CHESS BITS The Journal of the International Email Chess Club May 2001 IECC web Site: http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Midfield/1264/ In This Issue By Section From The Editor's Desk Steve Ryan 1 Welcome to New Members Dirk DeLeeuw 1 Miscellaneous Notes Steve Ryan 1 Letters to the Editor IECC Members 1 Rumor & Gossip Silicon Saboteur 1 The Seventh Rank (short story) Harold Bearce 1 Book Review Alexandre Aquiar 2 Make discoveries, not war Alexandre Aquiar 2 Chess (English Version) Juan Solare 2 Chess (Spanish Version) Juan Solare 2 Computer Analysis in CC Tim Nagley 2 The Arbiters' Column Tim Nagley 2 Improving Your Chess Instinct Conrad Goodman 3 A Refutation of Alekhine's Opening, Larsen Variation Gideon Mishnaevsky 3 Scotch Game Gambit Gideon Mishnaevsky 3 Sicilian Polugaevsky Gideon Mishnaevsky 3 Nadjorf Sicilian Poinsed Pawn Gideon Mishnaevsky 3 How Not to Choose A Chess Opening Part 1 Peter Richard 3 Some case studies on "when Marconi-Patterson 3 to resign" - illustrative games Ryan-Washburn From the Editor's Desk by Steve Ryan A very eclectic issue this time around ladies and gentlemen. In a first for the IECC (as far as I know) we have a bilingual article. Check out Juan Solare's abstract, but very descriptive, submission "Chess", presented in English and Spanish. Your editor has also harrassed the IECC executive into presenting a concensus opinion on the use of chess engines for analyzing games. I don't want to start a protracted debate on this issue, primarily because I think it has "gone around the block" so many times most people have nothing new to say. Everyone seems to have "hardened" his position and won't move on the topic. Still, just to make our dear executive work a little harder than they already do, and because I think we should all know "the reasons behind the rules", Tim Nagley has kindly presented the executive's collective thinking on this question. The journal also includes a good variety of other material this time around than what I've mentioned above (including member's games and articles on theory, a section you find in most chess journals) but it seems pointless to me to describe the Table of Contents when you can read it for yourself. So dive right in and enjoy. ---------------------------- Welcome to New Members by Dirk de Leeuw The IECC welcomes the following 133 new members who have joined over the period 2001 Jan.15 - April 15: Bruce Adams, USA; David Allum, USA; Vladislav Arkhipov, Russia; David Aspiras, USA; Stephanie Auchabie, France; Mario Baranowski, Brazil; Judee Baysinger, USA; Alex Bernier, Canada; Philip Bernier, Canada; Joshua Blackman, Australia; Claudio Bongiovanni, Italy; Mallesh Bonigala, Maylasia; Claude Bouroin, Canada; Alfred Bower,USA; Craig Brophy, USA; Sergi Bubir, Ukraine; Alec Burchfield, USA; John Calderone, USA; Alan Carpenter, USA; Dale Carpenter, USA; Thomas Castle, USA; Timothy Castleman, USA; Charles Chadwick, Australia; Valery Chetvertakoff, Ukraine; Rhys Cochrane, Australia; David Cofer, USA; Eric Colard, France; Mike Constantini, USA; Anthony Daniel, USA; Henk de Heer, Netherlands; Ben de Wolf, Netherlands; Marc deBreche, New Zealand; Jacques Derouineau, France; Terry Dettmann, USA; Rob Diamond, USA; Keith Dreamer, USA; Matthew Drummond, Australia; Nick Ellis, England; Alyn Essman, USA; R.Evans, USA; Allen Evenson, USA; Andrew Fedorko, England; Joe Ferrara, USA; Alcindo Filho, Brazil; Remigio Flor, Cuba; Vadim Galimzanov, Russia; Saptarshi Ghosh, India; Keith Gray,USA; Joshua Green, USA; Christopher Griffith, USA; Donald Hadfield, USA; Greg Hall, USA; Niklas Hansen, Sweden; John Heck, USA; Gilberto Hernandez, Costa Rica; Russell Hintze, USA; Dave Hogg, USA; Bernie Hughes, Scotland; Bharat Joisar, India; Padmanabhan Karthik, India; Thomas Kember, England; Dimitry Kishinevsky, USA; Geri Klingbile, Canada; Bryan Koen, USA; Matt Kozleski, USA; Waldyslaw Krol, Poland; Slava Krutov, Russia; Vitaly Kudryashov, Russia; Kevin Landman, USA; Francesco Landolf, Italy; Andre Leblon, Canada; JoseLegarda, Spain; Sergey Lepeshev, Russia; Hong Lin, Australia; Bernard Lovell, England; Cameron MacFarland, Australia; Michael MacGregor, USA; Roger Mahach, USA; Roger Martin, USA; John McArthur, USA; Mike McCarthy, England; Don Messer, USA; Jean-Baptiste Meyer, France; Srdjan Miletic, Yugoslavia; Soren Moller, Denmark; Tom Morgan, USA; Stephane Morin, France; Tareck Nabulsi, Australia; Ivan Nakic, Croatia; Hermann Naused, Germany; Jens Nepper, Denmark; John Newcombe, England; Gregory Newman, USA; Greg Oblock ,USA; Richard Parkes, England; Vojislav Petrovic, Yugoslavia; Sandor Porkolab, Hungary; Frederic Prost, France; Stefan Prufer, Germany; David Puntunet, Spain; Tuco Ramirez, USA; Gordon Reid, N.Ireland; Gerard Remillard, USA; Peter Richard, Canada; Scottie Rickert, USA; Archie Robertson, Canada; Tom Roelofszen, Netherlands; Eric Russel, USA; Gustavo Santillan, Argentina; Patrick Satonnet, France; Jozsef Schulle, Romania; Zoltan Sebok, Hungary; Stanley Self, USA; Enrico Senis, Italy; Daniel Simoes, Brazil; David Sneek, Netherlands; Paul Stimpson, England; Bhalchandra Thatte, USA; Jeff Thomas, UK; Todd Trubee, USA; Aniello Tucci, Italy; Bora Turgut, Turkey; Jack Vaassen, Netherlands; Rudd van Nistelrooij, Netherlands; Primoz Vizintin, Slovenia; Achim Weber, Germany; Spencer Whitman, USA; Kim Wiik, Denmark; Chris William, Canada; Craig Worthington, Australia; Piotr Wroblewski, Poland; Paul Yelton, USA; Martin Zednik, Czech Republic. 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. ----------------------- Miscellaneous Notes by Steve Ryan - From the last edition of the journal: "IECC Member Web Sites: Your editor invites any IECC member having a chess-related web site to send in the URL and a brief description of the contents. I will advertise it for you in future editions of "Chess Bits". So accordingly... "You might want to mention the new software by Shane Hudson in the next issue of the newsletter. It's called SCID (Shane's Chess Information Database) and it is a great PGN reader/writer. It has lots of very cool facilities for keeping large databases of chess games. It runs on any Unix (Linux, for example) and also Windows and also has an Email Chess manager component (which only works on Unix for now). The URL is http://members.nbci.com/sghudson/" (Submitted by Kayvan Sylvan) - PIERRE AUGER, a new IECC member from Canada has created a useful CC score sheet using MS Excel that you can print out or use in an electronic format. Pierre’s contribution keeps track of reflection time according to IECC rules and does the calculations automatically. Contact Pierre at mycroft@sympatico.ca and he will send you a copy. - IECC Time Keeping : In a previous article in Chess Bits about the New Member Program, your editor asked about the reasons behind the IECC "rolling" time keeping system because... "Time keeping seems to give people the most problems. Those joining who already belong to other clubs have to adapt to the IECC "rolling" system of 30 days for the last 10 moves. They invariably have never heard of it before, having become accustomed to the 10 (or whatever) moves in 30 (or whatever) days with extra time carried forward. I don't know the reason behind the IECC system. When my trainees ask why, I have to plead ignorance. Can someone enlighten me?" Barry Wright replies: "The IECC time controls were established by myself in the first year in my position as Senior Arbitrator. The reasoning behind the 'rolling' time system is as follows: It was intended to provide a better flow in that anyone should be able to make at least one move every 30 days. It is also there to provide a quicker response to the dropout problem to which Steve alludes. Time complaints cannot be investigated until there is a default. Here is a hypothetical example. I live in Toronto, Canada. I am playing someone in England. Say we make a move a day for ten days.Because of the time difference, I am replying the same day .As I have used no time I would now have 60 days to get to move 20. If I then quit without notification, it would be two months before I was technically in default and could legally be forfeited. Even if I didn't quit but merely used my banked time, it would not provide a very enjoyable experience for my opponent. Incidentally, there was a rule to provide for time zone inequities but it has since been scrapped possibly due to lack of understanding. I sympathize with Steve having to explain the time controls without understanding the reasoning behind them. It took several messages to explain them to the IECC management of that era. As a founding management member of both the IECG and IECC, I can state that the IECC was established to provide enjoyment for the average player and most players prefer a faster paced game." - A bit of IECC history* (submitted by Richard Cressman) International Email Chess Club [IECC] 8.8.1995 CEO/TD: Lisa Powell [Internet: rpowell@uoguelph.ca] Founder of International Email Chess Group [IECG] ----------------------------------------------------- Barry Wright Senior VP Chuck Schulien VP Master Events Jack Duncan VP IECC Guidelines Bill Wall VP Chess Analysis Ray Vermey VP Negotiator John Galvin VP Programs Asst VP Negotiator Ken Boys VP Archivist Bill Martin Asst VP Archivist David Cornell Asst VP archives [Chess Assistant] Mike Power VP Communications Robert Buice VP Network Communications Mike Lease VP Methods Suradet Jitprapaikulsarn VP Methods Roger Weiss VP Thematics Toshi Takeuchi Sr VP IECC Chess Academy Franky Delgado VP Chess Academy Nicholas Threloff Asst VP Chess Academy Chuck Smith VP IECC Pyramid Philip Cavanagh VP Publications Mauro DiBenedetto VP Newby Program John Fernandez Asst TD Ken Kuniyuki Asst TD * Richard actually submitted quite a bit more on IECC history for which I don't have room in this issue. I will publish it in future editions as space permits. (ed) ------------------- Letters to the Editor The IECC Chessbits is one quirky newsletter. But all the same, very interesting and refreshing! I would like to thank the columnists and Steve for their inventive ideas! Junior Tay (Thank you Junior for your kind comments. I'm glad you said "quirky" and not "kinky" though, as I'm trying to produce a "family publication" here. ed) ------------------------------- Rumour and Gossip by The Silicon Saboteur My spies, agents and operatives throughout the IECC have reached way down into the muck barrel again and found out that: 1.IFFCC to adopt POLITICALLY CORRECT game RULES! 2.IECC adopts NEW TITLES! 3.RIGHT-Handed players PROTEST clock POSITION! 4.Yrag VORAPSAK new REVERSE CHESS champion. 1. Pedro Borwell-Rawlings, Exalted Grand Poobah and TD of the International Federation for Correspondence Chess says the time has come for the federation to adopt "politically correct" game rules. Suggested changes include BLACK moving first. According to Pedro this change will redress the "long-standing racist attitudes perpetuated by the white corporate/capitalist hegemony". The federation, calling it "impractical", abandoned another proposed rule change allowing both players to move first after realizing that the same problem would occur again on the second (and subsequent) moves. Also dropped - a novel suggestion to make the pieces half white and half black. The trouble arose here in deciding which half gets which colour, top or bottom and left or right? 2. In response to increased demand from members, the IECC executive has created the titles of I.P. (International Patzer) and I.G.P. (International Grand Patzer). Players will earn the I.P. title after 10 consecutive losses and the I.G.P. after 20. The executive has hired the legal firm of Glew, Angus, Stein, Nagley & Stanton to copyright these titles for "the benefit of mankind". The editor of "Chess Bits" already qualifies for the I.P. honorific and has started work on becoming an I.G.P. 3. FIDE rules stipulate that chess clocks must sit at "the right hand of players with the Black pieces". Right-handed players, most of whom have limited abilities with their left hand, playing the Black pieces must, as a result, move their pieces, record their moves and bash the clock "ALL WITH THEIR RIGHT HAND". Precious seconds disappear this way resulting in more games lost on time "than you would care to think about". Right-handed players with the WHITE pieces face no such restrictions and have told their black-playing cousins to "stop whining". Ambidextrous and left-handed players consider the whole affair "beneath contempt". 4. In a chess variant sometimes reffered to as "suicide" or "reverse chess" Yrag Vorapsak of the Naissur Republic has won the world title according to a recent announcement by an EDIF spokesman. In "reverse chess" the players actually try to get their pieces captured and themselves checkmated. In a rather snide comment, the EDIF spokesman said "Yrag’s play does not differ very much from his more famous mirror image". As usual, watch this space for further developments. ------------------------ The Seventh Rank By Harold L. Bearce The silver monarch smiled as he surveyed the field of battle. King Louis had every reason to be pleased. His forces still included a cunning knight and a ruthless bishop, while the forces of his bronze opponent were nearly depleted. He smelled certain victory. Louis noticed how the bronze king perspired as he nervously glanced across the 64 squares to assess the silver forces arrayed against him. "William is such a pushover," thought Louis. "He's never defeated me in battle, never even come close. He was stupid to sacrifice all his strength to gain this position. He never learns. He should know by now that I cannot be beaten." Louis turned to those of his loyal subjects who yet remained on the field of battle. He spoke to them, saying, "Congratulations, men. Well done! King William may not be a military genius, but he is a man of courage and honor. He will no doubt surrender his sword and the field will be ours." King Louis saw his bronze opponent furrow his brow in concentration, then draw his sword and say, "Louis, you have finally met your match. I will stand before your forces and resist your power. I will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Louis then saw William turn to his only remaining piece and command, "Winston, step over the line, advance over the line." A look of cold fear swept Louis' face as he saw what was coming. This was unexpected. The silver knight and bishop began to tremble with horror, helpless to resist what was about to happen. Winston, the lowly serf, the lonely pawn, hesitated to advance further, to become even more isolated. The monarch implored, "Winston, for the sake of your king, for the honor of our clan, ADVANCE!" Winston boldly leaped from the seventh rank to the eighth. He raised his arms high above his head and tilted his head back, gazing toward the heavens as he screamed triumphantly, "Long live the King!" The metamorphosis was complete. By reaching the goal line, Winston transformed into Maria-Louise, the deadly queen, stronger than any knights or bishops, the most powerful person on the field. The silver knight and bishop scattered for cover as Louis bowed to his bronze counterpart. He offered his sword to King William, fell to his knees in defeat, then lay prostrate before the victor. Copyright © 1999 Harold L. Bearce, all rights reserved. ---------------------- Book Review - by Alexandre Aquiar "Master Pieces" By Gareth Williams (ISBN 0-670-89381-1) You sit in front of your opponent. A board in between. You start moving and stop at some point. You both stand up and shake hands. All the emotion is related to the result of the game. But... there are the pieces. Carved or moulded? Wood, ivory or metal? Gareth Williams blessed those who appreciate these things with a brilliant piece of art. His book contains a huge collection of pictures of a multitude of chess sets. From archeological discoveries dated 700 A.D. to our day, the author's historical view guides us through a wide variety of styles of this overlooked artistic expression. Movie makers seem to like chess! Mr. Williams included screen shots from known movies where different chess sets are used. Marlon Brando, Woody Allen, John Wayne, Gene Hackman appear among others in the 11 films mentioned in the book. Even Bob Dylan deserved space. Despite all the super stars, the hundreds of different pieces are, by far, the brightest part in this magnificent work. ------ Make discoveries, not war by Alexandre Aquiar 'How could a war begin because of a chess game?' I don't know. This is still in the domain of fiction. And good fiction by Scott Tortorice. But chess may have played a central role more than once in history. In the masterpiece "A History of Chess", by H. J. R. Murray, probably the best and most extensive work on the theme, there is something unexpected about the 'discovery' of America. Two letters, originally written in Spanish, translated into French and then into English report an episode in which King Fernando of Spain was playing a chess game during a discussion of his decision about Columbus's proposal: to not finance the ambitious project. King Fernando, much to his irritation, had an inferior position on the board at this time. Queen Isabel, opposed to his decision, did her best to change her husband's mind. It was then that the Queen approached him carefully and suggested a sequence of victorious moves. Actually the position was a mate-in-two; a position a beginner would crunch without a blink in our days. King Fernando proudly crushed his opponent and was so happy that he simply changed his decision to reward the Queen. A messenger was sent to intercept Columbus and bring him back. And all the rest we all know. The original letters have been found among hundreds of other manuscripts in the files of Cordova, Spain. ---------- Chess by Juan Maria Solare I got entangled in a board; most of the other pieces are ignorant of their own non-existence, and are unaware that the interlacing of illusions had already begun: there is more than one pawn fantasizing with the idea of becoming a powerful figure, and switching round its destiny, shining and having fame; all those pawns are goaded by the player, an autocrat that stimulates them with an ambiguous reward which he doesn't even name, that deceives them exquisitely: some of them will be sacrificed to win time; another, exchanged by its colleague of opposite colour to open lines; the rest will be the shelter of the monarch, and as such, the preferred target of the opponent, the other servant of the Illusionist, the other horn of the Demon, master of discord, who divides against himself, who generates clashing ideologies, equally false, equally coherent, equally adorned; and who at his time swindles both players -marionettes that assume their roles- by seducing them with a "prize" that each idealizes in the measure of his own emptiness; over-sizing nothingness, frolicking with sterility; so those captivated coaxers know something about themselves, they ignore that they don't exist: victory, over others, is no victory. I see my colleagues removed in a direction that I do not understand. The ancestors say that when the game is over, both king and men sleep in the same box. I don't remember any more the colour I was given on that board. * JMS circa 1990 * (c) J M Solare Checked and corrected by Steve Ryan (editor, Chess Bits) 1 Feb 2001 AJEDREZ por Juan Maria Solare Me han enredado en un tablero; la mayoria de las otras piezas desconoce su propia inexistencia, y es inconsciente de que ya comenzo el entrelazado de ilusiones: hay mas de un peon fantaseando con la idea de transformarse en una figura poderosa, y trocar su destino, y brillar, y tener fama; todos esos peones son aguijoneados por el jugador, autocrata que los estimula con una ambigua recompensa que ni nombra, que los embauca primorosamente: alguno sera sacrificado para ganar tiempo; otro, cambiado por su colega de color inverso para abrir lineas; los demas seran refugio del monarca, y como tales, blanco predilecto del contrario, el otro siervo del Ilusionista, el otro cuerno del Demonio, maestro de la discordia, que se divide contra si mismo, que genera ideologias contrapuestas, igualmente falsas, igualmente coherentes, igualmente ornamentadas; y que a su vez estafa a ambos jugadores -marionetas que asumen su papel- seduciendolos con un "premio" que cada uno idealiza a la medida de su propio vacio, sobredimensionando la nada, jugueteando con lo esteril; asi que tampoco esos engatusadores fascinados saben algo de si mismos, ignoran que no existen: la victoria, sobre otro, no es victoria. Veo a mis colegas siendo retirados por una direccion que no comprendo. Dicen los antepasados que cuando el juego termina, tanto el rey como el peon duermen en la misma caja. Ya no recuerdo el color que me dieron en aquel tablero. * JMS circa 1990 * (c) J M Solare ------------------------ COMPUTER ANALYSIS IN CORRESPONDENCE CHESS by Tim Nagley (IECC Director and Assistant CEO) One of the IECC's Guidelines (number 8.1) states: "Players are free to consult chess publications or literature in printed or electronic form. Any other form of consultation, including the use of computer chess programmes that analyse a position and suggest moves or play chess games, is prohibited." Some of us have, nevertheless, occasionally had the experience of wondering whether our opponent is responding to our moves with computer-aided analysis - wondering, in short, whether our opponent is a human being or a machine. The usual reason for people wondering about this seems to be that an apparently low-rated player produces the standard of game one might expect from a much more highly-rated opponent. But it should be remembered that there can be other reasons for this happening, and an accusation of cheating is really a very serious matter indeed. Before proceeding to some more general observations, I'd like to dispel the myth that Guideline 8.1 above is unenforceable. This is certainly not the case. Any member who feels sure that his opponent has breached this rule has at his disposal exactly the same course of action which he should use if he feels that any of the IECC's rules has been broken during a game: he should write in general to the Arbiters about the situation, and this instance to the Director responsible for Arbitration and Disciplinary Matters, at iecc-arbiter@yahoogroups.com. This is, indeed, the only recourse available to him. Although the standard of evidence required to "prove" the assertion is both difficult to satisfy and at times debatable, in practice IECC officials are, sometimes with professional assistance from elsewhere, perfectly capable of forming a clear impression of the situation. For understandable reasons, the detailed procedures involved in this are not a matter for discussion in this Journal. "What constitutes proof" may be a very interesting subject, and it's one which is sometimes discussed elsewhere, but our own Arbiters are, wisely and understandably, not entering into this debate. From the members' point of view, the important thing is that if a member regularly offends other members, for whatever reason(s), their membership of the club can simply be revoked by the Arbiters. So "computer cheating" in IECC is, ultimately, sanctionable. The Board is firmly of the opinion that the majority of our members would prefer to play in a correspondence club which has Guideline 8.1, or something very similar to it, than in one which does not. Unlike his opponent, a player using a computer engine to play a correspondence game has little, if anything, to learn from the experience. Players learn and improve from mistakes, and practice with live opponents, correspondence games, books, computers, kibitzers, lessons and in other ways. If three players rated (say) 1600, 1700 and 1800 all lose to player another player, whose IECC rating is (say) 1400, because the latter has in fact been secretly assisted by chess-playing software with a much higher rating of 2200+, in the long run it really makes very little impact on the ratings of these three players, but it can still help them to learn something from their losses. And if the player breaking the rules eventually achieves a rating of 2200, the quality of his computer-assisted games in the archives would in any case prove to be of legitimate value to his subsequent opponents. An interesting perspective arose when I discussed this matter recently with Conrad Goodman, the top-rated player in the IECC ratings-list, who said this to me: "Masters view assistance differently than lower rated players. We presume opponents are assisted by everything imaginable and focus on moves instead of on trying to enforce an embargo, or on imposing a hard time on 'whatever' it was that beat us." Cheating of this sort is always difficult to prove, other than by amassing a preponderance of evidence, but such players can't realistically benefit from this activity, and the best approach to it is simply to try to learn something from the game, report it in confidence to the relevant club official, and move on. ---------------------- THE ARBITERS' COLUMN by Tim Nagley (Director of Arbitration & Disciplinary Matters) Since the last edition, there are several changes to announce. We're very pleased to announce the appointment of a new Senior Arbiter, Robert Mueller. Robert took up his appointment at the beginning of April and is already enjoying the management of this growing department. I have previously had the pleasure of working with Robert on IECC-related matters, and the Board was delighted that his availability happened to coincide with the vacancy. (I was also delighted myself, partly because I had for a little while been acting Senior Arbiter.) We'd also like to welcome Derek Williams, formerly a TD in the Class Rating section, who has very recently re-joined the IECC Staff as an Arbiter, and started handling his Arbiter's workload. We'd like to express our thanks to Sasha Goldshtein, Robert's efficient and capable predecessor as Senior Arbiter, and to Stephan Stone, who served the club as an Arbiter in late 2000 and early 2001. Stephan looks forward eventually to re-joining the IECC Staff when his working commitments once again make this possible. Throughout this recent period of staff changes, our other Arbiter has been (and is) John Cashon, whose consistent contributions have provided the continuity, so thanks go to him as well. The Board and the Arbiters have decided, partly in response to requests from staff and members alike, to change the procedures for the handling of games forfeited following established time-complaints in multi-player events. What was happening before, in the case of a player who had "disappeared", for whatever reason, was that the inevitable time-complaints were arriving spread out, sometimes over several weeks or even months, sometimes spontaneously and sometimes only in response to repeated enquiries from TD's and/or Arbiters. This was causing complications, duplication of effort, often unnecessary involvement from TD's of various sections, and sometimes even the perception that a missing player's opponents were not being "equally treated". Accordingly, it's now the policy that in such events, if one game has to be forfeited after a time-complaint is investigated by the Arbiters, then that player's other games in the same round of that same event are simultaneously forfeited. This applies to Trios, Class Rating events and Thematic multi-player events. The instructions given to players signing up for these events by the TD's allocating the games now includes a warning about this, and the Arbiters' enquiry letters to alleged offenders also explains the new procedure. We have also changed the "30-day list" procedure. Players who seem to "disappear", for any reason, in that they don't reply to Arbiters' enquiries even after one or more of their games are forfeited, are no longer automatically removed from membership 30 days after the initial forfeit. Instead, their remaining games (if any) are forfeited and they are transferred to an "Inactive List" for a period of 6 months before being removed from IECC membership. Our new policy of more actively encouraging time-complaints from members whose opponents are not playing within the time controls stated in the Guidelines seems generally to have been welcomed by members, and certainly to have reduced the TD's workload a little. I know that many members feel it's "unkind" to an opponent to send in a time-complaint, but it should be remembered that this is often a kindness to many other members, and that the Arbiters' primary objective on receiving a time-complaint is to get the game back in play if both players are willing to continue and it looks likely that it can be successfully completed. Very often, a good way of avoiding the need to submit a time-complaint is to re-send your move(s) to a silent opponent 5 days after the original email. As explained in the Guidelines, sending in a time-complaint is something you must do when the circumstances warrant it, not something you "may choose to do". So please send a time-complaint to iecc-arbiter@yahoogroups.com, copying your opponent, if your opponent hasn't replied to your last move after 10 days of reflection-time, or hasn't made 10 moves in his/her last 30 days of accumulated reflection-time. Please send a copy of your time-complaint email to the appropriate TD (as you can send an email successfully to only one yahoogroup at a time, this may necessitate forwarding the TD's copy separately). Time-complaints should give the Arbiters ALL the information they need, as explained in the Guidelines: 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 or games, the date of your last move transmission, the date(s) of any resend(s), the game(s) record, the nature of the violation (usually 10-day rule; occasionally 10/30 rule or other complaint) and any other information that may be pertinent in assisting the Arbiter in resolving the matter in a timely manner. If this isn't all included, the only result can be a further delay and the exchange of further email before the matter can be investigated. But having said all that, please don't send copies of reminders/resent moves to the Arbiters. If it isn't actually a time-complaint, they can't do much about it. One subject about which enquiries continually arise is games which have never quite started, because Black has not responded to White's first move. This hotly debated topic, on which some differing and apparently very strongly held opinions are sometimes expressed, has been examined and re-examined by the Board at least twice in the last 6 months (and with allowance for my memory, that probably means it was three times!). The club's rules about this are very clear and very simple: a game is in play when each player has made at least one move. A game in which Black hasn't replied cannot normally be forfeited, but it can be cancelled, by the TD, not the Arbiter. After this stage, cancellation is only an option in very exceptional circumstances, with the express approval in each case of the Director of Arbitration. (Slightly different considerations necessarily apply to Pyramid challenges). Lastly, it's high time that the Arbitration department publicly acknowledged the help and expertise of Conrad Goodman, IECC's top-rated player and a long-standing mine of useful information on various subjects. It's inevitable that occasionally a matter will arise which is unprecedented or has very unusual complications, and Conrad's invaluable and extensive experience of both correspondence chess and rule-interpretation is always reliably and promptly available to us. Conrad holds no formal position in our department (although he has of course been one of the longest-serving members of IECC's staff in other capacities) but there are certainly instances where it's very reassuring to us to be able to rely both on his knowledge and his continual good nature and support. ---------------------- Improving Your Chess Instinct (Part 1) by IM Conrad Goodman EMI .. Chess Masters usually have these EMI skills in common: Experience to find lines that work - through trial & error; Memory to recall similar positions once experienced - deja vu; Instinct to navigate on own - when experience & memory leave off. AVOID DEPENDENCY .. Generally speaking { but not always true }, players that depend on book and software often fear an opponent's arsenal is more current, stronger & more extensive than their own. And realistically speaking, with all the data bases & books so readily available today .. it's wise to enter a new game suspecting your opponent's opening arsenal is quite capable of beating you. WHAT-IF ROTATION .. Whether you push wooden, plastic, magnetized or digital pieces .. use your imagination on 'what-if' continuations .. and periodically rotate the board to see the opponent's point of view ( this often allows you to see the opponent's plan much more clearly ). IMPROVE YOUR ARSENAL .. Once you feel comfortable with an opening .. try transposing the opening move sequence. The earlier you get an opposing arsenal into uncharted waters, the faster you can navigate to an advantage. Let your Instinct and Imagination come to play in the opening and middle game; then use Experience plus Memory to maintain slight advantages in the end-game. FOLLOW YOUR INSTINCT .. Is the incoming move the one you expected? Is it stronger or weaker than expected? Does it threaten a piece? Does it interfere with your plan? Make notes, then put that game aside and look at it later with a fresh point of view. Even if you can't find a better move on your own, it's unwise to blindly follow book and computer suggestions, unless you understand & totally feel comfortable with the resulting position. Future articles will contain tips on sacrifice, playing for draws, how much time should one take to study a position, how to avoid recording errors, spatial advantage, play the person and the position, advantages of playing 2 games simultaneously vs one opponent, plus other topics. ----------------------- [Editor's Note: In the games below from Gideon Mishnaevsky, I wish to thank Kayvan Sylvan for doing extensive PGN formatting on the game scores submitted by Mr. Mishnaevsky. Kayvan has also added some further annotations where indicated by (KS). Thanks also to Gideon, of course, for submitting these games.] A Refutation of Alekhine's Opening, Larsen Variation by Gideon Mishnaevsky [Event "Theoretical Study"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2001.05.01"] [Round "?"] [White "?"] [Black "?"] [Result "*"] [Author "Gideon Mishnaevsky"] 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 dxe5 5.Nxe5 Nd7 {And here we are, the variation being discussed. In case of either White's retreat, or the allowance of the exchange of N's, pressure on Black's position is markedly eased. But there is some other, adventuresome in a way, choice.} 6.Nxf7!? Kxf7 7.Qh5+ Ke6 {Black's King, forced out to defend the vulnerable d5 Knight, is exposed. Three initiative-retaining 8.Qg4, 8.c4, 8.g3. In all of them, White is ferociously attempting to strike open lines to the Black king, while Black strives to tuck his King away without being obliged to return his extra piece. It looks like 8.c4 is the most direct and White's prospective line.} 8.c4 N5f6 9.d5+ Kd6 10.Qf7 Nb8 {Less good are 10.Nb6, 10.Nc5, 10.Ne4? [11.Qe6+ wins the Knight]} 11.c5+ Kd7 12.Bb5+ {Ragialis - Kaunas, USSR, 1979} 12...c6 13.dxc6+ bxc6 14.O-O Qa5 15.Rd1+ Kc7 16.Bf4+ Kb7 17.Nc3 Bd7 18.b4 Qa3 19.Qc4 cxb5 20.Rxd7+! Nfxd7 21.Nxb5 Qa6 22.Re1 Nc6 {The here commonly adopted and restrained 23.Re3 leads to an unclear, double-edged game. In my opinion, however, more promising and actually refuting the whole of Black's defensive system would have been...} 23.Nd6+!! {with the rather forced continuation 23...exd6 24.b5 Qa5 25.bxc6+ Kxc6 26.Qe4+ d5 27.Qe6+ Kxc5 28.Rc1+ Kb4 29.Bd2+ Ka4 30.Bd2+ Ka4 31.Qc6+ Kxa5 32.Qc7+ Kb5 33.Qb7+ Ka5 34.Rb1 a6 35.Qb6+ Ka4 36.a3!! and the ensuing mate is practically inevitable.} {Additional annotations by Kayvan Sylvan} {23...exd6 24.b5 Qa3 25.bxc6+ Kxc6 26.Qe4+ Kc7!? (Giving back a rook.)} {27.Qxa8 Nxc5 and black still retains an edge.} *** Scotch Game Gambit by Gideon Mishnaevsky The Scotch game, comprises, these days, an arena of growing interest and intensive research. Most intriguing and disputed, I would say, are gambit versions, stemming from, as for instance, in the following: [Event "Theoretical Study"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2001.02.28"] [Round "?"] [White "?"] [Black "?"] [Result "*"] [Author "Gideon Mishnaevsky"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Be3 Qf6 6.c3 Nge7 7.Bc4 Ne5 8.Be2 Qg6 9.O-O d6 10.f4!? Qxe4! 11.Bf2 Bxd4! {Capture is practically obligatory, since after: 11...N5g6 12.Nd2 Qxf4 13.Nb5! and White, all of a sudden, enjoys a crushing initiative...} 12.cxd4 N5g6 13.Nc3 Qxf4 14.Nb5 O-O! 15.Nxc7 Rb8 {So far, went the game: Morozevich - Balashov, St. Petersburg, zonal, 1993. After the played 16.d5, no plausible and possible advantage for White is envisaged. Alternatively: 16.Nb5, according to British grandmaster Peter Wells, might be met with 16...Bd7! 17.Nxa7 Qg5 18.a4 Nf5... in Black's favour...} {To my view, contrarily, after: 17.Bg3!? Qe3+ 18.Kh1 Nf5, 19.Rxf5!! Bxf5,20.Nxd6!? Be6 21.d5 Bd7 22.Nc4 a vivid good for White game opens up, without actually jeopardizing White's initiative...} Sicilian Polugaevsky - a light, instructive miniature by Gideon Mishnaevsky The Polugaevsky variation, in the Sicilian Najdorf defence, comprises one of sharpest theory embraced lines. Despite the many years of tournament practice no firm conclusion has as yet been reached. Just as White comes up with a new improved tactics, Black finds a way to totally deny it, and the further exploration resumes... [Event "Theoretical Study"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2001.02.28"] [Round "?"] [White "?"] [Black "?"] [Result "*"] [Author "Gideon Mishnaevsky"] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 b5 8.e5 dxe5 9.fxe5 Qc7 10.Bxb5+ {in the footprints of the legendary Tal} axb5 11.exf6 Qe5+ 12.Qe2 Qxg5 13.Ndxb5 Ra5 {regarded as best} 14.Rd1! {The threat is Nc7 mate; that simple...Game: Tal - Polugaevsky, Alma - Ata, 1980 went on: 14.fxg7 Bxg7 15.Ne4 Qe5, 16.Nbd6+ Ke7, 17.O-O with a slight edge for White} .Bd7 15.fxg7 Bxg7? 16.Nd6+ Kf8 {Ke7!} 17.Nce4 Qg6 {Qe5 looks better } 18.O-O f5 19.Qc4!? {relinquishes the second row, thus furnishing Black with some counter chances} ..Rg8 20.g3 Ra8 {Fritz 6, recommends here: 20...Ra4 21.Qc7 Bd4+ 22.Rxd4 Rxd4 23. Qxb8+ Ke7 24.Nxf5+ exf5 25.Qe5+ Qe6 26.Qxd4 Qxe4 27.Qxe4 fxe4 that leads - in spite of the extra piece- to a lost, for Black, endgame} 21.Nxf5!! {And here Black resigned.} {Such went my internet CC, tourney encounter: GM - Mark Adams, Nov. 99 - Jan 00. There is no salvation for Black, as for instance: 21.exf5 22.Qc5+ Ke8 23.Nd6+ Kd8 24.Rfe1 Be6 25.Nxf5+ and mate follows.} *** The Najdorf Sicilian Poisoned Pawn by Gideon Mishanevsky I've been quite fascinated and intrigued by the Sicilian Najdorf Poisoned Pawn variation for some time. This variation was one of Fischer's favorite systems of defense. It is one of the most played, tense and problematic lines of the Sicilian. In this line, Black, by playing Qb6, assumes immediate control of the a7-g1 diagonal and puts pressure on White's vulnerable b2 pawn. White sacrifices the b2 pawn in order to exploit Black's hindered development. Black, on the other hand, tries to benefit from his material plus. John Nunn, the famous British Grandmaster, wrote in "The Complete Najdorf", along with a multitude of high level games and high quality analysis, that White has nothing more than a draw. I would like, hereby, to examine the lines advocated by Nunn and then present my own contradicting analysis. [Event "Sicilian Najdorf Poisoned Pawn"] [Site "Study"] [Date "2001.03.30"] [Round "1"] [White "Mishnaevsky, Gideon"] [Black "Mishnaevsky, Gideon"] [Result "*"] [ECO "B97a"] [Editor "Sylvan, Kayvan A."] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 {We are now in the critical starting position} 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.f5 {10.e5 (This was the formerly employed favorite move)} 10...Nc6 11.fxe6 fxe6 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.e5 dxe5 14.Bxf6 gxf6 15.Ne4 {This avoids exiled queen, re-entering game via d6 square.} 15... Qxa2 {Probably the best} 16.Rd1 Be7 17.Be2 {With threats along the h5-e8 diagonal 17.Nd6+ (KS: Leads to a Black win, which is why Nunn neglects to mention this line as a viable option for White)} 17...Bxd6 {17...Kf8?! (KS: This is a much weaker continuation for Black, leading to uncertain waters. Why even venture here when Bxd6 is almost certainly winning?)} 18.Bc4 Qb2 19.Qh6+ Kg8 20.Rd3? {KS:Looks strong, but loses for Black with the surprising Bxd6} {KS: At this point White should play: 20.Nxc8 Qc3+ 21.Rd2 Qxc4 22.Nxe7+ Kf7 23.Rf1 Qe4+ 24.Kd1 Qg4+ 25.Rf3 +- (And Black can't take the knight due to mate and White enjoys a lasting material plus)} 20...Bxd6! {18.Qxd6 Qa5+ 19.Rd2 Ra7 20.Qxc6+ Bd7?!} 21.Qd6 Kf7 22.Be2 Bb5 {22...h5?! 23.O-O =+ (KS: White has some compensation for the material, but I would still say that Black is winning.)} 23.O-O Bxe2 24.Rxe2 Rd8 25.Qxe5 Qxe5 26.Rxe5 Rd2 {Black is in a winning Rooks and King versus Rooks and King endgame (17...O-O 18.O-O f5 19.Qh6 Qxc2 20.Rf3! f4!) How disappointing, White's attacking resources are almost depleted and come to an end. He might strive for a draw, as in the following: [21.Rh3 Rf7 22.Rhd3 Qxe2 23.Rd8+ Rf8 24.Nf6+]} {KS: White's best chance for the perpetual is to eliminate some Black defenders and check with the Queen like this: (24. Rxf8+ Bxf8 25.Qg5+ Kf7 26.Qf6+ Kg8 27.Qg5+ [Draw])} {24...Kf7 25.Nh5 Bxd8 26.Qxh7+ Ke8 27.Ng7+ (27.Qg6+) [KS: In this position, this is White's only assured path to the draw here!] 27...Rf7 28.Qg8+ Rf8 29.Qg6+ Ke7 30.Qg7+ Ke8 (Draw by perpetual)} {30...Rf7 (KS: This loses, hence Black is forced to accept the draw that results from Ke8) 31.Qg5+ Rf6 32.Qxf6+ Ke8 33.Rxd8#} 27...Ke7 28.Nf5+ Ke8?? {This is a huge blunder that finishes the game in checkmate!} {KS: But black atually wins here by the following surprising line: 28...Kf6 29.Qg7+ Kxf5 30.Qxf8+ Bf6 -+ (Black's King is safe and he has overwhelming material advantage!)} 29.Nd6# --------------------------- How NOT to Choose an Opening: Part I by Peter Richard I'm a newcomer to the IECC and email chess. One of my main goals was to study openings and try to comprehend the positional aspects of chess, at a pace slow enough that I could discover ideas and positions while I was playing games, rather than picking up the shattered pieces after a loss. So as a result, I've got three books on the openings that I'm trying to puzzle my way through, trying to find a decent opening variation or line for each game I start. Well, that's my intention, anyway. My third game with the IECC began with a standard King's pawn double opening, and on White's second move, turned into the Vienna Game. I'd never (consciously) played a Vienna Game opening, so of course I turn to the books to see what the best approach is. My first mistake was not taking sufficient time to play through the suggested variants. I've included the first 10 moves from the game, since that's the key part of the variation I ended up playing. [Event "M-3821.1"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2001.03.08"] [Round "1"] [White "Ellis, Nick"] [Black "Richard, Peter"] [Result "*"] 1.e4 e5 {aha! A King's Pawn opening!} 2.Nc3 {Vienna Game, eh?} Nf6 3.Bc4 {Further revelation! The "Bishop's Variation!" Here I looked at three possible continuations: 3...Nc6, 3...Bc5, or:} ..Nxe4!? {This is where I climb on the roller coaster, and then release the brakes.} 4.Qh5 Nd6 5.Bb3 Nc6 6.Nb5 g6 7.Qf3 f5 8.Qd5 Qe7 9.Nxc7+ Kd8 10.Nxa8 b6 {This is where the roller coaster has slowed sufficiently that I can begin breathing again.} 11.* --------------------------- Editor's note: The subject of "when to resign" usually sparks a lively debate whenever it comes up among chess players. Some hang in there until the last possible moment, hoping for a "miracle". Others will resign when an opponent gains a "significant advantage", [such a term having a highly subjective definition]. The two games below present different "case studies" on this topic. In Game 1, kindly supplied by my friend Ralph Marconi, Ralph wants to state "for the record" that he had "good reasons" for not resigning. It turns out that he did, especially since he went on to win the game! Do you need a better reason? (just kidding Ralph). Give it a play-through and see if you agree with his assessment. In Game 2, a Philidor's Defense Thematic match, your editor takes on Dave (Dynamite) Washburn, a Thematics section official, no less, and manages to blow things right out of the water with a bone-headed move of the first magnitude. I hung on for a bit in the hopes of getting a "Marconi Swindle" (see Game 1) but the fates decreed otherwise. Annotations by Dave Washburn (DW) and Steve Ryan (SR). GAME 1 [Event "USCF,corr.1981"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Marconi, R."] [Black "Patterson, R."] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B17e"] 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Nxf6+ Nxf6 7.Bc4 Bf5 8.Qe2 e6 9.Bg5 Be7 10.O-O-O Bg4! 11.Kb1! {This move was suggested by R.J. Fischer, as being better than 11.h3, which he played against Petrosian in Bled, 1961. The idea is to avoid the exchange of Queen Bishop, while providing c1 for the Bishop to retreat to.} {11.Kb1 (With the idea being) 11...Nd5 12.Bc1! Bxf3 13.Qxf3 Bg5 14.Qg3 $16 (However, ECO neglects to mention Fischer's own suggested improvement on Black's 12th move, 12...O-O!?, which my opponent played.)} 11...Nd5 12.Bc1 O-O 13.Bd3 {+/=(at least in my opinion)} 13...Qb6! {This sets up a rather obvious trap which unfortunately I fell right into :-)!} 14.h3?? Nc3+ {And my Queen is lost! At this point my opponent was gracious enough to kindly remark that he was shocked when he saw the move I had played, saying, that I had played so well up to this point. He asked me What happened?. What could I say but the truth - it was a gross oversight, that simple.} 15.Ka1 {Ok now, you are all probably wondering why I did not resign at this point, well you'll see why in a moment.} 15...Nxe2 {And there she goes. I must confess I really felt miserable at this point, but then I saw a glimmer of hope. Just a very slight chance, but it was enough for me to decide to continue.} 16.hxg4!? {Yes, folks, do you see it? The threat of course is Bxh7+ with a forced perpetual!} 16...f5 {Well, ok, but 16...g6 was better and I would have resigned.} 17.gxf5 Nxc1 {At this point, I started saying to myself, will he actually start getting greedy!} 18.Bc4 Nxa2 {Now White is down a full Queen, and by all accounts should throw in the towel - right?} 19.Bxe6+ Kh8?? {The unimaginable has just happened!, Black has just blundered away an easily won game. Of course 19...Rf7 was necessary, and if he had played this move I would have resigned immediately, although I would have picked up some material.} 20.Rxh7+ Kxh7 21.Rh1+ 1-0 {He resigned since mate can not be avoided. This game will win no brilliancy prize, but it does illustrate that one should not immediately resign when grossly down in material, There's always that chance for a "swindle", even in CC. Best wishes, Ralph, Joliette, Quebec} GAME 2 [Event "TH-M-1232.2"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2001.02.05"] [White "Ryan, Steve"] [Black "Washburn, David"] [Result "0-1"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4 Bd7 5.Bf4 Nc6 6.Qc3 {DW - The more usual 6.Qd2 gives White's knight a chance to develop to c3, but the text move continues to put pressure on the g7/h8 squares, preventing the immediate development of Black's King's Bishop. SR - exactly what I had in mind. I also hoped my opponent would "go to pieces" (pun intended) after we "left the book".} ...d5 {DW - With the thought of gaining freedom and neutralizing the pawn at e4. Black threatens to win the queen with Bb4. SR - I had my eye on that possibility and believed a3 would have taken care of it. DW - Also for consideration are Qf6 and Nf6.} 7.Nbd2 dxe4 {DW - 7...Qf6 or Nf6 are possibly better} 8.Ng5 {DW - The only reasonable move. If instead 8.Nxe4, ...Bb4 wins.} ...Qf6 {DW - With Bc4 on the horizon for White, forcing the exchange of White's Queen is Black's main hope. Note that the undefended Bishop at f4 is attacked with this move.} 9.Qxf6 {DW - Best. Qe3 is also possible, but the text retains the advantage.} ...Nxf6 10.Bc4 {DW - White has a distinct advantage. If instead Ngxe4, the exchange of knights seems to equalize for Black.} Nd4 11.Bxf7+ {DW - If instead White plays Nxf7, then Black's Nxc2+ should give him a reasonable game.} ...Ke7 {DW - forces the exchange of Knight for Bishop, as the Bishop at f7 is in danger should Black play h6.} 12.Bb3 Nxb3 13.cxb3 {axb3 instead, partially opening the a-file for the rook, seems better.} ...Nd5 {Not only protecting the c-pawn and attacking the still undefended bishop, but also threatening to play e3 to isolate White's (soon to be) extra pawn. Still, Bc6 was likely stronger.} 14.Ngxe4?? {SR - And how do I explain this hallucination? Sunspots? Global warming? In no time trouble, I overlooked 14…Nxf4 completely. Perhaps having developed a "novel" attack, I forgot that a chess game consists of 2 people. From my point of view the game goes rapidly downhill from here.} {DW - Be3 instead is fine. Also possible is Bg3.} ...Nxf4 {DW - Black is a piece ahead, but lacking greatly in development. White's temporary advantage can disappear if Black can mobilize without the loss of too much material.} 15.O-O Nd3 {DW - Instrumental in helping Black's development is keeping White Rooks from occupying the c- and/or e-files, which if allowed would complicate Black's defense.} 16.Rab1 {DW - Ignoring the threat on the extra b-pawn is just as good or better. For example, 16.Nc4 b5 17.Ne3 placing the knight in a more centralized location and having weakened black's c-pawn should be good.} ...Re8 17.Rfd1 h6 {DW - The g5 square must not be occupied by a knight. Alternatively, Bc6 should also be fine.} 18.Nc4 Kd8 {DW - Preserving the knight with ...Nf4 would seem to save a pawn, but my goal is to exchange pieces while developing to get to a winable endgame.} 19.Rxd3 Rxe4 20.Rbd1 Bd6 {DW - 20...Re7 21.Ne5 Rxe5 22.Rxd7+ Ke8 23.Rxc7 Re7 is also OK for Black.} 21.Nxd6 cxd6 22.Rxd6 Re7 23.Kf1 Kc7 24.a4 Rhe8 {DW - White can fight on with 25.R6d2 if he wishes, but it would be a completely defensive battle for him. For example, Black could then respond with 25...a5 and have a strong position with a later Bc6 or Be6. White's backward and doubled b-pawns would make a target for Black's Rooks, just as White's kingside pawns might become vulnerable to a minority attack. With perceived weaknesses on both flanks and no opportunities of his own in sight, Black resigns. SR - For all practical purposes the game ended with 14.Ngxe4 but I hung on to this point. I personally do not consider it "sporting" to continue until your opponent announces "mate next move".} 0-1 Next Edition of Chess Bits September 2001