Chess Bits         The Journal of the International E-mail Chess Club                            January 2003           IECC Website: http:www/geocities.com/ieccinfo In This Edition: From The Editor's Desk Steve Ryan Welcome to New Members David Glew Win/Loss/Draw Statistics Steve Ryan A Chessic Adventure (Short Story) Donald Reithel Miscellaneous Notes Steve Ryan Book Review Steve Ryan Rumour & Gossip The Silicon Saboteur Some Thoughts on Annotations Steve Ryan A Chess Bits Interview (with John Knudsen) Book Contest Problem Steve Ryan Games & Theory Smith-Lafargue TH-M-1646.1/2 Schmitz-McGill P-2855 Jonsson-Coulding Swiss-431.3.09 MacDonald-Kirpikov CL2-2002.21.24 Taylor-Barria T6609W Team Match Marques-Garcia O-1429 Kerekes-Cortes T6623W Team Match Hulse-Van Gimst CL6-2002.27.10 Hoefer-Corbat TH-M-1822.1 Hoefer-Kachkin KO-4008.1.2 Hughes-Mantyla M-4374.2 Wurm-Thomas CL-4-2002.04.06 Marcotulli-Rouzaud TH-M-1868.2 Ryan-Wozniak P-3184                              ..........                          From The Editor's Desk                                  By                              Steve Ryan To start the New Year (at least in the Western Gregorian calander) The IECC brings you the largest edition of our journal yet published. Accordingly, I want to review my editorial priorities for Chess Bits and, as usual, invite your feedback on them. Chess journals with a more "serious" orientation will present a great Many more annotated games, cross tables, articles on opening theory, end game studies, book reviews, international news and a summary of the tournaments that the organization offers.  The IECC already publishes a regular "Events List", so I do not bother to reproduce it here.  It would rapidly go out of date anyway.  As for the other types of articles, I will also gladly publish them, provided someone supplies them to me.  Nobody will take any notice (except perhaps to comment on my monumental ego) of any article I ever produce on opening or end-game theory.  Ergo, you will never see one under my by-line.  However, I do feel qualified to produce some of the less- serious articles intended for your interest, if not instruction.  The interview with SIM (and IECC member) John Knudsen provides a case in point. John and I stayed with general (and at times controversial) chess topics and avoided any serious discussion of chess theory, though he did provide an annotated game for your perusal.  As usual, and also as part of my editorial philosophy, Chess Bits brings you a mix of things to read; something for everyone I hope. We do have a rather large "Games & Theory" section this time around.  You will see the reason why at the start of that section.  I must offer a bit of explanation for the rather extensive coverage given to a quite unremarkable game, P-3184  Ryan-Wozniak (unremarkable particularly from my point of view).  This game has received 4 sets of annotations, all done independently of each other.  The annotators consist of the players (Steve Ryan/Zbigniew Wozniak), GM TUNC HAMMARAT, and the chess engine employed by the fine folks at NimbleKnight.com (NK).  When Tunc agreed to do some annotations, I removed all identification. Tunc's comments pull no punches and I accept them in the spirit of helping me to develop my game.  I left it up to the individuals involved as to the extent/depth of their comments and wanted to see how closely we would all agree on the "turning points" for the game. For the NK annotations I used the most extensive settings (greatest search depth/time) available.  I did not expect any of the "humans" to do such an in-depth analysis but merely wanted to see what amount of agreement each method would produce.  Well you can see for yourself.  According to the NK analysis I had several opportunities to at least equalize, but consistently failed to do so.  Each year at Christmas Time I do, however, make an excellent vanilla fudge.  Let's see the NK engine do THAT.  Let's also avoid a philosophical discussion as to which one (my fudge or the NK comments) make a greater contribution to human welfare. Finally, check out the IECC win/loss by colour statistics.  I am curious to know how they compare to similar statistics for chess in general and CC in particular.                                ........                          Welcome to New Members                                   by                               David Glew The IECC welcomes the following 76 new members who have joined over the period 2002 October 01 - December 31: Argentina: Gabriel Arango, Gerardo Cuttica Australia: Barry Cox, Frank Robson Belgium: Dimitri Verstraeten   Brazil: Eduardo Rodriques Canada: Jean Lefebure, Nikku Nayar, Luke Young Colombia: Jorge Montoya,   Denmark: Lars Andersen England: Anizan Mahruf, Craig Murray, David Grobler, Geoff Shotter, Graeme Carey, Mark Armitage, Martin Thornley, Matthew Steel, Raymond Jordan, Richard Pitman, Richard Ashdown, Vince Grillo France: Philippe Rouzaud  Germany: Friedhelm Glaubitz, Stefan Weger Hungary: Csaba Markus, Laszlo Nemeth Italy: Andrea Cacioppo, Gian Cilurzo, Giovanni Sulis, Luca Giordano, Marco Cola, Massimo Nunnari Mexico: Fernando Lanza, Israel Galindo, Manuel Cuellar Netherlands: Bas Buch, David Offiler, Jeroen Brandsma, Joep Knapen, Ron Oortwin Norway: Helge Olsen Peru: Felipe Vasquez, Victor Wong Philippines: Belsten Chua, Roland Hiquiana, Vincent Francisco Poland: Ignacy Moryc, Miroslaw Luniewski, Tomasz Dobrzycki Portugal: Nuno Costa   Romania: Ovidiu Baron  Scotland: Caren Park South Africa: John Jurgens  Spain: Ignasi Sanchez  Sweden: Eugene Unwine, Kalle Sandberg Ukraine: Andrey Zhelezny, Maxim Maschits USA: Alex Simeo, Chris Lott, Christopher Hobbs, Chuck Allen, Dean Hightower Frederick Ostby, Gautam Guliani,  Jacob Schoen, Jason Henriksen, Joel Landas Kurt Andrews, Mark Levesque, Philip Palaveev, Pierre Acebedo, Raymond Chen Steven DuCharme May each of you establish and enjoy a congenial relationship with all members of the IECC.  May all of you strive to complete your games in time and without defaults.  May you also always accord to, and receive from, your opponents the highest degree of courtesy, consideration and good fellowship.                                ...........                        IECC Win/Loss/Draw Statistics                                     By                                 Steve Ryan I have derived the following win/loss/draw statistics (by colour) from The IECC PGN Game Archives as listed on our web page: 1995 - (720 games total) 336 1-0 (46.66%), 282 0-1 (39.17%), 102 1/2-1/2 (14.17%) 1996 - (2329 games total)  1031 1-0 (44.27%), 853 0-1 (36.63%), 440 1/2-1/2 (18.89%) 1997 - No Data Available 1998 - (6087 games total)  2565 1-0 (42.14%), 2290 0-1 (37.62%), 1231 1/2-1/2 (20.22%) 1999 - (7825 games total)  3170 1-0 (40.51%), 2883 0-1 (36.84%), 1772 1/2-1/2 (22.65%) 2000 - (8035 games total) 3327 1-0 (41.41%), 2890 0-1 (35.97%), 1818 1/2-1/2 (22.63%) 2001 - (6609 games total) 2731 1-0 (41.32%), 2316 0-1 (35.04%), 1562 1/2-1/2 (23.63%). You can see a fair degree of year by year uniformity for wins by White, Wins by Black and draws.  Overall, White seems to have the statistical Advantage winning an average of 41.64% of all games played vs. 36.43% for Black and 21.91% for draws (rounding off errors not taken into account).  Our founding year of 1995 produced the most wins for both White and Black (percentage-wise) and the fewest draws. I can't account for those results (except perhaps by an overall smaller sampling population that year) but will speculate that everyone wanted to "mark their turf" or "establish their reputations" right at the start so they could intimidate future opponents and, consequently, had less interest in draws. Perhaps not though, as surely we all play for love of the game with the highest ideals of sportsmanship and camaraderie foremost in our minds, right? You can also see we had a steady increase in the total number of games played each year until 2001 when it dropped off sharply.  The reason?  Who knows? I can't think of anything that happened that year to explain it. Anyway, the results for 1997 and 2002 will no doubt fit the averages above so I will leave it to the reader to guess the exact numbers.  Bottom line - if you want to improve your rating, play White all the time.  If anyone knows how these results compare to any other statistics for win/loss/draw by colour please send me the information. Tournament Type distribution from 2001: CL: 2234  TH: 550  KO: 1121  Swiss: 771  Y2KO: 210  M: 1320  P: 283                               ...........          A CHESSIC ADVENTURE      By "The Patzer"               (A true tale from the pen of Donald P. Reithel) Sometimes I take delight in casual game play especially if I can help Teach the importance of respect, responsibility, and common courtesy that one should bring to the game when engaged in battles at the chessboard. On rare occasions I have been enlightened by novel chess attitudes. Such was the case on a cold, dark night when I was trapped in the city due to a blizzard after coming from my club. I had decided to stay in an all-night café and found, upon entering, a group deeply engrossed in a chess game at one of the tables. A young man was soundly beating his opponent and, with almost every turn, making with jokes and side remarks that I admit was humorous. The chatter brought to mind my visits to the Manhattan Club in New York where Al Horowitz and others would chatter with almost every move that brought laughter and glee from onlookers. The game abruptly ended with: "Checkmate patzer!"  The loser stood up and said he had it for the night and was going home. That is when the winner noticed my USCF chess bag and said: "Hey guys, here is a chess player. Sit down and lets see how good you think you are." Not wanting to leave my bag where it might get lost, I accepted but asked if we could use my own board and chessmen. As I removed the chess pieces, he saw the classic and beautiful Staunton set and readily agreed. So I took a white and black pawn in my hands, shook them, held out my fists and let my opponent pick the color. It was black. I should note here that courtesy to my opponent, the kibitzers and my Own modesty forbids me to give names. White: The Patzer -- Black: NN - Opening: Ponziani Opening 1.P-K4  P-K4,  2.N-KB3  N-QB3,  3.P-B3  N-B3, 4.P-Q3 "A real patzer move. Do you really know how to play this game?" I replied that it was early but he may be right to ask that question. The game continued with, 4...P-Q4, 5.QN-Q2 PxP, 6.PxP B-QB4, 7.B-K2 O-O. "You are recording a lost game."  Ah he noticed my deliberation to keep this for posterity in my score pad. 8.P-KR3 B-K3, 9.O-O P-QR4, 10.P-QR4 Q-Q2, 11.K-R2 Q-K2, 12.Q-B2 KR-Q1. "Take a good look patzer because I am coming to get you."  With that he snapped his fingers to get the attention of the waitress and ordered a coke and fries. I said nothing and moved...13.N-B4 B-N3, 14.N-N5 I mentioned here that if he expected 14.NxB, it would leave the half-open QB-file for his QR and the doubled pawns did not appear all that bad for him. At this point one kibitzer noted that the KP could be captured. I simply said: "Poison." This made him wince. Just then, the fries and coke arrived and as he reached for one of Those greasy devils after adding a good amount of ketchup on them, I said: "You have to use a fork because I won't permit you to touch my set with greasy hands." He picked up a fork and replied: "I'll finish this battle before I finish them."  14...BxN, 15.BxB R-KB1. One of the kibitzers now commented that maybe the wrong Rook was moved. 16.Q-K2 P-KR3, 17.N-B3 With this I noted how even the game appeared. "Lets see what mischief I can conjure up." "I can beat you patzer with half my brain put to bed. Here's a little something for you to think about."  17..N-R4? "You recorded a question mark!"  "Yes I did. Ever hear the saying about a Knight on the rim?"  18.P-KN3 QR-Q1, 19.N- R4  "Now, that is a Knight on the rim!" 19...N-B5, 20.Q-N4 I could not resist: "My Queenie enters the fray."20...P-R4, 21.Q-B5 QR-K1 The same onlooker spoke up again: "You move like a duffer-where oh Where doeth my Rook go?" 22.BxN PxB, 23.N-N6. This made my opponent wiggle on his britches. I noted that his fries And coke were now in his belly and couldn't resist advising him of the sins of eating  fat and sugar so late at night while playing chess.  I asked the waitress who also was now watching the game for a cup of coffee. Then I said: "A pin is mightier than the sword!"  "Amen" voiced our audience. 23...QxP, 24.QxKRP "Oops! There is a bit of a threat there." "You stink in the opening but I confess you pose me a problem."  24..PxPch, 25.PxP "I always like to improve my opportunities to grow my square count." "What are you talking about? What is this square count thing? This game ain't over yet." 25...Q-B7ch, 26.K-R1 Q-K5ch, 27.R-B3 "Ah, you don't seem to have any more checks." 27...QxN, 28.QxQ N-K4, 29.RxP! NxR "Clever play, patzer! Gentlemen,do you see that if I took his Queen, he plays R-B5disch!"? 30.R-KB1 K-R1, 31.B-Q3 N-N4, 32.Q-R5ch K-N1, 33.B-B4ch N-K3, 34.RxRch KxR, 35.Q-B5ch. "Patzer, I resign. I misjudged you by that idiotic opening. As a reward for your decisive play, let me pay your bill." The snowfall had subsided and we heard the plows pass by. I thanked them for an interesting evening and chat, gave them a club card and invited them to visit. "We're friends who meet here and play once a month and enjoy conversation and jousting with jabs and upper cuts. Chess rules as laid down long ago are foreign to us. Our group is one that rebels against it. We derive as much pleasure from the kibitzing as we do the battle."  That was from a kindly old gentleman who winked and quietly added aside: "You played our best player you know and it was a wonderful evening." My antagonist remarked as we left in a body that I should return and explain what in heck square count is. As I drove home, I could not help but envy that little group of friends Who met at the all-night café once a month for good conversation, chessplay and humorous jousting barbs. That they invited me to partake of their joy and friendly jousting, made me realize that not all the magic for the night was on the chess board.                                .......                           Miscellaneous Notes                                  By                              Steve Ryan 1. All members should note our new web site address: www.geocities.com/ieccinfo/.  We can continue using the old one but I find this one much easier to remember. 2. I want to remind everyone of Tim Nagley's note of a few weeks ago that IECC members should have ONE e-mail address for game purposes.  It allows your opponent (and yourself) to reply by using the "Return" or "Reply" button so the moves just keep bouncing back and forth between the same two addresses. 3. Please remember to use plain text ONLY when sending moves to your opponents.  Also, do not send files with any sort of attachments. Observance of these two rules will greatly reduce the chance of opening a virus-infected message and the subsequent damage that may result. 4. The October 2002 Chess Bits contained a very brief history of the IECC gathered from what little data we have and founding members we can Still contact.  I have received some feedback on this history which I Have reprinted as follows: Hi Steve,              A few comments re your history; "IECC was born out of IECG following the collapse around early 1996, Lisa left the IECG and formed the IECC. The IECG collapsed largely due to the sheer numbers of people who wished to join, their systems were unable to cope with demand." Not quite true. Lisa left and formed IECC well prior (months) to the IECG collapse which was caused by the 2 people running it ( I can but won't give their names ) quitting and disappearing taking the rating software and the pairings info. They may have left because of the workload but the workload itself didn't cause it. Barry Wright OK Barry, thank you for the information.  I am not prepared to dispute anyone's version of or information on our history because I simply don't know.  In the meantime, should anyone come up with some information on the whereabouts of Kyle Evans, please pass it along or ask him to get in touch with me.                              .........                             Book Review                                 By                             Steve Ryan                 64 Great Chess Games - by Tim Harding Subtitled "Masterpieces of Postal and Email Chess", Tim Harding has Chosen 64 Master-level CC games from a "good spread in time" but with "emphasis on the period 1990-2002" for exhaustive analysis and illustration.  The author does not claim to have selected the "64 greatest CC games ever played" but has stressed "variety, a good spread of openings, players from many countries and many types of games" as his criteria for inclusion.  The annotations accompanying each game often come from notes provided by the players themselves and in some cases especiallly for this book. 64 Great Chess Games provides solid instructional value via in-depth analysis of games by some of CC's leading players, past and present. General Information: Title:  "64 Great Chess Games"  (Softcover) Author & Editor-in-Chief: Tim Harding, with contributions from GM's Alexander Baburin, Hans-Marcus Elwert and Jorn Sloth. Edited by: Jonathan Tait Publisher: Chess Mail Ltd, 26 Coolamber Park, Dublin, Ireland ISBN 0-9538536-4-0    Web Site:  www.chessmail.com/great_64.html       (See the Book Contest Problem elsewhere in this edition)                            .............                           Rumour & Gossip                                 By                        The Silicon Saboteur We continue our relentless assault on your perception of this space- Time continuum manifested by 64 squares on a planar surface with the Following bizarre discoveries: 1. PHARMACEUTICAL giants BATTLE televised CHESS! 2. USELESS chess STATISTICS found EVERYWHERE! 3. ANALYSIS on A full STOMACH produces BLUNDERS! and now the details... 1.Citing unfair competition in the areas of sedatives and tranquilizers, a conglomerate of drug companies has filed suit in various jurisdictions to halt plans by CNN to televise live chess games instead of their usual in-depth coverage of the most trivial issues and that annoying moving script across the bottom of the screen.  The drug cartel will employ provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights, the American Bill of Rights,  the Magna Carta and whatever they use in Australia to defend their right to make obscene profits.  According to a cartel spokesman, wide broadcasting of live chess games will cause "mass hypnosis and complete collapse of our markets for tranqs and other goodies along that line." 2. According to polling firm SNAGS* at least 67.4% of all chess publications contain useless information such as: - At any one time 50% of all players of a game in progress will have either the White or Black pieces.  The other 50 % will have either the Black or White pieces. - Discounting an insignificant number of withdrawals, forfeitures and disqualifications, 33.3 % of all chess games could end with a win for White, a win for Black or a draw. - Virtually 100% of all correspondence chess players have never seen any of their opponents in person or know anything about them and do not particularly care as long as they win (them personally, not their opponents). * Stein Nagley Angus Glew & Stanton 3. Doctors at the Institute of Physiology & Chess in Perth, Australia, claim that, after a heavy meal, blood circulation to the brain decreases in favour of increased flow to the digestive tract. Since most chess players use their brains (at least in theory) for analyzing positions, any analysis done after eating will produce results inferior to analysis done on an empty stomach, when, as it turns out, you're too hungry to concentrate. As usual, watch this space for further developments.                                 .........                     Some Thoughts on Annotations                                 By                             Steve Ryan We begin with a definition: Annotate - "add explanatory notes to (a book, document etc.)" Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 1998 Edition You can now derive a definition for the plural, "annotations"' as: "explanatory notes added (to a book, document etc.)" In the realm of chess, we use the equivalent to a book or document – a Game Sore.  A chess game score consists of nothing more than a written record of a chess game, done in some acceptable notation (usually algebraic these days), outlining each move made.  You have all seen them.  To add detail, bring the raw game score to "life" and, ideally, to offer a bit of instruction, chess players have established the tradition of annotating games.  The annotations may consist of alternate (usually better) moves each player could have made, moves made in other games in similar positions, what the player wanted to accomplish with the move(s) so explained and similar considerations. Any chess journal should carry a certain number of annotated games, but Many members may not know how to annotate, don't consider their games "good enough" even if they do know how, don't want to give away "undiscovered" variations and dozens of other excuses.  I will try to eliminate at least the three above. I don't know how.... All IECC members must understand basic PGN formatting.  Adding Annotations in PGN just goes a step further.  In a game score, all annotations must ultimately both begin with and end inside {  }.  Within those type of brackets you can establish a "hierarchy" of variations and sub-variations. Take a common opening like the Ruy Lopez for example.  Let's assume your game score (after the "header" section) goes ... 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 ...and you would like to add an explanatory note after White's second move.  It would go in this way: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 {2.d4 becomes the Centre Counter Defence [1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4]} - then you continue on with the game score - 2...Nc6 3.Bb5  (etc). The added comments can become quite complex but if you remember to Enclose them all inside { } they will download quite easily into any standard PGN "reader" such as Zork or ECtool.  The readers disregard anything inside { }, which means you must manually study anything other than the "raw" game score. Not good enough... I am not looking for (and nobody expects) perfection.  Not everyone ranks as a Grandmaster, and even they make the most embarrassing blunders at times.  You don't need to apologize for yourself; everyone has to learn. Making annotations during the course of a game could help you "solidify" your plans and, if you have many games in progress at the same time, help you to remember what you wanted (or failed) to do next.  I urge all members to use annotations as a "learning tool".  In fact, I hope our higher-ranked players will do a certain minimum amount of instruction by at least annotating their own games.  After all, somebody had to show YOU how to play unless you have one of those very unique mentalities and derived the game of chess all by yourself.  I ask for the POLITE and SPOTSMANLIKE reception of annotations by ALL rating classes.  The "vicious" dissection (see below) of anyone else's comments shows only the manifestation of an out-of-control ego.  Constructive criticism by all means, but destructive criticism by no means. Unknown variations (theoretical novelties)... I can see a certain amount of validity to this one IF you really have discovered a unique line or unknown variation.  Nobody likes to give away secrets that provide an advantage.  In a certain sense though, at least one other person will know about it immediately, your opponent.  I suspect he/she won't have the least objection to using it in some future game or publishing it so you can't (sweet revenge).  Any player consistently refusing to annotate by using this excuse needs to look carefully at his own reasoning.  NOBODY creates unknown lines (at least valid ones) all the time.  Look up the definition of another word if you wish - "refutation". The habit of having the WINNER of a game do the annotations also seems To have become firmly established, with a less clear situation in the event of a draw.  I do not accept this custom.  I see no reason both players can't annotate.  The loser will, at least, hopefully see where he went wrong and how to avoid similar mistakes.  You will also end up with a description of the same chess game from two different points of view.  We also have the rather curious practice of annotating games by describing each player as "White" or "Black" as in .... 15.Nxf3 {White has now made a major error/brilliant move which allows/forces Black to reply with...}.  Why not "personalize" your annotations a bit by using the names of each player as in 15.Nxf3 {Joe has now made a major error/brilliant move which ....}? Using just White or Black to designate the players seems a bit sterile to me.  I would like to see annotators use the proper names of each player which, heaven forbid, may even encourage you to praise something your opponent did. Anyway, I now receive the "Rated Games" list which allows me to scan a Large number of games shortly after their finish.  If you wait too long to ask the players for some notes after the game has ended they will not, naturally enough, remember all the details.  Some of you have already received an "invitation" from me to add some notes and submit it for publication.  You should also note that I can do only that – invite.  I can't force anyone to submit games for publication, but I hope you will accept "invitations". Please also note that I do not do detailed scans of each game received from the Rated Games list.  Time simply does not permit such an amount of work. I also want to publish games from ALL rating classes and as many different events as possible. Finally, my invitations have produced some interesting replies.  I have selected some of them below with all names and identification removed (everything reprinted "as received" otherwise).  "Where did you get my old rating from? The last rated game i had was 1979(+8)  54-62-29 I have two lost game and one draw that I am waiting for a rating on" (To this member I replied that the ratings come as part of the information included in the game score and perhaps that the ratings had just not caught up with all his results, also that I had no part in calculating or assigning ratings and wanted solely to publish interesting games). "Dear gentleman, Thank you for your decision to publish game  X/Y in  a future edition of the IECC journal. I apologize what I can not send Analises this match, because I speack English very bad." (Another valid reason). "Hi Steve, I certainly have no objections.  Providing ------ doesn't mind the game being published I'd be happy to do some analysis on it.  I'll do some preliminary annotations, then forward the game to ----- for further comment. This back and forward method produced quite an interesting analysis of a game I played a number of years ago.  When would you require the final version of the game by?" "Hello, I have no problem with publishing this game in the IECC journal. If you want to publish, you can do. I can not promise that I can annotate this becase because I am a bit sick and I have  a lot of running games. Anyway, I will try to annotate it. What is the deadline for it?" "Steve, Wow! That sounds splendid and it would be great! Of course I will love To colaborate... : ) I would have to analyze the game again and after this send it to you. I think ------- will agree, he is also a chess teacher. Best wishes" "I'm sorry, but I have to refuse. I have too much work to do. I'm spending about 12 hours a day at work, and I'm very tired. Sorry again." (Fair enough) "Dear Steve: I thought it would be a snap to figure out some notes. However, after two days of pushing wood and looking for possible 'better' moves on both sides of the board and a excedrin headache, have decided that I cannot comment on the game.  ........  9th (Qe2) left my book behind even though there were 2 games with that move in my database. Other than that I can only say that the game (in my limited knowledge) consisted of all good moves and finally a small advantage that won the game. Like they say in the books sometimes, 'so-and -so didn't make a mistake but he lost anyway' Thanks for listening." (I encourage you to annotate based on what you wanted to accomplish AT THE TIME OF PLAY and leave better variations for another article). "I think this game is not good for publication because of very bad play of black." (Comment received from the person who played Black.  See above concerning "perfection".) "To my opinion, I don't think it would be fare to publish this particular game, since ..... was in the hospital for a major part of it due to an accident and he might have not been playing at his strongest moments." (followed by this reply from the hospital patient) "Steve, ---- is most kind.  While it is true I had prolonged difficulties and did not play my best, I would not want to deprive ------- of the honor of publishing his victory.  Besides, I still think I could have gotten his queen, perhaps, but for my Qc2 and his saving reply of Nc3.  Smile. Thank you,------- , for your excellent sportsmanship and an enjoyable game. I look forward to our next and hope that in the meantime you will enjoy the publication of tis one." (Magnificent sportsmanship from both players.  They deserve a medal.) Dear Steve, I don't see any advantage to publish my games. I always found low rated games boring except when analysed by higher grade players who explain all the mistakes and misunderstanding. In this game things went well for me, but I played also the same kind of opening and been crushed in less than 20 moves. So, where is the reason to publish and even add annotations ? Frankly speaking it's a little bit pretentious isn't it ? (The IECC exists for players of ALL ratings, not just those at 2000+.  How else do you learn except by correcting your mistakes and trying again?  Do you not make a second mistake when you fail to correct your first mistake?) (And finally this one...) "Greetings,  -------- and I have talked about it, and we'd both prefer not to have our game included.  I've had one game included before, and it was so viciously criticized that I'd rather not go through it. ------ may tell you the same thing later." (Anyone having their game "viciously criticized" has my complete sympathy. Annotations should not destroy the self-esteem of any player and should serve a constructive/instructive purpose.  A pox on players who stoop to such despicable practices.)                                 .........              A Chess Bits Interview - with JOHN KNUDSEN John Knudsen holds an I.M. title from the ICCF and has developed his web site CORRESPONDENCECHESS.COM, the single best CC web site your editor has so far encountered.  This site incorporates The Correspondence Chess Message Board along with a host of sub- sites such as The Campbell Report and Ralph Marconi's Chess Page.  John has become well known in CC circles and has kindly agreed to become my next "victim". Chess Bits (CB):  Can you give us a little personal information about yourself, whatever you feel willing to share? John Knudsen (JCK): I'm 46 years old, a US citizen currently living in Germany (Hessen).  Retired military - spent 20 years and 2 days in the US Army, from 1974 to 1994.  Am presently semi-retired (which means I am out of work). I started playing postal chess in 1978, with the usual US domestic organizations (USCF, CCLA, ASPCC) but got hooked on email cc in 1998.  I don't play postal chess anymore.  I was also quite active in over the board play up until the early 1990's.  I have also given up over the board play. Ever since I gave up over the board and postal play, my correspondence chess results have improved a great deal. I can usually be found in the USA Top-50 Rating List (the official one maintained by ICCF-US) and I earned my CC-IM title in 2000 (awarded in 2001) and have this year qualified for the CC-Senior International Master (SIM) title, which will be awarded next year.  I'll also be representing the USA in the upcoming 15th Olympiad prelims (2d Email Olympiad)and am greatly looking forward to that... I am also interested in numismatics (coin collecting), adventure game playing/design (text-based mostly - using the ADRIFT and TADS authoring environments), wargaming, and military history. I've been described as a "web head" (I've also been called a lot worse) and THAT adventure began in 1996... CB: A few "military" questions then.  I believe the US armed forces has some type of "internal" chess organizations, both OTB and CC (ASPCC ?). How do they operate?  Do they accept non-military members?  How would they handle a situation like RT for someone going on active duty who may not have postal or e-mail access? JCK:  In OTB, the US military used to have a active chess program.  In my service (the Army) there was the annual Army Championship (usually held in Fort Meade, Maryland), with the top 6 qualifiers making the Army team. I played in the Army Championship 3 years in a row, from 1980- 1982. The best I ever got was 7th place (rats!) but I enjoyed the tournaments very much. The qualifiers for the Army Team then competed in the Armed Forces Championship, composed of teams from all of the services.  After that tournament was over, the Army Team used to travel around the country for a month or so, giving exhibitions.  Understand, not only were you drawing your regular pay, but your travel expenses/room and board (plus extras) were also paid - a very nice deal. People selected for the Army Championship got their travel expenses and room and board paid also for the Championship. The Army Recreation Center guys also produced a booklet after each of the Army Championships, containing all of the games, cross table, etc. Unfortunately, I understand that nowadays all there is an Armed Forces tournament (Open format), and I am not sure about the funding for players, because funding cuts have impacted on all non-essential programs. In cc, ASPCC (All-Services Postal Chess Club) is the org of choice for military members, although it is open to everyone. Just the mention of it brings back many fond memories.  One of the attractions to the club is the 7 days per move (absolute) time limit - that is especially engineered to cater to those on active duty or active reserve status.  That doesn't mean that you should take 7 days every move, just that you are ALLOWED that maximum time, if necessary.  What a great bunch of people were (are) involved in that club. Alas, I believe postal chess is doomed, therefore, small clubs like ASPCC will disappear from the scene.  They have an email program but it is impossible for small clubs to compete with the big players: ICCF, IECG and IECC. They shouldn't even try.  I don't mean to be so down on postal chess, but there is no logical reason for anyone from a developed country to play it.  Email is cheaper and more efficient.  I suppose, 90+ years ago, people who traveled by horse also felt bad when the automobile came along. But the bad feelings didn't last long... :) CB: I allow myself a few non chess-related questions of general interest so keeping with the military for a bit longer have you ever seen the TV show called JAG?  If yes, do you consider it realistic?  What does a Judge Advocate General do anyway? JCK:  No, I don't generally watch TV shows. I have caught glimpses of the show "JAG" but was not impressed - typical Hollywood crap.  Have you ever seen a "lawyer" show that was anywhere near actual life?  I'll let you in on a little secret. No one ever breaks down on the witness stand and admits the commission of a crime - this hardly ever happens.  Perry Mason was really bad like that. The rest are no better.  The "TV" judges act like idiots (or are not involved in the courtroom scenes at all) and, usually, one of the opposing attorneys is less talented than the other (or evil). This is pure, utter crap. Real life is not like that.  Judge Advocates have many roles in military people's lives.  They interpret legal documents for them, help compose legal documents for them, in general, assist them with their legal needs. Some JAGs are prosecuting or defence attorneys, but that is a small part of the overall picture.  Judges are appointed who control things in the courtroom - and they are answerable to no one within the chain of command. A highly professional group of people, for the most part.  As a non- lawyer, I am of course not qualified to comment on capabilities, but, it is like any other profession - there are really good ones and some bad ones (but just a few). The bad ones get booted out or placed in positions where they cannot do much damage.  The same goes for their assistants.  The JAG Corps, as a whole, is very professional and proud component of the armed services. What they do, on a daily basis, impacts on people's lives, whether it is drafting up a last will, or whether it is defending a soldier in a criminal trial. CB:  Returning to chess now, would you care to estimate the remaining lifetime for postal chess?  Why did you give up OTB play? JCK:  Postal chess is probably already dead. What is left in that area are pen-pal clubs.  By that I mean small clubs of dedicated postal players. These small clubs, especially the ones that require annual club dues or charge entry fees, are doomed, because the basic premise is no longer valid. That premise is that you pay to be a member. The trend is away from that. Entry fees are generally acceptable to players today, but only if they receive something of real value in return. Why would a person with a good email connection want to play postal chess? For the privilege of writing out post cards for each move, and paying terribly high postal rates to send that move to an opponent? Especially in international play, postal chess makes no sense, whatsoever.  However, having opined the above, I would also like to say that if enough people want to continue playing postal chess, or use Morse code for their moves, or smoke signals, then a smart provider must make provisions for that, in order to keep their edge in the cc marketplace. Correspondence chess, on the other hand (including the electronic mediums) should live for a long time!  I do not believe that computer programs are ruining correspondence chess at all.  Presently, correspondence chess is enjoying somewhat of a boom period - new players are signing up in droves. Not just postal "coverts", either.  Many OTB players are opening up to all that correspondence chess has to offer. I quit OTB because I wasn't very good at it.  Too many stupid blunders, time control errors, etc.  I was frustrated, and cc - especially email cc, was the perfect answer for me.  It satisfies the need I have to play chess (the chess fever if you like) but allows me more flexibility on when and how I play it. CB: We will come back to the topic of chess engines later on but taking your remarks about OTB experiences, CC just does not have the same high profile as OTB (Fischer-Spassky, Kasparov-Deep Blue etc.), so do you consider CC the "poor cousin" of OTB chess?  Also, many e-mail organizations like the IECG/IECC operate entirely as volunteer organizations which makes them vulnerable to volunteer burnout, the constant need to recruit new volunteers and frequent staff turnover.  Can we sustain these types of clubs? JCK:  CC is only the poor cousin of OTB when "we" allow that to happen. For instance, at the chess club, or at a tournament, do we speak of our correspondence chess experiences in hushed tones, or cower in the corner, as if we have something to hide?  Or do we speak about all of the wonderful things that cc has to offer?  I firmly believe something which CJS Purdy said: "Correspondence chess should be played for its own sake."  It is a different form of the game, that's all.  A chess variant if you like. As a serious cc player, OTB ratings or reputations mean little or nothing to me.  The ability to do research, combined with the ability to take your time, in order to make good moves, is a levelling up factor - of that there is no doubt.  OTB players new to cc often assume that their cc opponents will behave like their OTB opponents usually do - roll over and play dead, and get crushed.  If you enjoy the avocation of cc, stand up for what you enjoy and pass the word!  The completed game score knows not the method of play. It stands on its own.  If it is a good game, whether in the theoretical sense, or in the method of play sense, it won't matter if it was played over the board or by correspondence - in the end, a chess game is a chess game. The tough part of your question is dealing with cc organizations.  Both the IECG and IECC have done incredible jobs in their service to cc players with many innovative ideas and products.  Fortunately for players, it is a player's market right now - the hard part is choosing the org which seems right for you.  In this respect, from the player's perspective, such competition between the orgs (ICCF-IECG-IECC) can only result in more and better possibilities.  I also firmly believe that orgs should cooperate with one another whenever feasible, but from the player's perspective this isn't very important. Regarding the awarding of official titles, and the designation of world champions, I am a traditionalist. The ICCF holds the "legitimacy key" in these areas - as well as official Olympiads of course. Any other org which steps out of line in these areas is bringing harm to international cc in general, in my opinion. In order for titles and world championships to have any validity at all, they must be well regulated and well structured.  One must only look at the confused situation in the OTB world (with FIDE) to see the chaos which results when titles and championships are given out like in boxing or professional wrestling. Organizations which provide good service, whether free or not, will thrive. Those which do not will die.  It is called competition, and I believe such competition is good for players in general.  Provide what the players want you to provide and you have a niche.  Those organizations which are totally free have the big problems of, how do we sustain ourselves? and how do we grow? and, most importantly, how do we provide the innovative services that will satisfy the present (and next) generation(s) of computer-savvy players? All of the major organizations are volunteer based - without exception. They must all deal with the challenges that I've mentioned. CB:  If we accept, for the purposes of discussion, your "legitimacy" statements about the ICCF, does it automatically follow then that membership in that organization makes you a better chess player at any given rating than a player in another club at the same rating?  To explain, if you have a rating of 2000 (or 1000 or 2500) in the ICCF, do you have some inherent advantage over someone with a 2000 rating in the ABCD cc club? JCK:  You assume too much - I said no such thing.  In terms of depth of different strong players, the ICCF dwarfs everyone else - the IECG by probably a factor of 50-100 and the IECC by a factor of over 100. Discounting the players who play in multiple organizations, the ICCF has many, many hundreds of strong players rated, say, 2450 and above.  A comparison of rating lists should be all that is required to confirm that. What is so difficult about this to understand?  :) The strongest players, in terms of total numbers, play primarily in the ICCF. This factor alone assures the strength of the real world championship series of tournaments. Everything else is a sham, and harmful to international correspondence chess. You cannot will legitimacy onto yourself – either you have it or you don't. None of what I have said has anything to do with comparisons of various strengths/ratings between different organizations.  What I am speaking to is holding official world championship tournaments, and issuing official international correspondence chess titles. CB: Please tell us something about your web site, correspondencechess.com. JCK:  Well, it isn't my site anymore - it belongs to Grayling Hill since last year - but... In 1996 I discovered that there weren't so many cc sites on the web.  Maybe five or less.  So I started a crummy little web page on Angelfire, a free web page provider.  It grew into CC.COM, and the rest, as they say, is history. The real turning point was when Franklin Campbell signed on.  Then came Ralph Marconi, and finally, Grayling Hill.  The domain grew into a huge site devoted mainly to correspondence chess.  The separate sites are just too numerous to mention - you have to go there to get some sense of what I am talking about: http://www.correspondencechess.com/ From 1996-2001 I spent thousands of hours and thousands of dollars developing it, enlarging it, adding features.  I decided to pass on the torch to Grayling in 2001 so that I could concentrate on my real "love", Correspondence Chess News (CCN) which is an electronic magazine, issued approximately twice per month, with multiple thousands of readers world-wide. http://ccn.correspondencechess.com We have had 78 issues so far (this is written in middle Nov 02) and I believe that we have one of the finest groups of writers around. Nowadays, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of quality cc sites out there. But none of them are quite like CORRESPONDENCECHESS.COM.  I am glad (and proud) that we have been doing things since the very beginning (in the web sense), and that many, many others have also realized that the web and cc go together exceedingly well.  What a roller-coaster ride it has been.  I doubt if there are many cc players who haven't visited CC.COM, or one of the many sub-sites.  It has been and continues to be a source of great satisfaction for me. CB: CC.com includes, of course, The Correspondence Chess Message Board (TCCMB) http://www.correspondencecechess.com/bbs/ which receives hundreds of posts per month and deals with every conceivable CC topic, but has any one topic in particular received a great deal of attention over the last two years or so? JCK:  One would have to go through the archives (34,768 messages as of archive 125!) since 1998 to know for sure - I can only speculate.  Computers  in CC would always be a hot topic, although I find it rather boring (and non-productive)...  Pros and cons of the various organizations used to be a  hot topic, too.  But second place would probably be rules issues, which are always fun to discuss.  Next would probably be results from various players, and particular games or positions which are often discussed (post mortem). Another popular subject would be methods of study and play. As you say, the subjects run the whole spectrum of correspondence chess, and to an extent, also chess in general. TCCMB is, and always has been, the premier discussion forum related to cc. It is visited thousands of times per day. CB: Speaking of computer (chess engine) analysis in cc, you supposedly had quite a strong anti-engine stance at one time but no longer have.  What happened to change your mind? JCK:  Yes, quite true.  What changed by mind was that I started to really think about what correspondence chess is, and what it isn't.  I also had the opportunity to discover, from conversations with some World Correspondence Chess Champions, that the practice of blunder checking (or move generation) was far more significant than I thought possible. Correspondence chess, historically, has always involved utilizing every available research tool in the quest for the best move.  Books, magazines, database research, etc.  So what makes using a chess engine so different? Such research is what sets correspondence chess apart from over the board, and it has always been that way. Those who blather on about computer use "cheating" are blowing around hot air. You cannot detect computer use in a game of correspondence chess. Organizations that ban the use of move generating engines are only penalizing honest players who play by the rules.  Many of the others will continue to do it whether it is allowed or not.  In the logic sense, assuming that a vast majority of all players use engines anyway, what advantage is gained thereby?  It is an even playing field, in that case. You would be surprised how much computer programs have effected the world of over the board chess.  Books are blunder checked, opening innovations are generated by engines (and double checked by them, too), etc.  Like it or not, computers are a big factor in chess in general, let alone correspondence chess. Lastly, those who condemn engine use often say that it is because you don't use your own brain to make the move, i.e., the engine generates the move. Well, the next time you find a refutation to an opponent's line of play in a reference book, and play it, you are also "stealing" someone else's idea, a Grandmaster's move, whatever - it isn't your move.  So what is the difference? You still have to know whether a move is good or not, before you play it. "Cheating with computers" has become the modern excuse of choice for LOSING nowadays. I suggest that everyone should just accept the fact that computer programs are being used on a regular basis and deal with it.  Either that, or just quit playing correspondence chess.  I do not advocate the use of chess engines in correspondence chess.  I just think we waste too much time on a "problem" which has no resolution.  This is a pragmatic approach.  I wish to continue to play correspondence chess, therefore, I must contend with the beasts. CB: But surely you speak from the viewpoint of someone who can already beat an engine when you say you must "contend with the beasts".  The greater part of cc players can't beat a strong engine like Fritz.  Doesn't that put them at the mercy of unscrupulous opponents? JCK:  I disagree somewhat.  Most cc players can deal with Fritz at correspondence chess. Over the board "strength" (whether in blitz, 30 minute games, or normal time controls) means little or nothing in correspondence chess.  Now, it is a different matter if you have a person who possesses quite a bit of chess skill AND knows how to use an engine.  That guy is a tough nut to crack. But "operators and postmen" - those players who blindly let their engines play for them, are not a serious threat in correspondence chess.  The beasts make stupid moves all of the time, and simply cannot handle certain concepts, such as unclear exchange sacrifices and complicated endings.  If you believe that an International Master or Grandmaster in over the board chess is an awesome player, better than your average computer program, well, the reflection time sort of levels it up - because it is cc that we are talking about, and not over the board.  I have played quite a few FMs and IMs (OTB) in correspondence chess and have no reason to fear them.  I win some, I lose some, and I draw quite a few games with them.  I would also imagine that I have played against many different engines.  All of these persons and beasts would destroy me in OTB chess - but that isn't what we are playing, is it?  Understanding how to use reflection time, and how to profitably think on your opponent's time, is one of the key things to playing correspondence chess well.  Along with good research skills and habits, of course. I try not to pay attention to whether my opponent is using an engine or not. However, if I am certain that he (it?) is, I do take different approaches, try different tactics to take advantage of the opportunity.  Especially if I feel that the guy is an operator/postman type.  But, generally speaking, you can't prevent your opponent from using assistance, whether human or otherwise, so why worry about it?  Having said that, I would like to state that if an organization's rules say that it is not allowed to use an engine, then doing so is cheating, without a doubt.  Without such a prohibition, every type of assistance/research is allowed, because of the nature of correspondence chess.  Whether you, the IECC or anyone else doesn't care for engine use, or my opinions, doesn't really concern me in the least.  I try to deal in realities whenever possible, and the reality is that most players (probably a vast majority) use engines to assist them in their cc games, whether it is allowed by the rules or not. If you can't deal with your opponents using chess engines in cc games, I would urge you to quit and take up another avocation.  It will do wonders for your nervous system, and your blood pressure - taking my advice I mean. Much better than blaming your losses on some opponent's (unprovable) computer use. :) CB: Why do you like to play chess?  What aspects of the game appeal to you? JCK:  Why does anyone play chess?  To get better, I suppose.  To try and learn as much as possible about the game.  The creative aspects appeal to me very much - especially in correspondence chess.  Some people paint, others do crafts - I like to play chess.  I would even go farther and say that I like serious correspondence chess the best.  By that I mean, high-level tournaments and matches. I rarely play casual games anymore (blitz is an exception to that - but that hardly resembles chess).  Another thing which is great is, the more you know, the more you still have to learn.  It is something that can occupy an entire lifetime. When you aren't working on your games, you can try and learn something from the great masters, or digest some great chess book.  And, my, the wonderful people that you meet! It seems to me that the older a player gets, the more important the social aspect is. Doctors rub shoulders with homeless people - chess is the common language and social stature means little or nothing.  What a question, Steve! You could go on for pages and pages about why you play chess. CB: What do you think of Fischer's statement that traditional chess has become "played out"? JCK:  Well, it is interesting - I think Capablanca said something similar. :) Chess variants are quite interesting, in that some of them can be used to get around "the engine problem" if there is such a problem.  Variants will always have a following, but I prefer the traditional game, especially in correspondence chess.  Until 32-piece tablebases become a reality (White to move and win) I won't worry about it too much.  I don't think it will happen soon. CB: What makes a "good" cc player?  Can you give us a tip or two for the average player to improve his game? JCK:  A good cc player often plays good/suprising moves, and also learns from his mistakes. Research skills are most important - you simply must have a good library of reference material and game databases.  Research the previous games of your opponents before a tournament begins, if possible – look for weaknesses in their game.  Pay particular attention to any annotated games that you can find, especially wins, as it is human nature to repeat openings/strategies which have worked in the past.  Realize that you will almost never surprise your opponent in the opening - assume that he has good reference material.  Take nothing for granted - always examine research material with a critical eye. Perhaps you will come up with a theoretical novelty that way.  But, be sure the move is really good before playing it. Treat your opponents as you would like to be treated - they are your partners in this wonderful activity. But, above all - have fun. CB: Do you have a favourite opening? JCK:  Yes, of course - the French Defence.  I was quite heavily into the Winawer variation for a long time, but have now shifted my focus/playing into other variations - the Burn variation of the French, for example. In blitz, I like to play gambits - like the Danish Gambit.  In serious chess I hardly ever play gambits, though.  It is mostly a matter of taste/ playing style, and in cc it will be rare that you will ever surprise your opponent by playing a gambit.  Some of them are positively questionable, under the microscope, in correspondence chess.  I am always happy to play against the Budapest, WRG, and Latvian gambits, for example.  I cannot see how one could have a significant plus score in the ELO 2450-2600+ range with these types of openings, in cc.  Some others will no doubt disagree, again, it is largely a matter of personal taste and playing style.  A player should play what he is comfortable with. CB: Can you provide an annotated game we can look at? JCK: I selected this game because of the obvious IECC connection, but also because I think that it is quite instructive.  In the IECC vs. CCN Friendly match, the IECC Team managed to pull off a well-deserved, come-from-behind victory. In our previous cc meeting, Karl-Heinz Soentges crushed me rather easily, so I was out for revenge this time around... [Event "IECC-CCN Friendly"] [Site "IECC-51 CNN-1"] [Date "2001.04.01"] [White "Soentges, K."] [Black "Knudsen, J."] [WhiteElo "2469"] [BlackElo "2485"] [Result "0-1"] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.Qg4 Qc7 8.Qxg7 Rg8 9.Qxh7 cxd4 10.Kd1!? {Euwe's move - A favorite of Tony Albano and Jon Edwards from the USA.} 10...Nbc6 11.Nf3  dxc3 12.Ng5 Nxe5 {12...Rxg5 13.Bxg5 Qxe5 14.h4 Qd4+ 15.Kc1(15. Qd3 Qc5 16.h5 e5 17.h6 Bg4+ 18.Kc1 0-0-0 19.h7 Bf5 20.Qg3 Rh8 21.Bxe7 Nxe7 22.Qxe5 Rxh7 23.Rxh7 Bxh7 24.Bd3 Bg6 25.Bxg6 fxg6 26.Rb1 Qc4 27.Kd1 Nc6 28.Qe6+ Kc7 29.Ke1 b6 30.Rd1 1-0 Szieberth,A-Kecskes,G/HUN 1995/EXT 2000 (30)} {15...Bd7 16.Rb1 Qe5 17.Bb5 Nd8 18.Bd3 b6 19.Rb4 Bc6 20.Kb1 Bb7 21.f4 Qd6 22.Qh8+ Kd7 23.Qxc3 Ndc6 24.Bb5 Rc8 25.Qg7 Kc7 26.Qxf7 Kb8 27.Bxe7 Nxe7 28.Re1 Qc5 29.Rb2 Rc7 30.Qf8+ Rc8 31.Qf6 Nf5 32.Bd7 Rf8 33.Qe5+ Ka8 34.Qxe6 Nd6 35.Qe7 Rxf4 36.Qe8+ Bc8 37.Qh8 Rf2 38.g4 Rh2 39.h5 Rg2 40.h6 Rg1 41.Rxg1 Qxg1+ 42.Ka2 Qc5 43.Qf8 1-0 Albano,A-Jarvis,J/corres ICCF/m 1989/ Megacorr (43)} 13.f4 {13.Bf4 13...Qb6 14.Bxe5 Rxg5 15.Bxc3 Bd7 (15...Qxf2 16.Bb5+ Bd7 17.Rf1 Qc518.Qxf7+ Kd8 19.Qf8+ Kc7 20.Qf4+ Kd8 21.Qxg5 Qxc3 22.Rb1 Bxb5 23.Rxb5 Qa1+ 24.Ke2 Qh8 25.Rxb7 Qe8 26.Rxe7 1-0 Albano,A-Pierson,R/corres USA 1989/Megacorr (26)) 16.Bf6 Rg8 17.f3 (17.Qh4 Nf5 18.Qh7 Ne7 ½-½ Albano,A-Miller,N/corres ICCF/m 1989/ Megacorr (18)) 17...Rc8 18.Rc1 Ba4 (18...Qe3 19.Qd3 Nf5 20.g4 Qh6 21.Bd4 Ng3 22.Rg1 Qxh2 23.Bxa7 Rc4 24.Bg2 Ba4 25.Bf2 Nf5 26.Qd2 Nd6 27.Bf1 Rf4 28.Rg2 Qh1 29.Qxf4 Qxf1+ 30.Be1 Qxg2 31.Qxa4+ Ke7 32.Bh4+ f6 33.Qf4 Qh1+ 34.Be1 e5 35.Qe3 d4 36.Qb3 Rc8 37.c4 b5 38.c5 Nc4 39.Rxc4 ½-½ Sontges,K-Hansen,M/corr 1992/MegaCorr2 (39)) 19.Bxe7 Qd4+ 20.Qd3 Qxd3+ 21.Bxd3 Kxe7 22.g4 Rc3 23.Kd2 d4 24.h4 Bc6 25.Rh3 Rxa3 26.h5 Ra5 27.h6 Rag5 28.Rg1 Rh8 29.f4 Rgg8 30.g5 Kd6 31.Ra1 a6 32.Rh4 Kc5 33.Rh5 Kb6 34.h7 ½-½ Sontges,K-Bruderle,K/corr 1992/MegaCorr2 (34)} 13...f6! {Uhlmann's idea (Watson).} 14.fxe5?! fxg5 15.Qh5+ Kd8 16.Bxg5 Qc5! {Moles.  Black will untangle with Bd7 and Kc7; in the meantime, White's King and dark squares are exposed (Watson).} 17.Qh4?! {17.h4 is better; 17...Bd7 and now: A) 18.Qf7 Rxg5 19.hxg5 (19.Qf3 Rf5 20.Qg3 Qf2 21.Qxc3 Rc8 22.Qd2 Qxd2+ 23.Kxd2 Rf2+ 24.Ke1 Rcxc2 25.g4 Nc6 26.Bd3 Rb2 27.g5 Nxe5 28.Bb1 Ba4 0-1Monzie-Renguaine,P/corr 1991/ Megacorr (28)) 19...Qe3 0-1 Kirstein- Leisebein,P/Canada 1986/Megacorr (19); B) 18.Rh3 Kc7 19.Bxe7 Qxe7 20.Rxc3+ Bc6 21.Rf3 Raf8 22.Kc1 Rh8 23.Qg5 Qxg5+ 24.hxg5 Rfg8 25.Rf7+ Kd8 26.Rf6 Ke7 27.g6 Rh5 28.Rf7+ Ke8 29.Bd3 Rxe5 30.Kb2 Rg5 31.g4 Rf8 32.Raf1 Rxf7 33.Rxf7 Rxg4 34.Rf6 Bd7 35.Be2 Rg5 36.Bf3 Kd8 37.Rf8+ Kc7 0-1 Thorn Leeson,J-Kleij,C/corr 1988/Megacorr (37); C) 18.Bd3 Kc7 19.Rf1 Raf8 20.Qe2 Nc6 (20...Rxf1+ 21.Qxf1 Be8 22.Ke1 Nc6 23.Qf2 d4 24.Bf4 Qd5 25.g3 Bh5 26.Be2 Qe4 27.Kd1 d3 28.cxd3 Qh1+ 29.Qe1 Bxe2+ 30.Kc2 Nd4+ 31.Kxc3 Qd5 32.Qb1 Kb8 33.Ra2 Bh5 34.Kb2 Rc8 35.Ka1 Nb3+ 36.Kb2 Qd4+ 0-1 Giuricza,G-Schuster,1992/Megacorr (36)) 21.Rxf8 Rxf8 22.Be3 d4 23.Bh6 Rh8 24.Bg5 Ne7 25.g4 Nd5 26.Qh2 Rf8 27.Qg3 Ne3+ 28.Ke2 Nxc2 0-1 Wiiala,K-Abenius,J/corr Sweden 1988/Megacorr (28); D) 18.Rb1 Kc7 19.Qf3 Nc6 20.Rb3 d4 21.Qe4 Raf8 22.Bf6 Rg3 23.Be2 Re3 24.Qf4 Na5 25.Rb4 Nc6 26.Rb3 Na5 ½-½  Bergmann,M-Descovich,J/email 1997/ Megacorr (26); E) 18.Qh7 18...Rxg5 19.hxg5 Nf5 20.Qh3 Kc7 21.g4 Ne3+ 22.Kc1 Rg8 23.g6 Rxg6 24.Bd3 Rxg4 0-1 Zichichi-Pascual/corr 1979/MegaCorr2 (24)} 17...Rxg5! {Recommended by Watson in "Play The French", first edition, p.153. [17...Bd7 18.Rb1 Bc6 19.Rb4 Kd7 20.Bxe7 Qxe7 21.Qd4 Rg5 (21...b6 22.Qxc3 Rac8 23.Qd4 Rcf8 24.g4 Rf3 25.h4 Rxa3 26.g5 Rf8 27.Bd3 Rf4 28.Qxf4 Ra1+ 29.Ke2 Rxh1 30.g6 Rh3 31.Kf2 Rh1 32.Rd4 a5 33.Kg2 1-0 Boesenberg,E-Tucci,A/email 1997/MegaCorr2 (33)) 22.h4 Rg3 23.h5 Qg5 24.Qf4 Rh8 25.h6 Rg4 26.Qxg5 Rxg5 27.h7 Ke7 28.Rh6 a5 29.Rbh4 Be8 30.Rh3 Rxe5 31.Rxc3 Rh5 32.Rh3 Rxh3 33.Rxh3 e5 34.c4 d4 35.Bd3 Bc6 36.Bf5 Kf6 37.g4 Kg5 38.Ke2 Be8 39.Kd3 Bg6 40.Ke4 d3 41.Kxd3 Bxf5+ 42.gxf5 Kxf5 43.c5 1-0 Boesenberg,E-Priebe,R/email 1997/MegaCorr2 (43)} 18.Qxg5 Kc7 19.Bd3 Bd7 20.Qf4? {This contributes little or nothing to the position.   20.Qh4 is a better idea: 20... Nc6 21.Rf1 Rg8 22.Qf2 d4 23.Re1 Kc8 24. Qe2 a6 25.h4 Qf8 26.Kc1 Qh6+ 27.Kb1 Qxh4 28.Ka2 Na5 29.g3 Qe7 30.Rab1 Qc5 31.Rb4 Bc6 32.Qf2 Bd5+ 33.Kb1 Nc6 34.Qf7 Ne7 35.Be4 a5 36.Bxd5 axb4 37.Qxe6+ Kb8 38.Be4 Rd8 39.Ka2 d3 40.Bxd3 Rxd3 41.cxd3 Qf2+ 42.Kb3 Qxe1 43.Qxe7 ½-½ Marcinkiewicz,J- Pascual Gras,E/corr ICCF 1983/MegaCorr2 (43)} {20...d4 21.Rb1 21.Re1 is better: 21...Nd5 22.Qg3 Rf8 23.h4 Ne3+ 24.Kc1 Kb8 25.Qg6 Qxe5 26.g3 Bb5 27.Rb1 Bxd3 28.cxd3 Qd5 29.Qg7 Rd8 30.Qe7 Rd7 31.Qe8+ Rd8 32.Qe7 Rd7 33.Qe8+ Rd8 34.Qe7 ½-½ Pareja Perez,J-Matamoros Franco,C/Ceuta 1993/EXT 97(34)} 20...d4 21.Rb1 Nd5! {If 21...Rg8? 22.Rg1 b6 23.Ke2 1-0 Comas Andreu,J-Arizmendi Martinez,Y/ corr 1995/Megacorr (23)} 22.Qf7 Rd8 {Clears the way for the King to return home, protects the Bishop, and keeps an eye out on the Pawn on d4 - a multi-purpose move.} 23.Qg7 Kc8 24.Qg3 Ne3+ 25.Ke2 Bc6! 26.h4 Bxg2 {Time to cash in some chips.} 27.Rhg1 Bc6 28.Rb4 a5 29.Rbb1 Ng4!-+ 30.Ke1 Nxe5 31.Rf1 Nxd3+ 32.cxd3 Qxa3 {Since White has no tactical play, grabbing Pawns is the way to win!} 33.Rf7 Qd6 34.Qxd6 Rxd6 35.h5 e5 36.Ra1 a4! {This is better than 36...b6. White cannot stop the avalanche of pawns on the Queenside.} 0-1 CB: Thank you John.  That concludes the interview.  Good luck in the Olympiads. JCK:  Thank you for inviting me, Steve!                                 .........                            Book Contest Problem                                    By                                Steve Ryan Some discussion has already taken place about this elegant study from CC Master & former US Champion Dave Taylor on The Correspondence Chess Message Board.  The position arises from one of Dave's games.  Play through the game score and find the continuation for White's moves 15-20 inclusive.  I found white's 15th "anti-intuitive" (a hint) move in about 5 minutes. The contest - the FIRST IECC member to send me the correct continuation up to and including 20.  will receive a copy of Tim Harding's "64 Great Games" (reviewed elsewhere in this edition).  You may NOT use any kind of chess engine to solve this problem which means that everyone has to work on the honour system.  I am able to "sponsor" this contest only because Tim sent me a free copy for review purposes.  The winner will receive his/her prize by SURFACE MAIL PARCEL POST meaning it may take a LONG time to get to you, depending on where you live.  I would also appreciate re-imbursement of the postage costs (in Canadian $) though you get the book for free, if you solve the problem.  The contest begins with distribution of this edition and ends when I receive the first correct continuation.  I must, therefore, decline entries from any member of the IECC Board of Directors, or any other IECC member responsible for reviewing this edition before it goes out to the general membership.  ONE entry per member. IECC MEMBERS ONLY. Dave Taylor - John Adams   CCLA 1974 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.Bc4 Qc7 6.Qe2 Nb6 7.Bd3 Nc6 8.Nf3 d5 9.exd6 Qxd6 10.Nxd4 Nxd4 11.cxd4 Bd7 12.Nc3 Bc6?! 13.Nb5 Qd7 14.Bf4 Nd5 15.*                              ...........                            Games & Theory Editor's Note:  As I mentioned above, I now receive the "Rated Games" list which allows me to contact members and invite them to submit some annotations for publication.  I have had a fair amount of success and you can now expect more invitations to go out.  If the volume of annotated games continues at its present pace I will have to consider a separate publication devoted solely to IECC games & theory.  Please note, however, that if I have requested annotations from you and you have done some for me, IF your submitted game score contains illegal/impossible/ambiguous moves it will likely NOT appear in this column.  I thank you for sending them in but I simply do not have the time to chase down these types of errors. Finally, each one of these games should download directly into any standard PGN reader.  If they do not, please contact me directly and explain where the problem occurred.  I will try to make the necessary corrections and forward the revised version to you. S.R. In this section: Smith-Lafargue TH-M-1646.1/2 Schmitz-McGill P-2855 Jonsson-Coulding Swiss-431.3.09 MacDonald-Kirpikov CL2-2002.21.24 Taylor-Barria T6609W Team Match Marques-Garcia O-1429 Kerekes-Cortes T6623W Team Match Hulse-Van Gimst CL6-2002.27.10 Hoefer-Corbat TH-M-1822.1 Hoefer-Kachkin KO-4008.1.2 Hughes-Mantyla M-4374.2 Wurm-Thomas CL-4-2002.04.06 Marcotulli-Rouzaud TH-M-1868.2 Ryan-Wozniak P-3184 [Event "TH-M-1646.1"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.03.01"] [Round "?"] [White "Smith, Sid"] [Black "Lafargue, Philippe"] [Result "1-0"] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 {This is the starting position for the IECC Thematic in French Defense Winawer Variation} 4.a3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3 dxe4 6.Qg4 g6 {Black breaks with tradition, Nf6 is usual here.} 7.Qxe4 f5 8.Bb5+ c6 9.Qe5 Nf6 {Fritz thinks Qf6 is better} 10.Bc4 {Saving my bishop and turning up the heat on the black pawn} 10...Qe7 11.Ne2 {My knight is heading for f4 to block the pawn and apply more pressure on the poor white pawn at e6} 11...b5 12.Bb3 h6 13.Nf4 Rg8 14.O-O Na6 {I was expecting Nd7 putting some pressure on the white queen.  The text looks bad to me, the knight has limited possibilities} 15.Re1 {More pressure on e6.} 15...g5 16.Nxe6 {The weak pawn falls} 16...Ng4 {Fritz suggests a couple of alternatives...[16...Bxe6 17.Qxe6 Qxe6 18.Rxe6+ Kd7 19.Rxf6+- Rge8+-; 16...Ne4 17.Qxf5 Nf6 18.Qe5 Bxe6 19.Qxe6 Qxe6 20.Rxe6+ Kd7 21.Rxf6+-]} 17.Nc7+ {and black can do nothing to stop mate at e7} 17...Nxc7 18.Qxe7+ 1-0                              ---------- [Event "TH-M-1646.2"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.03.01"] [Round "?"] [White "Lafargue, Philippe"] [Black "Smith, Sid"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Bd2 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Qxd4 6.f3 Nf6 {Better here would have been 6...Bxd2 saving my bishop from what comes next} 7.c3 Qd5 8.cxb4 O-O 9.Bc3 Nxe4 10.fxe4 Qxe4+ 11.Ne2 Qh4+ 12.g3 Qe4 13.Rg1 Nc6 14.Bg2 Qe3 15.Bd4 Nxd4 16.Qxd4 {Now in a material deficit position it's time to hang on to my queen} 16...Qg5 17.h4 Qg6 18.Be4 Qg4 19.Qe5 c6 20.Rf1 Bd7 21.Rf4 Qh3 {My queen is running out of places to run to as the chase continues. Black has gained tempo and development. I want to do something with my cramped position and the trapped bishop.} 22.O-O-O Rfd8 23.Rh1 {The black queen is trapped - time to do some chasing of my own to try for an exchange.} 23...f6 24.Qd6 Be8 25.Qc5 b6 26.Qc3 Qxh1+ 27.Bxh1 Rac8 28.Nd4 e5 29.Re4 exd4 30.Rxd4 c5  31.Rxd8 Rxd8 32.bxc5 bxc5 33.Qxc5 Bf7 34.a3 Be6 35.Kc2 Rc8 36.Qxc8+ Bxc8 1/2-1/2 Sid has included a bit of personal background: Earlier this year when I came across John C. Knudsen's newsletter 'The Winawer Report' (now defunct) I thought, at risk of getting in over my head, it would be interesting to sign-up and see what it was all about. After reading the first 2 or 3 issues (there were 6 published in total before the project was shelved) and playing through the annotated game files, it was time to give it a shot. I signed up for a two game match in the IECC Thematic Challenge for the French Defense Winawer Variation.  After a short wait, I can only guess that my low rating (about 950) and the Club's principle of matching thematic opponents within a couple of hundred points held things up for a while, an opponent was found and, with the help of my new found database, the games began. With a win and a draw to my credit, I sure like the Winawer Variation.  The Winawer has a new fan and I'll be playing it every chance I get. Sid invites readers to visit his Website at www.onlinechess.ca/chesssmith where these games and others can be viewed and replayed online.                               .............. [Event "P-2855"] [Site "IEEC"] [Date "2002.4.9"] [Round "0"] [White "Schmitz, Norbert"] [Black "McGill, Derek"] [Result "0-1"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.a3 Be7 6.Nf3 b6 7.cxd5 exd5 8.e3 O-O 9.Rc1 Bb7 10.Bd3 c5 11.O-O Ne4 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Bb1 Nxc3 14.Rxc3 c4 15.Qc2 Nf6 {15...g6 16.e4 dxe4 17.Nd2 b5 18.Nxe4 Bxe4 19.Qxe4 Qxe4 20.Bxe4 Rab8} 16.Ng5 {I did not think this was a good plan.16.e4 dxe4 17.Ng5 b5 18.Re3 h6 19.Nxe4 Nxe4 20.Qe2 f5 21.f3 Rae8 22.fxe4 fxe4 23.Rxf8+ Kxf8 or (16.Ne5!?)} 16...Rfe8 {16...h6 17.Nh7 Rfe8 18.Nxf6+ Qxf6 19.Qh7+ Kf8 20.e4 (20.Qh8+ Ke7 21.Qh7 Rh8 22.Qc2 b5) 20...dxe4 21.Rxc4 Rac8 22.Rfc1 Rxc4 23.Rxc4 Bc6 24.Bxe4 Rxe4 25.f3 Rxd4} 17.f4 {17.Qf5 Bc8 18.Qf4 h6 19.Nf3 g5 20.Nxg5 hxg5 21.Qxg5+ Kf8 22.Qh6+ Kg8 23.Qg5+ Kh8 24.Qh6+ Kg8 = [17.b3 b5 18.Qb2 Reb8 (18...Rab8 19.b4 Ne4 20.Bxe4 dxe4 21.Nh3 Bd5) 19.Rd1 a5 20.bxc4 dxc4 21.Qxb5] (17.a4 a6 18.Ra3 h6 19.Nf3 Ne4 20.Ne5)} 17...Qd6 {17...h6 18.Nf3 b5 (18...Ne4 19.Ne5 [19.Nd2 Nf6 20.b3 b5 21.Qb2 Bc6 22.Nf3 a5 23.Ne5]) 19.Re1 (19.Qf2 a5 20.Ne5 b4 21.axb4 axb4 22.Rcc1 Qe6 23.Qh4 b3 24.e4 Bc6 25.Nxc6 Qxc6 26.exd5 Nxd5) [19.Qd2 a5 20.Ne5 b4 21.axb4 axb4 22.Rcc1] 19...a5 20.Qd2 b4 21.axb4 axb4 22.Rcc1 Ra5 23.Rcd1 Ng4 24.Ne5} 18.Nxh7 Ne4 19.Ng5 Nxc3 20.Qh7+ Kf8 21.bxc3 Qh6 22.Rf3?? {22.Qf5 A better move as with Q's off the board it's a black win.} 22...Qxh7 23.Nxh7+ Kg8 24.Rg3 Re6! {With 3 plans:- 1.R-h6 and Rxh7. 2.Ra-e8. 3.b6-b5 and follow up with a7-a5 R-b6 b5-b4 or Ra6} 25.Ng5 Rh6 26.Nf3 Re8 27.Ne5 b5 28.h3? Ra6 29.Bf5 Rd8 30.Bd7 Rxd7! {White now has no real threats.} 31.Nxd7 Bc8 32.Nc5 Rxa3 33.e4 b4! {because of 28.h3? WR is unguarded.} 34.exd5 b3 0-1                        .............. [Event "Swiss-431.3.09"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.10.20"] [White "Jónsson, Guðbrandur"] [Black "Coulding, Brad"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1534"] [WhiteCountry "ISL"] [BlackElo "1501"] [BlackCountry "AUS"] [Annotator "Brad Coulding"] 1.e4 c5 {Sicilian Defence.  Black avoids symmetrical positions in an attempt to generate counter-chances, while  preparing to take White's pawn if it comes to d4, and so ensuring that White will not dominate the  centre completely.} 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 {Accelerated Dragon variation.} 5.Be3 {Usually played is 5.Nc3 or 5.c4} 5...Bg7 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.Nc3 d6 8.O-O O-O 9.f3 Bd7 {Completes the structure I was aiming for, and places me out on my own in terms book play.} 10.Nxc6 Bxc6 {10... bxc6 is probably equal to the text? I chose 10...Bxc6 because a half open C file was more appealing to me.} 11.Qd2 {Preparing for Bh6 and a forced exchange of the Dragon bishop.} 11...Re8 {Avoiding such an exchange.} 12.Rad1 a6 13.Bb3 {In anticipation of ...b5.} 13...Qa5 14.Bh6 Bh8  {Keeping the Dragon bishop on the board.} 15.Ne2 Qxd2 16.Rxd2 Rac8 17.Rfd1 Nd7 {Opens a line of attack for the Dragon bishop to b2 and the plan for the d7 knight is to harass the b3 Bishop.} 18.Nd4 Nc5  {18.c3 Nc5 19.Bd5 Bxd5 20.exd5} 19.Nxc6 bxc6 {Avoiding any complications arising from 19...Rxc6 20.Bd5 Rc7} 20.Be3 {Offering the b2 pawn. 20.c3 was what I had expected, the dilemma I had now was, should I grab the pawn  or stick to the original plan?  The idea of doubled pawns for black on the on the c file after 20...Bxb2 21.Bxc5 dxc5 swayed me.} 20...Nxb3 21.cxb3 c5 {An attempt to retard white's bishop.} 22.g4 Red8 23.f4 Re8 {Indecision on where the rook is best placed.  I think having it at e8 or f8 means it is well placed to deal with any king side pawn advance.} 24.Kf2 f5 {Stopping white's pawn advance and I think showing that whites rooks are doubled on the wrong file.} 25.gxf5 gxf5 26.exf5 Rf8 27.Rg1+ Bg7 28.Kf3 {Allowing white to double the rooks on the g file while protecting the f4 pawn.} 28...Rxf5 29.Rdg2 Rf7 30.f5 Kh8 {30...Rxf5+ 31.Ke4 Rf7 32.Bh6 losing the Bishop! Or even worse is 30...Kf8 31.Rxg7 Rxg7 32.Bh6.} 31.Ke4 Rcf8 {Not as threatening to the pawn as it first appears. 32.a3 Rxf5? 33.Rxg7} 32.Rg5 Bxb2 {32...Bh6 is also appealing.} 33.h4 a5 34.Rf1 {Allows Black to advance the e pawn attacking Whites f pawn.} 34...e6 35.Rf4 d5+ {Forcing White's king to retreat.} 36.Kf3 e5 37.Bxc5 {Loses to the text 37.Bxc5 exf4 38.Bxf8 Rxf8.} 37...exf4 38.Bxf8 Rxf8 39.f6 Rxf6 40.Rxd5 Bc3 {Retaining the pawns, and swapping off the rooks leaves black with a comfortable end game.} 41.Rc5 Bb4 42.Rc8+ Kg7 43.Rc7+ Kh6 44.Rb7 Rf5 45.Kg4 Rf6 {45...f3 46.Rb6+ Kg7 47.Kxf5 f2 48.Rb7+ Kg8 49.Rb8+ Kf7 50.Rb7+ Be7 51.Ke4 f1=Q} 46.Rb5 {Letting the f pawn advance.  Better may have been 46.Kf3 Kg6 47.Rb5 Rf5} 46...f3 47.Rh5+ Kg6 48.Rg5+ Kf7 49.Rd5 f2 50.Rd7+ Kg6 51.h5+ Kh6 52.Rd1 Be1 {53.Rxe1 fxe1=Q 54.Kh3 Qe3+ 55.Kh2 Rf2+ 56.Kh1 Qe1#} 0-1                         .......... Have faith all ye low-rated players!  Even the upper echelons make clerical errors.  See below. [Event "CL2-2002.21.04"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.08.01"] [White "MacDonald, Paul"] [Black "Kirpikov, Alexander"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "2047"] [WhiteCountry "SCO"] [BlackElo "1963"] [BlackCountry "RUS"] {This is an interesting game, which is fairly level throughout, until White makes a basic error in that he types down the wrong move on move 26. Thereafter he loses a piece immediately and the game is over.} 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e4 d6 6.Nge2 f5 7.d3 Nf6 8.0-0 0-0 9.Nd5 h6 10.h3 {10.Rb1 Ne7 11.Nxf6+ Rxf6 12.d4 Qf8 13.exf5 Bxf5 14.Ra1 c6 15.Be3 Bg4 16.dxe5 dxe5 17.Bc5 Qf7 18.h3 Qxc4 19.hxg4 Qxc5 20.Qb3+ Rf7 21.Qxb7 Rd8 22.Rac1 Qa5 23.Nc3 Qb6 24.Qxb6 axb6 Suba,M-Sax,G/Moscow 1977/EU-chT/1/2-1/2 (56)} 10...Kh7 {A theoretical novelty 10....g5 and 10....Be6 have both been played beforehand; some analysis:- A) 10...g5 11.f4 (11.exf5 Bxf5 12.Be3 g4 [12...Nxd5 13.cxd5 Nb4 14.Qb3 Nxd3 15.Rad1 e4 16.Nd4 Bg6 17.Ne6 Qe7 18.f3 c5 19.dxc6 Bf7 20.fxe4 Bxe6 21.Qxd3 bxc6 22.Qxd6 Qxd6 23.Rxd6 Bxa2 24.Bd4 Rfd8 25.Rxd8+ Rxd8 26.Bxg7 Kxg7 27.Ra1 was played in Eising,J-Buecker,S/Germany 1989/GER-chT2/0-1 (39)] 13.h4 Nxd5 14.Bxd5+ Kh8 15.Qd2 Qf6 16.Bg2 Qg6 17.Rad1 a5 18.b3 Nb4 19.Nc1 Nc6 20.a3 Kh7 21.Ne2 Ne7 22.Nc3 c6 23.Rfe1 Be6 24.d4 Nf5 25.d5 Bd7 26.Be4 Rf6 27.Qd3 Kh8 28.b4 Qf7 29.dxc6 Nxe3 30.cxb7 Rf8 31.fxe3 Rf3 32.Rf1 Rxg3+ 33.Kh2 Rh3+ 34.Kg2 Rf3 35.b8Q Rxb8 36.Qxd6 Rf8 37.Rxf3 gxf3+ 38.Kf2 Qh5 39.Qg6 Qxh4+ 40.Qg3 Qe7 41.Qg6 Qh4+ 42.Qg3 Qe7 43.Nd5 Qf7 44.Rg1 axb4 45.axb4 Ra8 46.Nc3 Ra3 47.Nb1 Ra2+ 48.Kf1 Qxc4+ 0-1 O'Cinneide,M-Howell,D/Bunratty 2000/CBM 74 ext (48); 11...exf4 12.gxf4 g4 13.Nxf6+ Bxf6 14.hxg4 fxg4 15.d4 Bg7 16.Be3 h5 17.f5 h4 18.Qd2 Qe7 19.Bg5 Bf6 20.Rf4 Bxd4+ 21.Nxd4 Qxg5 22.Nxc6 bxc6 23.Raf1 Kf7 24.Qe2 Rg8 25.e5 dxe5 26.Qxe5 Qe7 27.Qd4 Qd6 28.Qxd6 cxd6 29.Bxc6 Ba6 30.Bxa8 Rxa8 31.Rxg4 Rh8 32.b3 Bb7 33.Kh2 h3 34.f6 Bg2 35.Rg7+ Ke6 36.Re7# 1-0 Egeli,P-Bergstad,O/NOR 1994/EXT 98 (36); B) 10...Be6 11.Be3 Qd7 12.Kh2 Kh7 13.Qd2 Rae8 14.Rac1 Nh5 15.f4 Nd8 16.b3 Bg8 17.exf5 gxf5 18.d4 e4 19.Ndc3 c6 20.d5 c5 21.a3 Nf6 22.b4 b6 23.Rb1 Bf7 24.Nb5 Bh5 25.Nc1 Kraschl,J-Feistenauer,F/Austria 1997/CBM 57 ext/0-1 (48)} 11.Be3 Be6 12.exf5 Bxf5 13.d4 Re8 14.Rc1 exd4 15.Nxd4 Nxd4 16.Bxd4 c6 {We've arrived at a typical modern position in the English Opening. The sort of position from which I've had some success in over the board games and which I've just began to try out in correspondence and e-mail tournaments. White now tries to activate his Knight, but Black's bold pawn push sends it back to a less threatening position and assures the second-player of equality.} 17.Nf4 g5 18.Ne2 Qe7 19.Re1 Qf7 20.b3 d5 21.cxd5 Nxd5 22.Bxg7 Qxg7 23.Bxd5 Rad8 24.Nd4 Rxe1+ 25.Qxe1 Rxd5 26.Rd1?? {A beginner's error, which deserves to lose immediately. I had intended to play [26.Nxf5 Rxf5 27.Rd1= (27.Qe4= was my opponent's suggestion and is dead equal too.} 26...Rxd4 {No reason to play on now. The Knight is gone, as is the game.} 0-1                         ................ [Event "T6609W  Team Match"] [Site "IECC-66 vs. Linach-1"] [Date 2002.11.22] [White "Taylor, Terry."] [Black "Barria , Emilio."] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C40 "] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Nxe5 {Marshall.I,/Taylor.T.J. BFCC Championship Preliminary (P521) 2001-02 3.ef Nc6!? 4.d4 ed 5.Nd4 Nf6 6.Nc6 dc6 7.Qd8+ Kd8 8.Bd3 Bb4+ 9.c3 Re8+ 10.Kf1 Bc5 11.Bg5 Ke7 12.Nd2 Kf7 13.Bf6 gf6 14.g4 b5 15.Bc2 Bb6 16.Bb3+ Kg7 17.Re1 Bb7 18.Re8 Re8 19.Be6 c5 20.Rg1 c4 +/= 0-1 (46) } 3...Nc6!? {3...Nf6 has also been tried here but with less success than the time honoured move 3...Qf6 which has proved very successful for me with the black pieces in many games. Ling.A.J./Taylor.T.J. British Veterans Championship 2002 3.Qf6 4.d4 d6 5.Nc4 fxe4 6.Nc3 Qg6 7.f3 exf3  8.Qxf3 Nc6 ef  8.Qf3 Nc6 9.Bd3 Qg4 10.Qe3+ Be7 11.0-0 Nf6 12.d5 Nb4 13.Rf4 Nbxd5 14.Rg4 Ne3 15.Rg7 Nc4 16.Bc4 h6 17.Nb5 d5 18.Nxc7+ Kf8 19.Rg6 dxc4 20.Rxh6 Rg8 +/= 21.Nxa8 Kg7 22.Rh4 Ng4 23.Rh5 Kg6! 24.Rb5 Bd7 25.Rb7?! Bc5+ 26.Kf1 Nxh2+ 27.Ke1 Re8+ 28.Kd2 Bc8! 29.Rc7 Bb4+ 30.c3 Nf1+ 31.Kd1 Bg4+ 32. Kc2 Re2+ 33.Kd1 Ba5 34.Rxc4 Re4+ 35.Kc2 Rxc4 36.Bh6 Bf5+ 37.Kb3 Be6 38.Kc2 Kxh6 39.Rxf1 Kg5 40.Re1 Kf6 41.Rf1+ Ke7 42.a3 Rc8 43.b4 Bd8 44.a4 Rxa8 45.resigns 0-1} 4.Qh5+ g6 5.Nxg6 Nf6 6.Qh3 Rg8!?   {more usual is 6...hg6 7.Qh8} 7.Nxf8 Kxf8 8.e5 Nxe5 9.Nc3 Qe7 {threatening mate if 10.Qxf5?? Nf3+ 11.Kd1 Qe1#} 10.Be2 Nc6 11.d3 Rg6 12.Bh6+ Kg8 13.O-O-O d5 14.d4 Ne4 15.Nxe4 {certainly not 15.Nxd5 Qf7 16.Bc4 Be6 17.Nxc7 Bxc4 18.Nxa8 Nxf2+=} 15...fxe4 16.Qh5 Be6 17.Rhg1 Qf6 18.Be3 Rf8 19.Kb1 Bf7 20.c3 Na5 21.Rde1 Qc6 22.Qh4 Re8 {22.Nc4 23.Bg5+ +-} 23.Bc1 {23.Bh6 Rf6 24.Bg5 Rxf2 25.Qxf2 Bxh5 +-} 23... Nc4 24.f3 Rge6 25.Ka1 b5 26.Qg3+ Rg6 27.Qh3 Rge6 {27.Be6 28.Qh4 Nd6 29.fxe4 dce4 30.Bh5 +-} 28.Rd1 a5 {slightly better might be 28.e3!? +/-} 29.fxe4 dxe4?? {a dreadful blunder but the game is already lost, better might have been 29.b4 30.e5 etc.,} 30.d5 Qc5 31.dxe6 Bxe6 32.Bxc4 Qxc4 {if only.?} 33.Qg3+ {mate is on my horizon} 33...Kh8 34.b3! Qc5 35.c4  1-0                              .......... [Event "O-1429"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.10.03"] [White "Marques, Tiago"] [Black "Garcia, Sonny"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [WhiteElo "1050"] [WhiteCountry "POR"] [BlackElo "1135"] [BlackCountry "PHI"] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 {3.Nc3 its another good choice} 3...dxe4  {there are others stronger moves for black such as 3...c5 or 3...Nc6} 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Qd3 Nxe4 8.Bxe7! Qxe7 9.Qxe4 Nf6 10.Qe2 {This enable 10.0-0-0 and makes impossible 0-0. To enable 0-0 it would be better Qe3 but the queen would be in a weaker position} O-O 11.O-O-O b6 12.Qe5 a5 13.Bd3 Bb7 {since the move 13 the white are a little bit passive which takes to the final result} 14.c4 Bxf3 15.gxf3 a4 16.Rde1 Ra5 17.Qf4 a3 18.Re3 axb2+ 19.Kb1 Qa3 20.Bxh7+! Nxh7 21.Rxa3 Rxa3 22.Re1 Rfa8 23.Qxc7 Rxa2 24.Re2 R2a6 25.Rxb2 Nf6 26.Rxb6 Ra1+ 27.Kc2 R1a2+ 28.Rb2 R2a7 29.Rb8+ Kh7 30.Qf4 Ra2+ 1/2-1/2                            .............. [Event "T6623W"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.11.21"] [White "Kerekes, Jozef"] [Black "Cortes, Ricardo"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "2289"] [WhiteCountry "YUG"] [Annotator "Kerekes, Jozef"] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Bd7 4.Bxd7 Qxd7 5.O-O Nc6 6.c3 Nf6 7.d4 Nxe4 {7...cxd4 8.cxd4 d5 9.e5 Ne4 1O.Ne1 h6 12.Be3 e6 13.Nd3 Be7 14.Qg4 Bg5!} 8.d5 Nd8 9.Re1 f5 {9...Nf6 1O.Bg5 e6 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Nh4 Bg7 13.Nd2 O-O 14.Nc4 Rc8 15.Qh5!±} 10.Nbd2 Nf6 11.Nc4 b5 12.Na5 g6 {Qc7!?} 13.a4 bxa4 14.Ng5 Bg7 15.c4 O-O 16.Ne6 Nxe6 17.Rxe6 Rac8 {17...Rfc8!18. Qxa4 Qxa4 19.Rxa4 Kf7 2O.Re2 Re8 21.Nc6 a6 22.Kf1 Nd7 Ra3 Ne5!} 18.Qxa4 {Rxa4 =} Qxa4 19.Rxa4 Kf7 20.Re2 Rc7 21.Ra3 Nd7 22.Bf4 Bf6 23.Nc6 Rb7 24.b3 a6 25.Rxa6 Rxb3 26.g4 Rb7? {26...fxg4 27.Bxd6 exd6 28.Ra7 Rc3! 29.Rxd7 Kg8 3O.Rxd6 Rxc4 31.Rde6 Kg6 =} 27.g5 Be5 28.Bxe5 Nxe5 29.Nxe5 dxe5 30.Rxe5 Rc8 31.Kg2 Rcc7 32.h4 Rb4 33.Rc6 Rxc6 34.dxc6 Rb8 35.Kf3 Rc8 {35...e6 36.Rxc5 Ke7 37.Ke3 Kd6 38.Kd4 Rc8 39.f4 Ra8 4O.c7Rc8 41.Ra5 Rxc7 42.c5+Kd7 43.Ra6 Ke7 44.Rd6 Rc8 45.Kc4 Rc7 46.Kb5 + -} 36.Rxc5 e5 37.Rxe5 Rxc6 38.c5 Ra6 39.h5 1-0                                  ......... [Event "CL6-2002.27.10"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.09.20"] [Round "-"] [White "Hulse, David"] [Black "Van Gimst, Herman"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "1244"] [BlackElo "1150"] [WhiteCountry "ENG"] [BlackCountry "NLD"] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be2 e5 7.Nb3 Nc6 8.Bg5 Be7 9.O-O O-O 10.Qd2 Be6 11.Rfd1 b5 12.Bxf6 Bxf6 {Satisfied with the opening with only the bishop on f6 to worry about.} 13.Nd5 Bg5 14.Qe1 Rc8 15.c3 {c3 to keep the black knight from good squares.} 15...g6 { ....surprised me.} 16.Ne3 {opening the file for the rook and blocking off the bishop and with my e pawn attacking two vital squares.} 16...Ne7 17.Bg4 f5 { With the knight going behind looking for good squares I decided to attack for the first time. And after being surprised by ...g6 was even more surprised by ..f5.} 18.exf5 gxf5 {I thought taking with his g pawn was the wrong choice by black } 19.Bh5 f4 20.Ng4 Nf5 {Black moving forward forgetting that his d pawn is pinned by the rook.} 21.Nxe5 {This ruins blacks pawn structure and I suppose wins the game. } 21...Ng7 22.Bf3 Qb6 23.Nd3 Rfe8 24.Qd2 Rc4 {Another surprise attacking move. With the rook up to defend his f pawn.} 25.Nd4 {Simply cutting off his defensive line. With perhaps b3 forcing the rook to retreat whence it came!} 25...Bf7 26.Re1 Ne6 27.b3 Rxd4 {The obvious b3 yet black has an obsession to defend the f pawn as he swaps a rook for a knight.!! } 28.cxd4 Qxd4 29.Rad1 Bg6 {With his e pawn gone and blacks desire to defend his f pawn the game was lost. IMHO} 30.Qb4 1-0                                  .......... [Event "TH-M-1822.1"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.08.15"] [White "Hoefer, Hans-Peter"] [Black "Corbat, Philippe"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "2040"] [WhiteCountry "GER"] [BlackElo "2008"] [BlackCountry "SWZ"] 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6.c4 {6.O-O is the main variation but Hans-Peter was confident enough to keep his king in the middle} 6...Nb6 7.exd6 cxd6 8.Nbd2 Nc6 9.h3 {b3 and O-O are alternatives} 9...Bh5 10.Qb3 {probably a novelty. O-O and b3 have been played.} 10...Be7 {as always when somebody is taking me out of the theory, I try to achieve my development, so Be7 seemed logical to me. But something's wrong with this move because it is losing a pawn.} 11.d5 {as I was wondering how Hans-Peter would bring his black bishop in the game, I have been astonished by this move.} 11...exd5 {11...Bxf3 [would have kept the pawn but white has a rather clear positional advantage] 12.Nxf3 exd5 13.cxd5 Ne5} 12.cxd5 Ne5 {12...Nb8 [with the idea N8d7-Nc5 seemed too slow to my eyes]} 13.Nxe5 Bxe2 14.Nxf7 Kxf7 15.Kxe2 Bf6 16.f3 {a surprise for me. I would have played Nf3.} 16...Re8+ 17.Ne4 Nd7 {what else ?} 18.Be3 Nc5 19.Bxc5 dxc5 {now Hans-Peter is the only one with an isolated pawn but I will be stupid enough to change this fact ...} 20.Rhc1 Bd4 21.Kf1 Rxe4  {a decisive mistake 21. ... b6 had to be played with some chances to draw} 22.fxe4 Qf6+ 23.Qf3 {of course not 23.Ke2 Qf2+ 24.Kd1 (24. Kd3 is giving black a better game) 24...Qe3+ 25.Kc2 Qxe4+ 26.Qd3 Qxg2+ 27.Qd2 Qxd5 (24...Qf1+ 25.Kc2 Qxg2+ 26.Kb1 Qxe4+ 27.Qc2 Qxc2+ 28.Kxc2 Rd8 (looks like a draw)} 23...Bxb2 24.Rab1 Bxc1 25.Rxc1 Re8 26.Kg1 {26.Rxc5 [was the only variation I saw while playing 21....Rxe4] 26...Rxe4 27.Rc7+ Kg6 28. Qxf6+ Kxf6 29. Rxb7 Ra4} 26...Qxf3 27.gxf3 b6 28.Kf2 Re5 {I should better have resigned now because Hans-Peter is not the kind of guy to miss the win in such a position.} 29.h4 Ke7 30.Rg1 Kf7 31.Re1 Rh5 32.Kg3 Ke7 33.e5 Rf5 34.f4 g6 35.Re3 Rf7 36. h5 c4 37.hxg6 hxg6 38.Kg4 b5 39.Ra3 Ke8 40.Ra6 c3 41.Rc6 b4 42.Rc8+ Ke7 43.Ra8 1-0                                 ............. [Event "KO-4008.1.2"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.07.16"] [White "Hoefer, Hans-Peter"] [Black "Kachkin, Konstantin"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [WhiteElo "2038"] [WhiteCountry "GER"] [BlackElo "2178"] [BlackCountry "RUS"] [Annotator "Konstantin Kachkin"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 a6 5.Nf3 b5 6.c5 g6 {6...Bg4 Main line. For example, 7.b4 Nbd7 8.a4 e5 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Bb2 Bxf3 11.gxf3 Nc4 12.Bxc4 bxc4 13.Rg1 Rb8 14.b5 axb5 15.axb5 cxb5 16.Ra7 Bxc5 Volkov,S-Van Wely,L/Panormo 2002/0-1} 7.Ne5 Bg7 8.Be2 {8.Bd3 0-0 9.0-0 Ne8 10.f4 f6 11.Nf3 Bg4 12.Ne2 Nd7 13.e4 e5 with difficult game. Popelka,J-Svobodova,M/Tatranska Lomnica 1997/1-0} 8...0-0 9.0-0 Nfd7 {[ 9...Ne8!?]} 10.Nd3 e5 11.a4 {11.dxe5 Nxe5 12.e4 d4 13.Nxe5 Bxe5 ( 13...dxc3 14.Nd3 Qe7) 14.f4 Bg7 (14...dxc3 15.fxe5 Qxd1 16.Rxd1 Nd7) 15.Nb1 Nd7} 11...Bb7 {11...exd4 12.exd4 Bxd4 13.axb5 Nxc5 14.Nb4} 12.axb5 axb5 13.Rxa8 Bxa8 14.Nb4 Qa5 15.Nc2 b4 16.Nb1 Qa4 17.Nd2 {With idea 18.b3 and 19. Bd2 and counterplay on a diagonal a1-h8} 17...b3 18.Ne1 exd4 19.Nxb3 dxe3 20.Bxe3 Bxb2 {Black have won a pawn, but the position white is strong} 21.Nf3 Na6 22.Bxa6 Qxa6 23.Bd4 Bxd4 24.Qxd4 Re8 25.Rc1 f6 {25...Re4!?} 26.Qc3 Ne5 27.Nxe5 fxe5 28.Re1 Qa4 29.Rxe5 Rxe5 30.Qxe5 1/2-1/2                             .......... [Event "M-4374.2"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.06.14"] [White "Hughes, Dave"] [Black "Mantyla, Risto"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [WhiteElo "2088"] [WhiteCountry "ENG"] [BlackElo "2068"] [BlackCountry "FIN"] [Annotator "Risto Mantyla"] 1.c4 Nf6 2.d4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 O-O 6.Nf3 e5 7.dxe5 dxe5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8 9.Bg5 c6 10.Nxe5 Re8 11.O-O-O Na6 12.f4 {Korchnoi-Kasparov, Tilburg 1991 12.Rd6 Be6 13.f4 h6 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Rhd1 Bxe5 16.fxe5 Rac8 17.Kd2 Re7 18.Ke3 Rce8 19.Rd8 Kf8 20.h4 Nc5 21.Rxe8 Rxe8 22.b4 Nd7 23.Kf4 Ke7 24.Nd5 cxd5 25.cxd5 Rc8 26.dxe6 fxe6 27.Rd2 Rf8+ 1/2-1/2} 12...h6 13.Bxf6 {According to Nunn's Chess Openings Black is slightly better after 13.Bh4 g5} 13...Bxf6 14.a3 Nc5 15.b4 {Prevents 15...a7-a5 followed by 16. ... a4. } 15...Ne6 {15...Bxe5 16.fxe5 Nd7 =} 16.g3 Nf8 {Now white stands better. A better try is [16...g5] with an unclear position.} 17.Rd6 Bxe5 18.fxe5 Bh3 {Another weak move. The Bishop gets into a trouble. Why not 18...Rxe5 instead?} 19.g4 Rxe5 20.Rg1 Ne6 {20...Nh7 21.Rg3 Ng5 22. Rdd3 or 20...h5 21.gxh5 and White is much better.} 21.Rxe6 Rxe6 22.Rg3 Bxg4 23.Bxg4 Rd6 {With a Knight and a Bishop for a Rook and a pawn White has the better changes.} 24.c5 Rd4 25.Kc2 a5 {To open the a-file for Black's Rooks and exchange a pair of pawns. If all the Queen-side pawns are exchanged, Black has an easier task to save the game. Still a simple [25...Rad8] might have been safer.} 26.Kb3 axb4 27.axb4 {Now Black has to decide how to conduct the defence. Eventually White's Knight will get to d6 and put pressure on Black's b- and f pawns and restrict the mobility of Black's Rooks. In addition there is a danger that White finds a way to safely advance his e-pawn and transfer the Bishop to a8-h1 diagonal. White can then choose between two possibilites: (i) b4-b5 followed with b5xc6 and Black's c-pawn gets weak or (ii) force an exchange of one the minor pieces against Black's remaining Queen-side pawns and push White's b- and c-pawns forward.} 27...Kg7 {Black decides to move his King a little closer to the centre and the transfer the Rook from a8 to e5 and block White's e-pawn physically.} 28.Be2 Re8 29.h3 Re5 30.Bd3 h5 31.Ne2 Rd7 32.Kc3 Kf6 33.Rf3+ Kg7 34.Nd4 Rg5 {After the strange-looking Kg7-f6-g7 manouver, Black's Rook can now use g-file, if necessary, to get behind White's lines: 35.Kc4 Rg1 36.e5 Re1} 1/2-1/2                                     ......... [Event "CL4-2002.04.06"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.01.29"] [White "Wurm, Tamas"] [Black "Thomas, Gerald K."] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1624"] [WhiteCountry "HUN"] [BlackElo "1614"] [BlackCountry "USA"] [ECO "B04"] 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6  {Alekhin's defense B04}  4.Nf3 dxe5 5.Nxe5 g6 6.Qf3 f6 7.Bc4 c6 {7....fxe5? 8.Bxd5 +=}  8.Nd3 Bg7 9.O-O e6 10.Re1 O-O 11.Nf4 {Mistake. It loses a pawn. White should develop queen-side instead. After 11.c3 white could move 12.Nf4} 11...Nxf4 12.Bxf4 Qxd4 13.Bxe6+ Bxe6 14.Rxe6 Qxb2 15.Qb3 Qxb3 {15...Qxa1 16.Re1+ Kh8 17.Qxb7 Na6 18.Qxa6} 16.axb3 f5 17.Ra2 Kf7 18.Re1 Nd7 19.c4 a6 20.Rae2 Rfe8 21.Kf1 {21.f3 and black knight can not move to e4} 21...Nc5 22.b4 Ne4 23.f3 Nc3 24.Nxc3 Bxc3 25.Rb1 Rxe2 26.Kxe2 Rd8 {Good move. It does not allow white king to go to queen side}  27.b5 {27.Rb3 seems to be better. Black has to withdraw with bishop, then white could move 28.Rd3} 27...axb5 28.cxb5 c5 29.b6 Ra8 30.Rc1 Re8+ 31.Kd3 Bd4 32.Rc2 Ra8 33.Re2 Ra3+ 34.Kc4 Ra4+ 35.Kd5 Rb4 36.Bc7 {Big mistake. It loses immediately. 36.Bd6! and black can not defend pawn on c5. With Bd6 white could hold draw, because Re7+ is threating} 36...Bg1 37.Kd6 Rd4+ 38.Kxc5 Rd2+   0-1                               .......... [Event "TH-M-1868.2"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.10.19"] [White "Marcotulli, Giancarlo"] [Black "Rouzaud, Philippe"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "2271"] [WhiteCountry "ITA"] [BlackElo "2190"] [BlackCountry "FRA"] [Annotator "Philippe Rouzaud"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 {The Latvian gambit. My personal opinion on this variation is that it doesn't equalize with black but taking the advantage is not easy } 3.Bc4 {3.Nxe5, 3.d4, 3.Nc3 and 3.exf5 are the others serious tries} 3...fxe4 4.Nxe5 d5 5.Qh5+ g6 6.Nxg6 hxg6 {6...Nf6 is also played } 7.Qxh8 {after 7.Qxg6+ Kd7 ! white has 3 pawns for the piece and the black king seems in danger... but seems only ! } 7...Kf7 8.Qd4 Be6 9.Bb3 Nc6 10.Qe3 Bh6 11.Qc5 Nge7 12.Nc3 b6 13.Qb5 {This position had been played one time and the player with black chose 13.Qa3 ? a bad square. Giancarlo Marcotulli played a move clearly stronger} 13...Nd4 14.Qf1 Nec6 15.Nb5 Nxb3 16.axb3 a6 17.Nc3 Nd4 18.Kd1 {Probably a critical position : if black must find some activity it is now or never. Unfortunately, it was... never ! I didn't succeed to find something strong in this position but is there something?} 18...Bf5 19.Ne2 Qf6 20.Nxd4 Qxd4 { Now, White is probably winning } 21.c3 Qf6 22.d4 exd3 23.Bxh6 g5 24.f3 Qxh6 25.Qf2 c5 26.g4 Bg6 27.b4 Qh3 {with a desperate position I try my last chance} 28.bxc5 bxc5 29.Ra5 Re8 30.Rxc5 Re2 31.Rc7+ Kg8 32.Qd4 Rd2+ {the last hope : if 33.Kxd2 Qg2+ and black mates }    33.Kc1 1-0                                 ........ [Event "P-3184"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.11.13"] [White "Ryan, Steve"] [Black "Wozniak, Zbigniew"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1441"] [WhiteCountry "CAN"] [BlackElo "1553"] [BlackCountry "POL"] [Annotator "Steve Ryan"] 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 c5 3.Bg2 d5 4.O-O Nc6 5.d3 Bg4 6.Nbd2 e6 7.c3 Bd6 8.Qc2 O-O 9.b3 {9...c4 10.bxc4 dxc4 11.Nxc4  or 9...d4 10.cxd4 cxd4 11.Nxc4} 9...b5 10.Bb2 Rc8 11.c4 {attempting to open the long diagonal for the B but it gave Zbigniew a good place to move his N} 11...Nb4 12.Qb1 bxc4 13.dxc4 d4 {I now have a pawn on "my turf"} 14.a3 Nc6 15.e3 {15...dxe3 16.fxe3} 15...Bf5 16.e4 {establishing a deliberate pin on the Q.  I now wanted to see if I could place the p on the e5 square and fork the N & B. This obsession (with which I persisited) allowed Zbigniew an irresistible attack.} 16...Bg6 17.Re1 a5 18.Qd1 Bh5 19.Bh3? Ne5 20.Qe2 Qb6 21.a4 Nxf3+ 22.Nxf3 Qxb3 23.Ra3 Qb4 24.e5 Bxe5 25.Qxe5 Qxb2 26.Rd3 Qc2 27.Red1 Bxf3 0-1 [Event "P-3184"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.11.13"] [White "Ryan, Steve"] [Black "Wozniak, Zbigniew"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1441"] [WhiteCountry "CAN"] [BlackElo "1553"] [BlackCountry "POL"] [Annotator "Tunc Hammarat"] 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 c5 3.Bg2 d5 4.O-O Nc6 5.d3 Bg4 6.Nbd2 e6 7.c3 {I used this system in lightning games, when I was young ! At this point I prefer 7.h3} 7...Bd6 8.Qc2 {This move is new to me, I cannot say whether it is good or bad} 8...O-O 9.b3 b5 {I like this move gaining space in the queen side. White has no opening advantage} 10.Bb2 Rc8 {10... e5 is also possible} 11.c4 {Now it is time to try 11.a4!. Therefore I am not sure that blacks 10. move is the best} 11...Nb4 12.Qb1 {I have the feeling that white just pushes the figures without having a plan, still whites position is playable but the queen has better places than b1} 12...bxc4 13.dxc4 ? {No! White should play 13.bxc4 having only slight disadvantage 13...Rb8 than is not so dangerous as it looks like} 13...d4 14.a3 Nc6 15.e3 Bf5 16.e4 Bg6 17.Re1 a5 18.Qd1 Bh5 19.Bh3 ? {What is this ? I dont understand this move ! Now black has a big advantage} 20...Ne5 20.Qe2? {Again a bad move 21.Bf1 should be tried here allthough black stays much better} 20...Qb6 21.a4? {Terrible play by white 21.Rab1 or Bg2 should be tried} 21...Nxf3+ {White's position is lost and the rest of the game is no more interesting} 22.Nxf3 Qxb3 23.Ra3 Qb4 24.e5 Bxe5 25.Qxe5 Qxb2 26.Rd3 Qc2 27.Red1 Bxf3 0-1 {White chose a system which he really didn't understand. He played without a plan and making remarkable big mistakes considering his ELO! But one can not play every game well ..} [Event "P-3184"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2002.11.13"] [White "Ryan, Steve"] [Black "Wozniak, Zbigniew"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1441"] [WhiteCountry "CAN"] [BlackElo "1553"] [BlackCountry "POL"] [Annotator "Zbigniew Wozniak"] 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.g3 c5 3.Bg2 d5 4.O-O Nc6 5.d3 Bg4 6.Nbd2 {better 6.c4 e6 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Nc3 Be7 9.Qb3 Qd7 10.e4 O-O-O 11.Bf4} 6...e6 7.c3 {better 7.c4} 7...Bd6 8.Qc2 O-O 9.b3 b5 10.Bb2 Rc8 11.c4 {interested 11.e4} 11...Nb4 12.Qb1 bxc4 13.dxc4 d4 14.a3 Nc6 15.e3 Bf5 16.e4 Bg6 17.Re1 a5 18.Qd1 Bh5 19.Bh3 {better 19.Qc2}  19...Ne5 20.Qe2 {more intresting for white 20.Bf1 a4 21.bxa4 Rb8 22.Rb1 Qa5 23.Be2 Bxf3 24.Nxf3 Nxe4 25.Nxe5} 20...Qb6 21.a4 {belonged to play 21.Bg2} 21...Nxf3+ 22.Nxf3 Qxb3 23.Ra3 Qb4 24.e5 {24.Rb1 Be7 25.Qc2 Bxf3 26.Rxf3 and adventage black's is no great} 24...Bxe5 25.Qxe5 Qxb2 26.Rd3 Qc2 27.Red1 Bxf3  {and white resigned} 0-1          Next Edtion of Chess Bits: On or about 2003 April 15