CHESS BITS The Journal of the International Email Chess Club November 2000 IECC Web Sitehttp//www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Midfield/1264 In this issue... From The Editor's Desk by Steve Ryan Welcome to New Members by Dirk de Leeuw Chess Psychology 1 by Tim Nagley Editorial "Will the Real World Champion Please Stand Up?" by Steve Ryan Miscellaneous Rumour & Gossip by The Silicon Saboteur Chess Trivia Challenge by Steve Ryan Letter from an E-mail Chess Widow (submitted by Frank Lapham) Y2K Diaries by Zafer Djabri Volunteer Coordinator's Job by Tina Stanton CD ROM Review by Neil Brennen Some Playing Statistics by Andy Howie Ask Anything by the IECC ----------------------------------- From The Editor's Desk by Steve Ryan Mea Culpa! As some of you may have noticed, the last edition of CHESS BITS incorporated (or tried to) a number of tables, such as the results for the "Name the Journal" contest. These tables came out completely unreadable for many members. To explain it as best I can, we can't find a font that works for everyone since many members have just basic computer systems. If I use the "Tab" key to try and align columns, it just doesn't come out right for some members. The "Tab" key provides perfect alignment of text and columns, on my screen. To get a "reasonable" alignment that members can read, I have to use the space bar. The IECC's Ed Boyd provided a somewhat more detailed explanation "The problem is due mostly to the fact that most mail clients use a proportional font for displaying mail as the default. Some mail clients (Eudora anyway) can display in a monospaced font. Eudora actually has a button to toggle between proportional and monospaced display. However, educating users about displaying the journal in a monospaced font is a far bigger undertaking than solving any technical problem. An altogether more radical solution is to use a PDF format for the journal. This solves all display problems and allows you to use graphics, photographs etc.". I think I understand what Ed says here, especially concerning the part about "educating users". We would have a long and probably futile fight to get everyone using PDF. Some members would simply not bother and perhaps drop out. Others would become annoyed and complain about the situation, then drop out, and so on. Well, I don't want anything like that happening so, in keeping with our name, we will stick to e-mail text only. As for tables, columns etc., if I can't avoid them, I will use the space bar. Remember, you can always view the latest journal on our web page to catch anything you missed. ------------- Welcome to New Members by Dirk de Leeuw The IECC welcomes the following new members who have joined over the period 2000 July 16 - October 15 David Baker (USA), Sebastain Chua, (Phillipines), Mats Berggvist (Sweden), James Willis (USA), Morten Aarhus,(Germany), Jonathan Meltzer (USA), John Russell (USA), Fred Woodbridge (USA), Brian Profit (Canada), James Higgins (USA), Flyur Sadykov (Russia), Ken Schnell (USA), Robert Livesey (USA), Gregory Bonk (USA), Michael Addidle (New Zealand), Walter Jimenez-Hartel (Germany), Christopher Ward (USA), Zack Radick (USA), Kevin van Rensburg (Paraguay), Ravishankar Duvvri (India), Alex Sharden (Russia), Bruce Youngren (Canada), Dave Phillips (England), Ken Krause (USA),Brendan Searson (England),Ingvar Johannesson (Iceland), Ted Thompson (Canada),Frank Lapham(USA),Brian Byrne(England), Dave Jarick (Australia), Rafael Silva (Brazil),Sven Schindler (Germany), Kurt Miller (USA), Emmanuel Masker(France), Vlad Archipov (Russia), Van Brollini (USA), Daniel Todd (USA), Lorenzo Bergamini (Italy), Ramon Koster (Netherlands), Ashton Anderson (Canada), Dwayne Sparks (USA),Paquay Renaud (Belgium), Vavosh Dobrucki (USA), Patricia Bell (Canada), Stephen Lester-Smith (Canada), Alan Zeit (USA), Markku Siipola (Sweden), Georgios Sarigiannidis (Netherlands), Morten Swayne Storgaard (Denmark), Jason Porter (USA), Sebastian Ferre (France),Sagi Ganoth (Israel), Pablo Slavin (Israel), Roger Janssen (Netherlands), Fred Palmer (USA), Michael Schmidt (Germany), Jason Hunt (USA), Barry Bell (Canada), Jacinto Tan (Philippines), Thomas Schroder (Germany), Andrew Budmir (Australia), Matt Geary (England), Michel Dion, (Canada), Drozd Krzysztof (Poland), Herve Hiaja (Madagascar), Gordon Wilkinson (England), James Huston (USA),Marcus Hansander (Sweden), Terry Rainey (USA), Eric Girard (France), Janusz Skrzynski (Poland), Ken Lovering (USA), Russ Gardner (England), Brandon Jellison (USA), Pit Brouwers (Germany), Scot Gordon (USA), Juan Jose Sanchez, (Argentina), Michael Agulnick (USA), Kuzma Pecotich (Croatia), Scott Suber (USA), Graham White (England), Axel Schmitz (Germany), Tim Wilton (England),John Worthington (USA), Tony Brown (USA), Razvan Andrei (Romania), Suzanne Ahmed (USA), Lennard Mechlowski (Australia), Arkadiusz Polaszek (Poland), Nick Sukhov (Russia), David Scott, (USA), Ognjen Honovic (Croatia), Kevin van de Groep (Netherlands), Derek McGill (Ireland), Gareth Bentley (England), Eoin OhAnnaidh (USA), Daniel Schreber (Switzerland), Gary Heuvel (Canada), Steven Miskell (USA), Craig Sadler (Canada), Alvaro Rodriguez (Sweden), Dariusz D'ugopolski (Poland), Laurentiu Negru (Romania), Rafael Pinto (Brazil), Eric Collins (Canada), Matz Wolf (Canada), Alan Gifford (Scotland), Lukas Georgiey (Czechia), Rowland Adams (South Africa), Mark Siegel (USA), Stephen Terrones (USA), Timothy Suc (Slovenia), Alexandre Castro (USA), Greg Harness (USA),Clifford Bennett (USA), Billy Lyttle (Engalnd), Dirk Ghysens (Ireland), Arvy Gorman (USA), Mustafa Turgut (Turkey), David Schmidt, Matthias Adamczyk (Germany), Raveen Perera (Sri Lanka),Maxime Dodemant (France), Russ Smith (USA), John Costanzo (USA), Stephen Cade (England), Kiyotaka Sakai (Japan), Vasily Taziev (Russia). 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. ------------------------ Editor's Note The following article by Tim Nagley has appeared in earlier editions of the journal. Tim always intended (so he says) to write further installments in this series, but the "lack of stability" in the journal prevented him from doing so. Now that the "lack of stability" has disappeared (or so I say), Tim has no more excuses. CHESS PSYCHOLOGY I by Tim Nagley Author's note in this occasional series of articles (one every three or four issues), I'll be trying to draw on some of my experience of neurology, psychiatry and psychology and apply it to chess. Before we start, please note that I'm very far from being a grandmaster, and that although I'm trying to keep the articles readable by not scientifically referencing every assertion made, I'll be happy to send a list of references to any IECC member who asks me for one. The subject for this first article is Pattern Recognition. We start with two little games. First, you're given four cards to look at. The cards have something printed on both sides, but you can see only the top sides, which look like this (i) E (ii) K (iii) 2 (iv) 5 . You're told that each card has a letter on one side and a number on the other side. The problem is to name which of the four cards need to be turned over to find out whether the following sentence is true or false 'If a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side.' Have a think about it, decide which cards you need to turn over in order to discover if the sentence is true, and hold on to your answer for a minute. In the second game, you're visiting a new state for the first time, and you walk into a bar. You've heard that there's a law which goes like this 'Anyone drinking alcohol must be at least 21 years old.' Assume that nobody is breaking the law. In order to find out whether this law is true or false, which of the following four drinkers would you need to interrogate? (i) Someone drinking alcohol; (ii) Someone drinking water; (iii) Someone aged 35; (iv) Someone aged 18. Work out your answer (yes or no, for each of the four people), and we'll discuss the second problem first. The answer, obviously enough, is that you have to interrogate person (i) to find out his age, and person (iv) to find out what he's drinking. The age of person (ii) and the drink of person (iii) aren't relevant. This should surprise nobody. What often surprises people, though, is that the answer to the first problem is exactly the same, and for exactly the same logical reasons. The two questions have, in logical terms, identical 'forms'. Experimentally, most people get the first question wrong. Some people (not IECC members, of course) have great difficulty understanding it even after they've seen the answer. There is often no transfer of knowledge between the second problem and the first the pattern isn't recognised, and solving the 'familiar' problem doesn't help to solve the 'abstract' one. (I've derived these games from a variation of a psychology experiment called the Wason Selection Task). But what does all this have to do with playing chess, and chess aptitude? We'll go back to 1944 to find the answer. Adrian De Groot was a professional psychologist in Holland, who played chess in the Dutch team in the 1937 Olympiad, and was a chess master. In 1944 he did his key chess experiment, which I'll describe (and necessarily simplify). He took a group of four people a grandmaster (Euwe), a master, a club player and a poor player. He showed them chess positions, from the middle-game of actual but unpublished master games, for a few seconds, and then asked them to reconstruct as much as they could of the position on an empty board. The results were dramatic the ability of the four players to rebuild the position from their memories was in proportion to their chess-playing skills. Euwe had no problem; the poor player did badly; etc. This was repeated very consistently for each of 16 different positions, and has since been very reliably repeated countless times all over the world. The grandmaster (and the master, to some extent) perceived the positions in large complexes of clusters of pieces, but the others couldn't do this. We know now that the better players actually use different neurological mechanisms of memory to recognise patterns of pieces. Anyone who has played chess can do this to some extent imagine White's position after kingside castling, and you can probably readily envisage a cluster comprising king on g1, rook on f1, pawns on f2, g2 and h2. The grandmaster can see an equivalent cluster of the whole of the kingside board after, say, move 10 of a Sicilian Defense or a Kings Gambit Kieseritsky Variation. Experiments like this have become the universally accepted paradigm among psychologists for investigating chess skill. The superiority of the better player is not due simply to his perceiving and remembering the given position more quickly and accurately, but due to a huge store of previously seen similar positions. The exact way this works inside the brain is extremely complicated and not fully understood. De Groot said 'The master does not just calculate more than the expert he sees more than the expert, especially the things which are most significant.' And he was right it's now well established that the ability to analyse efficiently, and the ability to see a large number of moves ahead are both considerably less important. Does this seem obvious? Would you expect grandmasters in general to have better short-term memories than weaker players, so that the results above are no surprise? Not so it's been extensively proven (though not by De Groot) that if entirely random selections of chess-pieces are used, rather than positions from actual games, the differences between even players of widely differing skill levels completely disappear. A series of experiments (mostly in the USA and Canada) in the 1970's confirmed that chess-playing skill is largely attributable to highly developed pattern recognition by mentally accessing huge numbers of previously stored patterns. In the 1980's, in Russia, this was taken a step further. Malkin, a neurophysiologist, showed experimentally that the critically significant idea of a chess position dictates its actual perception. Where De Groot had used fairly quiet, level positions, Malkin selected positions in which one side was about to launch a winning combination. In his experiments the grandmasters (including Tal) reconstructed everything without difficulty, but the mere experts frequently remembered incorrectly the positions of pieces not involved in the combination. These pieces were often placed on the squares where they 'ought to go.' Malkin argued convincingly (in the Russian chess magazine '64', in 1982) that this phenomenon was the main cause of blunders in chess a configuration to which insufficient attention is paid may not quite coincide with a stored pattern. Analysis also takes place, of course, and one would expect better players also to analyse better, but even the basis of analysis rests on the perceptual ability,which is more fundamental. This suggests that we can all improve with more practice, and that setting the pieces up on a board may confer a big advantage for email chess, rather than simply looking at a display of the pieces on the screen. (There is also corroborating scientific evidence for this). Are you still wondering what the little games at the beginning have to do with all this? The ability to play chess like a master is, in a sense, related to reasoning in a sort of miniature world which is highly structured and studied, but isn't intrinsically related to the real world. This notion of context-dependent reasoning is related to what psychologists call 'schema theory'. To simplify, this assumes that experience about the world is stored in some sort of organized .g. to do with nucleic acids); that these structures can be set off by some stimuli so that elements of them are manipulated without conscious effort; and that the existence of the structures accounts for various inferences made inside the brain. (Anti-vivisectionists should skip this next paragraph.) The physical basis of memory is well documented by all the experiments in which worms can be taught the way through a maze simply by giving them, as food, chopped-up sections of worms which have previously been experimentally taught the way through. The grandmaster's skill, then, is attributable to his 'schematic' knowledge comprising patterns of chess-pieces. This suggests that although playing chess at a beginner's level may perhaps help people to think better, chess is a better mental exercise for bad players than good ones, and being a grandmaster confers little benefit to an individual in the real world. But don't assume that excellence at chess is not in itself a worthwhile goal. There may be many societal advantages, and perhaps even a role in therapy, a subject which we'll discuss in a future article. ------------ * Editorial - Will The Real World Champion Please Stand Up? These days, I suppose, you can take that question to mean the real world champion from either the CC or OTB divisions of the game. In both cases though, I personally believe that if we wish the title from either division to have any genuine meaning, we need one champion from each division, arrived at, and acknowledged by, a universally accepted process. I do not exclude one person holding both titles, if he/she has the ability to do it, but can't recall if such a thing has ever happened. If you do, I would appreciate hearing about it. The main concern remains my desire for a unified process. Our little world of correspondence chess has somehow found room for a surprising number of cc organizations of one sort or another. Some of them, unfortunately, have seen fit to establish tournaments, the winner of which, becomes that club's version of the CC "world champion". Our own IECC does not follow this practice, I am happy to report, and I hope it never does. Nobody will stop you if you and your dog want to form Bob & Rover's CC club. You can even establish your own "world championship" cycle with a soup bone as the trophy. But I ask you, what legitimacy will B & R's championship title have? How will the awarding of this title serve the advancement of CC? The answers - none and it won't. If you agree with what I have said above, then the question naturally arises, which CC organization may legitimately crown the CC world champion? Dare I answer it and risk sounding like a traitor to my own club ? Before I do, I will pause to mention the not-even-secret fact of many IECC members belonging to other clubs as well. For my money, the privilege of naming the legitimate CC world champion belongs to the ICCF, the International Correspondence Chess Federation. Having said that, I do not mean to endow the ICCF with a mantle of invulnerability. They must acknowledge, and respond to, changing times in CC, for the good of our game. But so must all clubs, big and small. I believe we need to do some consolidating to eliminate duplication, expand tournament numbers and types and acknowledge at least an "undisputed World Champion's" title. It will mean a lot of negotiating to overcome issues such as ratings, computers, playing rules etc., but I don't consider it impossible. S.R. * This editorial represents solely my own opinion on the issues expressed herein. It has no connection whatsoever with (reality? - well perhaps) IECC policy publicly expressed or implied. I invite feedback on this or any other topic appearing in Chess Bits. Miscellaneous A NOTE ABOUT THE Y2KO TOURNAMENT Tim Nagley writes ... Since the submission of Zafer Djabri's article about the Y2KO tournament (see section 2 of this edition), the pairings have been sent out for the second round of this major tournament, which originally attracted more than 500 players. In the interests of preventing hundreds of participants from being held up waiting for the occasional particularly slow game to be completed, the Board has approved the use of adjudication in the second round. This is being trialled by IECC in Y2KO.2 only, and will apply only to games uncompleted 9 months after the pairing notices were sent out. Further details are available in the pairing notices. Steve Ryan Writes - I have spell check on my word processor here (MS Word 7) which insists on giving the American version of words like colour, honour, and any others with the ou combination in them. Extensive research on this combination in MWO (Modern Word Openings) and other texts have proven the soundness of the ou line in all variations. For those IECC members living in the Excited States, I suggest you simply re-spell check your journal copies and make the necessary adjustments (not corrections) en masse. I have to admit, however, that dropping the "u" makes things go just a tiny bit faster. - From "A Tale of Two Presidents" by Yasser Seirawan "As you are aware, the current FIDE president (Kirsan Ilyumzhinov) has proposed the creation of a for-profit company based in London called "FIDE Commerce PLC" in which he will be the largest shareholder. He will ask FIDE's delegates to approve the transfer of ALL of FIDE's commercial rights to this "for-profit" company." To put Seirawan's comments above in a little perspective, he goes on to mention that his anger at the FIDE president does not arise solely from this particular incident, but from a series of bad decisions including stating in 1996 that Baghdad would host the FIDE championship match between Karpov and Kamsky; announcing that the 2000 FIDE championship would take place in Tehran; cheapening FIDE titles "to the point where a player with a rank amateur Australian rating can easily become an International Master"; perversion of FIDE rating lists "for political purposes"; non-payment of tournament prizes and a few other complaints. Since I don't play OTB, I'm not up on recent events in that division of the game, so I have no idea what the Australian references mean. Whatever deficiencies the Aussies may have in their chess programs, they sure know how to stage a good Olympic Games. I do pay attention to the world of chess in general though and find Seirawan's comments a bit unsettling. If I had a sarcastic side to my nature I would say something like " Gee, I'm really glad that Correspondence Chess doesn't have any political infighting like that", but since I don't have a sarcastic bone in my body, I won't say it. - I welcome all submissions to the journal (announcements, news stories, games, humour, puzzles, trivia, questions etc.). Games, including annotations, should have complete PGN formatting. Please send all submissions to me directly (ryansc@granite.mb.ca). S. Ryan ---------------------------------------- Rumour & Gossip by The Silicon Saboteur In a futile, but never-ending, quest to satisfy their salacious appetites for scandal, my spies, agents and operatives throughout the IECC have discovered that 1. IECC ARISTOCRAT builds CHESS EMPIRE at COUNTRY ESTATE! 2. RYAN'S new member GRADUATES lead ALL others! 3. IFFCC outlaws MIND READING! 1. Keith ("Gunner "KO") Metcalfe has admitted to owning a "home in the country" to which he "retires on weekends" for "chess studies". Sir Keith has a "chess nook" at "the end of the garden" where he receives many visitors with Russian-sounding names. Consultations go on into the wee hours of the morning, much to the annoyance of the squire's domestic staff, who don't care about chess, but would rather go to bed, perhaps even to sleep. Rumor has it that the "Metcalfe Gambit" will surface in the next KO tourney. 2. An "impartial" survey by the firm of Milosevic & Partners has confirmed that those graduates from the IECC's New Member Program tutored by my good friend Steve Ryan lead all others in rating points gained. The only possible conclusion superior tutoring abilities arise directly from superior chess abilities. Lessons, at a nominal price, will commence shortly. Send a money order/bank draft immediately for $50 U.S. (or whatever that comes to in Euros) to reserve your place in line. 3. Pedro Borwell-Rawlings, Exalted Grand Poobah and TD of the International Federation For Correspondence Chess, will shortly announce that the IFFCC will make plans "soon" to eventually get around to outlawing mind reading sometime or other. Pedro went on to explain "since we already allow computer use, consultation with other players, horoscopes and tarot cards, we felt we had to draw the line somewhere". He also noted that "we feel we can enforce this one since most CC players don't have much reading material anyway". As usual, watch this space for further developments, real or imaginary. S.S -------------------------------------- Chess Trivia Challenge See how many of the following questions you can answer correctly then find your "trivia rating" using the table at the end. The correct answers will appear in the next edition of "Chess Bits", but if you can't wait that long, send your editor an e-mail with "Trivia Challenge" in the "Subject" line and I will send them to you right away. Question Ratings E = Easy, M = Moderate D = Difficult 1. Name the IECC's Chief Executive Officer. (E) 2. Name the editor of "Chess Bits". (E) 3. ? squares on a chess board. (E) 4. Give Black's best move 1.g4 e5 2.f4 ? (E) 5. Give the first two moves in the Sicilian Defense. (E) 6. Who made this famous quote? "When I am white I win because I have the first move. When I am black I win because I am --------- ? (M) 7. Name FIDE's "rival" organization. (M) 8. Which Grandmaster has the nickname "Yass" ? (M) 9. Who currently has the highest OTB rating? (M) 10. Who replied "Have you ever seen a monkey examine a watch?" in reply to a spectator's question "Why did you make that move?" (M) 11. Who won the 12 Grand Masters' Tourney at Bad Kissingen, Germany, August, 1928? (D) 12. Who came second in this tournament? (D) Total Number Correct Your Rating 1 - 5 Novice 6 - 10 Intermediate 11 - 12 Expert If you like this feature, your editor invites you to send in your own trivia questions (with answers) for publication in a future edition of "Chess Bits". (all contributions acknowledged). S.R. ------------------------------------------------ LETTER FROM AN E-MAIL CHESS WIDOW To my darling husband I am sending you this letter by E-mail as I know this is the only way to get to you since E-mail Chess entered our lives two years ago. The children are doing well. Tommy is seven now and is a bright and handsome boy. He has developed quite an interest in the arts. He drew a family portrait for a school project. All the figures were good but yours was excellent. The computer, the chair and the back of your head are so realistic. You would be very proud of him. Little Jennifer turned three in September. She looks a lot like you did when you were her age. She still remembers that you spent the whole afternoon with her on her birthday. What a great day for Jen despite the power outage I am also doing well. I went blonde about a year ago and was delighted to see that blondes do have more fun. Also, thanks for recommending the new Wonder Bra. It makes me look and feel a lot younger. Lars, I mean Mr. Swenson, the department head has taken an interest in my career and has become a good friend to all of us. The house is in good shape. I had the living room painted last spring. I'm not sure you noticed it. I made sure the painters cut air holes in the drop cloths so you wouldn't be disturbed. I have discovered that the household chores are much easier since you let me vacuum around you instead of using the feather duster that makes you sneeze. I will be at the ski lodge this weekend with Lars and the kids but don't worry darling, we have separate bedrooms and he is well aware that I am married. I will try to call you but I know you will be online with your Chess buddies and the line will be busy. I have hired a 60 year old housekeeper to fill your coffee cup and bring your meals to your computer desk just the way you like it. She isn't much to look at but very efficient. Love, Carol (Your wife) Submitted by Frank Lapham (new member-Frank1220@aol.com) ------------------------------------- Year 2000 Diaries (part 3) by Zafer Djabri The last of the first round results have trickled in, and we are now down to the last two games to be decided. As a full year has passed since the start of these games, we have the undesirable situation where nearly three hundred players are waiting around for the start of the next round. Originally, it was envisaged that games not complete after seven months were to be adjudicated (at least to determine who goes through, not for rating). This was probably impractical in view of the number of uncompleted games at that point, but perhaps now is the moment to consider it again!? Adjudication is never a desirable way to decide a game's result, but sometimes, like authority, it is a necessary evil. Is your game getting a little dreary? The same old lines and plans each time? Put a little Romance back into your opening with a King's Gambit.. [Event "Y2KO.1.183"] [White "Miedema Auke"] [Black "McNally David"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C37"] 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. O-O {It's good to see that the Muzio still has its champions. Every so often a 'refutation' is published, but none stands the test of time.} 5... gxf3 6. Qxf3 Qf6 7. e5 Qxe5 8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. d4 Qxd4+ 10. Be3 Qg7 (10... Qf6 {is the usual move, but this is logical also}) 11. Bxf4 Nf6 {With two pieces up, Black can afford to give up one of them, or even a rook, in order to swap queens and reach the endgame. However, frequently this is a mistaken course of action, as Black's exposed King and frozen Queenside can cause him problems even without queens on and despite the material advantage! For the moment, Black tries to counter the pressure on the f-file, and hopes to play e.g. ..Be7, ..Rf8, and ..Kg8, 'castling by hand'.} 12. Be5 Be7 13. Nc3 d6 ({After} 13... Rf8 14. Nd5 Kg8 {White can play} 15. Nxf6+ Bxf6 16. Bxf6 Rxf6 ? (16... Qg6 17. Qd5+ Qf7 18. Qg5+ {is a draw}) 17. Qxf6 Qxf6 18. Rxf6 {and White is better, since Black cannot unravel the queenside fast enough, for example} 18... Nc6 19. Raf1 Ne5 20. Rf8+ Kg7 21. Re8 Ng6 22. h4 ! h5 23. g4 ! hxg4 24. h5 Nh4 25. Rff8 {with a clear advantage}) 14. Bxf6 Bxf6 15. Nd5 Nd7 (15... Rf8 ?? 16. Qxf6+ Qxf6 17. Rxf6+ Kg7 18. Rxf8 Kxf8 19. Nxc7 +-) 16. Rae1 ! Qg6 ({attempting to stop the invasion on e7 with} 16... Ne5 {leads to} 17. Qh5+ Ke6 (17... Qg6 ? 18. Rxf6+) 18. Nxf6 Qg6 19. Qh3+ Kf7 20. Qc3 {with compensation}) 17. Re7+ Kf8 18. Qc3 ! {with the double threat of Rxd7! and Qxc7 followed by Qd8+} 18... Rg8 {there doesn't seem to be a better alternative} 19. g3 Rg7 20. Rxd7 (20. Qxc7 ?? Rxe7) 20... Bxd7 21. Rxf6+ Qxf6 22. Nxf6 +/- {regaining material equality, and with a persistent initiative} 22... Be6 ? {misses a tactical point} (22... Be8 23. Nd5 +/-) 23. Nh5 ! {forces the rook off the seventh rank} 23... Rg8 ({if} 23... Re7 24. Qf6+ Bf7 25. Qg7+ Ke8 26. Qh8+) 24. Qxc7 Rc8 25. Qxd6+ {White mops up} 25... Kf7 26. Qd3 Rg6 27. Nf4 Rf6 28. Qxh7+ Ke8 29. Qg7 ! Rxf4 (29... Rf7 30. Qe5) 30. gxf4 Kd8 31. f5 ! Bxa2 32. f6 Rc7 33. b3 ! Bxb3 34. cxb3 Rc1+ 35.Kf2 Rc2+ 36. Ke3 Rc3+ 37. Kd4 Rc1 38. Qe7+ Kc8 39. f7 Rd1+ 40. Ke5 Re1+ 41. Kf6 1-0 ---------------------------------------- The Volunteer Coordinator's Job by Tina Stanton Hello, my name is Tina Stanton and I live on the east coast of Canada. I've been a member of the IECC for about five years now and a staff member going on three years. The reason I joined the IECC was that I had no one to play chess with. None of my friends play chess and we did have a chess club but it closed down, so I was delighted to find the IECC. I currently have two duties I perform for the IECC. For the past year or so I have been the Volunteer Coordinator. Briefly, I receive an email from another staff member requesting a new staff addition. If I have someone currently on my waiting list, I will send an email to that person to ask if they are interested in the position (giving details of position). If they are, I then forward their name and email to the staff member requesting someone. If not, and if I have no one on the waiting list , I send out a notice to the entire membership asking if anyone is interested in the position. I keep all responses until I receive no more then forward all responses to the staff member concerned. They will look over the applicants and choose someone to fill the position. They then let me know their decision and I send an email to the chosen applicant letting him know he got the position and will be contacted shortly by the staff member who needs help with details and training on the position. I also send out emails to everyone else who has applied, advising them of the decision and thanking them for taking their time to apply. I also keep their names on my waiting list and as positions become available will email them the details. My other duty in the IECC is that of co-maintainer of the IECC web site. The site is updated frequently during the week with such things as the absence report, ratings list, current events. I receive changes from staff members and make the updates to the web page. As you can see, I'm pretty busy but I still find time to play some chess. ;o) ------------------ CD-ROM REVIEW The Traxler Counterattack, by Dan Heisman by Neil Brennen This is an E-book on the Traxler Variation of the Two Knights Defense 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5!?or as it is often called in the USA, the Wilkes-Barre Variation. This has always been known as an exceptionally violent line, practically begging White to capture on f7. Both colors walk a tightrope in this opening, and the Traxler has always been the tactician's happy hunting ground. Each book on this opening claims to have overturned previous analysis, and the current book is no exception to this rule. But the extensive use of computers in the analysis of this book is the main selling feature, and as much a novelty as any new move in the opening. I will be quoting from the Introduction to this book, written by USCF NM Dan Heisman, to explain some points connected with the use of computers in the writing of this book. Heisman, who is a computer chess expert, in his introduction describes how the book was conceived "... hardware and software advances have made it possible to purchase a strong Grandmaster level program for $50 or less.... Therefore, it occurred to me to ask, "What openings are so tactical in nature that the computer can make a real contribution to opening theory - not just in a line or two, but possibly the entire opening?" "The first opening I considered was the 5.Nxf7 variation of the Traxler, or Wilkes Barre, Variation of the Two Knights Defense 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5. After all, the main variation in the 5.Nxf7 line involved the sacrifice of a Bishop to expose the White King as early as move six." "If you've ever played chess against a computer and, during the middlegame, your King ends up wandering around the board with your opponent's Queen still around, you know that the computer will often find very beautiful mating lines. Therefore, analyzing the Traxler with the computer was bound to be fun as well as fruitful..." The computers Heisman used, and no doubt Heisman himself, considered the 5.Nxf7 variation the most critical of the various fifth moves for White. It was also clearly the most fun for the author to analyze. However, the book is a balanced overview of the opening, not a "Black to play and win" book. Heisman incorporates analysis by Estrin, Williams, and Cramer, to name three of the most prominent past Traxler analysts. Lines other than 5.Nxf7 receive coverage, as Heisman points out "For the sake of completeness, I have included extensive analysis on the other two main variations of the Traxler, 5.Bxf7+ and 5.d4, to make it a complete Traxler book - although some of the 5.Bxf7+ lines weren't quite as much fun, nor probably as accurate. The reason is that some 5.Bxf7+ positions are less tactical, and thus not as conducive to concrete computer analysis! It is safe to say that most of the notable novelties in this book are in the 5.Nxf7 (or the rare 5.d4) variations." And there are a great many novelties! The publisher claims "more than 50% new theory". I didn't stop to count all the new moves, but there are quite a few sentences on the order of "Estrin said _____ was good for White, but ______ changes the evaluation." And the novelties are current. The new NIC Yearbook 55, published a few months ago, has an article on a Traxler line; this book has improvements over the NIC article! An article by Heisman on this NIC 55 line is available as a free download from Pickard's website www.ChessCentral.com Many of the interesting moves in the book are silicon derived, but many are carbon-created. The method Heisman used to conduct the analysis is interesting, and Heisman discusses it at great length in his Introduction. The following two paragraphs are from this Introduction "...contrary to what many readers may initially think, I did NOT just let the computer run for a few minutes (or overnight) and then copy the analysis into the book. As a chess master - and having done this type of computer chess analysis for almost 20 years - I know this would not have been very accurate at all (useless might be an appropriate, but stronger term). " "For the most part, the analysis had to be done one move at a time. In other words, I used the computer to identify the most reasonable, or "candidate" moves. Once these moves were identified, then each had to be broken down into further candidate moves, based on a further evaluation, by forcing the computer to play the first level candidate moves. Of course, if the computer evaluation showed that there is only one reasonable move (or none, in which case I usually show the "least unreasonable") and my personal evaluation complied, then I only showed one move." So, as can be seen, this book is far removed from an Eric Schiller database dump. And of course the opening remains unsolved, as does chess itself, despite all the hardware brought to bear on solving it. The CD-ROM is very easy to use. On opening the database a text document containing the publisher's Forward comes up. There are links from the Forward to Heisman's extensive Introduction, which explains how the research was conducted, as well as providing a brief historical background on the opening. From this Introduction the reader is provided links to a page containing links to the Survey overviews, which cover seven main line Traxler continuations. There are 54 Surveys, each one covering a Traxler line, and here having the book in a ChessBase format pays off, as most of the variations are playable on-screen. Heisman also includes prose annotation as well as Informant-style symbols. There are numerous links within the text documents as well as the 54 Surveys, ChessBase opening reports, and the database of 1650 Traxler games. I've never found an easier to use opening "book". There is also a Training database on the CD-ROM version of the book, containing games with training questions. These are great fun! And fun is a word I thought I would never use in reference to an opening book. In fact, after using this CD-ROM, I am finding it hard to go back to paper opening books. They seem so much like drudgery in comparison. It's also hard to go backward when you've seen the future of opening books. This CD-ROM is indispensable for anyone who plays the Two Knights with either color. Chessplayers who want to enjoy tactical slugfests will find much of interest here as well. The Traxler Counterattack is priced at $29.95 for the CD-ROM version, and $24.95 for a downloadable "E-book" version. The E-book version does not contain the Traxler training database. Both versions of The Traxler Counterattack may be ordered from Pickard & Son, Publishers P.O. Box 2320 Wylie, TX 75098 tel 972-429-9052 fax 972-429-9053 e-mail chess@ChessCentral.com www.ChessCentral.com -------------------- Some Playing Statistics by Andy Howie As of 23/7/00 Top 100 players who have... Played the most games 1 704 Richard Andy 2 609 Ventimiglia Chuck 3 458 Nagley Tim 4 401 Jobe Tom 5 341 Cherner Lyle 6 287 Varley Trevor 7 286 Dunn Michael 8 278 Nowicki Andrzej 9 270 Dean Wes 10 250 Bass Stanley 11 249 Hassan Bill 12 245 Newman Nelson 13 240 de Leeuw Dirk 240 Wenger Joseph 15 237 Grazinys Vidmantas 16 212 Karlsson Roger 17 209 Malmstrom Jan 18 200 Theofel Heiner 19 197 Berkley Stephen 20 188 Stein Rick 21 183 Brookshire Tommy 22 182 Arnold Lee 23 180 Hakuc Waclaw 24 178 Femmel Don 25 162 Vanderven Tony 26 159 Powell Lisa 27 158 Hughes Dave 28 157 Mann Derek 29 156 Cornacchini Gabriele 30 152 Kent Kevin 31 150 Cousins Eddie 32 148 Fedorko Andrew 33 147 Galvin John 34 147 Howie Andy 35 141 Cornell David 36 141 Wright Barry 37 140 Roldan Jose 140 Power Mike 140 Malm Art 40 139 Bilsel Sabahaddin 41 138 Mueller Robert 42 135 Dunn Carl 43 133 Angus George 133 Foch Louis 133 Fantoni Franco 46 131 Castillo German 47 130 Ralls Nelson 48 127 Possolo Miguel 49 126 Athens Jim 50 125 Hassim Unes 125 Brooks Mark 52 123 Smith Chuck 53 120 Lewis Matt 120 Jonsson Gu?brandur 55 119 Takeuchi Toshi 56 118 Noy Ilan 118 Watson Roger 118 Wylie Richard 59 117 Hargreaves Richard 60 116 Mitchell T. 61 114 Zillmer Jim 114 Wallace Richard 63 113 Johnson Bernie 64 112 Lacey Edward 65 111 Camper Donald 66 110 Hoefer Hans-Peter 110 Haase Peter 68 108 Glew David 108 Ampiainen Jesper 108 Evans Kyle 71 107 Torre Isidro 72 106 Zurowski Dennis 73 105 Stanton Tina 74 104 Popp Tony 75 103 Dijksman Leo 103 Geib Steven 103 Keller Stephen 78 101 Surender Anil 101 Paetzold Ortwin 101 Smits Mark 101 Gumminger Fred 82 100 Raijmaekers Kees 100 Romano Frank 100 Humen John 85 99 Gosme Emile 86 98 Cravens Earl 87 97 Hummeling Hans 97 Smith James 97 Cunningham Don 90 96 Kriechel Ben 96 Schmidt David 92 95 Aspelund Christoph 93 94 Perez Jose 94 93 Copin Jean-Christophe 95 90 Moscoso Fernando 90 Burlak Ilya 97 89 Van Dusen Eric 98 88 Henkes Houston 88 Fuller Bob 88 Sadek Esam Won the most games 1 284 Ventimiglia Chuck 2 225 Richard Andy 3 221 Nagley Tim 4 132 Bass Stanley 5 128 Dunn Michael 128 Nowicki Andrzej 7 127 de Leeuw Dirk 8 125 Grazinys Vidmantas 9 123 Newman Nelson 10 120 Jobe Tom 11 110 Dean Wes 110 Wenger Joseph 13 109 Stein Rick 14 108 Cousins Eddie 15 107 Cherner Lyle 16 98 Varley Trevor 98 Arnold Lee 18 94 Hassan Bill 19 91 Fantoni Franco 20 89 Brookshire Tommy 89 Powell Lisa 22 88 Mueller Robert 23 85 Hakuc Waclaw 85 Femmel Don 25 83 Ralls Nelson 26 79 Galvin John 27 78 Malmstrom Jan 28 74 Vanderven Tony 74 Angus George 74 Hassim Unes 31 68 Cornacchini Gabriele 68 Kent Kevin 33 67 Mann Derek 34 66 Hughes Dave 35 65 Theofel Heiner 36 64 Karlsson Roger 64 Possolo Miguel 64 Camper Donald 64 Humen John 40 63 Berkley Stephen 63 Noy Ilan 42 62 Glew David 43 61 Fedorko Andrew 61 Malm Art 61 Torre Isidro 46 60 Athens Jim 60 Hargreaves Richard 60 Henkes Houston 60 Mayer Eduardo 60 Lilja Gunnar 51 59 Dunn Carl 52 58 Roldan Jose 53 57 Jonsson Gu?brandur 54 55 Power Mike 55 Brooks Mark 55 Sadek Esam 57 54 Takeuchi Toshi 54 City Hank 59 53 Dijksman Leo 60 52 Cornell David 52 Lewis Matt 52 Schmidt David 52 Hutton Andrew 64 51 Haase Peter 65 50 Zillmer Jim 66 49 Paetzold Ortwin 49 Kriechel Ben 68 48 Smith Chuck 48 Lacey Edward 48 El-Messiry Raouf 48 Huang Peter 72 47 Geib Steven 47 Katz Rafael 47 Tauaf Rachid 75 46 Wright Barry 46 Bilsel Sabahaddin 46 Hummeling Hans 46 Torwong Peerapol 46 Hervas Fernando 80 45 Wylie Richard 45 Johnson Bernie 45 Stanton Tina 45 Keller Stephen 45 Gosme Emile 45 Neumann Ulrich 45 Jaskula Robert 87 44 Hoefer Hans-Peter 44 Smithers Steve 44 Wedgeworth Sam 44 Eriksen Tom 91 43 Howie Andy 43 Foch Louis 43 Copin Jean-Christophe 43 Williams Derek 95 42 Raijmaekers Kees 42 Fernandes David 42 Forget Remy 42 Dobrin Doron 99 41 Castillo German 41 Jasinski Jim Lost the most games 1 367 Richard Andy 2 215 Jobe Tom 3 204 Cherner Lyle 4 163 Varley Trevor 5 158 Ventimiglia Chuck 6 137 Karlsson Roger 7 110 Wallace Richard 8 104 Hassan Bill 9 97 Nagley Tim 97 Berkley Stephen 97 Howie Andy 12 96 Theofel Heiner 13 88 Nowicki Andrzej 14 87 Brookshire Tommy 15 86 Dunn Michael 16 85 Dean Wes 17 79 Evans Kyle 18 76 Aspelund Christoph 19 74 Foch Louis 20 73 Mitchell T. 21 71 Wenger Joseph 22 69 Bass Stanley 69 Mann Derek 69 Cornell David 25 67 Wright Barry 26 66 Wylie Richard 27 64 Malmstrom Jan 28 63 Gumminger Fred 63 Cunningham Don 30 61 Zurowski Dennis 31 60 Popp Tony 32 59 Watson Roger 59 Cravens Earl 34 58 Johnson Bernie 35 57 de Leeuw Dirk 57 Vanderven Tony 57 Hughes Dave 38 56 Behr Robert 56 Sciarretta Dominic 40 55 Jones Mason 41 54 Jonsson Gu?brandur 42 53 Power Mike 53 Keller Stephen 53 Barnes Tim 45 52 Hakuc Waclaw 52 Zillmer Jim 47 51 Badenhorst Jack 51 Weiner Ken 49 50 Kent Kevin 50 Possolo Miguel 50 Takeuchi Toshi 52 49 Castillo German 49 Smits Mark 49 Roger Patrice 55 48 Stanton Tina 48 Pascute Bruce 57 47 Arnold Lee 47 Athens Jim 47 Haase Peter 47 Copin Jean-Christophe 47 Jeffrey Thomas 62 46 Newman Nelson 46 Powell Lisa 46 Schrepfer Jeff 65 45 Brooks Mark 45 Geib Steven 67 44 Galvin John 44 Bilsel Sabahaddin 44 Moscoso Fernando 70 43 Cornacchini Gabriele 43 Burgin Robert 43 Agnew George 73 42 Lane Terry 74 41 Schmidt David 41 Lafargue Philippe 41 Attardi Ubaldo 77 40 Hargreaves Richard 40 Burlak Ilya 40 Phillips Ray 40 Ostrovskij Jori 40 Marshall Derek 82 39 Paetzold Ortwin 39 Peters Charles 84 38 Femmel Don 38 Feinstein Adam 38 Smith James 38 Kaczmarek Michal 38 Gabriel Robert 89 37 Lewis Matt 37 Ringel George 37 Smirnov Anatoliy 92 36 Malm Art 36 Van Dusen Eric 36 Fuller Bob 36 Pereira Paulo 36 Francisco Richard 97 35 Roldan Jose 35 Pljusnin Victor 35 Magalhaes Joao Flavio 35 Bibuld Jerry Never been beaten (must have completed 10 games) 1 53 Gill David 2 51 Makarczuk Jacek 3 40 Fels Bernhard 4 38 Kwong Tom 5 30 Montalvo Juan 30 McCraw David 7 28 Lepretre Marc 28 Kindt Rene 9 25 Grantz Olaf 10 22 Schoor Hans 22 Bestvina Mladen 22 Djabri Zafer 22 Lentes Hans 14 21 Shell Greg 15 20 Culp Barry 16 19 Shutov Andry 19 Ollivier Alain 18 18 Ewart Dave 18 Petters Paul 18 Miedema Auke 21 17 Ricks Lou 22 16 Pieri Thierry 16 Taboada Pedro 24 14 Fritz Angelika 14 Loschnauer Rudiger 26 13 Nava Juan Palbo 13 Lapena Cosme 13 Weber Karlheinz 13 Poschmann Hans 30 12 Delalleau Bruno 12 Federman Doron 12 Stanley Doug 12 Gruber Bernd 12 Jakob Steffen 12 MacDonald Paul 36 11 Fan Andrew 11 Skrzynski Ireneusz 11 Ouellet Philippe 11 Gentry David 11 Konikowski Jerzy 41 10 Sirota Anatoli 10 O'Connell Pat 10 Smith Bob 10 Gerke Hartmut 10 Backlund Brian 10 Bucur Sorin 10 Lagos Douglas 10 Hagelstein Daniel 10 Chi David 10 Grabski Samuel 10 Salmi Erkki 10 Shields Glen 10 Purga Oleg and finally, the draw masters 1 167 Ventimiglia Chuck 2 140 Nagley Tim 3 112 Richard Andy 4 82 Grazinys Vidmantas 5 76 Newman Nelson 6 75 Dean Wes 7 72 Dunn Michael 8 67 Malmstrom Jan 9 66 Jobe Tom 10 62 Nowicki Andrzej 11 61 Fedorko Andrew 12 59 Wenger Joseph 13 56 de Leeuw Dirk 14 55 Femmel Don 15 51 Hassan Bill 16 49 Bilsel Sabahaddin 49 Bass Stanley 18 47 Stein Rick 47 Roldan Jose 20 45 Smith Chuck 45 Dunn Carl 45 Cornacchini Gabriele 23 43 Vujadinovic Milan 43 Malm Art 43 Hakuc Waclaw 26 41 Dijksman Leo 41 Hoefer Hans-Peter 41 Castillo German 29 40 Raijmaekers Kees 30 39 Goodman Conrad 39 Ampiainen Jesper 39 Theofel Heiner 33 38 Valverde Andres 34 37 Hummeling Hans 37 Arnold Lee 37 Berkley Stephen 37 36 Camper Donald 36 Hassim Unes 36 Rego Sandro 40 35 Zaremba Artur 35 Surender Anil 35 Hughes Dave 43 34 Romano Frank 34 Kent Kevin 45 33 Glew David 33 Lacey Edward 47 32 Le Duigou 32 Torre Isidro 32 Mueller Robert 32 Noy Ilan 32 Angus George 32 Power Mike 53 31 Prevenios Michail 31 Kaczorowski Piotr 31 Lewis Matt 31 Vanderven Tony 57 30 Falato John 30 Cousins Eddie 30 Nater Burkhard 30 Cherner Lyle 61 29 Smithers Steve 29 Dror Aaron 29 Alvim Carlos 64 28 Neumann Ulrich 28 Wright Barry 66 27 Alvarez Nelson 27 Paolantonio Martin 27 Koolsbergen Nico 27 Smith James 70 26 Ralls Nelson 26 Varley Trevor 72 25 Seiler Andreas 25 Lempea Pekka 74 25 Brooks Mark 75 24 Peddie Ian 24 Humen John 24 El-Messiry Raouf 24 Torwong Peerapol 24 Raffaele Enzo 24 Cashon John 24 Fuller Bob 24 Galvin John 24 Powell Lisa 84 23 Makarczuk Jacek 23 Braun Andreas 23 Bronsdijk Loek 23 Bergmann Michael 23 Hanegby Avigdor 23 Perez Jose 90 22 Hage Henk 22 Kiese Matt 22 de Vries Gertjan 22 Perz Martial 22 Grouls Cor 22 Goldshtein Sasha 22 Kanios Michal 22 Moscoso Fernando 98 21 Katz Rafael 21 Leperlier Gabriel 21 van Deursen Peter 21 Belov Dmitry 21 Jimenez Julio 21 Carless David 21 Gosme Emile 21 Watson Roger 21 Mann Derek ---------------------- Ask Anything From an IECC member who wishes to remain anonymous "RT begins when a legal move arrives on your server". Questions - if your opponent has sent you an illegal move, do you have any obligation to notify him? If no, does his RT continue to run while he waits for you to reply? Can you "run someone out of time" this way? Sasha Goldshtein from the IECC's Arbiter's Group replies The answer to your question is in Section 8, Paragraph 8 of the IECC Guidelines. "If an illegal or ambiguous move is sent, [...] then this move shall be referred back to the sender for immediate correction [...]" The only penalization is as mentioned in the same paragraph "[...] The offending player shall be charged 1 additional Day of Reflection Time and the illegal or ambiguous move must be remedied without delay." END NEXT JOURNAL EDITION FEBRUARY 2001