the 19th century, a team from Cambridge University played a chess match against a team from Bedlam, the notorious madhouse. Guess who won." (1) "… any game of chess must terminate after no more than 2.734x10^98 moves." (2) "… even a supercomputer fast enough to check a trillion states (10^12) per second would take rather more than 3x10^78 years…". (2) "The proliferation of opening compendia and computers has changed the nature of postal chess from exciting innovative play to relative boredom, and recent advances in data storage and retrieval will shortly render the game 'played out'." (3) All of which brings us to this immortal quote: "Have you ever seen a monkey examine a watch?" That response, snarled out by Grandmaster Wilhem Steintz, answered a spectator’s question about why Steintz had made a particular move. Remember, in Steintz’s day the spectators could, and usually did, crowd right around the table so an obnoxious kibitzer might have provoked the same response from anyone. Steintz, however, had the personality to make exactly this sort of remark. Our Wilhem, a short, quick-tempered man, made up in ego what he lacked in stature. But let’s not make any politically incorrect generalizations here since at the opposite end of the size business we have Efim Bogoljubov, Alekhine’s sidekick and personal "chess pigeon"; a big beer-loving GM who left us with this famous testament to modesty: "When I am white I win because I have the first move, when I am Black I win because I am Bogoljubov." Judging by other historical and modern Grandmasters, a well developed ego certainly seems a pre-requisite to rise to the heights of the chess world, at least in OTB play. Can we say the same thing about a CC master? Well, maybe to a smaller degree. CC masters get even less recognition than his OTB counterpart and remain almost invisible to the media. Their "fame" remains pretty much restricted to a relatively tight circle of CC devotees, and, I suppose, they end up becoming big fish in a very small pond. A certain amount of ego surely must drive a CC master, but perhaps more of an "introverted" or "hidden" kind. Something must drive them, something to compel 20 or more hours on a single move, going over a position again and again to seek out the slightest nuance or winning advantage. If we look at some of the more "colourful" GM’s you run into our previously mentioned Alekhine; amoral, alcoholic and reputedly anti-semetic, and others, like Paul Morphy; the American chess genius whose short but brilliant career ended in psychosis (he used to walk barefoot in his backyard year-round "to absorb energy from the earth") and last but by no means least, Bobby Fischer (enough said). Can chess drive you mad? Or perhaps a better question - can chess drive you mad more than anything else? Personally, I don’t know. We could probably debate the issue ad infinitum, do all kinds of research, compile all kinds of statistics and not come to any conclusion. Some authorities have even suggested that chess keeps in check (no pun intended) existing conditions until they become too severe. I would guess that the conceit and arrogance of a Steintz, Alekhine or Fischer does not differ qualitatively from that displayed by some champion athletes, business tycoons, or the many absolute dictators the world has had throughout history. To me, it seems that such people crave power (the "ultimate aphrodisiac") and dominance more than anything else and do not particularly care how they achieve it. Imagine yourself cast away on a desert island with a choice among 3 other people for a companion: a chess master, a supermodel (or superhunk for the ladies), or an expert in survival skills. Who would you choose? Sorry, a supermodel chess master with survival skills doesn’t count. My first choice? The survival expert. The supermodel comes a close second (might as well die happy). Why? Because I have no wish to depend on a world champion chess player who has become so only by concentrating on chess to the exclusion of all else. In small doses I think we should shut out the world to concentrate on a game, but only in small doses. Rudolph Chelminski’s article below also appeared in Reader’s Digest under the title "It’s Only A Game?" Take off the question mark and maybe the Digest has a point. (1) From "Your Opponent Must Be Destroyed" by Rudolph Chelminski. Originally appeared in "Smithsonian Magazine", Jan. 1998. Reprinted with permission of the author. (2) "New Scientist" Magazine, September 04 1993, reprinted with permission. (3) Maxwell J. Lawrence, founder & TD of "Transcendental Chess" web site (http://members.aol.com/Jsull83696/TC.html), reprinted with permission. Copyright © 1999 S.R. Ryan .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. MY TOWN'S CHESS CLUB BY JESUS PAUL (2077 ESP) ---------------------------------------------- I live in Valladolid (Spain) and I play chess at my club: Club de Ajedrez Valladolid (CAV). The CAV is situated in the center of the city, just beside the Calderon Theater and 5 minutes away from the Plaza Mayor. It is on the second floor of an old building at 23 Leopoldo Cano street. I joined CAV in 1993, when I was 15. The CAV have many different tournaments organized each year for its members. Aroumd March we have the Semirrapidas tournament, with 1 hour per player. In May we play the San Pedro Regalado tournament. In July-August we often play the Estudio tournament which is not a real chess tournament, but rather a special competition in which you have to guess the moves in a Master's match. When you guess a move you win 1 point. If you guess a ! move you win 2 points, and if the move is a !! move, you win 3 points. One of the members chooses the match, shows the moves on the board and annotates the points. Each player thinks with their own board for 3 minutes per move; then he annotates the move and gives it to the annotator. The results are accumulated for 6 matches, one each day. It is a fun and sometimes difficult competition, try it! In summer we have the Verano tournament, which is usually 1h30 or 1h per player. Then, in October, the Social tournament and the Otono tournament are played until December. A few days before Christmas, we play the Rapidas de Navidad tournament, which is a blitz tournament. The prizes in this tournament are bottles of drinks (wine, cava, ...), sweets (Turron, peladillas, polvorones...) and so on. The CAV opens its doors from 19:30 to 22:30, from Monday to Friday although it closes at 23:00 or later when playing tournaments. The President, Leopoldo Velasco, is a 74 year old man, possibly the best Valladolid player in the 60's and 70's. In the CAV there are 15 boards and clocks where everybody can play a blitz game any time. We also have a library (more than 100 books) and many, many chess magazines (from 1972). Currently we are subscribed to two of the main chess publications in Spain: Jaque and 8x8. The Club de Ajedrez Valladolid was founded in 1972 (the Fischer-Spasky year!). In 1992, one of its members, Ruben Garcia, became the under 14 Spanish Champion. In 1997 we celebrated the 25th anniversary of its foundation. We organized a great tornament in Valladolid, with the participation of some international masters. 102 people played and enjoyed 7 days of chess. If you would like to know more about my club, you can email me at . .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. BOOK REVIEW BY GERTJAN DE VRIES (1987 NED) -------------------------------------------- Winning with the Smith - Morra Gambit Graham Burgess Batsford Chess (1994) The Sicilian Defence is an often encountered opening and its theory consists of many, many variations. When you choose to battle this defence with the standard Open Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4), you are faced with a long, difficult study, which is certainly a heavy task for the average player. Another option for those who do not have the time or energy to stay up-to-date with the latest opening theory, would be to employ an "Anti-Sicilian", like the Grand-Prix attack (1.e4 c5 2.f4) or the Smith-Morra. "Winning with the Smith-Morra Gambit" discusses a very entertaining gambit against the Sicilian defence. With the moves 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 White sacrifices a pawn to gain active play for his pieces. Black has to refrain from its standard Sicilian plans and it is difficult for him to get counterchances. After an interesting introduction, in which Burgess describes the standard Smith-Morra plans, there are 12 chapters, each introducing another way for Black to defend against the gambit. The final two chapters give White ideas about how to play when Black declines the gambit. Graham Burgess's writing is very clear, since he uses many explanatory games and does not restrict to variations with a simple evaluation. Instead, he helps the reader to understand this opening instead of simply memorizing the variations. Thus the reader is not left alone once his opponent deviates from the standard lines. Some of this book's games are very high standard; in one of them we see how Kasparov nearly lost against the Smith Morra! There are also many diagrams, which make this book a true pleasure to read. Perhaps, there is one drawback; sometimes it sounds like you cannot lose when you employ the gambit. I have to admit, I stopped playing the Sicilian defence myself after reading this book, but Graham Burgess sometimes writes just too optimisticly about White's chances. Nevertheless, "Winning with the Smith-Morra Gambit" is an excellent book for players who seek an easy to understand opening for both OTB and correspondence chess, and who are not afraid to give up some material. At least, this book helped me to get some nice victories :-)! .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. TOP 50 IN GAMES PLAYED compiled by Joe Wenger (1893 USA) ---------------------------------------------------------- W D L T ------------------ 1 1299 Richard, Andy 210 101 340 651 2 1904 Ventimiglia, Chuck 226 126 134 486 3 1183 Cherner, Lyle 105 28 198 331 4 2011 Nagley, Tim 146 94 65 305 5 1394 Varley, Trevor 98 26 156 280 6 2021 Dean, Wes 108 73 84 265 7 1678 Jobe, Tom 79 42 131 252 8 1754 Dunn, Michael 116 57 68 241 9 1813 Nowicki, Andrzej 101 47 74 222 10 2145 Grazinys, Vidmantas 115 72 23 210 11 1689 Hassan, Bill 78 41 82 207 12 1893 Wenger, Joseph 89 43 55 187 13 2087 Newman, Nelson 99 52 34 185 14 1988 de Leeuw, Dirk 105 38 35 178 15 2169 Malmstrom, Jan 69 57 52 178 16 1134 Brookshire, Tommy 83 6 83 172 17 1597 Theofel, Heiner 54 33 83 170 18 944 Karlsson, Roger 48 11 103 162 19 1499 Vanderven, Tony 74 31 56 161 20 1640 Powell, Lisa 89 24 46 159 21 1619 Bouma, Jan 60 26 67 153 22 1724 Bass, Stanley 84 23 44 151 23 1916 Stein, Rick 90 34 23 147 24 1434 Wright, Barry 45 26 65 136 25 2071 Hughes, Dave 56 31 48 135 26 1876 Mann, Derek 62 12 60 134 27 2067 Femmel, Don 60 43 28 131 28 1581 Cornacchini, Gabriele 62 36 31 129 29 1865 Power, Mike 52 30 46 128 30 2156 Ralls, Nelson 82 25 19 126 31 1624 Cornell, David 46 20 59 125 32 1976 Cousins, Eddie 95 23 6 124 33 2339 Hassim, Unes 74 35 15 124 34 1971 Galvin, John 72 20 32 124 35 2202 Mueller, Robert 79 27 15 121 36 1940 Kent, Kevin 55 26 39 120 37 1865 Malm, Art 55 36 29 120 38 1599 Fantoni, Franco 83 17 17 117 39 1668 Athens, Jim 55 15 46 116 40 1986 Castillo, Germán 36 38 42 116 41 1949 Noy, Ilan 61 30 22 113 42 2367 Camper, Donald 64 36 10 110 43 1947 Smith, Chuck 45 42 22 109 44 1689 Foch, Louis 33 12 64 109 45 2055 Angus, George 64 22 22 108 46 1580 Takeuchi, Toshi 52 12 44 108 47 2095 Fedorko, Andrew 51 40 17 108 48 1179 Jónsson, Guðbrandur 50 9 49 108 49 1688 Brooks, Mark 41 22 44 107 50 1295 Haase, Peter 49 11 46 106 .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. ANALYSIS BY SAULI TIITTA (2204 FIN) ------------------------------------ [Event "CL3-1999.21"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1999.05.01"] [White "Miralles, Rogelio"] [Black "Perez, Jose M."] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "D20"] [Opening "Queen's Gambit Accepted"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 e5 [Other interesting possibilities are 3...Nc6, 3...Nf6 and 3...c5] 4.Nf3 [4.dxe5 Qxd1+ 5.Kxd1 Nc6 6.f4 f6=; 4.d5 f5 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Bxc4 Bc5 7.Nf3 Qe7 unclear. Labourdonnais-Macdonnell, London 1934/35; 4.Bxc4 Qxd4 5.Qb3 Qxe4+ 6.Be3 Qg6 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.Nc3 c6 Kuz´minih-Somov, SSSR 1946 9.0-0-0!? With compensation.] 4...exd4 [4...Nf6 A) 5.Nxe5!? Nxe4 6.Bxc4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3! 0-0 (7...Nxc3 8.Bxf7+ Kf8 9.bxc3 Bxc3+ 10.Kf1 with the idea of Ba3 + -) 8.0-0 Nd6 9.Bb3 Nc6 10.Nd5 Ba5 11.Qh5 +/- Portisch-P.Nikolic', Amsterdam 1984;6...Nd6 +=; B) 5.Bxc4 B1) 5...Nxe4 6.0-0 (6.Nc3 Nd6 7.dxe5 +=) 6...Be7 7.Nxe5 Nd6 8.Bb3 += Bagirov - Muhin, SSSR 1975; B2) 5...Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Bxd2+ 7.Nbxd2 exd4 8.e5 Ng4 9.h3 Nh6 10.Nb3 Nc6 11.Nbxd4 Nxd4 12.Qxd4 += Kortchnoi-Sue'tin, SSSR 1969] 5.Bxc4 [5.Qxd4!? Qxd4 6.Nxd4 Nf6 7.Nc3 Bc5 8.Ndb5 Na6 9.Bf4 Be6 10.Bxc7 0-0 11.Bd6 Rfd8 12.Bxc5 Nxc5 13.Nc7 Rac8 14.Nxe6 Nxe6 15.f3 Nd4 16.0-0-0 b5= Zil'berman - Bagirov, SSSR 1985] 5...Bb4+ [5...Nc6 6.0-0 Be6 7.Bxe6 fxe6 8.Qb3 Qd7 9.Qxb7 Rb8 10.Qa6 Nf6 11.Nbd2 += Mititelu - Georgadze, Bucuresti 1961] 6.Nbd2 Nc6 7.0-0 Nf6 [7...Be6 8.Bxe6 fxe6 9.Nb3 Qd7 10.Nbxd4 Nxd4 11.Qxd4 Qxd4 12.Nxd4 Kf7 13.Nf3 += Tajmanov - Peterson, SSSR 1964] 8.e5 Nd5 [8...Ng4 9.h3 Nh6 10.Nb3 (10.g4!?) 10...Nf5 11.Bb5 +=] 9.a3!? [9.a3 was first played in Vyzmanavin - Rublevsky in the Russian championships 1991 and is considered to be a solid alternative to 9.Nb3 (9.Nb3 Nb6 10.Bb5 Qd5 11.Nbxd4 Bd7 12.Nxc6 Qxb5! 13.Nfd4 Qc5 14.Nxb4 Qxb4= P. Nikolic' - Matulovic', Jugoslavija 1984)] 9...Bxd2!? [Perhaps it isn't good idea to change Black squared bishop, since now Black squares are quite weak.] [After 9...Be7 the "correct" move is 10.Qb3 with the main line 10...Na5 11.Qa4+ Nc6 (11...c6?! 12.Ba2 b5 13.Qxd4 +/- Milov - Radulov, Heraklios 1993) 12.Nxd4 Nb6 13.Nxc6 Nxa4 14.Nxd8 Bxd8 (Vyzmanavin- Rublevsky, Russian championships 1991). To my knowledge 10.Nb3 has not been played in grandmaster events. It looks quite dangerous for White. (14...Qc5 isn't so good now because 15.b4). But now there is no bishop in b4 that would be en price. (Compare with 9.Nb3-variation) 15.Nxe7 Kxe7= and Black seems to be all right.] 10.Bxd2 0-0 11.Bg5 Nde7 [11...Qd7 12.Bb5?! (12.Re1 Re8 13.Bb5 +=) 12...h6! 13.Bh4 Nf4! =+] 12.b4 [12.Nxd4 Qxd4 13.Qxd4 Nxd4 14.Bxe7 Re8 15.Bc5 Be6 16.Bxd4 Bxc4=] 12...h6 13.Bh4 [13.Bxe7?! Qxe7 Only helps Black.] 13...Bg4 14.Re1 Qd7 15.b5 Na5!? [15...Nd8 16.e6!? Bxe6 17.Nxd4 (17.Bxe7? Qxe7 18.Nxd4 Qf6! -/+) A) 17...Bxc4? 18.Rxe7 Qd6 19.Rc1 g5 20.Re3 Qd5 21.Bxg5! hxg5 22.Qg4! f6? (22...Ne6 23.Nxe6 fxe6 24.Qxc4 Qxc4 25.Rxc4 Rad8 26.f3 +/-) 23.Nf5 Qxb5 24.a4!! + - 24...Qxa4?! 25.Qh5! + -; B) 17...Re8 18.Nxe6 Qxd1 19.Raxd1 Nxe6 unclear; for example 20.Rd7 Nf5 21.Bxe6 fxe6 22.Bg3 Nxg3 23.hxg3 Rac8 24.Rc1 Kf8 25.Rcxc7 Rxc7 26.Rxc7 Re7 27.Rc8+ Kf7=] 16.e6!? fxe6!? [16...Bxe6 17.Ne5 (17.Bxe6 fxe6 18.Ne5 Qd6 19.Bxe7 Qxe7 20.Qa4 b6 21.Ng6 Qf6 22.Nxf8 Rxf8) 17...Qe8 18.Bxe6 fxe6 19.Bxe7 Qxe7 20.Qa4 b6 21.Ng6 Qf6 22.Nxf8 Rxf8 23.Qc2 e5 24.Re4 +=] 17.Ne5 Bxd1 18.Nxd7 Nxc4 19.Nxf8 Kxf8 20.Bxe7+ Kxe7 21.Rexd1 [Black has only one pawn for the exchange, but he has a good passed pawn on the d-file and king is already in the center. The situation is dangerous for both colours!] 21...Na5!? [21...a6!? 22.bxa6 Rxa6 23.Rxd4 Rxa3 24.Rxa3 Nxa3 is unclear] 22.Rac1 c6 23.bxc6 [23.Kf1?! e5 24.Ke2 Kd6 =+ 25.bxc6 bxc6] 23...Nxc6 24.Rd2 Kd6?! [It is good to play 24...Rd8 so that Black can answer ...Rd7 to Rb1 or Rb2. It is not yet clear if the Black king is needed on d6.] 25.Kf1 [25.Rb2!? Rb8!? 26.Rcb1!? b6] 25...e5? [25...Rd8! 26.Rb2 Rd7 27.Rcb1 b6 28.Rc1 e5 29.Rbc2 Ne7 30.Rd1 Nd5 31.Ke1 =+] 26.Rb2 b6 [26...Rb8!? 27.Rcb1 b6] 27.Rbc2 Rc8 [Now the rook must always defend the knight if White wants so. The position is now a draw.] 28.f3 g5 29.g4 a6 [29...Rc7 30.Ke2 Kd5] 30.Ke2 [30.Rb2] 30...Rf8?? 31.Rxc6+ 1-0 [30...Kd5 31.Kd3 Rc7 and how White can make his position better? =] .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. PGN NOTATION AND GAME REPORTS BY MICHAEL MCSHANE (1309 USA) ------------------------------------------------------------ It has recently come to the attention of the IECC that although everyone goes through the New Member Program that sometimes we tend to forget the proper PGN notation. As a Tournament Director (TD, for short) on the Knockout Team who does proofreading and a New Member Guide I feel I can help many of you understand it better. I would like to take a few minutes of your time to review this with you. Before I begin, I would like to tell you why PGN notation is so important to us. We at the IECC archive all of our games. This means we need to be able to keep a record of the moves, result, what they played, in and so forth, not only for the staff but the members as well. Therefore, we have to set a standard notation that we use that isn't too difficult. PGN notation is well known and meets this standard. Since we archive all our games that means one of the TD's, either me or someone else depending on what type of game you are playing, have to be able to read it, proofread it, and eliminate any unnecessary text. This proofreading means we have to be sure of proper spacing, the header is correct, the result is correct in both places (as I will discuss later), and so forth. This must be done as it is an automated system that does the rating. I think I can better explain the notation from this point on now that you have a feeling for how it is done. Let me start by going over the header with you. Here is a header from one of my games in the New Member Program. While I am mentioning the New Member Program let me say, ask as many questions as you can at this time! The guides in the program are here to teach you proper notation as well as to familiarize you with the rules. This is your best chance to get any questions you may have out of the way. The more you ask the less problems you will have with PGN notation (and the rules). In the Program we believe there is no such thing as a stupid question - only unresolved questions! [Event "New Member Program"] This is what the code or the game is called. If you see a decimal point with a number after it the numbers following the decimal point is the round number. The Tournament Director (TD) will tell you what to put in here. If there is a dash in the event please remember to put it in here. [Site "IECC"] This is a constant. Don't change this. [Date "1998.12.6"] The TD will assign a date for you. [Round "1"] The round is always "1" unless the event has a decimal point in it. In this case, the number after the first decimal point is the round. Ignore the numbers after thh second decimal point, if there is any. [White "McShane, Michael"] Who is White? Note it goes last name then first. [Black "Kemerling, Ken"] Who is Black? Note it goes last name then first. [Result "*"] This should be an astersik until you have an outcome. The three outcomes are 1-0 (White wins), 1/2-1/2 (Draw), and 0-1 (Black wins). Do not use decimals when recording a draw (.5-.5). White always sends a copy of the game report, which is the moves of the game with the final result included, to the opponent and the Tournament Director unless Black wins. If Black wins he sends it. Please note the generic words (event, site, etc.) are exactly one space away from the specific words which are in quotation marks. The whole thing is enclosed in square brackets on each individual line. So when you look at this as a header, without the notes I have given you, it will look like this: [Event "New Member Program"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1998.12.6"] [Round "1"] [White "McShane, Michael"] [Black "Kemerling, Ken"] [Result "*"] Next comes the moves. There should be exactly on blank line between the header and the first move. Moves are done using standard algebraic notation. I will quickly review this for you but not in great depth as I am pretty sure you know it. Piece Signified by Pawn file (a-h) it is on kNight N Bishop B Rook R Queen Q King K You will note I miscapitalized the Knight. I did this on purpose for a reason. I wanted to give a way for beginners to remember what the correct notation is for a kNight move. There are three ways of remembering it. The first is to remember that N and not K is used for it's notation. The second also tells you the phonic you hear when you say this word is N so you should use an N for notation. The last one is a saying I came up with: The kNight is Noble, While the King has his Kingdom. I hope this helps any beginners out here who have difficulty remembering this. Now here are a few notations which are commonly done wrong. Notation Correct Wrong -------- ------- ----- Castle Kingside O-O (using capital o's) 0-0 (using zeroes) Castles Queenside 0-O-O (using capital o's) 0-0-0 (using zeroes) En Passant exf6 {e.p} exf6 e.p. or exf6 En Passant Check exf7+ {e.p.} exf7+ e.p. or exf7+ The en passant check may also be double check or mate by changing the symbols appropriately. Here are a few more notes on PGN notation. Type of Move How To do It In PGN ------------ ------------------- Moving Piece notation and square moved to (Nc3) Capturing Piece notation, an x, and square moved to (Kxe7) Check Move made followed by a plus sign (Nxf6+ or Rf7+) Checkmate Move made followed by the number sign (exf6#) Double Check Move made followed by two plus signs (Rd3++) Please note that you use the same notation for both discovered check and check is the same. When you send your games make sure they are in this notation. Also follow the following rules for spacing: 1. There is no space between the move number and White's move. 2. There is exactly one space between the White's move and Black's move. 3. There is exactly one space between the Black's move and the move number. I have cut out the header to show you an example of how the moves are written. 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.Nc3 dxe5 6.dxe5 Qxd1+ 7.Nxd1 e6 8.Nc3 Bb4 * You may be wondering what the asterisk is for. This symbolizes who is on move. It may be deleted or a question mark may be used instead. Please be sure to write in paragraph format and not column format. That is the way our PGN reader reads all the games. Okay, now I have one thing I have to ask everyone. When you send in the header please be sure you have written the event correctly! Otherwise the wrong game may be rated! Here is a complete game. Please notice that there is no move number after the last move is made and the result is written both in the header and after the last move made. [Event "KO-508.1.6"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1999.07.27"] [Round "1"] [White "Attardi, Ubaldo"] [Black "Hakuc, Waclaw"] [Result "0-1"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 b5 4.a4 Bb7 5.d5 c6 6.axb5 cxd5 7.exd5 Qxd5 8.Qg4 Nf6 9.Qf4 Ne4 10.Ra4 e5 11.Qg4 Bb4+ 12.Rxb4 Qc5 13.Rxc4 Qxf2+ 14.Kd1 Qxf1+ 15.Kc2 Qxc4+ 16.Nc3 f6 17.Be3 Nd6 18.Nf3 Qxg4 0-1 Note when a game is completed the result goes in two places. The result field and after the last move in the game. Do not put in the move number either where White resigned or after Black resigns. The result is not considered a move and, therefore, should not be recorded as such. This is not correct PGN notation. Also, this should be written in the same format as it is in the result field and not in words. This review of PGN notation was meant to be as informative as possible. However, I realize there is a lot to correct notation, particularly on the moves. I, therefore, encourage you to ask your New Member Guides if you have any questions on this. If you have graduated the program (Hooray!) then look in a chess book. You are allowed to refer to chess books for reference for something like this. You may not use a computer program though! You may also ask your TD if you have a question. That is what they are there for - to help clear up matters like this. I hope you found this review of PGN notation informative and helpful. I would also like to thank the IECC members who gave there permission for me to use their names and games. .:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:._.:*~*:. End of Issue 6