Chess Bits The Journal of the International Email Chess Club March 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 Too many people to list Worried about viruses...? Tim Nagley Ten Things You (Possibly)Didn't Know About Time Complaints Tim Nagley On The Use of Chess Engines In CC (Editorial) Steve Ryan Some Thoughts on "Blunder Checking" In CC IM Stephen Ham Rumour & Gossip The Silicon Saboteur CC Notation Systems Steve Ryan A Chess Limerick The Silicon Saboteur ---------------- From the Editor's Desk by Steve Ryan Let's begin with my usual reminder that I welcome all contributions (subject to good taste and the agreement of the Directors) including game submissions (preferably annotated and in PGN format), humour, short stories, news articles, letters to the editor, poems or anything else with at least a minimal chess content. In addition, if you know of a good chess web site (or have one of your own) feel free to do a review or description of it and send it in for publication. I will also advertise any chess-based products or services you have but please keep in mind the IECC has no commercial connection or affiliation of any kind with the product/service advertised, so "Buyer Beware". I also want to remind all readers that any "editorials" appearing in this publication present solely my own views (unless otherwise indicated) on the matter under discussion and do not reflect any official IECC policy expressed or implied. If you want to disagree or even (heaven forbid) agree with what I say, I will gladly publish your opinion in the next edition. For "suggested reading" in this issue I naturally want you to read the whole thing top to bottom, but take an extra look at the bottom of the "Welcome To New Members" this time. No hints as to what it involves, just do it. Many members may feel reluctant to send in their game scores for publication. Reasons vary from not wanting to give away a novel attack/defense to "it's not good enough" to "nobody cares anyway". In speaking only to the last reason, I agree that no one has the time to sit and go through the score of every chess game played each year, but keep in mind that you will not likely improve your game unless you do so once in a while. I recommend that you look upon published game scores as an archive of information available for your use IF and WHEN you want to use it. In the absence of published games, even this at times little-used resource becomes unavailable. So share a bit and send them in. I can pick games at random from the IECC game score database, but annotations make them so much better. The IECC Discussion List has grown rather quiet lately but still provides "grist for the mill" that your editor can write about. See my editorial about the use of Chess Engines in CC, a topic that came up for comment on the Discussion List not so long ago. Next to last, I want to advise you of an interesting interview that will take place in the near future on either John Knudsen's correspondencechess.com web site or The Correspondence Chess Message Board correspondencechess.com/bbs. ICCF President Alan Borwell has agreed to answer a host of questions put to him by readers of the above two sites, some of which come from myself, should they get included. Unfortunately, I don't have the date this interview will appear as at last word Mr. Borwell, careful fellow that we all know him for, has not yet answered all the questions. Watch for it though, as it should prove very interesting. Lastly, you will find that for a chess publication, this edition does not contain a single game of chess. The artificial "Ryan's Opening" in the editorial on Chess Engines does not count. As mentioned above, I do encourage you to send them in however, since we should publish the odd one or two to keep in practice. -------------------- Welcome to New Members Editor's Note - I have arbitrarily and probably incorrectly listed all new members from England, Scotland and Wales under a "UK" heading. Future editions of "Chess Bits" will list the member's "country" as it appears on the new member graduation notice. The IECC welcomes the following 178 new members who have joined over the period 2001 September 16 - 2002 February 15. Armenia Vlad Dayants Australia Jonathan Chandler Shane Dibley Luke Tobin Belgium Alfred Collet Brazil Pedro Alcantra de Mello Marc Decroos Allan Bomfin Bart Devoldere Rafael Chedid Wim Embrechts William de Oliveira Assis Thomas Smeuldres Bulgaria Boyan Penev Canada Trevor Brown Alex Davies Chile Manuel Ordenes Marc Gendron Linda Green Denmark Jesper Thomine Christopher Hinton Francois Laporte Eric Ste-Marie Finland Tero Vilkesalo France Michel Hayrault Germany Philip Hoth, Marco Poli, Friedrich Regen, Sven Thiergen Greece Kostas Khadzhynov, Vlassis Liarokapis Hungary Thomas Bako, Szava Miklos, Tamas Wurm India Saibaba Kattimani, Suman Kota Ireland Michael Costello, Kenneth Savage Israel Samuel Lifshitz, Avraham None, Yura Timoshen Italy Simona Azzola Alessandro Baroni Daniel Francescon Luigi Gabriele Ettore Rossi Francesco Rossi Gigi Russo Paolo Tarzia Franco Veronelli Japan Tetsushi Sawamura Kazakhstan Adil Askarov, Natalia Litvinenko*, Denis Shubin Mexico Kenneth Frey, Pancho Sanguin Netherlands Jesse Ashruf, Christian de Bode, Marcel Janssen Jan Janssen, Guido Mauro, Andy Nelissen, Coos van Belle, Rob van Someren, Heiman Van Gimst Pakistan Allah Samito Panama Juan Courville Phillipines Erwin Ancheta Poland Jacek Wolski Portugal Miguel Alexandre Russia Konstantin Kachkin, Yaroslav Kosolapov, Andrey Salov, Nina Schebenyyuk, Jury Suchkov. Singapore Leo Yaik Slovak Republic Vlado Anjel South Africa Leo Vertenten, Dino Vieira Spain Jean-Marc de Patoul, Antonio Garcia, Fernando Gomez, Ignacio Martin Sweden Anders Kleimark, Bjorn Lindstrom, Andreas Sjodin Turkey Cem Burke, Alper Tercer, Ozer Tumer UK Vic Bywater, Martyn Cantale, Julian Chan, Thomas Dineen, Murray Etherington, David Evans, Jeff Foster, Jonathan Fudger, John Griffiths, Ken Heron, Steve Hughes, Anthony Lally, Paul Mckenna, John Palmer, Hassan Rafiq, Graham Smith, John Stenhouse, John King Ukraine Galayko Konstantin, Ury Storozhuk Uruguay Esteban Guelvenzu USA Omar Alvarado Christopher Anderson Andy Anderson Mohammed Bari Jonathan Bellmore Phillip Best Chuck Blessing Jon Bryson Clayton Bunce John Caroll Tony Carter Gilbert Chow Ian Coghill Ken Cooper Mike Crowley Morgan Da Bell Dennis Fees Paul Felice Troy Fore Yves Gaume Dan Gregson Michael Hackfeld Roy Harper Daniel Holcomb David Iverson Aaron Johnson Hank Jones Dereque Kelley Deborah Koss Mark Lawrence Brian Legg Scott Lijewski Mike Macdonald Don McDougall Rob McIntosh William McPheron James Monacell Carolyn Moore Jonathan Munnell J. Ramanathan Carl Reimann John Richardson Russ Ridlinton Ed Roberts Robert Rust Evan Rust Ryan Sanner Jimmy Scales Alexander Sederov Zackary Soderquist S. Soldatenkov Dana Sutton James Thompson Ben Thompson James Walton Gene Watchbaugh E. Weiner Bevan Whitaker Sam Woodward Jr. Richard Worland Emilio Yero .. and last but not least WAYNE JORDAN, for whom I do not have a country. 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. * An internal NMP memo from George Angus, IECC director, included the following observation "John Graff has graduated a young lady with impressive credentials. Below is the graduation information he provided Name Natalia Litvinenko Rating 1840 Country Kazakhstan Interest Class Event For your information she is an 11-year old 5th- grader who has won numerous Chess Medals and Event Trophies. She is a very polite and gifted young lady. Certainly a fine addition to the IECC." Tim Nagley also wrote to Natalia on behalf of the board to welcome her, to express our pleasure that she has chosen to join IECC, to answer a couple of her questions and to try to show off his very few questionable words of dubious Russian. (Natalia is very modest about her English, which is actually very much more than adequate!). Natalia also has her own website (currently under construction - more on this subject in a future edition, together with the presentation of some of Natalia's recent games.) ----------------- STILL WORRIED ABOUT VIRUSES? SO ARE WE ... By Tim Nagley, IECC Assistant CEO) The number of computer viruses circulating at the moment is turning into a real problem for many members, and it's time for some more advice on this subject from the club. Viruses are often sent out as attachments to contacts found in the address-book of an innocent victim's email software, usually without that person knowing that email is being sent out at all. From our point of view, therefore, if you receive a virus from someone, it's very likely to be from someone you know, and quite likely to be from a current opponent. This is why it's so important not to open unexpected attachments, but to delete them unopened. Email with "strange- looking" subject headings is also suspicious. We need to remind all members again not to send ANY attachments to other IECC members or staff, unless they're specifically requested and expected. Attachments are not necessary text attachments can simply be pasted into the body of a plain text email instead. IECC's yahoogroup addresses have been configured not to let attachments through. Some serious viruses can be recognised because they are "executable files" (attachments with names like something.exe"), and these are the most dangerous ones to open. But some "worm" viruses can be transmitted in HTML-formatted email _without_ attachments, and can even attach themselves to your computer from the message being "previewed" (rather than "opened"). One way of avoiding this, if you use Outlook Express as your email client, is to disable the "preview panel". You can easily do this by clicking on "view", then "layout", and then un- checking the box for preview panel display. If your inbox reaches all the way down to the bottom of the screen, then you probably have it disabled to start with. Unless you use virus-screening software whenever you're online, these "worm" viruses can be spread rapidly through HTML- formatted email. Please send _all_ IECC-related email in plain text format and NOT in HTML-format. I believe that many members who use Outlook Express have their systems configured (perhaps unknowingly) to reply to plain text emails in plain text and to HTML-format emails in HTML-format. Please change this! If an opponent is sending you email in HTML-format, please bring it to his/her attention. If you're not sure how to send email in plain text (rather than in HTML-format), a quick look at this website will probably make it easy for you http//helpdesk.rootsweb.com/listadmins/plaintext.html . IECC does not endorse or promote any commercial products, but if any members would like to write to me privately at timn@blueyonder.co.uk , I will be happy to send a list of useful information and links to various interesting websites, at which you can perform (free) an online virus check of your computer, read about the currently circulating viruses and what to do about them, and download a free antivirus product which many of my colleagues and our members have highly recommended. I can also tell you about a highly recommended email software package, also available free, which many of IECC's Directors are now using. Remember that new computer viruses circulate very quickly, and any antivirus package is "only as good as its last update", so it's important either to update it very regularly, or to get one (such as the free one referred to in the paragraph above) which can update itself automatically when you are online. ------------------ TEN THINGS YOU (POSSIBLY) DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT TIME-COMPLAINTS (MOSTLY) By Tim Nagley, IECC Director Arbitration and Disciplinary Matters 1. If your opponent has not kept to the time controls (at least 10 moves in 30 days' reflection-time and no more than 10 days for any one move) you _must_ please submit a time-complaint to iecc-arbiter@yahoogroups.com - not "should" or "may" or "are allowed to" submit one. 2. Submitting a time-complaint is _not_ hostile - it is simply keeping to the IECC Guidelines, which have gradually evolved over the years in accordance with what is to the benefit of all members in the long run. 3. If you don't hear from your opponent for 5 days, you _must_ re-send your last move(s) as a reminder. In the event of a time- complaint arising, this re-send need not necessarily have been on _exactly_ the fifth day, but if it wasn't sent at all, the Arbiters will not investigate your time-complaint on its receipt, and it will simply cause further delays. 4. There's absolutely no point in sending a copy of reminders and re-sends to the Arbiters there is nothing they can do with them. These will not intimidate an absent opponent. Neither will they facilitate a subsequent time-complaint, if you end up submitting one. 5. If you are playing white, and your opponent has not responded to your first move, you can't submit a valid time-complaint because the game is not yet "in play" - please ask for help from the appropriate TD's, not from the Arbiters. 6. When you submit a time-complaint, you need to send a copy of it _separately_ to the appropriate TD's there's no point in addressing an email to the iecc-arbiter yahoogroup with a copy of that same email to the TD's the TD's copy will just bounce back to you because of the yahoo cross-posting procedures. We'd all prefer it if this weren't the case, but there's nothing IECC can do about it. 7. You should keep copies of the emails containing the most recent 10 moves, in case the Arbiter asks for them (which in practice he doesn't very often, but they can occasionally be useful in resolving a disputed time-complaint arising under the 30-day rule). 8. When a time-complaint is received, the Arbiters' primary responsibility is not to be menacing, disciplinary or punitive, but simply to get the game(s) back into play promptly, if possible and permitted. 9. The Arbiters are _really_ fast and efficient at doing their job, provided they're given the information they need. If they're not, it can only delay things for all concerned. They need to know the event name and number, your name and email address, your opponent's name and email address, the date of the start of the game(s), the date of your last move transmission, the date of the mandatory 5 day resend transmission, the nature of the time-complaint (does it arise under the 10-day rule, the 30-day rule, or both?) and any other information that you think may be relevant. You should also include the PGN move-list to date. This all sounds like a lot of information, but much of it is contained in the game- headers. At the moment, I believe that only about 65% of time- complaints received contain all this information. The commonest omission is probably the opponent's email address. 10. I'm very happy to announce that Sabahaddin Bilsel has recently joined the staff as an additional Arbiter. Welcome, Sab. May all your time-complaints be successfully resolved! ---------------- Editorial On The Use of Chess Engines in Correspondence Chess PLEASE NOTE The use of computer engines of any kind for "blunder-checking", as mentioned below, is contrary to IECC Guidelines. The rules of CC provide some unique differences from the perhaps more familiar over-the-board variety of this game. We can, for example, use databases, game scores, opening/ending books DURING THE COURSE OF THE GAME. If you want to argue that our OTB cousins can as well, I won't disagree with you as long as you concede they must carry it all inside their head. We have no such restriction. The question of whether or not the OTB players therefore "work harder" than we do remains open to debate, but I believe each type of player must do a certain minimum level of work by themselves to achieve something he or she can call "my own". Into this ethical equation now comes the question of using chess engine (ce) assistance in some form or other. Some CC organizations have no restrictions on the use of ce's which, in effect, means you can legally allow a ce to generate every move "you" make in a game. Some of these engines play at a very high level and while they cannot, perhaps, defeat the top- ranked CC players, that day will surely come sooner or later. Other clubs, such as our own IECC, prohibit the use of ce's which (and the Directors may correct me here) means any and all uses of a ce. I dislike either unrestricted use or a total ban and therefore suggest the following as a "compromise" policy that the IECC prohibit the use of ce's to generate moves for, or analyze the position of, any IECC game CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS. I personally see nothing wrong with using in an IECC game the moves generated PREVIOUSLY (important distinction) by a ce in a private match between you and it. To me, it comes out the same as using a computerized database. The same goes for a ce match vs. any human player or even machine vs. machine. "Gray areas" exist though including playing a move in an IECC game and seeing how the computer answers it (as if you had the engine as your actual opponent). You would probably get a response that includes the engine's evaluation of the position in "pawn equivalents". Does that constitute unacceptable use? I don't know. Then we have the matter of "blunder checking" (see the following article). I don't think a total ban on ce use serves the best interests of the IECC, but neither does unrestricted use. I do agree with a ban on ce's to generate moves. Using a ce in this way requires an absolute minimum of work on a player's part and you could hardly call the game "your own". I invite your comments. SR ------------------------- Some Thoughts On "Blunder Checking" In CC By Stephen Ham Editor's Note The contribution below from IM Stephen Ham came about from discussions on The Correspondence Chess Message Board concerning chess engine use, blunder checking via chess engines and related topics. Since I monitor TCCMB closely for topics of potential use in Chess Bits, I quickly picked up on "The Hamster's" post on these areas. He has kindly expanded on this topic below in reply to a message from myself. Stephen does not belong to the IECC, a situation I would like to change. Dear Steve, Thanks for the kind words. Actually I don't recall giving a definition to the term, "Blunder Check". Instead, I just mentioned that now that I have a home computer, I use it to blunder check my work. I think I then discussed how I do this (others may choose a different practice). In short, I select my own move in each game; there's no outside assistance in my move selection other than to check my database in the openings. Then I put that move into Nimzo 7.32 for a few minutes while I set up my board for the next game to analyze. Once ready, I then return to Nimzo 7.32. If it doesn't see any unexpected material loss for me, I then play my move. To date, it has not caused me to change any moves. As such, this blunder checking merely gives me peace of mind that I haven't ruined my game with a horrible oversight. Without blunder checking, there is a chance that I'd overlooked a simple tactic or shot which would ruin all of my work done to date. So by blunder checking my moves, I can now sleep at night knowing that if I did commit a tactical blunder, it was too deep for even tactically gifted Nimzo 7.32 to find within a couple minutes of search time. That's good enough for me. I still struggle with the morality of what I do, but gather from others that my way of blunder checking is acceptably innocent. I'm still selecting my own moves, doing my own analysis, and performing my own assessments. Nonetheless, I still have not provided you with a definition of the term "blunder check." I know that many players perform this act differently than I do, so there may only be a general notion of what that expression means in CC. I suppose that by definition, people who have chess engine assistance in selecting their moves can't claim to blunder check since there's nothing to check...the chess engine has already selected and approved moves for them. Therefore only people who select their moves without mechanical assistance can claim to blunder check. However, the degree to which their work is subsequently checked varies enormously from person to person. Again, I only have Nimzo 7.32 examine my selected move (the root) for a couple minutes just to avoid a blunder. Others use chess engines to analyze every move in their lines of analysis, all the way to the end of the line (the node), and the final move is selected only after all the analysis for all of the candidate moves has been checked. Some people may call this blunder checking too! Instead, I think that this last act of chess engine assistance was for the purpose of move selection rather than to check for blunders. However, others argue that the moves were first found by the human and then only "checked" by the chess engine. So you can see, that there's quite a wide divergence of behavior that is expressed by the term "blunder check." Steve, I hope this helps you. You are welcome to use the above quotes in your article under the condition that the context is maintained. In fact, it's probably best to use the whole e-mail to maintain the proper context. All the best, Stephen ----------------- Rumor & Gossip by The Silicon Saboteur The creative snooping of my spies, agents and operatives throughout the IECC (and the chess world in general) continues unabated. I hope it will shock you to learn that 1.MACROHARD donates CHESS engines to IFFCC. 2.IECC executive LOCATES middle of NOWHERE. 3.CREDIT card BILLS to INCLUDE chess PROBLEMS. 1. Bill Setag, chairman and CEO of Macrohard Corporation recently announced the donation of some "very powerful" chess engines to the International Federation for Correspondence Chess. Accepting the donation on the IFFCC's behalf, Exalted Grand Poobah and TD Pedro Borwell-Rawlings unequivocally denied fresh reports of IFFCC members becoming dependent on the engines. " I reject that allegation completely" sources quoted Pedro as saying, "but I will admit we can't get along without them" he allegedly continued. 2. The firm of Glew, Angus, Stein, Nagley & Stanton has reported finally locating the "middle of nowhere" (MON). A spokesman er, sorry, make that a "speaker", for the firm says the MON sits approximately 1000 km due west of Liberville, Gabon, Africa at the intersection of 0 degrees longitude (the "prime meridian") by 0 degrees latitude (the equator). "When you're at 0 by 0, you're nowhere for sure" says another speaker for the executive. Since the members of the firm say "most of our chess games go nowhere" they plan to install a marker at the spot consisting of wooden chess boards linked together with paper game scores. A battery powered beacon will advise all ships to steer clear lest they become enmeshed in reams of fruitless analysis. 3. Monthly credit card statements from Visa, Mastercard, American Express et al will now contain chess problems. The card holder will henceforth have to submit the correct solution to the problem along with his payment or face a "stupidity tax" of 10% of the outstanding balance. "Current economic conditions have forced us into this drastic step" says a representative of the companies; "we only made $190,000,000,000 net profit last year". As usual, watch this space for further developments. ----------------------- Correspondence Chess Notation Systems By Steve Ryan As mentioned in "From the Editor's Desk", the IECC Discussion List often provides some topics that I can include in "Chess Bits". One such discussion arose a while back, whether anyone remembers it or not, concerning notation systems, prompting no less an IECC notable than our own Tina Stanton to say (whether she remembers it or not) that "while I don't know all the notation systems, I'm probably the only one not afraid to admit it." Bravo Tina! So here we go with a brief description of the three major systems. Algebraic Since all IECC members must know the algebraic system as a prerequisite, I will pause just long enough to say the IECC uses the SHORT algebraic notation. In LONG algebraic, e4 (for example) becomes e2-e4. You can find abundant references to long algebraic throughout chess literature so we will move right along to the... Descriptive Notation My personal favorite and probably an "endangered species". Despite all the games I have played in other notations, I still "think" in the descriptive notation and do the necessary translations afterwards. The abbreviations for the pieces and pawns remain the same as in algebraic except, perhaps, for the "purists" who still use Kt for Knight instead of N. The Kings and Queens for both Black and White (with "Q on her colour" naturally) sit on squares designated either K1 (King 1)or Q1 (Queen 1), (e1 and d1 for White, e8 and d8 for Black). Thereafter, the Rook on h1 or h8 becomes the King's Rook and sits on KR1. Following in sequence you have the King's Knight (KN) and K's Bishop (KB) which sit on KN1 and KB1 respectively. On the Queen's side of the board you have the Queen's Rook (QR on QR1), Queen's Knight (QN on QN1) and the Queen's Bishop (QB on QB1). For the pawns and again on the King's side of the board, the h pawn (on either h2 or h7) becomes the King's Rook pawn and sits on KR2, then the King's Knight Pawn on KN2 (can you see a trend here?) followed by (what else?) the King's Bishop pawn on, you guessed it, KB2. In the descriptive system you must indicate captures and checks by the usual x and + (using ep where an "en passant" move became involved for either). Checkmate in the descriptive notation has traditionally used the ++ symbol (incorporating ep if required), but PLEASE NOTE the IECC uses # (since we don't use descriptive notation). The descriptive system always indicates which piece or pawn moves to which square, for example 1.e4 = 1.PK4 (pawn-to-King 4) = 1.e2-e4 = 1.KP K4 (King's pawn to King 4). You can call 1.KP K4 the "long" descriptive, so to speak, but in the event of an ambiguous move, you may need the extra information it provides to clarify things. Numeric Notation Used primarily by the ICCF, NN, arguably the most difficult system to learn, nevertheless provides the least ambiguity. It does require careful attention to accurately recording each move, because NN relies solely on designating from which square a piece or pawn leaves and the square to which it moves. NN provides no description of WHAT you have just moved, just where it came from and to where you put it. As another point in its defense, NN eliminates any "language bias" since it uses universal numerals. IN NN, each square has a numerical "co-ordinate". See the table below a1=11, a2=12, a3=13, a4=14 ......... a8=18 b1=21, b2=22, b3=23, b4=24 ......... b8=28 c1=31, c2=32, c3=33, c4=34 ......... c8=38 d1=41 e1=51 f1=61 g1=71 h1=81, h2=82 h8=88 NN does NOT indicate captures or checks; you have to follow the play closely. From the above you will see that the e-pawn for white (KP) sits on square 52. The e-pawn for Black (KP) sits on 57. 1.e4 = 1.PK4 = 1.e2 e4 = 1.KP K4 = 1.5254 The (totally artificial) game score below compares the 3 notation systems and illustrates "Ryan's Opening" 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 Qf6 4.Nxd4 Qxf2+ 5.Kxf2 Bc5 6.b4 f5 7.Qh5+ g6 8.bxc5 gxh5 1.PK4 PK4 2.PQ4 PxP 3.NKB3 QKB3 4.NxP QxP+ 5.KxQ BB4 6.PQN4 PB4 7.QR5+ PKN3 8.PxB PxQ 1.5254 5755 2.4244 5544 3.7163 4866 4.6344 6662 5.5162 6.2124 6765 7.4185 7776 8.2435 7685 ---------------- A Chess Limerick by The Silicon Saboteur A young lad by name of Bill Brooks Loved to bring out his rooks He'd put them in play But if it went not his way He'd always go back to the books (Alternate and less family-oriented lyrics available by contacting my agent, Steve Ryan, ryansc@granite.mb.ca). SS END/EXTREMITY/FINIS/TERMINATION/BOUNDARY/LIMIT/CLOSURE NEXT JOURNAL EDITION - On or about 2002 July 15