CHESS BITS The Journal of the International Email Chess Club July 2002 IECC Website http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Midfield/1264 In this issue From The Editor's Desk By Steve Ryan Welcome to New Members David Glew Rating/Membership Statistics Bob Wittman A Few Flashes of Brilliance Then ... Cecil Rosner The Cheating Chess Tournament (Short Story) Dan Heisman Letter to the Editor A. Pressburger Chess Trivia Steve Ryan Web Site Review Guidelines Campbell/Ryan Chess Jumble Steve Ryan Rumor & Gossip Silicon Saboteur Some underhanded... Silicon Saboteur Games & Theory Black-Saxe Black -Bull Aguiar-Ryan Sternik-Rosner Sternik-Bendig Answers to Trivia & Jumble ************************************************ From the Editor's Desk by Steve Ryan I remember taking a course in creative writing once upon a time and on the subject of "originality" the instructor had the following piece of advice: "forget originality". He claimed that writers "borrow" from (if not outright plagiarize) each other all the time. True enough I suppose, at least to some degree, so as much as I would like to have nothing but new articles all the time in Chess Bits, I simply don't have either the necessary hours or talent (in particular) to do something like that. Accordingly, you will find some writings by other chess authors in this issue that have appeared in different publications, but which I consider very well done, or, at least, particularly interesting. The reprinting of these articles usually involves obtaining copyright permission. So far no one has asked for copyright fees, a good thing since we have no money to pay them anyway. I want to remind you that no one, in turn, can use them in any other chess publication without getting the same permission from the original source. "Cross-pollination" of this type goes on all the time and I invite the readers of Chess Bits to send me the details of any interesting chess-related articles that might do for reprinting in our journal and I will try to obtain the necessary permission. I am not interested in reproducing whole chapters of books, so use the Winnipeg Free Press column by Cecil Rosner below as a guide. Along this line I would like to reprint a section of Larry Evan's book "A Chess Catechism" and have written to Simon & Schuster,1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York NY several months ago to ask permission, but no answer so far. If we have any members living in NEW YORK CITY kindly let me know if I have the correct address or if this company still exists. Perhaps since I said we could not possibly pay them any royalty/copyright fees they have simply chosen to ignore me. Any help much appreciated (contact ryansc@granite.mb.ca). Finally, find out where you stand rating-wise in relation to other members by reading Bob Wittman's Rating and Membership Statistics below. I must have put Bob through a great deal of number crunching for these statistics and he deserves full credit for doing all that work. At 1420, alas, I find myself a "below average" member of the IECC, so find out about yourself. Remember, Bob just did the math, you played the chess games. ------------------- Welcome to New Members by David Glew The IECC welcomes the following 154 new members who have joined over the period 2002 February 16 - June 15: Argentina: Leandro Castro, German Denegri Australia: Nicholas Enrico, Stephen Harvey, Mark Schaschke Belarus: Andrew Komarov Belgium: Michel de Jong, Christophe Duray, Geoffrey Lhost, Jacques Maquinay, Adri Van der Vurst. Brazil: Dagoberto Costa, Luiz Nelson, Marcio Oliveira, Paulo Rodriques, Paulo Shintate Jr., Alvaro Vieira Canada: Russell Bond, Sam Duha, Claude Lemaire, Jean-Michel Rivest, Derrick Williams. Czech Rep. Petr Mlynek England: John Cattermole, Chi Cheng, Stephen Dunning, David Fillis, Simon George, Joe Gibson, Paul Jackson, Jim King, Peter Ladkin, Martin Sheard, Terry Taylor, David Williams, Dai Wynne-Jones. Finland: Risto Mantyla France: Brahim Djoudi, Xavier Jacquelin, Jean-Pierre Picchiottino, Frederic Sevestre, Sigismond Weg. Germany: Siegfried Friesinger, Mike Hartl, Maik Just, Christoph Lipok, Lars Milde, Ingo Rohlfs, Michael Sobirey, Ralph Stoever. Hungary: Zsolt Farkas, Andras Galos, Kazmer Karadi, Varga Marci India: Mohanakrishnan Balaram, Prabhanandan Krishnamurthy, Atanu Lahiri. Ireland: Craig Fourie. Italy: Giovanni Balacco, Paolo Buoncompagni, Marco Gandolfo Alessio Malta, Enzo Marraro, Andrea Masullo, Luca Montardo, Micro Tassinati, Renzo Tore. Kazakhstan: Ramin Nurahmedov, Tenzing Shaw Lithuania: Gediminas Butkus Netherlands: Patrick Attema , Pieter de Jong , Niels Leerentveld, Heine van der Meer. New Zealand: Owen Pritchard, Peter Wadsworth Nigeria: Efejiro Achano Peru: Juan Maceda, Jose Paredes. Philippines: Alain Gandia Poland: Pawel Bladyko, Andrzej Drozdz, Jan Maria Krunski, Ryzard Sternik, Zbigniew Wozniak. Portugal: Fernando Vasquez Romania: Nenciulescu Catalin Russia: Lev Kim, Alexander Litvinenko, Vasiliy Shchepetnev, Melanie Thompson. Scotland: Ross Galloway, Paul MacDonald, Andrew Raeside. Slovenia: Matija Kejzar Spain: Juan Alonso, Fernando Balza, Rafael Casani, Juan Cisnero, Arebrok Diaz, Jose Jimenez, Daniel Martinez, Anibal Sabater ,Jamie Sanchez-Redondo Gonzalo Sanmartin , Sergio Torio. Sri Lanka: Sandaruwan Wijenayka. Sweden: Juan Alvarez, Ilvo Coppel, Kurt-Verner Johanson, David Lindholm. Ukraine: Vilyvain Roman. USA: Zack Allen, Raybon Boshell, Harry Brou, Michael Broussard, Robert Buice, Matt Butcher, Chip Chapin, Denise DeSilva, Greg Dietz, Patrick Dunphy, Ron Dwyer, Mark Eremeev, Sebastian Fernandez , Diego Garcia, Domenic Gilliam, James Hawkins, Richard Hendricks,Mark Jennings, William Johnson, Matthew Kovland, Robert Luben , Lawrence McMillan, Ginger Noffsinger, John Nugent, Bob Ondo, Roger Park, Houston Parrish, Bill Parsons, Oscar Perez, Dylan Pettigrew, Matt Phelps, Shawn Roney, Kevin Ryan, Aaron Sherwood , Chris Simon, Jeffery Turner, Jeff Walgren, Kirby Wells, Christian Werner, Kevin Wood, Henry Yu. Yugoslavia: Stamenko Zivic 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. ---------------- Rating & Membership Statistics By Bob Wittman As of 2002 June 15 we had the following rating and membership statistics: Average IECC rating: 1496 Average rating by class: Master Class 2200+: 2314 (202 players - 5.2%) Expert Class 2000-2199: 2091 (338 players - 8.8%) Class A 1800-1999: 1891 (437 players - 11.4%) Class B 1600-1799: 1697 (562 players - 14.6%) Class C 1400-1599: 1494 (575 players - 14.9%) Class D 1200-1399: 1292 (581 players - 15.1%) Class E 1010-1199: 1088 (604 players - 15.7%) Class F under 1010: 978 (549 players - 14.3%) Breakdown of players by country: (Top 10) United States of America 1279 (33.2%) England 300 (7.8%) Canada 225 (5.8%) Germany 187 (4.9%) Netherlands 157 (4.1%) France 128 Italy 123 Australia 108 Spain 86 Sweden 80 Brazil 73, Poland 72, Russia 66, Belgium 63, South Africa 48, Argentina 37, Finland 36, Scotland 35, New Zealand 32, Denmark 31, Portugal 30, Ireland 30, India 27, Turkey 26, Israel 23, Yugoslavia 20, Switzerland 19, Mexico 18, Hungary 17, Norway 17, Romania 17, Ukraine 17, Philippines 16, Greece 14, Peru 11, Slovakia 11, Wales 11, Egypt 10, Singapore 10, Slovenia 10, Chile 9, Croatia 9, Venezuela 9, Kazakhstan 8, Uruguay 8, Lithuania 7, Estonia 6, Iran 5, Czechoslovakia 4, Guatemala 4, Hong Kong 4, Japan 4, Northern Ireland 4, Bulgaria 3, Columbia 3, Costa Rica 3, Dominican Republic 3, Latvia 3, Pakistan 3, Panama 3, People's Republic of China 3, Armenia 2, Belarus 2, Cuba 2, Kenya 2, Malaysia 2, Malta 2, Austria 2, Paraguay 2, and 1 member each for Bangladesh, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Catalunya, Bangladesh, Cyprus, Ecuador, Faroe Islands, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lefkosa-TRNC, Luxembourg, Morocco, Nigeria, Palestine, El Salvador, Senegal, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, United Arab Emirates. On a personal note, congratulations to TIM NAGLEY who has now won 300 games. His 300th win occurred against his good friend Sab Bilsel. He also achieved his 600th game played earlier this year. Tim also joined the Masters club by attaining a rating of 2200. ------------------ A Few Flashes of Brilliance Then Back Into a Dark Place By Cecil Rosner Searching for Bobby Fischer is not just the title of a popular Hollywood movie - it's also a popular pursuit of many journalists and chess fanatics around the world. Catching a glimpse of the reclusive grandmaster is almost as rare as spotting Elvis at Wal-Mart. The closest anyone has managed to get in recent years is a telephone interview. Unfortunately, the man who once dominated the chess world with his prowess is now a paranoid, foul-mouthed, anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist. Chillingly, he still appears to have flashes of the genius he displayed at the chess board. Fischer's latest interview came last week on an Icelandic tel- evision program. The host lured him to the show by promising he'd speak to Saemundur Palsson, who served as Fischer's bodyguard during the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match in Reykjavik. "The old chess is dead, it's been played out,"Fischer said. "I'm finished with the old chess." He accused Garry Kasparov and most other top players of cheating, literally pre-arranging the moves of games. Fischer said he now plays only FischerRandom chess, which randomly shuffles the pieces on each back rank, creating 960 possible starting positions. All other rules of the game remain the same*, but Fischer says the random positioning precludes all prior opening analysis and makes pre-arranging games impossible. He flatly denied Nigel Short's recent claim that two met in a match over the Internet. He revealed that he's still worth several million dollars, and is currently in Japan working on a project relating to a chess clock he has developed. Fischer repeated his claim that publishers are denying him royalties for many of his books. Even the movie that bears his name has never earned him a dime in earnings, he said. While gently trying to discourage him from using four-letter words and racist slurs, the Icelandic host praised Fischer and invited him to come to Iceland for a match. Fischer said he would consider it, as long as the game was FischerRandom and the prize fund was to his liking. Don't expect a match to happen anytime soon. Copyright Winnipeg Free Press, Cecil Rosner, February 9,2002. Reprinted with permission. ------------------- The Cheating Chess Tournament by Dan Heisman "That was the third person we caught recently who had a handheld computer with Pocket Fritz!" Chester Nimfield was distraught. As a member of the Hookley Valley Chess Club's Organizing Committee, he felt some responsibility toward running fair and honest tournaments. So did Arthur Bimcrane. Arthur had been on the Committee longer than Chester, but was nowhere near the C player status that Chester wore so proudly. "What can we do?" Chester racked his brain. It had been easier in the old days, when the cheaters just talked in Latin, or hid extra pawns up their sleeves. "Maybe nothing." "Nothing!? But that will ruin chess! You just propose to let them keep cheating?" Arthur always turned a bit red when his hackles got raised. But Chester was nonplussed. "Sure, that is one possibility." "But then nothing is fair!" "Well, if EVERYONE were allowed to cheat, the playing field would be level and we would not have to monitor one player for having the advantage over another." Arthur didn't know whether to turn purple or return to normal color. "But that is crazy..." Chester started to warm to his own crazy idea. "There are Insanity Opens, and they draw lots of people. Think what a great crowd we would have if we had a Cheater's Open. We could offer a nice first prize and the best cheaters from all over the world might come. We could even charge the spectators!" Arthur was dumbfounded. Chester's idea was so crazy it was starting to even make sense. And since they were two-thirds of the Organizing Committee, they could create such a tournament even if the third member, Borchunky Oberhatzinsky, disagreed. But when approached at the following meeting, Borchunky surprisingly thought the idea was dandy. He did have one concern: "We can't allow cheating of all types it would get out of hand. There has to be some ground rules. For example, you can't cheat by changing your chess game to another competition like checkers or football." Chester had to admit he had not thought of that, but it did seem reasonable to draw some lines. "And you could not physically, emotionally, or mentally harm your opponent, at least in a way that would get the Organizing Committee sued." Arthur thought those were good ideas, and added, "So changing the normal chess rules must be out, too. You have to move a bishop like a bishop and cannot castle through check." They all agreed. And so the announcement was made throughout the chess world, and even at rec.games.chess.politics: HOOKLEY VALLEY WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP OF CHEATERS CHESS DATE: SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2002 REGISTRATION: 8-9:30 AM 4 ROUND SWISS: G/30 TD/5 ROUNDS 10, 12, 1:15, 2;30, 3:45 . MUST BE 18 OR OLDER ENTRY FEE: $200; FIRST PRIZE $5,000 GUARANTEED CHEATING RULES The great day dawned. As usual, HOOKLEY hired local TD Cran Barry to run the tournament for them. Cran was a little wary about allowing cheating, but he admitted that not having to send his wife into the ladies room to look for misuse of Pocket Fritz did have its advantages. In fact, his wife at that very moment was at the mall looking for bargains, and bargains can't be bad. Some of the best cheaters had entered, looking to win the attractive first prize. Among them were: GM Swarthy Meshingham - he had developed the fine art of the zwischenzug j'adoube and had been banned from normal tournaments below the Arctic Circle. GM Karl Menthough - normally a straight shooter, but like most GM's not able to overlook $5,000 first prize tournaments that offered free food to GM's. FM Bob Cat - Bob had gotten his FM title about the time Pocket Fritz had been reduced to $50. Sylvester Stalactite - Known for his sharp and crooked play. Stalactite had been banned from Hookley events ever since the tournament in '98 when he got caught with his scoresheet in the cookie jar. Vazzell Manuth - Vazzell barely knew how to play chess, but was working his way through the local community college with an assortment of cheats and scams (his major was Finance), so he thought that the rules would allow him to compete more evenly than normal. Sylvia Straingler - Sylvia had begun her career by showing Ms. Barry many of the bargains at the mall, and now was ready for bigger game. All in all there were abaout 30 particiapnts who had paid $200 each to have some fun. In the first round, it became apparent that the itty-bitty cheaters were not much of a match for the experienced and clever ones. For example, Harry Potsone lost on time against Bertie Bynyip when Harry thought he had made 40 moves, but Bertie had written 40/30 on Harry's scoresheet when it was actually G/30. Vazzell had won by calling his opponent's wife and telling her that there were bargains at the mall. His opponent could not afford to continue. Sylvia won as well when her opponent found that his queen was glued during a time scramble. Several games ended with both players losing as each was forfeited for illegal cheating. One player tried to make a legal knight move, but moved it like a "K" instead of an "L". At the end of the first round 10 players were 1-0. The second round saw more of the same or, in some cases, more that was not visible. For example, Vazzell had made clever use of magnets and his female opponent was not very attractive. Another key game ended in a draw when both players paid each other to lose and neither was successful. That left 4 players 2-0 with two rounds to play. If both games were decisive and the game between the winners also not drawn in the final round, someone would be 4-0. The final four were GM Meshingham, Vazzell, Sylvia, and old Indigo Cashmere, who had established the mall in 1962. The pairing was Meshingham-Staingler and Cashmere-Manuth. At this point Cat protested, as his use of Pocket Fritz was proving rather useless. At first Barry did not know how to handle the case of sub-legal cheating, but finally decided that Cat's protest should be dismissed with felicity. Borchunky, who was holding the prize fund, had suggested that Cat be disqualified again, but since Cat was Chester's instructor, Arthur decided that such action would teach him a lesson. Cran, as usual, was relieved that the Committee was so supportive. Meanwhile Meshingham had put a stranglehold on Sylvia, and they had to be separated. Sylvia's position was not at all bad, but she had run out of glue and Meshingham was holding her clock and her copy of USCF's Insufficient Losing Chances rule for ransom. Cashmere had moved Vazzell's clock ahead 30 minutes and claimed a win on time. Vazzell had countered with a letter from FIDE stating that Cashmere had not paid his dues and was thus in the country illegally. The issue was finally settled when Cashmere produced a legal Brain Games membership and thus Vazzell had lost on time. Not long afterward Sylvia resigned when the GM checkmated her with a little-known en passant maneuver that was proven to be clever only via retrograde analysis. So it was to be Cashmere against Meshingham for all the dough. But if they played half-baked and drew, either Menthough and Stalactite, both smart cookies with 2.5-0.5, could share the bread if one could hand the other a bagel on second board. Donut ask how that might be possible. And second board did end first, as Stalactite hung the queen for $333. Normally this would lose the game, but Menthough had been double-crossed, and had hung his king for two-thirds of any future dot.com stock options. Cran wanted to forfeit both, but thought better of it when his wife called from the mall to tell him about the cheap shot she had purchased for their shotputter son. Cashmere was outclassed and he knew it, so he paid some of the other players to use their cheats, too. Meshingham received several phone calls from brokers, the Homeland Security Czar, and Barbara Streisand. He countered by accelerating his side of the clock to such a speed that his side would run more slowly. Without a chance to win on time, Cashmere was desperate, as bribes exceeding the first place money could not easily be paid, and the help he was receiving from GM Gilroy was useless outside of Gilroy's pet line in the Botvinnik Semi-Slav and this had been a Wasiolek Gambit. Finally Cashmere pulled a smoothy. The soft ice cream had been melting in his pocket and now found its way into Meshingham's hair. This was clearly skirting close to the rule on no physical damage, but Meshingham was a redhead, so it was O.K. In desperation, the GM tried one final trap and was amazed when Cashmere overlooked the old scoresheet-switcheroo and found himself with an unstoppable "Resigns" written in what looked like his own handwriting. Hopefully the mall had had a good day. All that was left was for Cran to announce the winner and hand out the check. "I have a winner and I am going to hand out the check," he said. Imagine the look on Meshingham's face when Cran announced that first place had gone to Brandon Christopher, who had seemingly finished 0-4! But Christopher had gone right to the source and cheated by placing a virus in the tournament software that both destroyed Cran's file of Day Lilly web sites and place him first. This hacking was clearly within the rules, so Christopher coughed and found himself $5,000 richer. Meshingham protested, but Arthur overruled the protest, on the grounds that surrounded the Hookley building and were used to make coffee every meeting. END Copyright (c) 2002 Dan Heisman, all rights reserved. --------------- Letter To The Editor The following received from Andy Pressbuger of the Canadian Correspondence Chess Association re chess engines and notation systems: Dear Steve: thank you for sending the copy. It certainly is a high-quality publication and, to maintain it as such, must be quite time- consuming and attention-absorbing. But probably a lot of fun, too, otherwise you wouldn't do it. The information content is impressive, particularly for cyber-peasants such as myself. Concerning notations, in my native Hungary I was first exposed to the algebraic, naturally. When I came to Canada, part of my deliberate assimilation effort entailed switching to the then- in-vogue descriptive. (I had already been familiar with its principles as my grandfather, who had initiated me into chess, owned a nineteenth-century edition of a book by Philidor!! What happened to it subsequently, alas, I do not know.) Then, through a shift of fashion, and rather quickly too, everybody switched to the algebraic. And before I knew it, I was back on familiar terrain. However, in international matches I was compelled to resort to numerical, and that posed a lot of problems. One of my losses was directly attributable to my confusion - or negligence - in this. As for the debate about chess engines, the ambivalence abroad in today's highly volatile and errant society is reflected in the search for, and confusion about, definitions. What constitutes a blunder? Is it a one-move oversight? Does it mean falling into a rather transparent trap? Or does "blundering" into a losing continuation also constitute a blunder? Ultimately, by definition no game can be lost without one side committing an error of sorts. Do all such errors answer to the definition of blunder? If not, why not? Being outplayed is a euphemism used to avoid admitting to mistakes. But mistakes indeed must have been committed. If you can get your "artificial" (as opposed to your congenitally natural) intelligence catch it before executing the error, then you are saved from the calamity of losing the game. As your correspondent suggests, somebody (or something) else is playing the game for you. Unless knowing how to operate a computer program (in this case a chess program) is itself regarded as a skill you possess. But then, what are we quibbling about in this day and age of nandrolone and Enron? Cordially, Andrew ------------------------ Chess Trivia by Steve Ryan Select the correct response from the possibilities given and obtain your "rating" from the scale below. See the answers at the end of this issue. 0-1 Correct = Patzer 2-3 Correct = Not too bad 4-5 Correct = Good 1. At least how many paintings exist called "Checkmate"? a. 0 b. 2 c. 20 d. 33 e. 40 2. How long did Ruben fine take to write "Basic Chess Endings"? a. 3 months b. 6 months c. 9 months during his wife's pregnancy d. 1 year e. 16 months 3. What caused the death of the "Draw Master" Carl Schelcter during the period of WW1? a. Bullet wounds b. Poison gas c. Tuberculosis d. Starvation e. Drowning 4. What material makes up the composition of the "Ager Chessmen"? a. Silicon Dioxide b. Mahogany c. Bronze alloy d. Ivory e. Rock crystal 5. The year 1680 saw the establishment of the first chess academy in what city? a. London, England b. Paris, France c. Madrid, Spain d. Fountainbleu, France e. Montreal, Canada ----------------------- Web Site Review Guidelines by J.Franklin Campbell & Steve Ryan Editor's Note: A "standard feature" of some chess newsletters/journals includes a "review" of chess-related web sites. I would like to include such a feature as a continuing part of "Chess Bits"; not out of slavish imitation of other publications but to praise and encourage the development of good chess journalism and to keep members of the IECC informed about sites of potential use to them. As I have said before, I am anxious to publish something in the journal that I have not written myself. I hope the "guidelines" below will encourage one or more members to attempt doing such a review and send it in for publication. These guidelines came about as a collaborative effort between myself and Franklin Campbell, a chess journalist/writer/ webmaster with far more experience than I have in the technical aspects of creating a web site. The first 11 points come from Franklin and the remainder from myself. I encourage any potential web site reviewers out there to use them as presented below. General Considerations: Web site reviews, by their nature, remain entirely subjective and present only the opinion of the reviewer. Anyone reading the review may dispute the opinion presented and write an article in rebuttal. Nevertheless, the reviewer may use the following guidelines for assessing the merits of a web site devoted to OTB or correspondence chess: 1. Pleasing overall appearance without irritating features such as blinking text, dancing pictures (moving gifs). A little of this MIGHT work, but generally it is not appreciated by viewers. Look for the use of color including the color of links. Sometimes in an effort to be interesting a webmaster will use a bad combination of background/text colors. When a link is clicked in will often change colors. Anything that makes the text difficult to read (colors, size, choice of font) is a strike against the site. Text can become difficult to read with bad color combinations. Fancy backgrounds can be attractive, but at the cost of readability, a fatal flaw. 2. A minimum of irritating advertising. This may consist of constantly moving graphics that continually draw the viewer's attention away from the chess material or those terrible popup windows (often opening behind your other open browser windows, only to be found later). Look at the Kasparov Chess web site http://www.kasparovchess.com/ for some samples of irritation advertising. Just click around a few links in the site to see what I mean. 3. Good navigation through site. All links should work and it should be easy to find what you're looking for. All pages should allow for easy return to the home page and other related pages. Links should be obvious ... some webmasters are very clever in their placement of the links but some viewers may not recognize the links as such. E.g., a picture graphic MAY be a link. 4. Browser compatibility. I've seen some web pages come up completely blank in Netscape. Often JavaScript features work fine in one browser but fail completely in another. One result is JavaScript error messages and chess game replay pages that don't work. More and more sites are failing to work in Netscape. 5.Good chess material. Of course, this is what chess web sites are all about. As in any form of publication, the content is of central importance. I prefer a variety of chess content by different authors, though a small site dedicated to something specific could be judged as an excellent site, such as a very good site I've seen dedicated to Retrograde Chess Problems. 6. Fresh material. I suppose you could have a worthy site consisting of only archive material, static in nature. However, I think most good sites would required fresh material on a regular basis. The static site should contain significant resource material, such as an encyclopedia. To attract readers on a regular basis the web site needs a continual stream of new, quality material. 7. Some excellent sites may only serve (or appeal to) a special audience. Things like up-to-date and accurate crosstables of current cc events or java replay of games from a select group of events may be of intense interest to specific groups. I would not count this sort of content against them. If the site is well done and serves its audience well, then this could be labeled as an excellent site, but the focus of the site should be mentioned in the review. 8.Usability. I have seen sites that were essentially one long page. Making the user scroll a lot is undesirable. Also, too much in the way of graphics can make the site slow to load. Music is also a bad idea, in that users can become irritated. I've only see music work well with a site on a few cases. If a site has a music background be sure to mention it in the review. If a prominent link is provided to allow the user to turn the music off, then all can be forgiven. 9. Some sites use a main page that redirects the user to their real home page. This can be irritating, causing the "Back" button on the browser to be useless. You click "Back" and it just returns you to the home page again. 10. A site is a combination of many features. Sometimes a site can fail in one area but succeed so well in others that it is still a successful site. For instance, the Kasparov Chess site mentioned above is most irritating in some ways, but it is still one of my favorite sites due to its frequent addition of truly interesting and high quality material. I can count on finding something new almost every day. Bad points should be pointed out in a review, but a general overall grading of the site should be given based on your general opinion of the site. 11. A special bonus should be awarded to a site that has been designed to be user-friendly to people with disabilities. One site that analyzes sites for acceptability is http://www.cast.org/bobby/ J. Franklin Campbell (Mason, Michigan USA) email: franklin@voyager.net, work: fcampbell@siweb.com http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/ 1. Did the web site address specified lead directly to the site or did it involve linking to it through other sites? ( Any URL provided should link directly to the site indicated. Attempts to force the reviewer to go through other sites first, especially those of a commercial nature, indicate chess holds lesser importance than the wish to have you look at other things beforehand - chess used as a "teaser"). 2. Does the site have all pages and links laid out in a clear and logical manner? Does a link to another section in the same site actually take you to that section? Does a link on the site supposedly taking you to another site actually do so? 3. Does the site have any blatant errors in grammar, spelling and punctuation? 4. Does the site have any blatant errors of fact (for example claiming that pawns can go three squares forward on their first move)? 5. Can you easily read all the written material? (Examples - text too large or small, text obscured by a similarly coloured background [dark text on a dark background], poorly done text "wrap-around"). 6. Can you easily see the graphic images presented on the site? (similar criteria to text material). 7. Has the web site author kept up to date or merely presented old information long since outdated? Has he made any attempt to "stand out from the crowd" by presenting new or at least current information? Does the web site merely contain a re- hash of other chess web sites? Do the pages dealing with chess also contain extraneous material unrelated to chess (for example, has the author somehow managed to find a connection between Aunt Sally's recipe for cheese omelets and the Sicilian Defense)? 8. Does the author present his information in a lively and interesting style? ( Watch for excessive use of "passive voice phrasing" - phrases and sentences that constantly use "was", "were", "be", "being", "been"). 9. Does the author present any overtly racist, sexist or "extremist" viewpoints? Does he have "balanced coverage" for and the publication of both sides of a controversial issue? Does the author present an obviously "personal agenda" on some topic? 10. Does the web site, in your opinion, promote OTB or correspondence chess so as to advance the best interests of the game and its players? ------------------------------- Chess Jumble - Openings by Steve Ryan Unscramble the 5 terms below to form the correct names of well known chess openings, Example: URY POLZE = RUY LOPEZ. Finally, arrange the (bracketed) letters to form the LAST NAME of the IECC's "disciplinarian". Solutions at the end of the journal (no peeking). 1. (L)LCO(E) TE(Y)SMS 2. RENCTRE T(N)OCURE EEENDFC 3. NERCHF FENEEDC 4. NSLII(A)IC EDNFECE 5. ITER POE(G)INN -------------------------- Rumor & Gossip by The Silicon Saboteur My staff and I pride ourselves on our creative rumor mongering, vivid imaginations and the fabrication of something from nothing. So sit right back and you'll hear a tale, a tale of a fateful trip, that started from this tropic port aboard this tiny ship. No, wait, that's "Gilligan's Island" (remember Ginger and Mary Ann? "Babeus Maximus" both of them). Anyway, I hope it will increase your consternation, alarm, shock, indignation, bewilderment and trepidation to learn that: 1. ALLIED forces PROVE chess BEGAN in AFGHANISTAN. 2. SHOCKING discovery UNEARTHED in IFFCC. 3. ICFEC decreases RT to SLOW down GAMES. 1. "High-energy archeological excavations" by Allied Forces in Afghanistan have proven that chess began in Afghani caves. Troops entering the caves after the "excavations" have discovered "suspicious objects resembling chess pieces" but of a "non-Staunton design" scattered about. "Collateral damage" that occurred during the excavations included a checkered stone tablet neatly shattered into 64 separate pieces and a collection of "game scores" chiseled into the wall that featured a "G.W.B." and an "O.B.L." in a series of matches. Unable to determine the outcome of the matches the soldiers conducted a thorough search of the caves but could find no trace of either player. 2. Pedro Borwell-Rawlings, Exalted Grand Poobah and TD of the International Federation for Correspondence Chess has recently admitted to learning that some IFFCC members do NOT use chess engines for game analysis. Promising to rectify this "deplorable situation" Pedro plans to use the "unlimited financial resources" and "global reach" of the federation's vast bureaucracy to send teams of "persuaders" on personal visits to each member caught in this "heinous act". These teams will use "coercive diplomacy" in attempting to reform each miscreant. Cover your kneecaps and wear a hard hat if these boys come a-knockin'. 3. Using the principles of relativity formulated by A. Einstein et al, directors of the International Club for E-mail Chess have reasoned that by reducing RT to one day the club will actually slow games down and allow members more time to think. Since relativity predicts that "the faster you move the slower time goes", one day will allow almost "unlimited" RT while concurrently greatly increasing the number of games played each year in the club. When asked if that system didn't sound somewhat strange, the executive merely stated their adherence to the Orwellian principle of "Doublethink", or the ability to simultaneously hold two contradictory ideas while believing in both of them. As usual, watch this space for further developments. ----------------------- Some Underhanded (and occasionally legal) Ways To Beat Your Opponent in a CC game. By The Silicon Saboteur Note - take all suggestions below with a very large grain of salt. 1. Vary your response time enormously - answer some moves very quickly and take forever with others. It will prevent your opponent from establishing any kind of "rhythm" in sending his own replies (stay within the time limits of course). 2. Become very very chatty with your opponent. Discuss politics, religion, movies, books, astrophysics and anything else about which you have some (or no) knowledge. Ask for his/her opinion on the most trivial topics and request detailed explanations. Never respond to his requests for the same. 3. Try and sell him something like your home-based cleaning product line or magazine subscriptions. Explain that you have to meet a quota for your child's school fund raiser and you live in the middle of nowhere and can only contact people by e-mail. 4. Try the "bully" angle with statements like "well I know what I would do next if I were you". State unabashed admiration for your own position on the board. 5. Try the "sympathy" angle with statements like " My last tax audit makes Enron look good and I am facing 10 - 15 years at hard labour. Since I won't have e-mail access at (insert name of correctional institute) I sure hope I win this one, my final CC game until I make parole." If all else fails, make a dozen or so random moves then resign. Tell your opponent that the position closely matches that of Allen Wrench - Jack Hammer from the final game of the United Auto Workers (local 3475) invitational tournament and illustrates an unusual variation of the Bogolopez Gambit and you intend to submit it for publication before he does. -------------------- Games & Theory You meet the nicest people on the internet sometimes. In this case one of them, Russell Black, has provided some very well annotated games that you will find greatly informative. Keep these ones filed away somewhere folks for future reference. Everyone should annotate this way. Russell has even provided a bit of biographical information that includes his return to CC after a 20 year absence. You will see he has admirable qualifications for chess annotations. Russell Black Currently residing in San Ramon, California, USA. Occupation: Hand-to-hand combat instructor / Chess teacher & coach. Married with one child (age 12). Current ratings: USCF 2167 / ICCF 2312. Current chess work: Research into new opening theory, have worked with Dr. Hans Berliner and co-authored and article with him in the Jan/Mar 2001 issue of Kaissiber. Currently playing in the ICCF 1st US Emails and ICCF Jubilee. Will be playing board 1 in the upcoming ICCF Team event with the team called, "There's a Weasel Chomping On My Chess Nuts!" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The story behind the absence is rather simple. Twenty years ago I played in local tournaments in S. Cal and had a rather bad experience with the tourney officials at that time along with the "Fischer" mentality that seemed to infect most of the crowd back then. I was fed up with the prima donna attitude of my opponents, showing up late for matches, being abusive, etc. I figured that it wasn't worth the effort. When I finally had the time to teach some classes, I reasoned that I should get my rating back to set a good example for my students. CC play offered me a perfect environment for this as I do not have the extra time needed to travel to events. That was 5 years ago and I started out at 1700 and made my way up to 2393. With the Jubilee, I had to take a ratings drop (to 1800) because of the international structure of the tourney. That cost me some points, but it'll come back up. After having completed a total of 39 games (USCF/ICCF events), I'm 30/3/6 with one game remaining in the Jubilee preliminary round. So, a nice comeback for me. [Event "ICCF 15th US Open"] [Date "2001.08.02"] [Round "Preliminary"] [White "Saxe, Barry"] [Black "Black, Russell"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "D41"] {I've often been asked by my own students, "What do you play when White doesn't open with 1.e4 or 1.d4?" The following game is offered as an example of what happens when White plays 1.Nf3 - the Reti.} 1.Nf3 {...and you are left with a problem. What do you do here? There are a couple of ideas about how you should answer this type of opening move. The obvious way would be to play 1...d5, but that is what White expects. This is the Reti opening, and the idea behind it is to encourage Black to play 1...d5, when White will attack the d-pawn with 2.c4 and leave Black to choose the method of his own demise. Since you now know what White is up to, one way to deal with this is to follow White's moves (up to a point). This method for answering 1.Nf3 has been suggested to me by Dr. Hans Berliner, one of the world's best CC players. "The trick..." he said, "...is to make a break from copying White's move at the right time."} 1... Nf6 2. c4 c5 {This "follow the leader" approach can get Black into trouble, so always be cautious.} 3.Nc3 e6 {I decide to "break" ranks and strike off on my own. I intend to play ...d5, with White's cxd5 and ...Nxd5 as the recapture to keep the e-pawn in place. I had several opening goals to achieve here: 1) fight for control of the center. 2) getting my pieces out on the board in good locations. No one talks about "goals" much in books. They talk about theory, tactics and strategy, but very few authors set down concrete goals to be achieved. I wonder why? At the end of this game I've written down my goals for each stage of a chess game.} 4.g3 Nc6 5.Bg2 d5 6.cxd5 Nxd5 {That seemed to go as planned. Now I need to: 3) get my king safe. Before I commit to any major attack, I want to secure my king and get him tucked safely away.} 7.O-O Be7 8.d4 O-O {Another goal accomplished. If you plan out your moves based on certain obtainable goals, you will find your games progressing along correctly. Center control is the next issue that comes under fire.} 9.e4 {White strikes first and the knight must retreat. The question is where? If the knight goes to f6 then White can play e5 next and my knight will be forced to move again, wasting another move. The better choice is b6.} 9... Nb6 {White's idea here is to push the center pawns with 10.d5 exd5 11.exd5 driving the knight off of c6.} 10.d5 exd5 11.exd5 Nb4 {The only downside to White's attack is that his d-pawn is now isolated and under attack. Remember this when you choose to push pawns vs. develop pieces. Your advance could backfire. This isolated pawn will require White to expend resources if he wants to keep it. Another interesting point is the overall pawn structures of both sides. Try a little experiment here, set up this position on a spare board and remove all the pieces except for the kings and pawns. Remove White's d-pawn as it will fall sooner or later. What you have left is an important pawn formation, the 3-to-2 queenside majority. No matter who moves first, Black has a won game! This is what I saw at move 11, that if I could remove White's d-pawn and trade off even, I had the game won. Against a higher rated player, this might not be possible, but it's a simple plan which works. Now I need to look at middlegame goals: 1) obtain and advantage either in material or space. 2) keep an eye out for mating opportunities.} 12.Ne5 {White must try to protect this pawn using the g2 bishop. Black is now forcing (to a certain extent) White's selection of moves. This is what you want as a player. If you control the flow of the game, then your chances of winning increase. Better here was the retreat of 12.Ne1. On e5, the knight is exposed to attack. Though e1 is purely defensive, White has a hole on c2 which needs to be protected. This is a weak square in Black's camp.} 12... Bf5 {Better than 12...Bd6 which was played in Alburt/Dlugy - USA-ch 1988. I wanted to bounce the knight from b4 over to d4 where it will be centrally posted. The c2 square had to be controlled to do this.} 13.a3 Nc2 14.Ra2 Nd4 {I get my knight where it belongs. Your planning during a game doesn't have to be "deep." It may only be for two or three moves at a time. Situations during a game can change suddenly and you may have to adapt along the way. Short sequences have a greater chance for success than long ones. Remember, I'm looking for even trades. If White wants to remove this thorn in his side, he will have to trade for it. White should try to first undermine the outpost "protector," the c5 pawn.} 15.b3 {White fails to latch onto the proper move of 15.b4.} 15... Re8 16.f4 {White makes a potentially dangerous move with 16.f4 as it weakens the structure around his king. The king's position was already weakened by the early g3 move and this doesn't make things any better. If I can get the center opened up and some pieces in an attacking position, then maybe White's king will fall. The question is, "Where does stuff need to be?" For one thing, my two bishops are on the wrong side of the board. They need to be queenside and the rooks need to be activated.} 16... Bd6 {A simple blockade to keep the d-pawn fixed.} 17.g4 {An attack which must be dealt with carefully. By doubling up his pawns after the capture 18.gxf5, White could press an attack on Black's king supported by playing his queen to g4 or h5. Add to that White's bishop (moving to e4) and you have the makings for a nice attack. When deciding how to respond to a clear threat, you should always take the time to work things out. Moving the bishop on f5 is out. Both d7 and c8 are lousy squares at this point, so the bishop must stay put. Black has to find a way to deal with gxf5. After 17...f6 (counter attacking the knight), a possible line might run 18.gxf5 fxe5 with the following: A) 19.Qg4 Rf8 20.Ne4 Nxd5 21.fxe5 Bxe5 22.Nxc5 Rc8 and Black is better. B) 19.Qh5 Nd7 20.fxe5 Bxe5 21.Ne4 Nf6 22.Nxf6+ Bxf6 and again, Black is better. C) 19.Raf2 (not the best of ideas) 19...exf4 20.f6 Qxf6 21. Ne4 Qe7 22.Nxd6 Qxd6 23.Bxf4 Qg6 and once more, Black is better. All of this looked good at the time, so...} 17... f6 18.Nc4 {Retreat was the last thing White should have done.} 18... Nxc4 19.bxc4 Qa5 {White is defensive at this point.} 20.Bd2 Bd3 {A double attack on the f1 rook and c4 pawn. It also allows Black to get the light squared bishop into attack position with a better line on White's king.} 21.Rf2 Bxc4 22.Rb2 {That a-pawn looks inviting doesn't it? For White to leave it hanging , it's either a mistake or a trap. Red warning lights should go off about now. Black's queen has no escape route after ...Qxa3. Avoid this one like the plague.} 22... Qa6 23.Ne4 {Now the knight on d4 is going to show it's worth.} 23... Be2 {The move 23...Bxd5?! is not as good after 24.Nxf6+ gxf6 25.Bxd5+ Kh8 26.Bxb7 Qxa3 27.Bb4 with equality.} 24.Qa1 Bxg4 {Picking up free material when it's safe to do so.} 25.Nxd6 Qxd6 26.Rxb7 {Striking at my pawns, how brazen! this rook must be expelled from my side of the board.} 26... Bc8 27.Rb1 Ba6 {A good square for the bishop. This keeps the f1 square under attack. Black has several advantages at this stage: 1) Black controls the center. 2) Black's pieces are getting into position to attack White's king. 3) White's major pieces (queen and rooks) are not well placed. If I'm to have any shot at White's exposed king, I need to start attacking any flight squares first. Keeping White's king pinned down is the first step to mate. I also need to try to remove as many of White's defenders as possible.} 28.f5 Re2 29.Bf4 Qd7 30.d6 {This pawn just became dangerous. Not on d6, but by allowing the g2 bishop to attack my a8 rook. Don't get caught looking at the pawn and fail to see what it uncovered. A good idea is to always check each and every piece on the board after your opponent moves. That g2 bishop has not budged since move 5 and it's easy to forget that it's there.} 30... Rd8 31.Rbf1 Qxf5 {Picking up more material. Now if I trade off even and get rid of that d-pawn, I can definitely win a king/pawn endgame.} 32. Bg3 Qe6 33.Kh1 {White's king is in the corner, on the ropes, and I just have to force my way in to end this game.} 33... Rxf2 34.Rxf2 Ne2 {The knight drops in to pay the g3 bishop a visit.} 35.Bh4 Rxd6 {Finally getting rid of the pawn. White's pieces are scattered all over the place. This is a "team" game and White's team is about to be benched.} 36.Rf1 {No better is 36.Qb1 g5 37.Bg3 Rd2 -+.} 36... Rd4 37.Bf2 {37.Qe1 Rg4 38.Bg3 Rg5 -+ and Black is still winning. I need a way in to White's king. What are the important points? 1) White's king can't move. It's trapped on h1. 2) White's queen can't aid in the defense of his king. White's queen is effectively out of the picture and useless. 3) Black's rook on e4 is being attacked and must move. 4) The key piece is White's g2 bishop. Remove that one and White's shaky house of cards will fall down.} 37... Rg4! {Now Black has the g2 square under attack.} 38.Bf3 {On 38.Bg3, Black has 38...Rxg3! 39.Qb1 Rxg2 40.Kxg2 Qg4+ 41.Kf2 Qd4+ 42.Kf3 -+.} 38... Qb3 {This puts the last nail in the coffin. White faced the following: A) 38.Bf3 Qb3 39.Bxg4? (39.Bxc5 Bb7 40.Be3 Qd5 41.Qa2 [41.Bxd5+ Bxd5+ 42.Rf3 Bxf3#] 41...Qxa2) 39...Bb7+ 40.Bf3 Qxf3#. B) 38.Rg1 Rxg2 39. Rxg2 Bb7 40.Qf1 Nf4 41.Bg3 Bxg2 42.Qxg2 Nxg2 43.Kxg2 and Black's material advantage is overwhelming. C) 38.Bg3 Rxg3 and now... C1) 39.hxg3 Qg4 40. Qe5 (40.Qa2+ Bc4 41.Qxe2 Bxe2 42.Rf2 c4 wins) 40...Nxg3+ 41.Kg1 Ne2+ 42.Kh1 Qh4+ 43.Qh2 Ng3+ 44.Kg1 Qxh2+ 45.Kxh2 Nxf1+ 46.Kg1 (46.Bxf1 Bxf1) 46...f5 47. Bxf1 Bxf1 48. Kxf1 and Black's pawns will queen. C2) 39.Qb1 Rxg2 40.Qb8+ Kf7 41.Qxa7+ Kg6 42. Kxg2 Qg4+ 43.Kf2 (43.Kh1 Qe4+ 44.Rf3 Qxf3#) 43...Qh4+ 44.Kg2 Bd3 45.Qxc5 Be4+ 46.Rf3 Nd4 and White is lost as he must give up his queen.} 0-1 {Faced with all of this, White resigned. White lost this game through several small mistakes. Sometimes that's all it takes, a few things done wrong. Of course, you have to recognize the mistakes and take advantage of them. I start off with goals for each part of the game and try to achieve them. They are: I) Opening goals 1. A player must place try to obtain control over the center. 2. A player must get his/her pieces out and properly placed on the board. 3. A player must get his/her king safe. II) Middlegame goals 1. A player needs to obtain an advantage either in material or space. 2. A player needs to find ways to checkmate his/her opponent. This game ended in the "middlegame" as the major pieces were still present. If this had gone into an endgame then I would seek to achieve the following goals: III) Endgame goals 1. A player needs to keep as many pawns as possible on the board. You can't queen what you don't have. 2. A player needs to be able to move those pawns to the opposite side of the board and promote those pawns. This gets you back to the middlegame with heavy pieces and is the only way to obtain a mate. 3. If you can't do this, then you need to know how to draw the game. This usually involves trading off evenly as much as possible and getting your king in front of any advancing pawns. I hope that these goals will help you to plan your games better in the future. Good luck and good chess. Best, Russell Black} [Event "USCF CCD 99P6"] [Date "1999.06.27"] [White "Black, Russell"] [Black "Bull, Randall"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A46"] {This game was the first of two games in the match. This was my second foray back into competitive play after a 20 year absence and I had to reestablish my rating from scratch.} 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 b6 4.Nbd2 Be7 {The is one variation of the Colle opening and it starts out a little strange. More typical are the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 d5 4.Bd3 c5. This game is following a line played in Koltanowski /Alonso - Havana 1946.} 5.Bd3 d5 {I have set up the basic Colle formation. The move 5.e4 would have allowed Black to follow with 5...d6 and the line 6.e5 dxe5 7.dxe5 Nd5 8.Bd3 Nf4 9.Be4 c6 10.0-0 which is not as good for White. The game move of 5.Bd3 does, however, allow Black to trade off bishops with 5...Ba6.} 6.e4 {At bit premature as 6...a6 7.0-0 0-0 8.c3 c5 9.e5 Nfd7 10.a3 Nc6 can lead to problems for White. Better was 6.0-0 c5 7.c4 cxd4 8.exd4 Nc6 9.b3 0-0 10.Bb2 Bb7 11.Re1 a6 12.Rc1 b5 13.a3 bxc4 14.bxc4 Rb8 15.Qc2 with a slight edge for White.} 6... c5 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.O-O Bb7 {On 8...0-0 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nb3 Be7 11.Nfd4 with roughly equal play, but the initial goal of the Colle has been reached. The 3 to 2 queenside pawn advantage has been created. With equal trades, White can have a winning endgame. Try it. Remove all the pieces after 11.Nfd4 except the kings and pawns. It doesn't matter who moves first, White will always win this type of endgame position as the queenside majority forces the Black king to defend against the eventual passed pawn. This allows the White king to get behind Black's kingside pawns and remove them. White will queen one of these. Other than basic king-pawn endgames where only a single pawn is involved, this is the only pawn formation I've bothered to learn in over 30 years of play. I know that if I'm playing White, or Black, and I get the queenside majority set up, I only need to trade off even and I have the game in the bag. A simple game plan, but a very effective one. Even a GM could not win this endgame position as Black! Of course, getting there wouldn't be that easy, but it could be done.} 9.Nb3 {An attacking move which opens up the c1-h6 diagonal for White's bishop. The idea is not to capture Black's bishop, but to see if it will move off of the a7-g1 diagonal.} 9... O-O {Better might be 9...dxe4 10. Nxc5 bxc5 11.Bb5+ Bc6 12.Qxd8+ Kxd8 13.Bxc6 Nxc6 14.Ng5 when Black is slightly better. However, White would do better after 10.Bb5+ instead of 10.Nxc5.} 10.exd5 exd5 11.Bg5 {Pinning Black's knight. Pins are a basic tool which the novice player would do well to master.} 11... Nbd7 {Black now protects the f6 knight which allows his queen to move. Had the queen moved before with something like 11...Qc7, then 12.Bxf6 gxf6 would open a line of attack to Black's king.} 12.Re1 {Taking control of the open file.} 12... Qc7 13.Qd2 {This little move shifts the queen over to the c1-h6 diagonal.} 13... Rae8 {Black challenges White for the open file.} 14.Bf4 {One way to counter a threat, is with a bigger threat!} 14... Bd6 15.Bxd6 Qxd6 {White has several advantages at this point. 1) The queenside majority. 2) Black's isolated pawn on d5 which must be protected by a piece (tying up Black's resources). 3) This d5 pawn blocks off the effectiveness of the bishop on b7. White would like to keep this pawn from moving forward so...} 16.Nbd4 {A simple blockade of the pawn. Knights make the best "blockaders" as they can still create multiple attacks from the posting square.} 16... a6 17.Nf5 {Notice that Black's queen has been left out where it can be attacked and pushed around. By moving the knight to f5, White creates a possible attack on Black's castled position. White can certainly win this game by attrition, but mate is always nicer.} 17... Qc7 18.Qg5 {Threatening mate on g7.} 18... g6 {Necessary, but it weakens the structure around Black's king. Now there are holes in the defenses.} 19.Qh6 {Threatens mate again on g7. Black is forced to take the f5 knight and opens the flood gates to his king.} 19... gxf5 20.Bxf5 {White can now play the sequence Ng5/Bxh7+ or Ng5/Nxh7 picking up Black's f8 rook.} 20... Ne5 ?? {Black cracks under pressure. Black could hope to hold out a little longer after 20...Qd8 21.Ng5 Ne5 22.Bxh7+ Kh8 23.Bf5+ Kg8, but White has the game won. I now finish this with...} 21.Nxe5 {Not 21.Qxf6?! as 21...Nxf3+ 22.gxf3 d4. White is still winning, but it's not the best way to handle the play. Black resigns due to the following lines of play: A) 21...Rxe5 22.Qg5+ (22.Qxf6?! Rfe8 23.Qg5+ Kh8) 22...Kh8 23.Qxf6+ Kg8 24.Qg5+! Kh8 25.Qh6 Rxe1+ (trying for something) 26.Rxe1 Qxh2+ (throwing in the kitchen sink) 27.Kxh2 Re8 28.Rxe8# or 28.Qxh7#. B) 21...Qd6 22.Re3 (22.Ng4 Rxe1+ 23. Rxe1 Rd8 24.Nxf6+ Qxf6 25.Bxh7+ Kh8 26.Qxf6+ Kxh7 27.Qxf7+ Kh6 28.Qf6+ Kh5 29. Re5+ Kg4 30.h3#) 22...Qxe5 (22...Rxe5 23.Rg3+ Ng4 24.Qxh7#) 23.Rxe5 Rxe5 24.Qg5+ Kh8 25.Qxf6+ Kg8 26.Qxe5. C) 21...Qd8 22.Re3 Kh8 23.Rg3 Rxe5 (23...Rg8 24. Nxf7#) 24.Qg7#. D) 21...Bc8 22.Ng4 Qxh2+ 23.Qxh2 Bxf5 24.Nxf6+ Kg7 25.Rxe8 Rxe8 26.Nxe8+ Kf8 27.Re1 Be6 28.Nc7 Kg7 29.Nxe6+ fxe6 30.Qe5+ Kf7 31.Qxe6+ Kg7 32.Qe7+ Kg8 33.Qd7 Kf8 34.Re8# 1-0 Black's overall mistake during the game was in playing too passively. By not trying to produce strong counterplay, Black allowed White to dictate the flow of the game. There are those which say that the Colle is good only at the club level, but I've scored many wins with it. The latest one was in the ICCF US 15th Open against Mr. Gary Good (2363). The Colle is a nice opening to have at your disposal. Many top players have fallen to this little gem.} ----------------- Do NOT play Philidor's Defense this way: [Event "KO-175 2.1"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2001.03.06"] [White "Aquiar, Alexandre"] [Black "Ryan, Steve"] [Result "1-0"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bc4 Be7 6.O-O O-O 7.a4 c6 8.Qe2 Qc7 9.Rd1 a5 10.h3 h6 11.Be3 b6 12.Nh4 Re8 13.d5 cxd5 14.exd5 Bb7 15.Bb5 Ne4 16.Nxe4 Bxh4 17.Qg4 f5 18.Qxf5 1-0 --------- [Site "?"] [Event "R006"] [Date "2001"] [White "Sternik,R"] [Black "Rosner,D"] [ECO "A00"] [Result "0-1"] 1.b4 c6 2.Bb2 a5 3.bxa5 Qxa5 4.Nf3 {4.c4 d6 5.e3 e5 6.Nf3 Nd7 7.Be2 g6 8.0-0 Bg7 9.Nc3 Ne7 10.Ne4 Nf5 11.g4 (11.Bc3!?) 11...d5 12.cxd5? (12.gxf5 dxe4 13.Ng5 Nc5! (13...gxf5? 14.Bh5! 0-0? 15.Bxf7+! Rxf7 16.Qh5!) 12...cxd5 13.Neg5 Qb4 14.gxf5 (14.Bc3 Qxg4+ 15.Kh1 0-0 (15...h6? 16.Nxf7! Kxf7 17.Nxe5+) ; 14...Qxb2 15.fxg6 hxg6 16.e4 (16.Qb3 Qxb3 17.axb3 Rxa1 18.Rxa1 e4 19.Nd4 Bf6!) 16...Nc5 17.exd5 e4 18.Rb1 Qf6 19.Qc2 exf3 20.Nxf3 Qd6 21.Bb5+ Kf8 22.Rfe1 Bg4 0-1 Sternik,R-Bendig,F, corr SOK-91-75 1993} 4...d5 {4...Nf6 5.e3 d6 6.Be2 e5 7.0-0 Be7 8.c4 0-0 9.Bc3 Qc7 10.d4 e4 11.Ne1 d5 12.c5 Bf5 13.a4 Re8 14.a5 Na6 15.Nd2 Qd7 Busch-Bendig, corr SOK-88-27 1988 (1/2-1/2} 5.e3 Bg4 6.h3 {6.Be2 Nf6 7.0-0 Nbd7 8.c4!? e6 9.Nd4 Bxe2 10.Qxe2 Be7 11.cxd5 Qxd5 12.Nc3 Qa5 13.Nb3 Qb6 14.d4 0-0 15.Qc2 Rfc8 Kallab-Grund, corr SOK-88-24 1989 (1/2:1/2 -24)} 6...Bxf3 7.Qxf3 Nd7 8.Nc3 e6 9.Qg3 Ne7 10.h4? {10.e4 Qb4 11.Bc1 d4 12.Ne2 Ng6 13.Qb3} 10...Nf5 11.Qh3 d4 12.exd4 Nxd4 {12...Qb6!?} 13.Bd3 Nc5 14.0-0 Rd8 {14...Nxd3 15.Qxd3 0-0-0 16.Rad1 Qb4} 15.Rfe1 Nxd3 16.Qxd3 Nf5 17.Qe2 {17.Qe4 Rxd2 18.Qf4 Rd8! (18...Rxc2?! 19.Qb8+ Qd8 20.Qxb7)} 17...Qb4 18.Rab1 Qxh4 19.Ne4 Be7 20.Be5 b5 {20...Rd7 21.Rb3 Qh6 22.Rd3 Rxd3 23.Qxd3 b5=} 21.a4 bxa4 22.Qc4 0-0 23.Qxa4 Rd5 24.d4 Rc8 25.Rb6 {25.c3 c5 26.Rb5 cxd4 (26...Rcd8 27.Bc7 Rf8 28.dxc5 Rc8 29.Rb8=) 27.Rxd5 exd5 28.Qd7 Rd8 29.Qxf5 dxe4 30.cxd4=} 25...c5 26.Qa6 Rdd8 27.dxc5 Bxc5 28.Nxc5 Rxc5 29.Rxe6 fxe6 30.Qxe6+ Kh8 31.Qxf5 Rcd5 32.g4 Qe7 33.c4 Rd2 34.Re4 Qf8 35.Qxf8+ Rxf8 36.Bd4 Kg8 37.c5 Rb8 38.Be3 Rc2 39.Kg2 Rb3 40.Re5 Kf7 41.Kg3 Rc4 42.Rd5 g6 43.Rd7+ Ke6 44.Rd6+ Ke5 45.Rb6 {45.Kh4? Rbb4 46.f3 Rb3 47.Bg1 Rxf3-+} 45...Ra3 46.Kh4 {46.Rb7 Rxc5 47.Rxh7 Rd5 48.Rb7} 46...Raa4 0-1 [Site "?"] [Event "?"] [Date "2001"] [White "Sternik, R."] [Black "Bendig, F."] [ECO "A00"] [Result "0-1"] 1.b4 e5 2.Bb2 f6 3.e4 Bxb4 4.Bc4 Nc6 {4...Nh6 5.Qh5+ Kf8 6.Nc3 c6 7.Nge2 b5 8.Bb3 Be7 9.0-0 d5 10.h3 b4 11.Nxd5 Bc5 12.d4 exd4 13.Nxf6 Qe7 14.Nd5 Qd6 15.Nc7 Bd7 16.Nxa8 Be8 17.Qh4 Bf7 18.Rad1 Na6 19.Nxd4 Bxb3 20.Nxb3 Qe7 21.Rd8+ 1:0 Leisebein-Diener, corr SOK-91-74} 5.f4 {5.Nf3 Nge7 6.a3 Bc5 7.0-0 d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.d3 0-0 10.Nc3 Be6 11.Ne2 Qe7 12.Ng3 Rad8 13.Re1 Nf4 14.Bxe6+ Qxe6 15.Ne4 Bd4 Dymek-Gross, corr BdF T5001 1985} 5...Qe7 {5...g6 6.c3 Bd6 7.f5 Qe7 8.Nf3 b6 9.0-0 Nh6 10.fxg6 hxg6 11.Nh4 Qh7 12.h3 Be7 13.d4 f5 14.Nf3 d6 15.Qa4 Bd7 Bendig-Oelmann, corr 1990-91} 6.f5 g6 7.Nh3 {7.Ne2 d6 8.Nec3 Qg7 9.Nd5 Ba5 10.Qf3 Bd7 11.g4 g5 12.h4 Nge7 13.hxg5 Qxg5 14.Rh5 Qg7 15.Na3 a6 Svensson-Miligan, corr 3GMM-41 1994-95} 7...Qc5 {7...Qg7 8.Qf3 Nge7 9.g4 Na5 10.Be2 d5 11.Bd3 h5 12.Rg1 Bc5 13.Rg2 hxg4 14.Qxg4 dxe4 15.Bxe4 Qh6 16.Qe2 Qxh3 17.Qb5+ Nac6 18.Qxc5 Qh4+ 0:1 - Koerner-Brinkmann, corr BdF T 5005 985} 8.fxg6 {8.Be2 Nd4 9.Bd3 Qb6 10.Nc3} 8...hxg6 9.Bxg8 Rxg8 10.c3 Ba5 11.Qb3 {11.Qf3 Qb5 12.Ba3 Qc4 13.Nf2 d6 14.Qxf6 Nd4!-+} 11...Rh8 12.Ba3 Qb6 13.Rf1 Qxb3 14.axb3 Kf7 {14...Rh4 15.Rxf6 Rxe4+ 16.Kf1 d6 17.Rxg6 Rh4} 15.Ng5+ {15.b4 Bb6 16.b5 Na5 17.Bb4 Nb3 18.Ra2 Nc1-+} 15...Kg7 16.Nf3 d6 17.d3 Be6 18.b4 Bb6 19.Nbd2 a6 20.O-O-O {20.Nc4 Ba7 21.Ke2 d5 22.Ne3 dxe4 23.dxe4 Rad8-+} 20...Be3 21.Rde1 Bf4 22.g3 Bh6 23.Kc2 b5 24.Ra1 a5 25.h4 axb4 26.cxb4 Be3 0-1 -------------------------- Answers to Trivia & Jumble Trivia 1.c 2.a 3.d 4.e* 5.d * I will also accept "a" as many types of "rock crystal" have Silicon Dioxide as a major component. Jumble 1. COLLE SYSTEM 2. CENTER COUNTER DEFENCE 3. FRENCH DEFENCE 4. SICILIAN DEFENCE 5. RETI OPENING IECC Disciplinarian: LEYNAG = NAGLEY END Next issue - on or about 2002 October 15