CHESS BITS The Journal of the International Email Chess Club August 2000 IECC Web Site http//www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Midfield/1264/ Editor Steve Ryan (ryansc@granite.mb.ca) Proof-reading Ed Boyd The Arbiter's Column Sasha Goldshtein Welcome to New Members Dirk de Leeuw Y2KO Diaries Zafer Djabri Additional contributors to this Issue Neil Brennen, Mark Diglio, Andrew Fedorko, Stephen Hilton, Martin Klubeck, John Knudsen, Ed Lacey, Santosh M. Paul, Chuck Smith, Junior Tay, Sam Wedgeworth, and the Silicon Saboteur Congratulations to MARK DIGLIO of Baltimore, Maryland, USA for submitting the winner in our Name The Journal Contest (see more below)! IN THIS ISSUE By Section No. From the Editor's Desk Steve Ryan 1 Name the Journal Contest Steve Ryan 1 Letters to the Editor 1 Welcome to New Members Dirk de Leeuw 1 Games Section 2 Klubeck on War (reprint) Martin Klubeck 3 The Arbiter's Column Sasha Goldshtein 3 Rumor & Gossip Silicon Saboteur 3 Miscellaneous Assorted Folk 3 Trials & Tribulations of Being a CC Player Santosh M. Paul 3 Member Biographies 3 New Member Program Notes Smith & Fedorko 3 Klubeck on War (reprint) Martin Klubeck 3 Book Review Stephen Hilton 3 Questions & Answers IECC Executive 3 FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK We have a rather unusual Games Section for the first edition of Chess Bits (the 8th journal edition overall) including a "Man vs. Machine Match" conducted "live" on the WWW, so make sure you check it out. Yes, I know, you can't possibly study every game we bring to you. The games in this issue and the entire IECC archives as well, only scratch the surface of the number of games played since chess began. If you consider the number of games yet to go, well...don't worry about any immediate shortage. All of which leads me to ask - has anyone ever played an exact duplicate of a previous game - say beyond 10 moves? How far do we need to go before the possibility of a duplicate becomes too remote to consider? Would 5, 6 or 7 moves do it? Some "close calls" have probably appeared over the ages, but exact duplicates, I don't think so. If you know, send a note to your editor and the details as well. Now you have a bit of trivia to chew on until the next issue. Anyway, I also do not play over every game in the journal, but I like to have them available as part of my personal archives. You never know when you might run into the same opponent again and it may help to have some insight into his/her particular "style". NAME THE JOURNAL CONTEST by Steve Ryan The NTJ contest attracted 43 entries all together. The vast majority (40 or so) didn't arrive until after our #2 man sent out a special reminder. Maybe I had it buried too deep in the last edition and people missed it. Anyway, I invited all the contributors to issue 7 to select their top 5 choices, from the entries received, in order of preference. Six people responded, with enough variety in their choices to make a legitimate poll. A first place vote for a name gave that name 5 points, second place 4 points and so forth down to 1 point for a 5th place vote. In the end, it came out this way---------- Number of Votes in Order of Preference (6 voters total - for names receiving at least one 5th place vote) Name 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total Pts Chess Bits 2 1 1 15 Eight by Eight 1 1 9 Open Files 1 1 8 Inside the IECC 2 8 Check for Check 2 6 Chess 'N' Chat 1 1 1 6 E Chess Int* 1 1 6 Global 64 1 5 E Chess 2 1 5 Check This 1 4 Caissa 2 4 Checkered Battleground 1 4 Gambit Accepted 1 3 Chess Jrnl IECC* 1 3 The C-File 1 2 Pawnhunter Gazette 1 1 Chess Chat 1 1 *E-Chess International *Chess Journal of the IECC Since I stipulated that ALL IECC members could send in an entry, I submitted my own (Eight by Eight) but ended up giving it a second place vote in favor of Chess Bits. Mark Diglio, our winner, has graciously sent me a brief biography and one of his favourite IECC games, both of which you will find further on. Thank you to everyone who submitted an entry. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Subject One New Member's Opinion I've been a new member with IECC for about a month now and have been reading the ChessChat postings religiously. I've noticed that many of the posters are regulars and it's time for some fresh faces here. There has been much talk about the use of databases, etc. while playing e-mail games. This is all new to me, as I've only begun to play chess via e-mail. I have mainly played OTB online, which plays, for the most part, much like a game "in-person". Of course, you can't readily always tell how many people you're playing or if there's computer-assistance involved. I've always taken the attitude in all my chess games, no matter how they are played, should be played as if they were OTB tournament games. The exception is, of course, with the time rules. The time to prepare for a game is before and after, but not during a game. I think chess players who are not playing in-person games are obligated to adhere to a high code of ethics and honesty. I like winning chess games as much as the next person, but I will never attempt to do so at the cost of my integrity. Using a database, in my opinion, is no different than someone sitting next to you while playing an OTB online game and advising you on your moves. One of the goals of e-mail clubs is to gain further recognition in the eyes of the world's chess community. E-mail chess will never be taken seriously or have the same status as OTB tournament games as long as any type of assistance during a game is allowed. I've started playing e-mail games with a club because I wanted to see how strong a player I was and what sort of rating I would average out to have. This club has an excellent cross-section of players from all around the world and playing by e-mail makes sense, but if I'm not honest, my rating won't mean much. Reynold Nugter BC, Canada Reply I completely agree that CC players must maintain a high code of ethics and honesty, especially with the ready availability of some very powerful chess engines. Long standing tradition in Correspondence Chess, however, has permitted the use of "research material" (see "The First 'E-mail' Chess" by Neil Brennen further on for example) such as game scores/archives, opening compendia, end game studies and, most recently, game databases such as CD's which may contain many thousands of games. Part of the rationale behind this system remains the fact that without access to such material, and assuming most people do not have "total recall", we would end up continually "re-inventing the wheel". By that expression I mean replaying, in complete ignorance, openings and lines long since discredited . In such a situation, chess theory does not "advance", but merely remains stagnant. We play the "same basic game" as the OTB'ers, but perhaps a different "branch", if you will. OTB players also uses these "helpers" but must, of course, retain everything in their head during a game. I don't think the TD's would look kindly on someone pulling out a copy of MCO for a "brief consultation" in an OTB match. Chess has many players who enjoy both CC and OTB play. As far as I know, they have no objection to the two sets of rules. Maybe it comes down to what "crosses the line" for you personally. For me, the use of chess engines "crosses the line" but not the use of the other more traditional assistants. I will leave you with a quote from OTB GM Yasser Seirawan that may cheer you up a bit "Let the perfectionist play postal". S.R. Hi Steve, Just a suggestion for the journal which you have probably thought of already!! The IECC doesn't currently have a discussion forum where members can ask questions, make comments, submit requests for arcane knowledge, etc. I was wondering if something along the lines of a "Does anyone know the answer to....?" section might be a good idea. To kick off...an answer to how the rating system works would be my request, although I have a feeling the answer would take up most of the next issue! ;-) Best Regards, Simon Reply Hello Simon No, I hadn't considered a section of the journal like you suggest, but I think you have a good idea (see Questions & Answers further on). Your message and this reply will start if off. S.R. Originally sent to David Glew) I happened to come across the fact that a new issue of the journal has come out. You had a note a while back about us who have antiquated systems. I just thought I would let you know that I am one of these, and that, due to the limits of my mailbox and the size of the journal, I did not receive the journal through my email. A thought when there is something like this with a great amount of reading material, I tend not to get around to it. I tend to put it off until I have time, and then that situation often does not happen. It would be better, in my mind, for much shorter issues put out more frequently. Richard Cressman Columbus Ohio USA Reply I'm afraid I just can't manage smaller, but more frequent, journals just now Richard. This issue will go out in 3 smaller sections instead of one big one. Please let me know if it helps. S.R. To the Editor. Thank you so much for a fantastic idea. This journal will work! I like the games and learn from the annotations. Hope you go from strength to strength. Questions Is this really true - 2. TINA STANTON is really JUDIT POLGAR! Do you know of any other GREAT players (like Bobby Fischer, Spassky etc) that are playing under another name in the IECC or any other email chess club? Has anyone knowledge of the whereabouts of Bobby Fischer? Does he play chess in Bulgaria? Is he a chess tutor somewhere? What do the Bulgaria IECC members say about it? Thank you. Jan Reply Hello Jan I can't answer this one myself so I passed it on to the Silicon Saboteur who originally "broke" this story. He says "Yes. It's true. Further investigation has uncovered the real motive behind Judit's plot - she wants to 'crush' any type of postal or e-mail chess and force the CC crowd to 'get out from in front of their computers' and play some 'real' chess, 'over-the-board'. What can you do with that kind of attitude"? As for news about R.J. Fischer, see the Rumors and Gossip section further on". S.S. --------------------------------- Welcome to New Members by Dirk de Leeuw The IECC welcomes the following new members who have joined over the period 2000 April 15 - July 14 Neussner, Federico Spain Lavender, Kyle England Hocks, Trevor England Bassine, David Belgium Schmitz, Norbert Germany Fridkovski, Lev Israel Czernow, Marcin Poland Beninsky, Svejen Bulgaria Guzman, Carlos M. Puerto Rico Smith, Steven England Zakarian, David Greece Zdrazil, Karel Czeckia Mashlan, Robert United States Mulenko, Alexandr Russia Brennen, Chris United States Mack Brian Kevin United States Pieters, Caswell South-Africa Clausen, Dustin United States Lake, Eric United Kingdom Kofinas, Xristos Greece Thomas, Manu India Beyer, Jim United States Nugter, Reynold Canada Miller, Warren Ray Canada VanDoeselaar Erwin Netherlands Mackenzie, Alan Cyprus Kohn, Douglas United States Langley, Brian M. United States Eriksen, Stein Norway Meijer, Wilmar Netherlands Kitachewsky, Daniel Italy Raisbeck, Philip Canada Ruparelia, Nayan England Briceno Ochoa Jose Antonio Venezuela Mesotten Dirk Belgium Parab Mahesh India Chu Joel United States Neil George Canada Rosello Joe United States Iaiolo Stefano Italy Rossello Carlos E Spain Taner Hanur Turkey Voisine Dany Canada Grabicoski Mauro Roberto Brazil Rabani Che Hassan Malaysia Terry Bob Canada Carroll Stephen England Topenas Philippe United States Colsaet Sylvain France Welch Mike United States Claudiu Udrea Romania Lokshin Dmitriy Ukraine Klaver Corno South-Africa Ormando Nicola Italy Vraimakis John Greece McMillan Kevin United States Palmeri Russ United States Sharden Sonya Russia Popovic Antonije Yugoslavia Landowski Wieslaw Poland Nichols Clarke T. jr. United States Dawson Glenn United Kingdom Desmoitier Jean Bruno France Bengtsson Ulf Sweden Wakeham Marc Netherlands Romero Paul United States Corbeil Serge Australia Costa Paulo Cesar Spain Harrell Bruce B. United States van Rooijen Peter Netherlands Ralston Donald United States Gerasimiuk Maxim Russia Gordon Gil Australia Lange Klaus Germany Kara Dion New Zealand Scull Robert W. United States Bres Francois France Silance Leon United States Verheyen Nico Belgium Filippova Marina Russia Schneider Scott United States Leskovar Matias A. Argentina Colliver Scott Australia Hernandez Fabian Mexico Casalino Francesco Italy Melia Ken England Varela Alejandro Uruguay Garcia Cervera Manolo Spain Owens SD United States Koons Nathaniel United States van Lieshout Henk Netherlands Lewis Warren United States Hebrard Jean-Marc France Sweet Eric United States Arruda Manuel United States Schulze Michael Germany Ophoff Jacques South-Africa Scheel Glen United States Birch Cliff England Crandall David United States Poleschi Ricardo Argentina Meyer Mike United States Blazevic Zlato Netherlands Walker Henry United States Pitzer Jimmy United States Bemrose Trevor Australia Sy Romeo Philippines Mora Jesus Spain Luggenhorst Albert Netherlands Robertson Blyth Stuart Scotland Allen Richard United States Van Zwol Randy Canada Cesbron Guy France Ritchey Ben United States Blake Michael England Bernier Denis Canada Wilson Jeffery United States Thompson Junior United States Bengoa Josu Spain Kuckel Andreas Germany Loof Kent Sweden Hamilton Thomas Scotland Vogel Trevor United States Gorelikov Igor Russia van Looijengoed Eric Netherlands Rodriguez Pancho Dominican Giacusa Sergio Leonel Nicolas Uruguay Cohoon Bobby United States White Keith United States Radovcic Stevan Canada O'Brien Kenneth Ireland Campbell Christopher United States Vorobjev Albert Russia Croad Timothy New Zealand Popov Boris Yugoslavia Conley Sam United States Roberts Guy New Zealand Durai Ponnusamy England Brinkman John England Anter Steve United States Williamson Linwood United States Henry Charles United States Graff David United States Goodwin Dave United States van Tonder Johann South-Africa Besleaga Mircea Romania Mosley David 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. Section 2 GAMES Man vs. Machine Match by Steve Ryan The issue of computer use (chess engines) remains a hot topic among postal and e-mail clubs the world over. Some clubs, such as our own IECC, prohibit the use of chess engines. Others allow their use and some have chosen to avoid the issue altogether by neither prohibiting nor allowing them. Any IECC members who have visited The Correspondence Chess Message Board (TCCMB) that forms a part of John Knudsen's web site, correspondencechess.com, may have seen a "Computer Challenge" I posted on TCCMB inviting any high-ranked player to take on my own chess engine (yes, I have one, and no, I don't use it to help analyze games in progress). Volker Jeschonnek (CCLA 2100 at the start of the match) accepted my invitation. We drew up some rules as guidelines in this experiment, which you may still see on Ralph Marconi's Chess Page (RMCP)*, for a limited time, and things got underway on October 27 1999. For accuracy, I must state that the engine cannot resign a position (though the human opponent may do so), but must play until mated. Our rules stated that the human "must checkmate the computer to win", but please note, as I said above, that we intended the rules to act as guidelines only. In each game below, I resigned on the engine's behalf, after consultation with Volker and the match arbiter, Ralph Marconi. When even a patzer like myself can recognize a dead-lost position, things have gone far enough. Engine WChess, from "Power Chess '98", Sierra Corporation. Computer Specs 233 MHz Pentium Processor, 2 GB Hard Drive (with ~ 800 MB unused space at the start of the match), 32 MB RAM, and 24x CD ROM drive. These specifications easily exceed the minimum requirements stated by Sierra. The engine played on its highest setting in the "unlimited time" mode. As part of the experiment, I recorded both the "computer time" and the engine's evaluation of the position at the end of each move. See the tables following the game scores. These games proved effortless for me. Volker had to do all the hard work, for which he deserves full credit. Volker also provided extensive commentary on both games, which you can see on Marconi's page. I will refrain from doing any annotations of my own, (better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt). As you will see (and much to my relief), Volker defeated the engine in both games. [Event "Private Match"] [Site "RMCP"] [Date "2000.05.31"] [White "WChess"] [Black "Jeschonnek, Volker"] [Result "0-1"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nf3 Bg7 4.Nc3 d5 5.cxd5 Nxd5 6.e4 Nxc3 7.bxc3 O-O 8.Be2 c5 9.O-O b6 10.Ba3 Bb7 11.e5 cxd4 12.cxd4 Qd7 13.Qd2 Rd8 14.Rfc1 Bd5 15.Rc2 Nc6 16.Rd1 a6 17.Kh1 Rab8 18.Qe3 Qb7 19.Rdc1 Rdc8 20.Kg1 Na7 21.Bc4 Bxc4 22.Rxc4 Rxc4 23.Rxc4 Nb5 24.Qc1 Nxa3 25.Rc7 Qa8 26.Qxa3 Bf8 27.Qb3 Rc8 28.Ng5 e6 29.Qc4 Rxc7 30.Qxc7 Qe8 31.Qxb6 Qa4 32.h3 Be7 33.Nxe6 fxe6 34.Qxe6+ Kf8 35.Qc8+ Kg7 36.Qb7 Qab4 37.Qxb4 Bxb4 38.d5 g5 39.Kf1 Kg6 40.g4 Bc3 41.e6 Kf6 42.Ke2 Bb4 43.Kd3 Ke5 44.Kc4 Bd6 45.Kb3 0-1 WChess - VJ Move # Computer Time (secs) Evaluation** 1-10 < 1 per move even 11 1 even 12 1 even 13 1 0.19 14 2 even 15 2 0.02 16 4 even 17 21 even 18 18 -0.23 19 15 0.42 20 10 0.53 21 12 0.19 22 10 0.19 23 15 0.23 24 80 0.53 25 50 0.50 26 3 0.73 27 1 0.96 28 1 0.65 29 1 0.50 30 7 0.40 31 10 0.80 32 5 0.89 33 5 1.12 34 10 0.53 35 7 0.87 36 5 0.89 37 2 2.50 38 5 1.04 39 2 1.20 40 2 0.90 41 6 0.40 42 6 0.30 43 2 0.30 44 2 -1.20 45 4 -1.60 Total computer time = 328 seconds ** In pawn-equivalents. A minus (-) score indicates disadvantage for the computer. [Event "Private Match"] [Site "RMCP"] [Date "2000.05.31"] [White "Jeschonnek, Volker"] [Black "WChess"] [Result "1-0"] 1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 e6 3.c4 Nf6 4.g3 Be7 5.Bg2 O-O 6.O-O Nbd7 7.Qc2 c6 8.b3 b5 9.c5 Ne4 10.Bb2 f5 11.Ne1 Bg5 12.Nd3 Qa5 13.a3 Ba6 14.Re1 Rab8 15.e3 Rf7 16.b4 Qc7 17.f3 Nef6 18.Nbd2 Bh6 19.Ne5 Nxe5 20.dxe5 Nd7 21.f4 Rd8 22.Nf3 Nf8 23.Bf1 Bb7 24.a4 a6 25.Ra3 g6 26.Nd4 Ba8 27.Rea1 Bb7 28.axb5 axb5 29.Ra7 Bg7 30.Ra1a5 Kh8 31.Bf1xb5 cxb5 32.Nd4xb5 Qb8 33.c6 Bxc6 34.Qxc6 Rxa7 35.Ra5xa7 Rc8 36.Qcb7 Qxb7 37.Rxb7 Rc2 38.Bd4 Rc1+ 39.Kg2 Kg8 40.Nd6 Rc2+ 41.Kf1 Rc1+ 42.Ke2 Kh8 43.b5 Rc2+ 44.Kd3 Rc1 45.b6 h5 46.Rc7 Re1 47.b7 Rb1 48.Rc8 Kh7 49.b8=Q Rxb8 50.Rxb8 g5 1-0 VJ - WChess Move # Computer Time (secs) Evaluation** 1-11 < 1 per move even 12 1 0.50 13 2 0.50 14 2 0.19 15 15 even 16 10 even 17 85 even 18 75 -0.50 19 83 - 0.50 20 15 -0.50 21 22 -0.70 22 80 -0.90 23 85 -1.04 24 75 -1.05 25 55 -1.05 26 2 -1.06 27 2 -1.04 28 2 -1.23 29 10 -2.00 30 7 -1.75 31 5 -2.24 32 5 -1.68 33 5 -1.22 34 15 -1.49 35 7 -1.50 36 2 -1.24 37 7 - 0.90 38 6 -0.79 39 6 -1.04 40 2 -1.08 41 2 - 0.39 42 5 -1.23 43 9 -1.49 44 28 -2.71 45 5 -3.05 46 24 -5.25 47 2 -5.52 48 10 -5.87 49 4 -6.29 50 5 -6.46 Total Computer time = 782 seconds ** In pawn-equivalents. A minus (-) score indicates disadvantage for the computer. * Ralph Marconi's Chess Page http//www.correspondencechess.com (follow the links). Thanks go to Ralph for hosting these games and doing a fine job of it. ----------------------- The First "E-mail" Chess by Neil Brennen E-mail is rapidly changing correspondence chess. This statement no one argues. But a form of "E-mail" had been changing correspondence chess 150 years ago. And in our rush to embrace the "new" technology, we have forgotten the "old", as well as the players and their games. E-mail had a predecessor-the telegraph. The first "electronic" marvel, the telegraph was revolutionary in that it brought electric speed to a steam-, wind-, and horse-powered age. News that had previously taken one day to travel from New York to Philadelphia could be transmitted in minutes. Isolated communities could be linked with the major cities. Newspapers advertised "News by Telegraph" on their pages as a modern company would advertise it's "dot com". Chessplayers soon started to investigate the telegraph as a chess move transmitter. The first "e-mail" chess game was played between Baltimore and Washington, DC, in 1844. And no less a figure than Howard Staunton (in consultation) played the first European telegraph game in 1845. It soon became apparent the new technology had a few advantages over post. First was reliability-the move got there in minutes, and if it didn't get there, you found out about it soon enough. Next was speed- a whole game could be played in one playing session, or two or three, as opposed to a multi-year postal "epic". And just like postal, the telegraph provided the chance to play opponents you had never met before, an important asset, especially in a large country such as the United States with the bulk of it's population in small rural communities. But the new technology was expensive for an individual player to conduct a game by telegraph, and also only one game at a time could be transmitted, and so, like postal games before the introduction of the "penny post", games were played between chess clubs, and moves decided upon by consultation among club members, or a "playing committee". The matches used standard correspondence chess practices, such as not allowing moves to be taken back, and use of written notes during play. Also, the spirit of "Amici Sumus" appears to have prevailed during these contests. The games below were recovered during research for a historical article on telegraph matches. Both of the following games are the result of an American telegraph chess boom that took place after the New York-Philadelphia match of 1858. This match, won by the chess players from Philadelphia 1.5 - 0.5, received favorable press notices throughout the USA and Europe. Lowenthal, for instance, one of the world's best players, wrote about the match in the LONDON ERA. Word of the match spread rapidly in the USA (by telegraph!), and spawned an epidemic of "telechess". As the chess column of the December 11th, 1858 PHILADELPHIA EVENING BULLETIN put it, "The Telegraph Match between Philadelphia and New York bids fair to set all the wires in the country to work, flashing chess games to and fro." The column further notes three telegraph matches had occurred among Philadelphia area clubs since Nov.25th. Later columns in the BULLETIN mention matches between New York and Boston, Philadelphia and Wilmington, DE, and Philadelphia and Cincinnati, just to name a few. All of these matches are forgotten in the modern electronic age that the telegraph helped found. While strong players often played in these matches (the New York-Philadelphia and New York-Boston matches featured the strongest American players, aside from Paul Morphy and Louis Paulsen), in the smaller communities the local clubs had no luminaries to draw on. Often the players names are not known, essential historical details (such as dates) are missing, and the games themselves often times are a little rough. However, even imprecise chess can be fun chess, as the following game shows [Event "Telegraph Game"] [Site "?"] [Date "1859.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Painted Post"] [Black "Bath"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "C24"] [Annotator "Francis Wells and Samuel Lewis"] [PlyCount "92"] {Played by Telegraph between the Amateurs of Painted Post and the Bath Club. The towns of Painted Post and Bath are on the New York, Eire and Buffalo Railroads, NY.} 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 ({In reference to this move, Staunton remarks, "...Nf6 is the defence most highly approved by Jaenich and the writers of the German Handbuch. Although of opinion that playing Kt. Is a safe defence, I am not prepared to estimate it as much superior to the old move of 2...Bc5 as those able writers assume it to be, especially, since I find, in their able analysis of the two defences, that the result, with the best play on both sides, is, in either case, a drawn game."}). 3.Qf3 {This is not a good move, 3.d4, 3.d3, 3.f4, 3.Nf3 or 3.Nc3 would have been preferable}. 3...Bc5 4.d3 d6 5.Nh3 { Bad; adding to their cramped position.} 5...h6 6.c3 Be6 7.Bxe6 ({ We would prefer} 7. Bb3) 7...fxe6 8.Nd2 Nbd7 9. Qg3 Qe7 10.Nb3 Bb6 11.Qh4 {A lost move, and therefore bad.} 11...O-O-O 12.Qg3 g5 13.Be3 c5 {A good move, by which they win the exchange of R for Kt.} 14.f3 Rdg8 15.O-O-O g4 16.fxg4 Nxg4 17.Bd2 c4 18.dxc4 Nf2 19.Qf3 Rf8 20.Qe2 { From this point we think Black ought to have won.} 21.Rxh1 Nc5 22.Nxc5 dxc5 ({We think that} 22...Bxc5 {would have been better.}) 23.Nf2 h5 24.h4 Bd8 25.Nd3 Qd6 26..Be3 b6 27.Rd1 Qc7 28.Bf2 Rfg8 29.g3 Rg4 30.Rg1 Qh7 31 Re1Bf6 32.Kb1 Qg6 33.Kc2 Rxg3 {Bath appeared to be in a hurry to finish the game.} 34.Bxg3 Qxg3 35.b4 Bxh4 36.bxc5 bxc5 37.Rh1 Rf8 38.Rh2 Rf3 39.Rxh4 {Well played. This move, we think, secures a drawn game for White.} 39...Rxd3 40.Qxh5 Rd8 41.Rg4 Qd3+ 42.Kb3 Qd6 43.Rg5 Qb6+ 44.Ka3 Qa5+ 45. Kb3 Qb6+ 46.Ka3 Qa5+ {Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, February 12th, 1859. (Black had first move; colors were reversed in line with modern practice.-NB)} 1/2-1/2 The following players would no doubt have been anonymous, had not a distinguished name played for one side. Unfortunately the PHILADELPHIA EVENING BULLETIN column does not say if the E. Morphy leading the Quincy players was Ernest, Paul's uncle, or Edward, Paul's older brother. Either one of them would have been the second best chess player in the Morphy family, and one of the best chess players of New Orleans. [Event "Telegraph Match"] [Site "?"] [Date "1860.01.19"] [Round "?"] [White "St Louis CC"] [Black "Quincy CC"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "C51"] [PlyCount "73"] {Played by telegraph between the Chess Clubs of St Louis, Mo., and Quincy, Ill., January 18th, 1860. St Louis Chess Club Messrs. Skinner, Brown, Daenzer, Mysenberg, Jenks, Quincy Chess Club E. Morphy, Tillson, Roland, Richardson.} 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.O-O d6 7.d4 exd4 8.cxd4 Bb6 9.d5 Nce7 10.e5 Bg4 11.Bb2 dxe5 12.Bxe5 Nf6 13.Qb3 O-O 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Nbd2 Ng6 16.h3 Bxf3 17.Nxf3 Qd6 18.Rae1 Rae8 19.Rxe8 Rxe8 20.Re1 Rxe1+ 21.Nxe1 Ne5 22.Qg3+ Kh8 23.Bb3 c5 24.Nd3 Bc7 25.Nxe5 Qxe5 26.Qxe5 Bxe5 27.Bc4 Kg7 28.Kf1 a6 29.a4 Kf8 30.Ke1 Ke8 31 Kd2 Kd7 32.Kc2 Kc7 33.a5 Kd7 34.Kb3 Bd6 35.Bd3 h6 36.Bf5+ Kc7 37.Bd3 { drew the game and won the match. Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, January 28th, 1860.} 1/2-1/2 --------------- CL4-1999.20 winner - Ed Lacey I am 51 and have problems with my health so I am in early retirement. My father taught me to play chess when I was 7 and I could remember how he showed me fool's mate. I played at school but was never happy with time controls. I cannot remember how I found out about e-mail chess though it must have been while I was surfing the net. Anyway, I found the IECC and started playing about 2 1/2 years ago and was immediately hooked. I like the fact that I don't have to memorise openings. Moreover, I can move the pieces and most of all that I can work at my own pace. I found it difficult at first getting used to the standard of play but I've played over 100 games now and am now much happier. I should say that I was only a winner through the misfortune of Franco Fantoni who became ill and I was awarded a win in a game that was a dead draw! Nevertheless, I should have been a joint winner with Hans-Peter Hoefer. (Here Edward managed to overcome an inferior opening to unleash a devious tactic (23...e4!) which nets a whole piece. Ironically, it was his worst placed piece (Bg7) which clinched the point for him! - Junior Tay) [Event "CL4-1999.20"] [Site "IECC"] [White "Burks, Stan"] [Black "Lacey, Edward"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "E92"] [Annotator "Edward Lacey & Junior Tay"] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.Nf3 O-O 5.e4 d6 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 c5 8.d5 {Now we have a King's Indian Defence Averbakh Variation} 8...e5 {?! It will be difficult to mobilise the King Bishop after this move. In such Czech Benoni structures, it is not easy for Black to maneuver given his cramped position.} 9.Be2 Qc7 10.Qd2 {?! N This square belongs to the King Knight.} {10.Nd2 Nh7 11.a3 (11.f3 a6 12.a3 Nd7 13.Bf2 f5 14.b4 f4 15.Rb1 Nhf6 16.Qb3 b6 17.O-O Rf7 18.bxc5 bxc5 19.Qa4 Bb7 20.Rb2 Nf8 21.Rfb1 Bc8 22.Qc6 Ra7 23.Rb6 Rd7 24.Qxc7 Raxc7 25.Nb3 Ne8 {Byrne,R-Sherwin,J/New York 1961/MCD/1-0 (60)} (11.O-O f5 12.exf5 gxf5 13.f3 Ng5 14.Qc2 a6 15.a3 Nd7 16. Kh1 Rf7 17.Rab1 Nf8 18.Bf2 Ng6 19.b4 b6 20.bxc5 bxc5 21.Na4 Nf4 22.Rfe1 Nxe2 23.Rxe2 Rb8 24.Ree1 Bd7 25.Rxb8+ Qxb8 {Cruz,R-Garcia,R/Buenos Aires 1962/MCD/1-0 (41)})a6 12.b4 Nd7 13.Qc2 h5 14.f3 Bh6 15.Bf2 b6 16.Rb1 Bg5 17.Nb3 h4 18.O-O Nhf6 19.bxc5 bxc5 20. Rb2 Nh5 21.Rfb1 Rb8 22.Nd2 Rxb2 23.Qxb2 Nf4 24.Bf1 f5 {Jansson,B-Panno,O/Lugano 1968/MCD/0-1 (90)}) 10...Nbd7 11.O-O {?! In positions like this, White's general plan is to advance his pawns on both sides of the board, given his greater room to mobilise his pieces. If he can achieve g2-g4 before Black gets in f5, he gets a great game. White should keep his king in the centre.} (11.Ng1 {!?} 11...a6 (11...Nh7 {??} 12.Nb5 Qb6 13.Be7 {+-}) 12.g4 {+=} 12...Nh7 13. Bd3 {with a Kingside bind} Nb6 14.h3 {+=}) (11.Qe3 {?} 11...Ng4 {!} (11...a6 12.Nd2 {+=}) 12.Qd3 (12.Qc1 f5 13.Nd2 {+=}) f5 {!} 13.h3 Ngf6 14.exf5 e4 15.Nxe4 Nxe4 16.Qxe4 Nf6 {with counterplay}) 11...g5 12.Bg3 Nh5 13.h3 Nxg3 (13...Nf4{!? with counterplay. White will not want to play Bxf4 as exf4 frees the g7 Bishop, thus the Nf4 remains a dangerous piece looming at White's Kingside.}) 14. fxg3 {White's pawn structure is weakened but white still has an edge in development} 14... Nb6 15.Nh2 {?} (15.g4 {! and Black is hard pressed to find a pawn break that will free his pieces.}15...Bd7 16.a4 {With a good initiative}) 15...f5 {! Now Black can breathe...} 16.b3 Qe7 17.Bh5 Bd7 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Bg4 19...Bg6 {necessary...to contest the e4 square} 20.Rae1 Nd7 21.Be6+ Kh8 22.Nf3 Nf6 23.Qe3 {?? missing a strong tactic by Black. It's amazing how the most useless looking piece (Bg7) turns out to be the goal scorer!}(23.g4 { ! must be played...}) 23...e4 {! Touche'} 24.Nxg5 {-+} (24.Nd2 24...Ng4 {!}25.Bxg4 (25.Qe2 Bd4+ 26.Kh1 Nf2+ 27. Kh2 27...e3 {-+ with Bd3 to follow}) (25...Bd4 {there goes the lady...}) 24...Nh5 {! There is no rush to capture the Ng5 as the deadly Bd4 pin on the Queen is still threatened} 25.Rxf8+ Rxf8 26.Kh2 Qxg5 27.Qxg5 hxg5 28.Nxe4 28...Bd4 {! with a clean piece albeit for two pawns up, Black mops up comfortably.} 29.g4 Be5+ 30.Kg1 Ng3 31.Nxg3 Bxg3 32.Rc1 Rf2 33.Rc3 Be5 34.Kxf2 Bxc3 35.Bf5 Be8 36.Ke2 Kg7 37.Kf3 b5 38.g3 bxc4 39.bxc4 Be1 40.Bc2 Kf6 41. Bf5 Ke5 42.h4 gxh4 43.gxh4 Bxh4 44.Ke3 Ba4 45.Kd3 Kf4 46.Kd2 Kf3 47. Kd3 Bg5 48.Be6 Bd1 49.Bf5 Be2+ 50.Kc3 Ke3 51.Bd7 Bf6+ 0-1 --------------------------------------------- Year 2000 Diaries (part 2) by Zafer Djabri At the time of writing, the first round of the Y2KO Open is more than 95% complete, with only a handful of games remaining. Roll on round 2... There have been more than the expected number of upsets given the large rating differences between the two halves of the draw. However, many of the most interesting games have been those where the stronger player won, but only after a fight. Our highlighted game this issue features a smoothly played attack, stubborn defence, and lots of tactics. [Event "Y2KO.1.107"] [Site "IECC"] [Round "1"] [White "Fedorko, Andrew"] [Black "Gould, Michael"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "D85"] [PlyCount "71"] [EventDate "1999"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Nf3 c5 8.Rb1 O-O 9. Be2 cxd4 10. cxd4 Qa5+ 11. Bd2 Qxa2 {Black's in good company grabbing the a-pawn here Kasparov, Anand, Leko, Shirov, Svidler, Ivanchuk...currently this is the most critical line in the Grunfeld} 12. O-O b6 13. Qc1 Bb7 14. Bc4 Qa4 15. Bb5 Qa2 16. Re1 {White can force the draw here with 16.Bc4 Qa4 17.Bb5 etc, but that's no way to play chess!} 16...Rc8 17. Qd1 Qc2 18. Qe2 Qc7 ?! {Although it seems very natural to retreat the queen out of danger, Black has considerable problems unravelling the clump of pieces on the queenside after this.} (18... Nc6 !? 19. Bd3 19...Qa2 20. Bc4 ({it looks like the Black queen has nowhere to go after} 20. Ra1 Qb2 21. Reb1 {but now Black has} 21... Nxd4 !) 20... Qa4 {led to a very sharp position in Lautier-Shirov, Belgrade1995}) 19.Rbc1 Qd8 20.Rxc8 Qxc8 (20...Bxc8 {is worth considering also}) 21. Rc1 Qd8 22.Bf4 ! {Keeps Black tied up.} 22...a6 ({Out of the question was} 22... Bxd4 ? 23. Bc7) ({while attempting to develop with} 22... Nd7 ? {leads to} 23. Rc7 Bc8 24. Qc2 {(threat Bc6)} 24...e5 25.Bg5 {with a large advantage}) 23.Ba4 e6 {Alternatives} (23... b5 24. Bb3 e6 {f7 is a new target if the knight moves} (24... Nc6 25. Bxf7+ ! Kxf7 26. Qa2+ Ke8 27. Qg8+ Bf8 28. Qxh7 Qd7 29. Qxg6+ Kd8 30. Ng5 +-) (24... Nd7 25.Rc7 Bc8 26. Bxf7+ ! Kxf7 27. Ng5+ Ke8 28. Ne6) 25. Rc7 Bc8 (25... Ra7 26. Rxf7 Kxf7 27. Ng5+ Ke7 28. Nxe6 Qb6 29. Nxg7 +-) 26. Qc2 {is similar to the game}) (23... Nd7? 24. Rc7 Bc8 25. Qc2 b5 {to stop Bc6} 26. Bb3 e6 27. Qc6 ! Rb8 28. Bxe6 ! fxe6 29. Qxe6+ Kh8 30. Ng5 {with unstoppable threats}) 24. Rc7 Bc8 25. Qc2 Bd7 (25...Nd7 26. Bc6) 26. d5 ! (26. Bxd7 Nxd7 27. Qc6 Nf8 28. Qxb6 {would win back the pawn, but hand the advantage over.}) 26...exd5 (26...Bxa4 27. Rc8 ! Bxc2 28. Rxd8+ Bf8 29. Bh6 Nd7 30. Rxa8 +-) 27. Ng5 !? Qf6 ?! (27...h6? 28. Nxf7 Kxf7 29. Bxd7 Nxd7 30. Qc6 Kg8 31. Rxd7 +-) ({This could be the moment to take on a4, as the knight on g5 makes Bh6 impossible in the line mentioned last move} 27... Bxa4 ! 28. Rc8 Bxc2 29. Rxd8+ Bf8 30.Bd6 Nd7 31. Rxa8 h6 32. Nf3 dxe4 {is only slightly better for White}) 28. Qc1 (28. Rc8+ ? Bxc8 29. Qxc8+ Bf8 30. Qxf8+ Kxf8 31. Nxh7+ Ke7 32. Nxf6 Kxf6 -/+) 28... h6 29. Nxf7 ! Bxa4 (29... Qxf7 30. Bb3 +-) (29... Kxf7 30. Bb3 +-) 30. Be5 ! Qxf7 ! (30... Qh4 31. Bxg7 Nd7 (31... Kxg7 32. Qa1+ Qf6 33. Nd6+ Nd7 34. Qxa4 {wins}) 32. Ne5 Rd8 (32... Nf6 33. Nf3 Qxe4 34. Bxf6) 33. Nf3 Qxe4 34. Qxh6 {leaves Black in a bad way}) (30... Qe6 ? 31. Nxh6+ Bxh6 32. Qxh6 {leads to mate}) 31. Rxf7 Bxe5 (31... Kxf7 ? 32. Bxb8 Rxb8 33. Qc7+) 32. Rb7 Nd7 33. Qxh6 Nf8 {A sort of material equality has been restored though it's rare to see the queen vs 3 minor pieces! However, the exposed Black King and numerous loose pawns and pieces are the important factors here, and Black throws in the towel shortly} 34. Qd2 Rd8 35. f4 Bg7 36. Rxb6 1-0 Section 3 The Trials and Tribulations of Being a CC Player by Santhosh Matthew Paul Editors Note This article first appeared on The Correspondence Chess Message Board as a reply to some remarks from IM Steve Ham about juggling family life and CC. Santosh has graciously allowed me to reproduce it here for your enjoyment. At his request, I have made some minor editorial corrections which you will not find on the original post. S.R. ----------------------------------------- Hi, all! Fascinating subject, this - the antipathy of wives to their beloved husbands expending time, capital, energy and intellectual resources in the pursuit of a wooden king on a wooden board is all but proverbial. Last year, when the first Master Class games were being made available at the Games Archive, I posted a piece called "Dial M for Monster", lampooning some flagrant blunders I found there (like putting Queens en prise etc.,). Bruce Kover then replied, saying that many of the errors could be attributed to pressure from the wife - indeed, he went on to say, many CC players have buckled under the pressure and abandoned the game. I found this reply astonishing at the time. I was newly-married, and in a sense our conjugal life had not yet begun. My wife was working in Chennai (Madras), awaiting a transfer to Cochin. Now, I understand. My wife has made dire threats from time to time, ranging from catapulting my pocket-set over the wall into the neighbour's garden to pulling out wires at random from my PC. It has never really got to that stage, but yes, I would be less than honest if I said I feel no pressure. On normal days, I get home by 6pm. If there is shopping to be done, we go out together and get back by 8pm latest. We live in the center of town, and so manage pretty well, even though we don't own a vehicle. Dinner is at 830 PM; news on TV is combined with dinner, and is over by 9 PM. Wifey prefers to turn in at 930 PM, but with little Ashish around, that has slipped back to around 1030. On the days when I get back at 6 PM, I generally manage around 45 minutes to myself before dinner. In any case, I squeeze in an hour after 9 PM. So, on good days, I get around two hours a day. On Saturdays, I stay up longer after 9 PM, sometimes till up to 1130 PM even, because the next day is a holiday. On Sundays, I manage an hour or so in the afternoon, and another hour or so after 7 PM. So, as you see, I get enough time. It's not only for CC, I need time to create HTML pages, do some general reading, and I'm now also the Games Editor of our Bulletin. Of course, conditions are different here in Cochin. We have a resident cook, a resident baby sitter to look after Ashish when wifey and I go to work, and a top worker who comes for a couple of hours in the day to sweep the house and wash the clothes. It must be said, however, that getting domestic help is becoming increasingly tough day by day, and it won't be long before we too are forced to switch to the Western model No domestic help, do everything ourselves. Steve, about the only thing you can do in my opinion, is to cut down your CC commitments to what you can comfortably manage. Burning the midnight oil is NOT on, unless you are one of those who can make do with just a few hours sleep each night. Not me, I get irritable and cranky after a few night's running. However, every other day could be a reasonable compromise, your system would get time to recover from the previous night's exertions. Your wife will also be happier, remember, you would be cutting down no less than 50% of your chess activity at one stroke. Use this major concession as a bargaining chip to win two or three hours of uninterrupted, quality chess time during the weekends. The World Ch, in my opinion, you SHOULD play. Shut out all other CC activity. You can make time. I think it will be played mostly by post, you can use the transit time. Work out something, Steve, you can find a way if you try hard enough! I admit I have no conception of what CC is like at those rarefied heights. Maybe I am talking crap. If so, forgive me, but I have spoken my mind. Another thing. Preventive action is better than corrective action. Before signing on the dotted line, it would be nice to prepare one's future spouse for the consuming passion and way of life that CC is. Of course, it's too late for most of us, but in my case, my reputation as a chess freak had preceded me, so some kind of preparation was certainly there. I happen to know on CC player who has taken this wise precaution, for what it is worth. "...long, stressful hours at work..." You bet! I couldn't agree with you more. I try and reach the work place at 830 am, half an hour early. That gives me time to browse a bit, including chess and computing sites. I then size up my staff with a beady eye, I ask questions, elicit feedback, demand explanations, invite comments, issue instructions, bark orders, assign assignments, draw road maps and above all, delegate, delegate, delegate. That done, I lean back in my chair and think about my most nettlesome CC positions. Huh, that Kings Gambit against the 2500+ guy, I'll have to go at it hammer and tongs, no procrastination, no accumulation, of force, no prophylaxis. Go for broke. Die young like Keats. Cowley's Complaint. Ha, ha, ha, ha! A short story could be spun out of that. Nervous, shy and retiring adolescent chess prodigy playing the tournament of his life. The closest he's ever got to a woman is when he was (a babe) in his mother's arms . Also, playing in the same event is a brash beauty called Ms. Squeezeit Harder, with a penchant for explosive combinative play. It does not escape anybody's attention that Ms. Harder has a bosom that has a far more pernicious effect on susceptible individual's positions than the best of Bishop pairs. The final round brings the two together ..... Good God, what was that?? The phone. Perish the tiresome trivialities of daily existence. Routine matter, disposed of in an instant. I survey the scene around me. Everybody as busy as beavers. Absolutely humming with activity. I lean back contentedly. God is in His Heaven and all is well with the world. I close my eyes and take a couple of deep breaths. I plug the headphones into my ears and slide hymns and lullabies into the CD tray. Aaaaaaaaaah, what bliss! I believe in sleeping on my CC positions. My reverie is interrupted by a commotion outside. I open one beady eye. My boss comes charging in doing a fair imitation of a fire-breathing dragon. He seems to be raving about some love bug. I close the aforesaid beady eye, and hope he will go away. He doesn't. I open both beady eyes, give him a withering look and hope he will go away. He doesn't. I pat him on the head, tell him to be a good boy and hoof it back to his cabin, pronto. He doesn't. Sigh! One of his difficult days. Before closing, let me say I have replaced my poster sized jpg with one of more modest proportions in the "Adventures" article. Sheer necessity. You wouldn't believe the number of nubile chess chicks who wrote in begging me to father their children. It was getting kind of distracting, what with a wife and a four month old son. I have also inserted a photo of my Austrian opponent in that Gruenfeld game, Ernst. After all, it was OUR game. Cheerio! Santhosh. ------------------------------------ Book Review By Stephen Hilton "Winning Unorthodox Openings" by Angus Dunnington Publisher Everyman Press This book looks at unorthodox openings which the author describes as 5 of the more respectable unorthodox openings. The openings are 1.b4 Sokolsky,1.b3 Nimzo-Larsen, 1.f4 Birds, 1.g3 King's fianchetto and 1.Nc3 the Queen's Knight opening. This book will prove particularly useful to those correspondence or e-mail players who like to play the more unusual kind of openings. However I am not sure that I would classify 1 b3 or 1 g3 as unorthodox The author stresses the transpositional possibilities of the openings he features, though he also stresses the independent direction that these openings can take. I do disagree with some of the authors comments on some the reactions that black takes against the Sokolsky 1 b4, as the opening is one of my personal favourites. The layout of the book is excellent and is very easy to follow something that is all too rare in chess books these days. It is not too heavy a book to digest and is very well prepared by the author. This is a book that is well worth having. ------------------------------------------- Rumor & Gossip by The Silicon Saboteur In their never-ending quest to "dig out the dirt" everywhere in the wide world of Correspondence Chess for the sole purpose of their own amusement, my spies, agents and operatives throughout the IECC have uncovered these startling facts 1. BOBBY FISCHER joins IECC! 2. Tim NAGLEY uses MIND CONTROL! 3. UIFWCKECFCGOST to UNIFY all clubs! 1. Your ever-vigilant saboteur regularly scans the IECC "Events List" looking for the names of famous people possibly involved in plots like Tina Polgar's and noticed that "ROBERT J. FISCHER" had applied for a Thematic Tournament (if I remember correctly). It did not appear in the next "Events List", so Bobby has probably found an opponent. Who wouldn't jump at a chance to play Bobby Fischer? I'm not suggesting that his opponent "ease up" a bit and let him win, but if he or she could somehow contrive to give him a bit of a "morale boost", he may come out of hiding and rejoin the world, for better or worse. 2. IECC's assistant CEO, lawyer, PSYCHIATRIST, technical editor and general man-about-town Tim (The Terror) Nagley uses MIND CONTROL! How else do you explain the following disaster (an actual IECC game), he played against my good friend Steve Ryan? W SR - B TN Colle System 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.c3 Nbd7 5.b3 e6 6.Bd3 Bd6 7.O-O e5 8.Nbd2?? e4 0-1. "The Terror" has, apparently, developed the ability to embed "hypnotic mind rays" in his moves. I caution all IECC members to wear dark glasses, or better yet, welding goggles, when opening his messages. 3. The Universal International Friendly World Chess Knights by E-Mail Correspondence Federation Club Group of the Square Table (pronounced you if wicky icy see fee see gee ost) wants to end this "ridiculous infighting" among all the e-mail groups and form the "world's biggest e-mail chess club". Since some of the old clubs they would subsume actually charge membership fees, the UIFWCKECFCGOST plans to exist on "donations". They do not, however, have any plans to admit "even one of those Neanderthal postal groups". As usual, watch this space for further developments. SS ---------------------- Miscellaneous As I mentioned in Issue 7, I welcome your contributions to the Journal. Please send in your games, anecdotes, humour, chess news, Letters to the Editor or whatever you have to me please, Steve Ryan ryansc@granite.mb.ca. Some contributions still find their way to Dave Glew who passes them on to me anyway, so why not eliminate the middle man? S.R. ------------- Copyright - anyone submitting material for publication in CHESS BITS retains all copyright privileges for use of the article outside the IECC. The IECC retains the unrestricted right to use such articles on IECC business at any time without the necessity either to ask for permission or to pay any kind of fee, in cash or kind. Un-annotated game scores remain in the "public domain" but all annotations belong to the annotator. -------------- The IECC has started at least one "family dynasty". George Angus tutored a Mr. Trevor Vogel in the New Member Program and passed along these remarks from Trevor "I belong to the North Kingstown chess club in my hometown. I am eleven years old and play in scholastic chess tournaments. My father plays email chess with IECC also. I want to begin email chess play." (I don't know if that makes Trevor our youngest member, but I'll bet he comes close. Good luck with your games Trevor my man. S.R.) ------------ And some more good news for the IECC. Dave Glew sent this one out earlier but it bears repeating. Maybe it will lessen the wrath of the person concerned about some earlier (but oh so true) remarks I've made... Tina Stanton, who, amongst all the other things she does for IECC, designed and looks after our web site, has received a message from Sarah Hurst, author of "Chess on the Web" which was published last year by Batsford Books, one of the foremost publishers of chess publications. The second edition will be published this year and the message includes the following comment- "The IECC site is again being reviewed in the book and I should point out that it is going up to the maximum five stars from four stars last year". The staff of Chess Bits add their congratulations also. GOOD JOB T.S. S.R. ------------ Some summer chess fun ---- Those of you familiar with John Knudsen's Correspondence Chess Message Board (TCCMB - http//correspondencechess.com/bbs) may know that Knudsen has challenged all comers to a "consultation match" wherein he will play single-handed against a team from TCCMB. The message board team may freely consult each other and exchange views on the next move. A majority vote by TCCMB team decides their next move. The IECC has two members on TCCMB team, myself and Neil Brennen. I reluctantly predict an easy win for Herr Knudsen. The TCCMB team may have to guard against falling prey to "Prima Donna Syndrome", but as the lowest-rated player on the team, I am mostly keeping my mouth shut. After much debate we have decided to answer Knudsen's opening move of 1.d4 with (the interesting but unproven line of ...d5. Grayling Hill , as TD, will have his hands full trying to keep this pack in line. You can see a Java replay move-by-move at THE CAMPBELL REPORT (follow the links from correspondencechess.com). ----------- Contributed by Sam Wedgeworth Here's something for the next edition of the newsletter or journal. A little light-hearted musical poke at computers. Nothing to do with chess per se but, computers are the instrument of contact. I got this in email today from some people know from a chatroom... Consider if the Fab 4, "The Beatles" had written these songs about computers or computer programming languages. They might read like these...sing the melody with these words!! YESTERDAY Yesterday, All those backups seemed a waste of pay. Now my database has gone away. Oh, I believe in yesterday. Suddenly, There's not half the files there used to be, And there's a millstone hanging over me. The system crashed so suddenly. I pushed something wrong What it was I could not say. Now all my data's gone and I long for yesterday-ay-ay-ay. Yesterday, The need for back-ups seemed so far away. I knew my data was all here to stay, Now I believe in yesterday. LET IT BE When I find my code in tons of trouble, Friends and colleagues come to me, speaking words of wisdom Write in C. As the deadline fast approaches, And bugs are all that I can see, Somewhere, someone whispers Write in C. Write in C, Write in C, Write in C, oh, Write in C. LOGO's dead and buried, Write in C. I used to write a lot of FORTRAN, For science it worked flawlessly. Try using it for graphics! Write in C. If you've just spent nearly 30 hours, Debugging some assembly, Soon you will be glad to Write in C. Write in C, Write in C, Write in C, yeah, Write in C. BASIC's not the answer. Write in C. Write in C, Write in C Write in C, oh, Write in C. Pascal won't quite cut it. Write in C. ------------------- Member Biographies MARK DIGLIO, our "Name The Journal" contest winner writes... I live in Baltimore, Maryland. I'm 42 and married with two boys ages 8 and 10. My wife is Irish. We go to Ireland every year at the cost of never seeing Disney World. My favorite past time is golf. What with the two boys and a golf pass every other week, there is no time to visit a local chess club. My father, a chemical engineer switched locations every 2-3 years as I grew up. When 8-10 years old, we lived in Holland. There I discovered chess. I had finally found a game my father did not think a waste of time. We played a game or two every night. In about three months, I was winning all our games. At age 11, we moved to Corpus Christi, Texas where I played against an International Grand Master putting on a simultaneous with three dozen players. I was the only one to beat him. My sense of excitement and passion for the game grew after that occasion. Age 15, we moved to King of Prussia, PA. The King of Prussia Chess Club was extremely strong as clubs go. I played there summers until college. The club met Wed, Fri and Sat in the mall from Noon-10 pm. Having dyslexia, book study was a task I turned to only when absolutely necessary. It was at King of Prussia that I fell in love with speed chess. Amazing what playing small variations on the same lines over and over again does for your reflexive knowledge of openings and defenses. These were the days where Bobby Fischer was king. His matches with Boris Spassky are famous. Come college, I realized there was more to life than chess. I did not play for years. With my own family and kids now, there is no time for visiting a local chess club. I get to clubs when on travel. A good one is the Balboa Chess Club in San Diego, California. Someday, I hope to visit the Manhattan Chess Club in New York City in that it was possibly the strongest in the U.S.A. back in Fischer's day. I joined the IECC shortly after it started. Postal chess took too long, but e-mail doesn't. The world becomes a smaller place. I enjoy not only the high quality of play the IECC offers, but learning about the places and customs of those I play. Therefore, the IECC and I are a perfect match. JOHN KNUDSEN John C. Knudsen is a relative newcomer to IECC, but not to correspondence chess! John has been a webmaster to one of the largest sites devoted to correspondence chess (http//correspondencechess.com) since 1996. This domain includes The Correspondence Chess Message Board (TCCMB), which is also the premier forum for correspondence chess discussions on the web (attracting thousands of visitors a week) and it is a very active board. He would especially like to see more IECC members posting there, and tries to make a plug for IECC whenever possible. Also at the domain are The Correspondence Chess Place (John's site); The Campbell Report, by noted journalist J. Franklin Campbell; Ralph Marconi's Chess Page by International Arbiter Marconi; the official ICCF On-line Game Archive; 10th World Correspondence Chess Champion Victor Palciauskas' web site, as well as much other material of interest. He is also the author of the book, "Essential Chess Quotations" and he recently started putting up an electronic book on the life and games of ICCM Sture Nyman, Sweden, who was a three-time World Championship Finalist. Details on these books can be found at John's web site. John does find time for correspondence chess himself, and plays email cc with the ICCF and IECC, in the master class (ICCF 2418). Knudsen is 44 years old, married with two grown sons and a 11 year daughter. He is retired military (20 years and 2 days in the US Army) and lives and works in Germany. ------------------------------ Notes From The New Member Program By Chuck Smith & Andrew Fedorko Chuck Smith Howdy from the New Member Group. We are the folks who usually are your first contact with IECC. The group is headed by Dirk de Leeuw, Andrew Fedorko and Chuck Smith. Andrew is Mr. Outside and is the one who receives the initial application from the new member. He processes it to Chuck Smith who assigns it to one of our hardworking tutors. Mr. Inside is Dirk who receives the word from the tutor that the training has been completed in a satisfactory manner and graduates the new member. At this point in time the desires of what the new member would like to participate in are also declared and this information is forwarded to the proper tournament director. Chuck acts as the overall co-ordinator for this effort. Most training sessions take anywhere from 2-3 days to sometimes 2 months for folks who are really new to chess and the Net. The norm is about 2-3 weeks. Most of the items listed in the in the Guidelines that are posted on the lECC Website are reviewed. Sometimes we just verify that they have actually read them and sometimes we ask detailed questions, depending on how the training sessions go. Our biggest problem is with non-English speaking players. We have only a few tutors who are fluent in other languages. Our biggest problem is a lack of tutors who understand and can write in Russian. Nearly all of our new applicants can read and understand some English but it can be difficult. We try to assign tutors who have roughly the same rating as the applicant and many times we are able to assign fellow countrymen as tutors. Andrew Fedorko So you want to join IECC - Ha ! Well to join you have to run the gauntlet of the New Member Program - the infamous NMP. First contact is likely to be Andrew Fedorko - he will scrutinize your application - sending you a copy of our latest Guidelines or a gentle inquiry into your true rating for those reluctant GM's who just cannot bring themselves to rate their own ability. Next your suitably "adjusted" application form (and other mystic details!) are forwarded to Chuck Smith - he does his best to allocate an appropriate Guide (from those hardworking members who undertake the thankless task of lifting applicants to the high status of "Members of IECC"). It's not easy for Chuck - our applicants come from far and wide and have widely different understanding of email program, language and chess ability. The Guides struggle to pass you through a program testing your understanding of our guidelines and chess - trying to ensure that the high standards expected from the membership are maintained - you wouldn't want it any other way would you! When finally the Guides recommend your "Graduation" Dirk de Leeuw puts the "bright eyed newbees" in touch with the Tournament Director of their choice - for your first serious games - and lets the rest of us know there is new prey - rabbit or tiger alike - for we chess predators! Still reading - not scared away ? Well don't forget it is YOUR club and we welcome volunteers - especially in the NMP where Guides with extra language skills are particularly welcome - contact Chuck Smith ! Don't you just love this chess club !! ----------------------------------- 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 second instalment of K.O.W. again as a "special reprint". The first instalment appeared in issue 7. KLUBECK ON WAR by Martin Klubeck As promised in the previous issue, I'll be finishing up on my method of analysis. Now we take what we learned about analyzing a position based on our major principles. These principles include material, development, king safety, control of the center, space, and pawn structure. This issue, I'll introduce the table I use for analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of a position Issue White Black -------------------------------------------------------- Material Development King Safety Center Space Pawn Structure Total Material First, let's review how you assign values to each of these principles. For material, determine the value of pieces you have vs. value of pieces your enemy has, remembering that he or she is your enemy - this is war. If you are up 3 points or more look for a possible quick finish, but don't take silly risks. You can lose even when ahead in material by playing too passively or too wildly. Remember that the point count is based on a value system for each piece pawns = 1, knights = 3, bishops = 3.5, rooks = 5 and queens = 10. Development For development we look at how many pieces you have developed on the board vs. the number your opponent has, and how well they are developed. I basically give a point for every piece that is "well" developed, a half a point for weak development and no points for poor development. In a general sense this means that if you develop your knight to a2, I'd count it as not developed. How about a3? Well, I may give a half a point, but probably not. Of course you may be planning to move it from a3 to a strong post at b5 or c4 or even back to c2, but while it is at a3, I give it 0.5 at best. This is a bit subjective, and you have to learn to determine well developed vs. poorly developed, but hey, I never said it would be easy! King Safety For king safety we check to see if you've castled. Is your castled position strong or weak? Is there a defending piece nearby to keep the king safe? I give a plus sign (or a zero) if you have castled behind three unmoved pawns and you have at least one piece near by defending. I give a minus 0.5 for the lack of a defender. I give a minus 1.0 for every pawn moved and another minus 1.0 (total of 2.0) if the pawn is no longer on the board. This means that if your king is out in the middle of the board trying to commit suicide, I'd give you a minus 6.5 - no protection. Center Control For center control, we count control of the four squares e4, e5, d4 and d5. Count how many times you attack the square and how many times your opponent attacks the same square. If you have more pieces attacking the square,you get a point. If you both equally own the square you each get a half point. Remember, occupying the square does not count as an attack on the square. Space To determine spatial advantage, we do the same kind of counting as for the center squares, except we count the number of squares controlled on the fourth rank or deeper into the opponent's territory. Pawn Structure For pawn structure give a minus 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. That was a quick review of what we covered last issue. For more detail, refer back to the last article. The next step is to use the table to determine a course of action. Before you decide that this table is the end-all, be-all for analysis, I have to stress something the most important use of this table is in the fact that it gets you objectively to assess the position and think about where your strengths and weaknesses lie. It doesn't matter if you use a formula (like the one I'm about to give you) or not - the biggest benefit is that you can form a plan based on the position. While psychology, ability, and even personal tendencies can and do affect every game, you often can't study those. You can study issues based on the principles of analysis I've laid out. Here we go. A short version of what we covered last issue 1. If you are up 3 or more points in material, look for a quick finish. Remember, three points only assures a draw if you get rid of all the other pieces on the board (unless the three points are in the form of pawns). 2. If you are up 2 or more points in development, look for combinations and sacrifices. You should have the advantage, see if you can use it before your opponent catches up. 3. If you are up 2 or more points in king safety, look for an attack on the king's position. 4. If you are up 2 or more points in the center, look to advance in space and to develop along owned squares toward a combination. Try to maintain your advantage. Look for posts for knights. 5. If you are up 3 or more points in space, look to build an attack. Look for combinations to win material. Look for squares deep in enemy territory to post your knights. 6. If you are up 5 or more points in pawn structure, look to finish your opponent off. Most times you should be able to win more material (pawns) due to the weakness. Don't simplify too early and lose the fire power necessary to attack the pawn weaknesses. That's it! Let's get to a game. Remember, I'm not as interested in looking into alternative lines (if x then y, but if j then k) as I am in analyzing the principles at given times in the game. These times in the game should relate to when you should be looking for a plan, or for moves which may swing the game in one direction or the other. [Event "M-1492.1"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "1997.12.31"] [White "Smith, James"] Black "Brooks, Mark"] [Result "0-1"] [Reference "Ceremonies of the Horsemen #2"] [Annotator "Martin Klubeck, 1934 (3/25/98)"] [Opening "Bird's Opening"] 1.f4 b6 2.Nf3 {Andrew Soltis gives 2.b3 Bb7 3.Bb2 in his book, Bird-Larsen Attack, Chess Digest Inc., 1989} 2...Bb7 3.b3 Nf6 4.c4 {This is not in keeping with the spirit of the Bird's Opening. Bird's Opening is essentially a Dutch Defense in reverse, and d5 by Black is expected and wanted. 4.c4 makes the game go in a different flavor} 4...c5 5.Nc3 {This early placement of the QN is also not commonly seen in the Bird's Opening. Bb2 is usually played with e3 and placement of the QN is reserved until later. Notice how both players are playing "modern" no center pawns have been touched! Let's look at the table.} Issue White Black -------------------------------------------------------- Material - - Development 2 2 King Safety -1 0 Center 2 2 Space 6 5 Pawn Structure -1 0 Total 8 9 Let's review how we calculated these scores. Material is even. If knights have been traded, you could give each player a score of 3.0, or since it is even, you could just use dashes again. Both players have two minor pieces developed (2.0 each - or dashes). White has a weakened kingside (a risk you take in the Bird's Opening), thus the -1. In the center White owns e5 and shares d4 and d5. Black owns e4 and shares d4 and d5. Hence 1 + .5 +0.5 = 2 for each player. Space is the number of squares owned outright equal to and past the fourth rank. You can (and should) pay special attention to the squares you share since these may be opportunities for you to gain the advantage by turning a shared square into one you own. On pawn structure, I gave White a minus one for the two unmoved center pawns. This is subjective, but I feel White is threatened with having a backward pawn in the center, and making it difficult for him to form a strong pawn structure. Giving White a minus one for the two unmoved pawns in the center, is more a means of pointing out the dangers than to prompt a plan by Black - although it could very well be made to work that way. For example, Black may find, by analyzing the table, that he should find a way to occupy the center and keep Whites pawns back, ore even better (for Black) - entice other White pawn weaknesses around the center. A new twist from last issue is the concept of point totals. This is useful to determine who is winning, a question I am always asked by students. If you are ahead by 5 or more points overall, I'd say you were clearly winning. Let's see how this pans out. 5...g6 {How does ...g6 change the nature of the analysis? Besides the fact that it gives a good square for the king bishop, it takes control of two more squares on the fourth rank or deeper (f5 and h5) and increases Black's space total to 7. Black is now ahead by three points.} 6.Bb2 Bg7 7.e3 {So far so good, for each player. They are still equal in development, but now White has gained control of the d4 square. Notice that once you have done a grid, you can refer back to how it changed or is changing as opposed to doing the grid from scratch. You can watch how the momentum or control of the game shifts.} 7...O-O 8.Be2 {This is one of the rare occasions that White can develop the king bishop to d3, blocking the d2 pawn! How would this change the situation?} with Be2 with Bd3 Issue white black white black ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Material - - - - Development 4 4 4 4 King Safety -1 0 -1 0 Center 2.5 1.5 3 1 Space 6 6 6 4 Pawn Structure 0 0 0 0 Total 11.5 12.5 12 9 {I took away the minus one for White's pawn position since he has two well based pawn chains now. Notice with Be2, that the bishop has not increased its scope significantly. The move is more of an opportunity to castle than to develop the bishop. Note also that I did not dock Black any points for king safety since the king bishop is standing in for the moved pawn. Of course, if White could trade off this bishop, Black would be at a -1 also. Very interesting! The difference in the totals swings the initiative from Black being ahead by 1 point to White being ahead by three! Of course it still is based on center control and space - very volatile areas, but important nonetheless. Note that you could also dock White another king safety point for the holes at e2 and f2, if White played Bd3.} {The analysis table is not intended as a silver bullet, able to kill all monsters with a single, well aimed shot. It is a tool. You still have to make decisions based on the tactics on the board, your strategy (which the tool should help you plan), and your style of play.} 8...Nc6 9.O-O d5 {Black finally plays in the center, gaining the e4 square and now taking a share of the d5 square again. The center count is now 2.5 for Black and 1.5 for White.} 10.d4 {Again, this is not in keeping with the flavor of the Bird's Opening, and the e3 pawn is now backward - what I warned you about earlier. I think 10.d3 would have maintained the battle, taking back the e4 square and maintaining the pawn chain.} 10...dxc4 {Black opens the d-file, gaining another attacker on the d5 square and penetrates deep into White's space.} 11.bxc4 {With this retort, we see a change in the board. I think White had to play 11.Bxc4. We'll look at the gird again} Issue white black -------------------------------------------------------- Material - - Development 5 5 King Safety -1 0 Center 2.5 1.5 Space 6 5 Pawn Structure -2 0 Total 10.5 11.5 {While White is only down one point (isolani on a2 and backward pawn at e3), the game at this time is very fluid. While White's strengths are in center control and space, neither of these look to be long term advantages since those points are based on pawns that are likely to be traded. This is especially true in light of Black's strengths in pawn structure and king safety. By our table, White's mission should be to increase his space and lock in stone his control of the center, while Black's mission is to increase the weaknesses in White's pawns and strike at the king. As we will discuss at length in future articles, White's job is much harder.} 11...Ng4 {You should again quickly check to see how the game changes after this one move. Black uncovers his Bishop on g7, attacking the e5 and d4 squares while simultaneously shifting his attack on the e4 and d5 squares to e3 and d4. Ah, the beauty of the knight! The immediate danger is a loss of material on e3. By the way, this weakness on e3 is a constant worry in Bird's Opening.} 12.Nd5 {This is an attempt to protect e3 and block the fourth attacker (the queen) from d4. Unfortunately the knight is easily pushed with e6. This ends up looking like the mistake that costs White the game, but in truth the game-losing mistakes were made at 10.d4 and 11.bxc4. Don't believe me? Go back and review the analysis after move 10!} 12...e6 13.h3 Nh6 {Not necessary. It gave White hope due to the ill-placed knight. I think Nf6 was good enough and clearer. Even after the trades, White's pawn structure should spell a loss.} 14.Nc3 cxd4 15.exd4 Nxd4 {Creating two isolani for White. -2 total. Also h3 was another negative in the king safety department. What's the score now?} Issue white black -------------------------------------------------------- Material 0 +1 Development 4 4 King Safety -2 0 Center 2 2 Space 4 5 Pawn Structure -2 0 Total 6 12 {Wow big edge for Black, even though the game is still very fluid. But the telling counts are in material and pawn structure!} 16.g4 Nxf3+ 17.Bxf3 Bxf3 {So, accordingly, when up 6 points after move 15, Black looks to trade off the hardware and go for a won endgame} 18.Qxf3 Qd4+ 19.Kh1 Qxc4 20.f5 {Not a bad move in the midst of defeat! Black cannot take the pawn with his g- or e-pawns due to g5 trapping the knight, and since Black cannot take, the knight becomes a non-developed piece. This gives White a fighting chance, but lack of king safety and weak pawn structure prove too much in the end.} 20...Rac8 21.f6 Bh8 22.Ne4 Rfd8 23.Qf4 Qd3 24.Nf2 Qb5 25.Rab1 Rc2 26.Ba3 Qd5+ 27.Kg1 g5 28.Qe4 Rxf2 29.Qxd5 Rxf1+ 30.Kxf1 Rxd5 31.Be7 Rd4 32.Rc1 0-1 I hope you saw that this analysis tool can help in making plans and determining strategy. The next articles will be on how we can learn about war from playing chess and how we can learn about chess from the concepts, principles and tenets of war. Meanwhile, try out the table. Use it as a teaching tool, study tool and as an analysis tool. I'd love to see a game where a reader uses it throughout an e-mail game to make plans and determine strategies. If anyone uses it throughout a game, send it to me and I will analyze it with you. I would hope also to discuss it in a future issue. Good hunting. Next issue, we go to war! ------------------------------------------- The Arbiter's Column by Sasha Goldshtein, IECC Asst. Arbiter Issue 2, August 2000 This time, on a few interesting decisions and interpretations. (1) IECC Guideline 9.1 requires that a player who wants to be granted a leave of absence must inform the Absence Co-ordinator at iecc-absence@egroups.com and his current opponents. The crisis arises when the player does not notify his opponents and still takes his absence and does not reply to e-mails. In this case, my official position is that the absence is invalidated, and a time violation occurs. (2) (a) It is possible that both players are using a program which is automatically producing e-mail messages from a PGN of a game, but is not automatically reading the input from the messages of the opponent. In this case, a situation might arise in which two different game records exist, with a discrepancy at one or more points. For example, one player has 7.a3 and the other 7.b3 recorded, and the fact is only revealed on move 30. Since the game record being transmitted is being altered with every move because of the programs that produce it automatically (i.e., each player is sending "his" version of the move record), the game should be reverted to the position after the first of the moves in question; this also applies to the case when a player receives a move and returns a game record with another move, which then serves as a basis for the rest of the game. The player who sent the original, correct move, which had been altered later, has the right to claim for a reversion of the game to the position after his aforementioned move. That, because a correct repetition of the latest move is necessary for the reply move to be valid (according to ICCF rules, 4(a)). (2) (b) It is possible that an ambiguous move had gone undetected during the course of the game (for example, White had knights on c3 and g1 and plays 5.Ne2 and the game continues). In this case, neither side is authorized to decide which move they are to choose to "insert" in the game and continue playing; the game should revert to the position BEFORE the ambiguous move (same applies to illegal moves as well, but is less often subject to disputes), and the offender should correct his move, WITHOUT obligation to move the piece in question (i.e., in our example, doesn't have to play 5.Nce2 or 5.Nge2). That, according to IECC Guideline 8.8; however, according to IECC Guideline 8.9, "... the position reverts to the ambiguous move, which must be clarified without delay, ..." -- "clarified" implies that either of the two (5.Nce2 or 5.Nge2) MUST be played. However, because of Guideline 8.8 this is an incorrect interpretation, and there indeed is no obligation to move the piece in question, according to the existing rules. (3) After the resolution of an enquiry on a time violation that was substantiated and proven, which allows the players to continue the game in question, the clocks, unless otherwise indicated by the Arbiter, should be reset to zero. The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that the player who had committed the time violation would enjoy the fairest conditions -- those of the start of the match, to avoid a situation in which a player who made 10 moves in 50 days would commit a time violation again on his 11th move, never mind how quickly he responds to his opponent. Therefore, the reflection time calculations for both players should be reset to zero from the date of the resolution of the enquiry. (4) No player may declare himself the winner of the game (and send a game report in, declaring himself as the winner), unless - he has checkmated his opponent; - he has received a message from his opponent indicating his resignation; - he has been asked to do so by the Arbiter. It is unacceptable and intolerable that a player declares himself the winner automatically because his opponent committed a time violation, because his opponent is playing on a lost endgame, because his opponent will be checkmated in N moves, and so forth. (5) A clarification on an issue we are often asked about. Our policy is to receive a time complaint, and forfeit one game after four days of not responding. After that, we do not forfeit any additional games until 30 days elapse without a response. It had been our policy once to forfeit all the games in one batch after 4 days. However, if we forfeit all of them and then the player returns with some very good reason for his absence (a hospitalization, for example), then if we wanted to sympathize with his situation we would have to cancel all of these forfeits (and it happened once or twice). Therefore, we have decided to forfeit all the games only after 30 days without a response, to minimize the potential possibility of having to cancel forfeits. ------------------- Questions & Answers This forum will allow IECC members to ask questions of the IECC executive on topics of interest to them. We start off with a question from "Simon"..... How does the IECC rating system work? David Glew responds with a description of the IECC rating algorithim Assign a game score 's' to each player Win = 1, Draw = 0.5, Lose = 0. Assign a rating difference to each player For white d = Whiterating - Blackrating For black d = Blackrating - Whiterating Assign a 'Delta K' to each player if rating <= 2100 then deltak = 32 else if rating <= 2400 then deltak = 24 else (rating is over 2400) deltak = 16 Assign a probability that a given player will win the game p = 1 / (1 + (10.0 ^ -(d/400.0))) [for each player] Now, adjust each player's current rating by adj = deltak * (s - p) [rounded to the nearest integer] Both players will be adjusted by the same amount (although in different directions) as long as they have the same DeltaK. The different DeltaK values for higher rating brackets cause higher rated players to be penalized more for losing to lower ranked players, and rewarded less for beating them. The algorithm is very similar to that used by most of the major email and correspondence chess organisations. Editor's Note At the risk of telling you something you may already know Simon, to put it more simply, if you defeat or draw with a higher-rated player, you will gain more rating points than if you defeat or draw with a player having a similar rating. The greater the difference in ratings, the more points you stand to win (or lose). And from your editor ... While not really a question for the executive, I have noted the seemingly uniquely European compliment (I hope) "may you go from strength to strength". It does not exist on this side of "the pond". Can anyone tell me more about it? Where did it come from for example? S.R. END OF ISSUE 8