The International E-Mail Chess Club Journal Issue #7 May 2000 IECC Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Midfield/1264/ Editor: Steve Ryan (ryansc@granite.mb.ca) Technical Assistance & Moral Support: Tina Stanton & Tim Nagley Proofreading: Ed Boyd Contributors to this issue: David Glew, Gertjan de Vries, Junior Tay, Giancarlo Marcotulli, Dirk de Leeuw, Zafer Djabri, Sasha Goldshtein, Martin Klubeck, Ben Stoffers Table of Contents Author A Message from the CEO David Glew From the Editor's Desk Steve Ryan Welcome to New Members Dirk de Leeuw NAME THE JOURNAL CONTEST Steve Ryan Chess Supplies Have You Ever Kissed a Girl? Silicon Saboteur The Arbiter's Column Sasha Goldshtein Klubeck On War - reprint Martin Klubeck A Note on Time Keeping Steve Ryan Games Section Journal Volunteers Wanted Rumor & Gossip Silicon Saboteur A Note of Thanks Ben Stoffers -------------------------------------------------------------------- A Message From The CEO David Glew I am pleased to have been asked to write an introductory message for the re-launch of the IECC Journal. The Journal has always been well received by our members and I am sure you will be glad to see it revived, but it takes a great deal of time and effort on the part of a lot of people to put it together so if you can help, please contact our editor Steve Ryan . Remember this is your Journal, so tell us what you like and also what you don't like. Only then can the editorial staff offer you the Journal you want. Finally I would like to thank all concerned with the compilation of this issue and particularly to Steve for going out on a limb and deciding to revive the magazine with no staff and nothing to publish. He has done a remarkable job in a short space of time and I sincerely hope the Journal will go on from strength to strength. ---------------------------------------------------------------- FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK The Journal Lives Again! We hope you enjoy our modest (re)start. A small group of members has decided to revive the venerable old IECC journal, albeit with a somewhat different philosophy than previous editions. Ferrinstance: - We would like to publish 4 issues per year, at least to start, but probably with 6 issues per year as our upper limit. Most of the journal staff have other duties within the IECC and we all have games to play. You can look for another edition approximately 3 months from now, with a gradual switch over to a January, April, July and October schedule. We do not plan on having a journal posted on any web site. You will receive it solely by e-mail. - The journal will retain many of the traditional features common to chess journals the world over, such as a games section. I want to state, for the record regarding the games section, that we will do our best to provide you with error-free game scores that you can play over at your leisure, BUT, errors will inevitably occur. We ask for your understanding. - We WANT, NEED and BEG FOR --- YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. In spite of what it may seem like from the Table of Contents, I do not intend to make this journal a "one-man show". Book reviews welcome. Biographies welcome. Interesting chess web sites welcome. Letters to the editor most welcome (warning -they will all get published eventually so don't say anything you don't want to see in print!). Chess suppliers welcome. Interesting chess stories/anecdotes/humor welcome. Vivid descriptions of your strangest "chess dream" welcome. Chess problems/quizzes welcome. Games welcome (see below). Hints on how to beat Tim Nagley in the Colle System extremely welcome! I think you can see the trend here - just about anything related to chess in general or CC in particular (and within the bounds of good taste, naturally) welcome, welcome, welcome. - Regarding journal submissions: We can accept submissions in E-MAIL TEXT ONLY. No diagrams, attached files, photos or anything of that sort. I will have to return anything submitted in something other than e-mail text for you to recopy . You may submit either annotated or non-annotated games, but annotations, of course, provide a greater depth. To ease the workload a bit for the journal staff, send your games in PGN notation. IECC policy does not permit the publication of games incompatible with PGN "readers". Also, please read over your submission prior to sending them to me and check for errors. If you find none, please check again for those you missed. JOURNAL STAFF VOLUNTEER POSITIONS AVAILABLE. See below. I will publish your letter/article/game as soon as I can, but patience please! Some members may have also submitted a biography that never got published. We invite you to submit a second updated version as you have all surely gone on to further accomplishments, brilliant victories and astounding novel new lines. Thanks go to TINA STANTON & TIM NAGLEY, two former journal editors, for much help and advice without which I could not have even attempted this revival. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome to New Members by Dirk de Leeuw The IECC welcomes the following new members who have joined over the period 2000 March 01 - April 15: Vescunias Tomas 1-Mar Lithuania Christian Donovan 1-Mar England Taffijn Aad 1-Mar Netherlands Hayles Andy 1-Mar United States Rottman Joe 1-Mar United States Ivarsson Benedikt 1-Mar Iceland Corvi Marco 2-Mar Italy Dufour Michael 2-Mar Canada O Hare Mike 2-Mar United States Karlsson Eric 3-Mar Sweden Coyne David 5-Mar England d'Elia Michele 5-Mar Belgium Fyhn Karsten 6-Mar Denmark Carroll Robert 7-Mar United States Ozturk Serdar 7-Mar Turkey Alyamkin Aleksey 7-Mar Russia Williams John 9-Mar New Zealand Tafner Edson 9-Mar Brasil Gresham Kevin 9-Mar United States Zvidra Aivars 9-Mar Latvia Bieker Peter 9-Mar Germany Maye Jean 9-Mar Switzerland Gibson Jason 9-Mar Australia Biero$ski Wuodzimierz 9-Mar Poland Kanagy Ronald 10-Mar United States McCann Jack 10-Mar Ireland Wetterskoog Joakim 12-Mar Sweden Gannon Nirvana 12-Mar Australia Jabot Daniel 14-Mar France Russell Gary 14-Mar United States Horka Steve 14-Mar United States Zuidema Peter 15-Mar Netherlands Heller Roland 15-Mar Germany Barras Pedro 15-Mar Spain Greene Robert 16-Mar United States Vidmar Ivi 16-Mar Slovenia Ausan Leo Tito jr 16-Mar Phillipines Sveinsson Jon 16-Mar Iceland Williams John 17-Mar United States Bancroft David 17-Mar United States Vorobiev Alexander 18-Mar Russia Johansson Anders 18-Mar Sweden Silva Mauro 18-Mar Brasil Cronk Harold 19-Mar United States Governatori Guido 20-Mar Australia Che Tai 20-Mar Canada Denny Brian 22-Mar Kuwait Kroonstuiver Gerard 22-Mar Netherlands Coelho Jose 22-Mar Portugal Lopez Antonio 22-Mar Spain Meservy Ty 23-Mar United States Hagelstein Daniel 24-Mar Romania Batista Helena 24-Mar Brasil Peterson Eric 25-Mar United States Jalyl Ahmed 27-Mar Maldives Valade Patrick 27-Mar France Sefton Rodger 29-Mar England Weller Torsten 29-Mar Germany Etemadi Pour Ramin 29-Mar Iran Harper Adrian 30-Mar Switzerland Potter Carolyn 30-Mar England Simonis Bart 1-Apr Netherlands Morello Stefano 1-Apr Italy Lopez Vicente 2-Apr Mexico Borup John 3-Apr Denmark De Baenst Bruno 3-Apr Belgium Tidey Bruce 4-Apr New Zealand Hardani Wibi 4-Apr Indonesia van Vuuren Mark 4-Apr South-Africa Stanley Dianne 5-Apr New Zealand Fuentes Javier 5-Apr United States Jones Dorothy 5-Apr United States Wirthner-Worms Marlene 5-Apr Paraguay Sanchez Carol Jesus 6-Apr Spain del Castillo Diego 6-Apr Venezuela Galdeano Inyaki 6-Apr Spain Lee Hanxue 7-Apr Malaysia MacDonald Jim 7-Apr Scotland Nuttman Stephanie 9-Apr United States Potter Harry 9-Apr United States Messer John 9-Apr United States Muller Hanspeter 10-Apr Australia Mironov Anton 12-Apr Estonia Strickland James 12-Apr United States 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. ---------------------------------------------------------------- NAME THE JOURNAL CONTEST One good way to get a fresh start with our journal involves giving it a new name. Hence, a NTJ contest. We can't offer you any prize other than the honour of having your entry selected as the winner. Read on for the rules. *Think of a new name for the IECC journal. You may wish to consider something entirely novel, humorous, serious, or perhaps something reflecting the IECC philosophy of friendly play, what you like best about the IECC, CC in general or any other related topic. You have a wide-open field here. *ONE entry per member. *The contest begins with the distribution of this issue. *To avoid having to read 2500 + e-mails, I must restrict entry to the first 100 names received by the contest closing date May 15th 2000. *All IECC members may participate. *If a duplicate entry wins, the first one submitting that name will have the honor of having his/her entry selected. *Send your entry to Steve Ryan (ryansc@granite.mb.ca) with "NTJ Contest" in the "Subject" line. *The first 100 names, or those received by May 15th, will go to a judging panel consisting of all the contributors to this issue, who will select their top 5 choices. This panel will then do elimination voting until we decide a winner. GOOD LUCK TO ALL ------------------------------------------------------------- Chess Supplies From time-to-time the journal will feature a price list of chess supplies available from various sources. All members should realize that we do so entirely on a NON-PARTISAN basis solely as a service to our members. The IECC has no commercial connection whatsoever with any suppliers mentioned and does not endorse anyone (including current or former IECC members) in any manner by printing these lists. The purchase by IECC members, or anyone else, of chess supplies from any source listed in this column remains a commercial transaction between the purchaser and the supplier ONLY. The IECC will not become involved in, and accepts no responsibility for, any dispute arising between the purchaser and the supplier. Caveat Emptor. If you know of a good source for chess supplies, invite them to contact the editor for more information on "advertising" in our journal. --------------------------------------------------- Have You Ever Kissed a Girl ? (some chess humor by...) The Silicon Saboteur Those of you "chronologically advanced" may remember a skit with Bill Shatner (aka Captain Kirk) that appeared on "Saturday Night Live" (if I remember correctly) that dealt with the title above. In this skit, Shatner attended a mock Star Trek convention as the guest of honor. After his keynote speech, he agreed to take questions from the audience. The audience, consisting entirely of young male "geeks" proceeded to bombard him with increasingly inane and frivolous questions about Star Trek episodes of "20 years ago". Shatner's anger builds to the breaking point. He then starts to berate the audience about their lifestyles and obsessions with something so trivial. "Get out of your mother's basement" he snaps at one. "Have you ever kissed a girl?" he snarls at another. It has come to my attention that many chess players, at least the males, have continued the honourable tradition of "geekhood". You can spot a OTB'er by the distracted look, rumpled clothing, coke-bottle glasses, wearing only one sock etc (which pretty much describes a CC'er on a good day). The anecdote below, concerning the one and only Robert J. Fischer, may shed some more light on this topic: The scene is Belgrade in 1970 just prior to the huge USSR vs World match R.J.Fischer, Larry Evans and George Koltanowski are seated in a cafe for lunch, when into the cafe bursts a lovely young female reporter, who goes immediately to Fischer and asks if she may interview him after the first round. To everyone's stunned amazement Bobby replies, "Yeah sure, OK." Whereupon she lets out a LOUD WHOOP, grabs him in a huge bear hug and plants a juicy kiss on his cheek and runs from the cafe like a rock-star groupie who just got a piece of underwear! Later after Bobby leaves the scene, George K. is still stunned at Fischer's behavior. Recall that Bobby had only agreed to play at the very last moment, and then proceeded to give in to Bent Larsen's demands to play board #1 for the World team, an inordinately "good mood" for R.J.! Larry Evans then explained to Kolty--"Actually this is not all that surprising. Now however, if BOBBY had kissed the GIRL, then you would have a news item!!" --------------------------------------------------- The Arbiters Column by Sasha Goldshtein First, allow me to introduce myself. I am the IECC Assistant Arbiter, Sasha Goldshtein, and I live in Jerusalem, Israel. My area of responsibility for arbitration is the Class tournament complaints. I have started "arbitrating" since September '99. Hopefully, this column will contain interesting cases that I receive for arbitration, with my decision and explanations. In this issue, I will also give a brief overview of the IECC's Arbitration Department functionality. A general request and notice before we start. The result of several discussions that were held between some staff members, and also the opinion of the Arbitration Department of the IECC, is that the player is not obligated to file a time complaint immediately on the eleventh day, although is allowed and encouraged to do so, in the case of a violation. This allows settling minor disputes and violations between the players themselves, which is obviously appreciated. HOWEVER, if the absence exceeds any reasonable amount of time (for example, a delay of three weeks for a move, after several resends), we certainly want a time complaint to be filed. It is intolerable, in my opinion, that we are receiving time complaints about games in which NO PLAYER MOVED for 2 months already! In conclusion, you don't have to file a time complaint in the case of a small violation, which could be settled between the player, UNLESS YOU WANT TO, which is encouraged, but longer delays are intolerable. Any player who has an opponent violating time controls pending for a few weeks, should certainly file a time complaint immediately, without delay. Secondly, a very important issue is resends. Only today I have received a message from a player who says that "I have not received a reply move since the above date", the above date being January 23 (I received the complaint on March 14). Apparently, if neither player sends resends or bothers to check what is going on in the game for almost two months, this is also wrong. Therefore, resends are encouraged to be sent every 3-4 days. Now, some more details about the arbitration process. The process begins with a player filing a time complaint. Granted that the complaint is not immediately sent back to the sender as invalid because of: - the offending player is on the absence list or there is already a pending time complaint against him - the complaint does not contain ALL the necessary information - there are no grounds for a time complaint (for example, a player complaining that his opponent has not responded for 4 days consecutively). (In rare cases, the complaint is not about a time violation, but about a conduct issue. In these cases, there is no defined procedure for action other than the general guideline in the IECC Guidelines for Conduct.) The time complaint is being sent to the offending player, with a warning message and a request to respond within 4 days. If the player responds, he is usually allowed one more chance in the game, and if he violates the time controls again, the game is forfeit (therefore, it is highly important to notify us of any time complaints that were filed earlier in the game). However, if he does not reply, the game is forfeit and the player is placed on our 30-day list. If he does not reply within 30 days, all of his outstanding games are forfeit and he is removed from IECC membership. Quite often, the player who filed the complaint responds within a day or two, indicating that his opponent has restarted play and he would like to take the complaint back. This is definitely invalid. First of all, the IECC Guidelines explicitly indicate that a time complaint MUST be filed in all cases of time violations; secondly, the arbiter cannot tell whether the player has indeed established play; thirdly, an official IECC enquiry must be replied to. Therefore, in such cases, I usually ask the player to contact his opponent and ask him to reply on my enquiry, with a copy to his opponent. The game cannot be continued until I receive a confirmation from the offending player that the game was restarted. However, if it was a second violation in the game, in most cases I would decide to forfeit the game albeit the good will (and "sportsmanship") of the player who originally filed the complaint. This is the general procedure for time complaints. In a vast majority of the cases, there is no argument about whether or not the player has violated the time control; most players would admit if they did so or resign to the evidence presented by their opponents. However, in rare cases, both players present opposing evidence in the form of e-mails, and often the way to decide whether the violation took place is quite complicated. In this column, I will present a case that I received in January of this year. It was a difficult and long enquiry until a decision has been made. (Names have been removed from the enquiry correspondence, and replaced by OPPONENT, PLAYER, OURGAME.) On Nov 27, I received a time complaint from PLAYER, regarding his game against OPPONENT. He indicated that OPPONENT was continuously changing the times allocated per move (f.e., July 16-August 2, 3 days instead of 17), and so forth. When OPPONENT hadn't played a move for 13 consecutive days, PLAYER sent a resend of his move, with the notice: "It has been 13 days since I sent this move. You need to follow the time requirements." And received an exceptionally rude answer, that easily goes under the IECC Guidelines of Conduct. Therefore, PLAYER filed a time and conduct complaints. In view of these violations, I have referred the situation to the IECC CEO's office, together with a time enquiry. The IECC CEO has immediately written to OPPONENT, indicating that he has breached the IECC Guideline 4.3, Conduct. Therefore, OPPONENT was warned that any further breach of this Guideline, or otherwise expression of rudeness towards members, will result in an immediate expulsion from the club. The response that I received from OPPONENT was: "I did not violated time control his dates all wrong he does not like his position and is try to win this way", "I did not send this message i did tell him to stop talking to me becouse he was geting rude, thank you for letting me respone to this letter and telling my side of the stroy", "i have AOL and it is time stamp i think that i can give you prof that his time all wrong" and so forth. He did not submit any proof to base his claims. I have therefore written to both players, asking to provide any remains of correspondence between them. OPPONENT has sent me copies of messages in text format, which seemingly substantiate his claim. Furthermore, he wrote "In the move he did not send time of his moves or time recived i ask him to send them but he just said he did have to, and I also got in the hapet [habit? -S.G.] of not send time stamps, I am working hard on this game and only cared about play it and stop caring about if he sent the time" -- but PLAYER has no obligation to send time indications with every message, and it indeed isn't necessitated by the IECC Guidelines. The response from PLAYER was that he stopped putting the time allocated per move because OPPONENT would deliberately change it in his favor, all the time. According to him, the player has violated the time controls at least 4 (four!) times during the 5 months that the game lasted (5 months to move 19). Onwards, he has also submitted a direct forward (as an attachment and not embedded in the text) of the insulting message OPPONENT sent him, with the Internet headers embedded. Later, it was cleared that the opponent's times were based on the *resends* of PLAYER's moves. He claimed that he did not receive a message for at least 5 times (and a resend was necessitated). Onwards, I have sent the list of times allocated per move to OPPONENT, and asked him to show where exactly their versions contradict. That message was sent on Nov 30, but I didn't receive a reply from OPPONENT until Dec 11, when I sent the game to forfeit (as it was already clear that a violation of time controls indeed took place). On Dec 18, I received a message from OPPONENT (after the game was already forfeit). He kept trying to refute PLAYER's version continuously, even though the game was rated already and I explained very clearly what evidence was the basis for the forfeit, aside from the very long absence. Nevertheless, he continued arguing with me, this time indicating that I have made a wrong decision and so forth. OPPONENT has also complained about the IECC's correspondence rules, and indicated that they should be changed; also, he told me that I behaved like a God, with no appeal instance whatsoever. I had asked him to refer to the IECC Senior Arbiter or to the IECC CEO, if he thinks that I miscarried justice. On Dec 18, we again received a message from PLAYER. He complained that OPPONENT has wrote to him, again, in an insulting and rude manner, again applying under IECC Guideline 4.3, Conduct. When I referred this to the CEO, we have decided to expel him from our club. OPPONENT's membership was terminated and his outstanding games canceled. He continued arguing with me over this, until I decided to desist from replying to his ridiculous accusations, starting with "your high-handed exercise of authority," through "you abuse you power" and ending as rudely as "you could make a ruleing so you whent the cheap way out and you know that you let this play [player? -S.G.] pull this lie and did not let me defend my self and know this so i hope you get out of chess becouse you **** it up." Sasha Goldshtein IECC Asst. Arbiter ---------------------------------------------------------------- Klubeck On War by Martin Klubeck Editor's Note - while going over some back issues of the journal, I ran across this series of articles by Marty Klubeck, a captain in the USAF. I believe Marty has a unique approach to chess development here that may benefit some of the new players who have joined the IECC since this series originally appeared. I am presenting the first installment of K.O.W. again as a "special reprint". The second installment will appear in the next issue. S.R. Klubeck on War Martin Klubeck As a US Air Force Officer, I'm a student of warfare. Chess is the greatest possible training for warfare strategy, and at the cheapest cost. With this in mind, in these articles I plan to use my own training in warfare strategy to help you understand the Why's of a series of instructive games. I'm going to introduce you to a method of analysis which you can use during the game (even in over-the-board games), one which I use when I teach or coach chess. It should be especially useful for e-mail games. But simply knowing the right thing to do is not enough: you have to do it, too. I didn't follow the advice I'm going to give you in this first game (but in a future article I hope to show you a game in which I did!). When I was asked to analyze this game, my first thought was to punch out a jumble of alternative move lists with some wit thrown in from time to time - this is how I usually see analysis in magazines, especially if the loser has written it: a brief primer on the opening, and usually a lot of excuses for the writer losing the game (e.g. distractions, earlier losses, not enough sleep, poor tournament directors, etc.). I decided a completely different, and honest approach would be more helpful. What are the major principles for analysis? How do you know if you're winning and what plans you should make? The basic measures of success during a game are material, development, king safety, control of the center, space and pawn structure. Material Material is first because it is the simplest to measure. How many pieces do you have vs. how many does your enemy have? If you are up 3 points or more (for example up a full knight or bishop) look for a possible quick finish, but not at the expense of the game. Try to use your advantage to gain more material or a mate. Development This concept is mostly useful in the opening and middlegame. It must be judged a little subjectively: how many pieces do you have developed on the board vs. the number your opponent has? The subjectivity comes in determining if the pieces are well developed. A simple example is the king's knight: if you don't move it at all, it's undeveloped; if you move it to h3, it's not as well developed as at e2, nor as well as at f3. So, the best place to develop the king's knight (in general) is to f3. If you find yourself ahead in development by two or more pieces (and remember: pawns aren't developed, they're just pushed), look for chances of combination and sacrifices. If you're ahead at all in development, in effect you have a lead in material until the opponent catches up, so take advantage of it while you have it! King Safety This is another easy one to judge. Is your king behind three unmoved pawns? In other words have you castled? Is your castled position strong or weak? Is there a defending piece nearby to keep the king safe? Of course, if your king is floating around the center of the board when nearly all the pieces are still on the board, you won't survive for long. If your opponent has two or more weaknesses around his king, then concentrate on looking for an attack. Control of the Center The question I usually get from students is "Why?" If you control the center, you will have the initiative. You'll be able to travel more quickly from one side of the board to the other. You'll be able to dictate where the battles occur. The four squares, e4, e5, d4 and d5 comprise the center. If you are ahead by two or more points in the center, try to gain space and to develop pieces for combinations on occupied squares. This is not always easy to count, so let's do one quick example. (I advise you to set up a board.) In the French, after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5, we have a simple situation to count. Consider the square e4: while White occupies the square, he has no pieces or pawns controlling or attacking it; Black's d5 pawn is attacking it, though. Therefore Black is up 1 to 0. On e5, White's d4 pawn is attacking, and Black has no pieces or pawns defending, so the square is 1 to 0 in favor of White. The total so far is therefore 1 to 1. On d4, White occupies, but does White attack the square? Yes, with the queen. Does Black? No. Therefore White is now ahead 2 to 1. The last central square, d5, is attacked once by White's pawn on e4 and twice by Black (queen and e-pawn), therefore Black owns that square, and the total point count is 2 to 2: control of the center is equal. (This is, in fact, why the French is a playable defense even though Black is behind in terms of space.) Space Space is judged as the number of squares controlled on the fourth rank or deeper into the opponent's territory. In our French example we see that White controls b5 (king's bishop) f4 (queen's bishop), g4 and h5 (queen), d4 and e5 (as we saw above). Therefore White controls 6 squares on or beyond the 4th rank. Black controls h4 (queen), b4 (bishop), and e4. This gives White a space advantage of 6 to 3: not bad at the start of the game, and why the French plays out the way it does: White instinctively fights to control more of the space (see the advanced variation) while Black tries to change this, albeit patiently. If you're up 3 points or more in space, try to control the advantage (rather than overreach and grab more territory than you can hope to control), and build an attack. Look for opportunities to cramp your opponent or develop a combination to win material. Pawn Structure The last criterion is probably also the hardest to assess. It's usually a fluid situation: you have to keep an eye on it, because it can change easily and quickly. You have to analyze the potential situation after you've pushed or traded that pawn before you put your hand on it! Some simple counting ways to measure this complex issue: -1 for an isolani (isolated pawn); -2 for doubled pawns; -3 for a double isolani; -2 for backward pawns on or beyond the 4th rank; +2 for a deep pawn chain or cramping pawns; +3 for a passed pawn on or beyond the fourth rank. These are only general principles for measuring. Doubled pawns can sometimes be strong, and an isolani can become a passed pawn quickly, so be careful with this one. If you find yourself up 5 or more points in pawn structure, look for a way to kill your opponent. Simplify to the point where you can take advantage of his pawn weaknesses, but don't indiscriminately simplify to a point where your advantages can't be brought home. Now to this month's War Game ... which features a rather unusual opening, the Colorado Counter. [Event "M-1266.2"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1997.10.05"] [White "Smith, James"] [Black "Klubeck, Martin"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "1942"] [BlackElo "1960"] [ECO "B00"] [Reference "Ceremonies of the Horsemen #1"] [Annotator "Martin Klubeck, 1934 (2/27/98)"] [Opening "King's Pawn, Colorado Counter"] 1.e4 Nc6 2.Nf3 f5 3.exf5 d5 4.d4 Bxf5 5.Bb5 e6 {Note that Black does not react to White's pin in the hasty manner of 5...Bd7 or 5...Qd7?, but chooses to free the king bishop instead.} 6.Bf4 {White could saddle Black with doubled pawns, and an isolani on the a-file, by taking the knight, but again, development is more important.} 6...Bd6 7.Bg3 Nge7 {This is one of the interesting points in the opening: should Black play the knight to f6, usually the best square, or to e7, where it protects both the knight on c6 and the bishop on f5?} 8.Nh4 {Not developing: I prefer O-O immediately.} 8...O-O {Let's start our proper analysis here. The combatants are equal in material - told you it was easy to measure. Let's check development: Black is actually ahead. The queen knight is undeveloped, and the knight on h4, while attacking f5, is out on the rim - "a knight on the rim is mighty grim." White has yet to castle, so it will take two moves to get the queen off the back row and connect the rooks. So, Black is ahead by 1.5 points. It goes up to 2.0 points if you count the White knight as poorly placed.} {So, based on this, what should White do? What should Black do? White should try to catch up in development. Black should see if he can make the knight on h4 look bad and thereby become further ahead. If Black's king knight were on f6 now, he could play Bg4, either maintaining the bishop or enticing White to play f3, hurting his king's safety.} {Speaking of king safety, what's the count? Well Black's f-pawn is gone, but White hasn't yet castled. After White castles, he will have all three pawns in place, and a bishop and a knight in the area to protect the king, so Black is ahead only if White doesn't castle. On the center control, Black is ahead 2-0 in control points, but this, as usual, is a tenuous situation. On space, White has 3 vs. Blacks 2 and is therefore ahead, but by only one point. And in pawn structure, Black has a backward pawn on e6, so White is ahead by two points. Bottom line? Neither side has a decisive advantage, yet. But they both can see the pluses they should try to increase and the weaknesses they should try to decrease.} 9.O-O {That was a quick swing: now Black is down in king safety 0-1.} 9...Ng6 {Did Black help his situation here? Let's check the analysis changes: material is the same; Black is up only 1 point in development due to the yet-to-be-developed queen knight. What should Black have done? To maintain or increase the advantage in development, he needed to move the queen off the back row and/or improve the placement of the knight on e7. The move 9...a6 was feasible so that if 10.Bxc6, 10...Nxc6 and the queen can move out on the d8/h4 diagonal. Other possibilities were 9...Qd7 or 9...Qe8 with the plan to move off the back row. The last, and perhaps the worst, choice was to play the text move, so that the queen is freed and the knight moved to a better square. The problem is that 9...Ng6 doesn't attend to the weakness in pawn structure. It reduces the advantage White has in space, but we'll see what actually happened ...} 10.Nxf5 exf5 {So far, 9...Ng6 doesn't look so bad: he's removed the backward pawn on e6; he's equalized in center control; he's also doing much better in space. So, what went wrong?} 11.Bxd6 {Using our analysis, why was this necessary? Well, the simple threat of f4 to win material enticed the trade. The other choice, 11.f3, weakens the king's safety.} 11...Qxd6 12.c3 f4? {Until here, it wasn't bad for Black. He was ahead in the center 3 to 1. Now Black strives for more space and possible tactical threats. The problem is that the tactical threats are obvious, especially in e-mail play. Black also lessened the scope of the queen on d6 and improved the potential for White's bishop. The move played here fails to take advantage of White's lack of development. The proper approach may have been 12...a6, with a view to expanding the play on the queenside.} 13.Nd2 Nce7 14.Re1 c6 15.Bd3 c5? {Black was looking quite good with 14...c6, although 13...Nce7 was probably a wasted move in that it undeveloped the knight. The irrational fear was the wish to put a rook on e8 without creating the pin for White. Again, 13...a6 or simply 13...Re8 was called for. The primary thing to look at is the pawn structure for Black. His king safety is a minus 1, he is down a half point in material - a bishop is worth 3.5 in an open game which is what Black is allowing it to become - and White's development is better. It should be obvious why f4 was a bad move by Black. That bishop is looking very good.} 16.dxc5 Qxc5 {So, 15...c5 allowed White to weaken Black's pawn structure and to create an isolani on the d-file. I remember thinking at the time of some tactical shots, and playing a little bit with rose-colored glasses on. I neglected to see the possibilities for White. Even though I was blinded with my own plans, I should have played by the principles discussed earlier. If I had used the method of measurement above, I would have realized that the game was, at best, an equal proposition, with White in fact having most of the chances. With this realization I would have played for a draw back at move 12. The problem was that I thought I had fighting chances when I should have been prepar for positional play.} {The remainder of the game is an example of how to take advantage of the weaknesses that Black inflicted on himself.} 17.Nb3 {I thought 17.Nf3 would do the same, but since the text move immediately chases the queen, it may be more direct.} 17...Qd6 {I felt that the imagined tactical possibilities had already vanished.} 18.Nd4 Rf6 19.Qh5 Nf8 20.Re2 Rh6 21.Qg5 Rf6 {It's hard to resign when the material is still even. And this is proper: you should make your opponent prove the win. It is less likely that they'll let you get back into an e-mail game, but it's still worth playing on, to learn proper techniques.} 22.Rae1 Neg6 23.h4 h6 24.Qg4 f3 25.Nxf3 Nf4 26.Re3 Nxd3 27.Rxd3 Nd7 28.Rde3 Raf8 29.Re7 R8f7 30.Rxf7 Rxf7 31.Re6 Qf4 32.Re8+ Nf8 33.Qe6 Qc1+ 34.Kh2 Qf4+ 35.Kh3 Qf5+ 36.Qxf5 Rxf5 37.Kg3 Rf6 38.Nd4 Rd6 39.Re7 1-0 {The point I was demonstrating with the above game was that you should analyze the game based on measures of success that are objective and clear. I have tried to set out a formula to use. In the next game I analyze, I'll show you how to build a chart and use it at the proper times during the game.} --------------------------------------------------------------- A Note on Time Keeping by Steve Ryan As well as my editorial duties, I also participate in the IECC's New Member Program as a volunteer tutor. During the course of a NMP for one individual, we got into a discussion of IECC time keeping rules. He suggested the following "table" as a simple way to track the IECC's "rolling" 30 days for the LAST 10 MOVES format: Move # White's time (days) Black's time (days) 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 2 2 4 3 3 5 1 2 6 2 1 7 1 2 8 2 3 9 1 1 10 2 (17) 1 (17) 11 2 (18) 3 (19) and so forth For moves 1-10, you can see clearly that both B&W have used 17 days RT. For moves 2-11, W has used 18 days and B 19 days. Just carry the totals forward as required. Many IECC members probably already use some variation of this table, but I have taken the liberty of naming it the "O Hare System" after Mike (The Marauder) O Hare who showed it to me. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMES SECTION Notes By Junior Tay [Event "IECC CL1-2000.06"] [White "Tay, Junior"] [Black "Newman, Nelson"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C19"] [WhiteElo "2230"] [BlackElo "2101"] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 Ne7 {I have been playing 7.Qg4 in my last 3 French Winawer games and scored 1 win and 2 draws without making any headway in the opening. Thus, I decided on the text move, a favourite of British GMs John Nunn and Murray Chandler among others.} 7.a4 Nbc6 8. Nf3 Qc7 ({The active} 8... Qa5 {is more popular and can be considered the main l ine.} 9.Bd2 Bd7 10.Bb5 f6 11.exf6 gxf6 12.O-O O-O-O 13.c4 Qc7 14.cxd5 Nxd5 15.c3 15... Rhg8 {"unclear" according to NCO and the beginning of a Kingside vs Queenside attack onslaught.}) 9.Ba3 b6 10.Bd3 h6 11.O-O c4 (11... O-O 12. Re1 Na5 13.Nh4 Bd7 14.Qh5 f5 15.exf6 Rxf6 16.Re2 Raf8 17.Rae1 Qc8 18.dxc5 bxc5 19.c4 Bxa4 20.Bb2 Be8 21.Qg4 d4 22.c3 Nb3 23.cxd4 Nxd4 24.Bxd4 cxd4 25.Qxd4 Qd7 26.Nf3 Nc6 27. Qxd7 Bxd7 28. c5 Rc8 29. Bc4 Na5 30. Rc2 Nxc4 31. Rxc4 {Chudinovskih Alexander-Kobalija Mihail/Ch Moscow (open) 1996/0-1 (44)}) 12. Be2 Bb7 !? {Personally, I would prefer the d7 square for the light square Bishop. There, it forces White to keep an eye on the a4 pawn as well as overprotects e6 in the event of a future f6 break. I'm not sure about the merits of 12...Bb7 though.} 13. Re1 O-O-O 14. Bf1 Qd7 15. g3 Rde8 16. Nh4 Kb8 17. f4 Nc8 18. Qg4 !? {played to avoid the theoretical 18.Bh3 and hopefully probing the Black Kingside for dark square weaknesses. If Black does not play g6 at all, White can venture f5 without making too many weaknesses via g2-g4, Bh3.} (18. Bh3 g6 19. Rf1 Reg8 20. Bg2 a5 21. Qe1 Ka7 22. g4 {and a draw was agreed between two great GMs, Mecking-Bronstein, Petropolis Interzonals 1973 despite the game reaching its most interesting stage.}) 18... Rhg8 ?! (18... g6 19. Ng2 {with the idea of Ng4-f6 followed by a general Kingside advance. If Black plays for h7-h5, the White Knight will head for g5.}) (18... Reg8 {the hasty} 19. f5 ?! {results in} 19... g5 20. fxg6 20... fxg6 $15) 19. Qh5 ! += {and now f5 is threatened as the h6 pawn will hang if Black attempts g6. Black decides to lash out with} 19... g5 {which will cost him a pawn for some Kingside pressure.} 20. fxg5 hxg5 21. Nf3 g4 22. Ng5 Rg6 23. Qxg4 Reg8 {this position almost resembles a mirror image Benko Gambit with a closed centre. Had the f pawn been on f5, I would prefer Black's chances as the White King is not particularly well placed.} 24. h4 f6 ? {This error allows White to activate the dark square Bishop along the dangerous h2-b8 diagonal} 25. exf6 Rxf6 26. Bc1 N8e7 27. Bf4+ Ka8 28. Bh3 Bc8 {The maxim "improving the placement of the worst placed piece" comes in handy here. My pieces are almost optimally placed, except for the Qg4 so some rerouting is necessary.} 29. Qf3 Rgg6 30. Qg2 Qe8 {All my pieces are at optimal strength now and I felt it is time to look for a breakthrough blow so} 31. a5 ! {naturally comes into mind} 31... Nxa5 { losing control of e5, allowing White a small combination to net the exchange} ( 31... bxa5 32. Rab1 {followed by the doubling of the rooks.}) (31... b5 32. a6 +-) 32. h5 Rg7 (32... Rh6 33. Nxe6 Rxe6 34. Bxh6 +-) 33. Be5 Rxg5 34. Bxf6 Rxh5 35. Bxe6 Qg6 36. Bxc8 Qxf6 37. Ba6 Nac6 38. Re3 {it's all over...} 38... Qg5 39. Rae1 Kb8 40. g4 ! Rh4 41. Qg3+ Ka8 42. Rf1 Rh8 43. Qf4 Qh4 44. Qc7 {and the only way Black can avoid mate is to trade Queens, leading to a lost ending.} 1-0 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Class Event CL3-1999.29 By Gertjan de Vries I have been a member of the IECC since October 1998. While I play OTB chess in a little club here in Schiedam, The Netherlands, I enjoy playing e-mail chess to improve my abilities. I can even sit down and study an interesting email game position for hours. Class tournaments have always been my favorite, so since October 1999, I decided to support the IECC by becoming the Tournament Director of the Class Event section in order to help others enjoy these events. Back in July 1999, I made my debut in Class A with a rating of 1833 (at this writing I am just above 2000). Though I was very impressed by the average rating in CL3-1999.29 (above 1900), I managed to win the section with a score of two draws and two wins. The following lucky game against Stefan Spiekermann, a very nice guy from Germany, turned out to be crucial for the tournament victory. [Event "IECC CL3-1999.29"] [White "Spiekermann, Stefan"] [Black "de Vries, Gertjan"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "A08"] 1.e4 e6 2.d3 c5 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.g3 d5 5.Nbd2 Nge7 6.Bg2 g6 7.O-O Bg7 8.Re1 b6 9.c3 a5 10.a4 Ba6 11.exd5 exd5 12.Nb3 {In my database I found a game Dumont-Milos (Sao Paulo, 1997) which continued 12... d4 13.cxd4 cxd4 14.Bf4?! and Black went on to win. However, as I could not figure why W did not play 13.Nfxd4! Nxd4 14.cxd4 with a huge advantage, I decided to come up with something different.} 12... O-O 13.d4 c4 14.Nbd2 Qd7 {14... Nf5 would have been theory (Mueller - Glek, Berlin 1994) which continued 15.b3 cxb3 16.Qxb3 Rb8 17.Ba3/1-0 (53)} 15.b3 cxb3 16.Qxb3 Rab8 17.Ba3 Rfe8 18.h4 h6 19.Nh2 Red8 20.Nhf1 Nf5 21.Bb2 ?! {This clearly loses a tempo, as the rest of the game points out. The bishop will come under pressure from the b-file, which is about to be opened. Perhaps putting the isolated pawn under pressure by 21.Ne3} (21.Ne3 Ncxd4 cxd4 23.Nxd4 Qd1 24.Ne2+ Kh2 25.Bxa1 {Clear advantage For W due to his two strong bishops [Tay]}) {or moving Queen out of the way with 21.Qd1 would have been stronger.} 21... b5 22.axb5 Rxb5 23.Qa2 Bf8 24.Ne3 Nxe3 25.Rxe3 Rdb8 26.Ba3 {there goes the Bishop again!} 26... Bxa3 27.Qxa3 Rb2 28.Ra2 R2b5 29.Kh2 g5 30.Nf3 gxh4 31.Nxh4 Rb1 {Though W has the better pawn structure, Black has a passed pawn and his pieces are dominating the board. It is easy to make mistakes like W does now.} 32.Ra1 ?? (32.Rc2) 32... R8b3 ! 33.Qc5 Rxa1 34.Bxd5 Rb2 35.Bxc6 Rxf2+ 36.Bg2 Bf1 37.g4 Bxg2 38.Nxg2 Rxg2 !! {eliminating the last defender} 39.Kxg2 Qxg4 {and after two months of play Stefan resigned. [40.Rg3 is of course met with ..Ra2+]} 0-1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Year 2000 Diaries (Part 1) by Zafer Djabri The start of the new millennium is being celebrated in special style here at IECC with a huge knockout tournament open to all members. A staggering 563 people signed up for the first round, making it by far the biggest event in IECC history. Though some people may dream of winning the tournament, I suspect most people will be happy to get as far as they can in this historic event. Don't forget - the road to victory in this tournament is a very long one. You need to win ten matches in a row, and the competition gets harder every round! Players of all standards, from beginners to Senior Masters, started play in round 1 last October, and the majority of those matches are now decided. In this column, I hope to pick out some of the more interesting of the 1000+ games that will be played during the course of the tournament. Our first game features one of IECC's top players in action, getting maximum value from his pieces in a Sicilian counteratack: [Event "IECC Y2KO.1.14"] [White "Thew, Brian"] [Black "Enev, Zlatko"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B33"] [WhiteElo "1608"] [BlackElo "2403"] [PlyCount "44"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 {The Sveshnikov Sicilian. A very popular, and complex, line that concedes the d5 square in return for the bishop pair and good chances for active play. White's basic strategy is to restrain Black's counterplay and ultimately simplify and capitalise on Black's weak squares. Black, meanwhile, wants to use his active pieces, mobile queenside pawns, and open lines and diagonals to maximum effect while he can. A sharp struggle is the guaranteed outcome!} 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Bg5 a6 8. Bxf6 gxf6 9. Na3 b5 10. Nd5 f5 {This is the thematic break for Black in this variation - the normal Sicilian freeing move ..d5 is almost always out of the question.} 11. exf5 Bxf5 12. Qf3 ?! {But this opens a can of worms. White in effect wins the exchange, as any retreat of the bishop on f5 allows Nf6+. But Black gets plenty of compensation.} 12... Nd4 13. Nc7+ Qxc7 14. Qxa8+ Ke7 15. c3 {A perfectly natural attempt to remove the monster knight on d4, and save the pawn on c2. But Black's strong reply shows up the problem clearly.} 15... b4 ! {A beautiful and thematic pawn sacrifice.} 16. cxb4 ({Note that} 16. cxd4 bxa3 17. dxe5 {Or 17.bxa3 Qc3+} 17... axb2 18. exd6+ Kf6 19. Rd1 Qc3+ {wins for Black. The only other reasonable choice is the text move, which makes d4 a permanent outpost for the Black knight.}) 16... Bh6 ! {"Go ahead, take both my rooks!" The dark-squared bishop joins the attack with deadly effect regardless of whether the sacrifice is accepted} 17. Qxa6 {White declines the offer. 17.Qxh8 Qb7! threatens both Qxb4+ and Qe4+ leading to mate. An attempt to create a flight square for the King with 18.Be2 fails miserably to 18..Qxg2 19.Rf1 Qe4 and wins, while 18.b5 goes down to the forced line 18...Qe4+ 19.Kd1 Bg4+! 20.f3 Bxf3+ 21.gxf3 Qxf3+ 22.Ke1 Qe3+ 23.Be2 Qxe2 mate} 17... Rb8 {Despite his large material plus, White is lost here. His offside forces are no match for Black's centralized army, his King is practically unguarded in the center of the board, and what's more, his Queen is running very short of squares. Black's last move is a small finesse - the attempt to round up the queen immediately with 17..Be4 intending ..Ra8 runs into 18.Qa5 Qb7 19.Ba6} 18. Bc4 Be4 19. f3 {19.0-0 loses to ..Ra8; attempting to avoid capture with 19.Qa5 fails to Qxa5 20.bxa5 Bxg2 21.Rf1 Rxb2 with a lost endgame} 19... Ra8 20. fxe4 Rxa6 21. Bxa6 Qb6 22. b5 22... Nf3+ ! {Black finishes the game in style. Refusing the sacrifice leads to mate: 23.Kd1 Qe3 24.Kc2 Nd4+ 25.Kb1 Qd3+ 26.Nc2 Qxc2#, or 23.Kf1 Nd2+ 24.Ke2 Qe3+ 25.Kd1 Nf3! transposing to the line above. On the other hand, accepting it loses both rooks: 23.gxf3 Qe3+ 24.Kf1 Qxf3+ 25.Ke1 Qxh1+ (25.Kg1? Be3#).} 0-1 As in all IECC KO events, the top half by rating is paired against the bottom half. In round one, this means that most matches are between players with a 600-800 point difference in rating. In his book Chess for Tigers, CC-GM Simon Webb deals with the question of how to maximize your results against players of a different standard to you. He advises the lower rated player to aim for very complicated, strange positions, and especially ones where the enemy King is under pressure. His argument is that the more unusual the position, the less advantage there is in being able to calculate better, and the less the stronger player can draw on his positional knowledge to help. And if you have to defend your King, the fear of losing to a much weaker player can cloud your mind, and produce errors. Of course, it's easier said than done. Hats off to White in the following game: his higher-rated opponent is put under pressure with some aggressive play, and no mistake is made once Black goes wrong: [Event "IECC Y2KO.1.142"] [White "Carson, Mike"] [Black "Mishnaevsky, Gideon"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A45"] [WhiteElo "1481"] [BlackElo "2078"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.Bf4 d5 4.e3 Bf5 5.f3 Nd6 6.Nd2 e6 7.c3 Be7 8.Qb3 0-0 9.0-0-0 b6 10.g4 Bg6 {White has emerged from the opening with a pleasant position. His next move, a well-chosen pawn sacrifice, gives Black the difficult choice between opening the h-file for White or weakening his Kingside with ..h6, after which he is vulnerable to g5 at some point} 11.h4 ! Bxh4 12.Bg2 a5 13.e4 a4 14.Qc2 Be7 15.Ne2 h6 {White was threatening Bxd6 followed by f4 and f5. For example, the immediate 15..c5? 16.Bxd6 Bxd6 17.f4 is good for White, so Black first creates a retreat for his bishop.} 16.a3 c5 17.Bxh6 ?! {This shouldn't work, but it succeeds by posing Black a difficult defensive task} gxh6 18.Rxh6 Kg7 19.Rdh1 Bg5 20.R6h3 f5 ? ({Opening the floodgates - but for his opponent! After this, Black is lost. So what should he play? The simple} 20...dxe4 {runs into} 21.f4 ! {Not 21.fxe4 ? Nc4} 21..Be7 22.Nxe4 {and now White has a very strong attack. The immediate threat is 23.Rh7+!! Bxh7 24.Rxh7+! Kg8 (or Kxh7? 25.Ng5+ Kg7 26.Qh7+ Kf6 27.Qh6 mate) 25.Nxd6 and 26.Bxa8, and there's also the threat of 23.f5! in the air.}) ({However, after the stronger} 20...Be3 21.Qd3 ({Or} 21.Kb1 cxd4 22.cxd4 Qg5 23.Nf1 Rc8 24.Qd3 Nc4) 21...Nc4 {Black is on top}) 21.gxf5 exf5 22.e5 Bxd2+ ? ({This only makes it worse. Black is also lost after } 22...Nc4 23.f4 Nxd2 24.Qxd2 Be7 25.c4 Nd7 26.cxd5 {when White's massive pawn centre and Black's exposed King count for more than the difference in material}) ({A better try might be } 22...Ne4 !? 23.fxe4 fxe4 {returning the material, although Black's King is still exposed}) 23.Qxd2 Nc4 {23...Nf7 also loses after 24.e6 or 24.Rg3! when there is no satisfactory defence to the threats of 25.Nf4 and 25.Rxg6+ Kxg6 26.Nf4+ Kg7 27.Ne6+ and 28.Nxd8} 24.Qh6+ Kf7 25.Nf4 Rg8 26.e6+ Ke8 27.Qxg6+ ! ({White emerges more than a rook ahead after } 27.Qxg6+ ! Rxg6 28.Rh8+ Ke7 29.R1h7+ Kd6 30.Rxd8+ Kc6 31.Nxg6) 1-0 Of course, most of the results in so far have been wins for the higher-rated player (although there have been more upsets than you might have expected). In many of these, no drastic measures were needed to ensure the win; the game below caught my eye, however, both for the sharp middlegame struggle, and for White's rather striking combination: [Event "IECC Y2KO.1.149"] [White "Schipmann, Torsten"] [Black "Hill, John"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B78"] [WhiteElo "2071"] [BlackElo "1470"] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 0-0 8.Qd2 Nc6 9.Bc4 Bd7 10.0-0-0 Rc8 11.Bb3 Ne5 12.h4 h5 13.Bg5 Rc5 14.Kb1 b5 15.g4 a516.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.gxh5 a4 18.Bd5 e6 19.hxg6 exd5 20.h5 Bg5 21.f4 Nc4 {Non-Dragon players might be surprised to know that we are still in the 'book'. The text move is a suggestion of John Nunn's.} 22.Qh2 (22.Qg2 Ne3 23.Qg3 !? Nxd1 24.Rxd1 {was seen in Farago-Tindall, Budapest 1998 [1-0,58]; 23.Qxg5 and 22.Qf2 have also been played}) 22...Bf6 23.Nxd5 Bg4 24.Rd3 Bxd4 25.Rxd4 Be6 26.Qg1 Bxd5 27.h6 ! Bc6 (27...Bxe4 28.gxf7+ (28.Rxe4 Nd2+) 28...Kxf7 29.Qg7+ Ke6 30.Rxe4+ {wins}) 28.f5 ! ({better than the obvious} 28.gxf7+ Kxf7 29.Qg7+ Ke8 30.h7 ) 28...Ne5 29.h7+ Kg7 30.Rxd6 ! {Beautiful! The black Queen is decoyed away from the back rank, where it was indirectly supporting h8. Now the h-pawn can be forced though. It's also pleasing how White's next move is neither a capture or a check, but just a 'small' move with a big threat.} 30...Qxd6 31.Qh2 Kf6 (31...Kh8 32.g7+ Kxg7 33.h8Q+) (31...Qd8 32.Qh6+ Kf6 33.Qh4+ Kg7 34.f6+ Qxf6 35.Qh6+ Kh8 Qxf8#) 32.Qh4+ Kg7 33.h8Q+ Rxh8 34.Qxh8# 1-0 ---------------------------------------------------------------- CL4-2000.5 by Giancarlo Marcotulli and Junior Tay Giancarlo Marcotulli recently won the CL4-2000.5 event with a perfect 4/4 score. He started playing chess at the age of 20, progressing to National Level tournaments. He then picked up postal correspondence chess but stopped when he was 30. Last year, he discovered email chess and it gave him a lot of satisfaction. No wonder, with games like the following... In the following Spanish Breyer System game, Giancarlo latched onto Black's inaccurate 17..Qc7, exploited the dark squares, forced queenside weaknesses and finished with a nice combination which started on the Kingside but ended on the Queenside! [Event "CL4-2000.05.06"] [Site "IECC"] [White "Marcotulli Giancarlo"] [Black "Bolduc Michel"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C95/10"] [Annotator "Junior Tay"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d6 9. h3 Nb8 10. d4 Nbd7 11. Nbd2 Bb7 12. Bc2 c5 13.d5 g6 14.Nf1 Nh5 15.Bh6 Re8 16.Qd2 16... Nb6 ( {TN} 16... Bf6 = {according to NCO} 17. b3 Nb6 18. a4 bxa4 19. bxa4 a5 20. Ne3 Ba6 21. Bd3 c4 22. Bf1 Rb8 23. Ng4 Be7 24. Be3 Nd7 25. Nh6+ Kg7 26. Ng5 Bxg5 27. Bxg5 Qc7 28. g4 Nhf6 29. Qe3 { - King,D-Karolyi,T/Budapest 1989/TD (29)}) (16... Bf8 17. Be3 Bg7 18. Ng3 Nf4 19. Bxf4 exf4 20. Qxf4 b4 21. Qxd6 bxc3 22. b3 Re5 23. Rad1 a5 24. Bd3 Bf8 25. Qxd7 Qxd7 26. Nxe5 Qc7 27. Nc4 Bg7 28. Ne2 a4 29. Rc1 axb3 30. axb3 f5 31. Nxc3 {Ernst,T-Engqvist,T/Goteborg 1990/EXT 97/1-0 (49)}) 17. b3 Qc7 { ? Misplacing the Queen. Qc7 is normally played in the Spanish to overprotect e5 when the centre is not locked yet. In this case, it's the g5 square which needs overprotection as Giancarlo demonstrates...} (17... Bf6 {transposes back to King-Karolyi}) 18. Ne3 Bf6 19. a4 Bg7 ( ? 19... bxa4 20. bxa4 20... a5 {is the only way to prevent Black from getting squashed on both sides of the board.}) 20. Bxg7 { White takes over the dark squares} 20... Nxg7 21. axb5 axb5 22. Ng4 { There is no stopping those marauding Knights} 22... Qe7 { ? now it's too late} (22... Nh5 {only move to hold the dark squares} 23.Bd3 Rxa1 24. Rxa1 c4 25. bxc4 bxc4 26. Bc2 ) 23. Nh6+ Kh8 24. Qe2 { ! with Bd3 to follow. Black must give way...} 24... c4 (24... Ba6 25. Ra2 f6 26. Rea1 {big advantage for White}) 25. Qe3 Nd7 26. Ng5 Rf8 27. Rxa8 Bxa8 28. bxc4 bxc4 29. Ngxf7+ 29... Rxf7 30. Nxf7+ (30. Nxf7+ Qxf7 31. Qa7 {the point of White's Nxf7 combination...Black must give back material and more} 31... Bxd5 32. exd5 ) 1-0 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Journal Volunteer Positions Available PGN FORMATTERS - The IECC will publish only those game compatible with PGN "readers". Volunteers for this position must know how to run programs, such as "Zork", that will examine submitted games for correct PGN formatting. You do not need a high rating here, but you do need the patience to do some fairly routine work along with detailed knowledge of PGN formatting for annotated games. The in-depth analysis of these games will go to..... ANNOTATORS - Members will inevitably submit un-annotated games. While a raw game score conveys a certain amount of information, a well-annotated game provides a great deal more information. For this particular task, we would like to have volunteers from the higher rated players, 1800 +. Members may, of course, annotate their own games. If they do, I would like some indication if they will accept an independent review by a higher-rated player. We would like to present the best possible quality of games and accompanying analysis for the interest of all. PROOFREADERS - Wanted to play over submitted game scores and examine them for illegal/ambiguous/impossible moves that inevitably find their way inside. Ideally, proofreaders will combine this job with checking the PGN formatting. Use of a PGN reader such as "Zork" or "ectool" will greatly simplify your job. GAMES EDITOR - Wanted to coordinate and supervise the efforts listed immediately above. Actually, we need people to do all the things listed above under "From The Editor's Desk". If you would like to do something on a full time or casual basis, we want you. Send a brief note to your editor (address at the top) outlining what you would like to do. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rumor & Gossip My spies, operatives and agents throughout the IECC have dug out these startling facts.... 1. Dave GLEW To Stick With COLLE System! 2. TINA STANTON is really JUDIT POLGAR! 3. IECC member PETROV inherits unknown game scores! 1. You have to know a bit of French to "get" this one. 2. Yes, really! Tina, sorry, Judit I mean, has gone "undercover" to see what the "little people" in chess "are up to these days", especially those "miserable e-mailers". Don't let Judit's modest rating fool you! She's really a GM. 3. The IECC has a "Mikhail" Petrov in its ranks who, according to my sources, has inherited a "vast hoard" of unpublished games from his great, great, great grandfather Alexander Petrov. These games have hitherto unknown variations and theoretical novelties. Watch out here folks, he means business! Heard a good rumor or some juicy gossip lately? Pass it on! Haven't heard a thing?? Then make something up and pass it on anyway!! Silicon Saboteur ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Note of Thanks Dear David, By you I like to thank all the present (and former) staff members and (ass.) TD's of the IECC for everything they did and do for all of the players and for the opportunity some of the TD's and members gave my son Jeffrey. It all started in August 1995. Jeffrey was 7 years of age that time and he joined the IECC. The first steps (in international notation) he learned from Sherm Klausner. After he was "selected" as IECC member of the month December 1995 Lisa Powell (a very special thanks for her we all love)became a special friend. Jeffrey played his email games on a regular almost fanatic basis and improved his skills rapidly. Within a short time he had special friends all over the world. I won't mention any of you, dear friends, because I am afraid I will forget one or two or .... About three months ago I received an extraordinary email from David, our CEO. It was a redirected mail from the organization of KasparovChess.com in which David asked me if this could be something for Jeffrey (now 11 and in two weeks 12 years of age): a simultaneous game against world champion Garry Kasparov. This same email I received at the least five times from all over the world. This ended all in a splendid evening/night yesterday March 14, 2000. Jeffrey did play Garry during the United Nations of Chess Event live by the internet. Even an official referee was send by the KC organization and it was impossible to look after moves in books or databases, consulting a partner or even analyse the situation on a chess board. So it was a real game starting at 22:00 hrs local time. After more than 2 hours concentrated chess and 32 moves Jeffrey resigned and did put the virtual King on his side. Without the IECC Jeffrey probably wouldn't be able to join this fantastic event and therefor I thank you all again. We hope the IECC will stay the nice family email chess club for a very long time. Ben Stoffers END