Chess Bits The Journal of the International E-mail Chess Club November 2003 IECC Web Site: www.iecc-chess.org In this edition: >From the Editor's Desk Steve Ryan Welcome to New Members David Glew The IECC Openings Library Project Steve Ryan Megacorr Giveaway Contest Steve Ryan Playing Statistics by Country Philippe Heyvaert Editorial - Have fun first - OK? Steve Ryan Miscellaneous Items Steve Ryan The IECC Rating System Steve Ryan Web Site Review - TestYourChess.com Everett Green The Changing Technology of Correspondence Chess Tryfon Gavriel A Chess Bits Interview with FRANKLIN CAMPBELL Games & Theory CL2-2003.19.09 Hoogervorst - Sadowski CL6-2003.11.03 Young - Melo CL5-2003.11.03 Phillips - Dunning M-477 1.2 Dussetier - Mottershead CL1-2003.04.07 Thomson - Adams Norwegian Closed Championship Hinman - Aarnes TH-M-2167.2 Evans - Canizares Swiss 463.1.08 Green - Jonsson CL1-2003.04.04 Dunn - Adams TH-M-2024.1 Corbat - Morin M-4781.2 Coyne - Ekaworawong ALL MEMBERS SHOULD NOTE OUR NEW WEB SITE ADDRESS - SEE ABOVE >From the Editor's Desk By Steve Ryan I have a decision to make and can't make it. The quarterly publication schedule for Chessbits has grown a bit onerous and it has become difficult to include new material all the time to keep your interest alive. Above all else I don't want our Journal to become routine and therefore predictable. We can't avoid a certain amount of repetition but I do like to keep it to a minimum. So I have to reduce the publication schedule to something more manageable or quit outright and let someone else have a chance. Right now I just can't make up my mind and will take the only option open to me – think about it some more (synonyms: "procrastinate", "delay", "hedge"). If the members think the Journal has become stale that will decide the matter right away. If not, the phrase "quit while on top" still comes to mind anyway. It may interest you to know that I do two other "newsletters" as well - "Eastmanews" (for our local branch of the Federal Superannuates National Association - a Canada-wide organization of people retired from the Canadian Public Service) and a newsletter for our local C.O.P. (Citizen's On Patrol) group, both of which I want to finish this week. --------------------------------- Welcome to New Members By David Glew The IECC welcomes the following 129 new members who have joined over the period 2003 July 16 - October 15: Argentina: Juan Belej, Leandro Coggiola, Dino Luis Ladetto. Australia: Pavle Jonic, David O'Shaughnessy, John Van Alphen. Belgium: Tom Vanderoye, Roel Vanstraelen. Brazil: Marcos Chegancas, Alex Rodrigues dos Santos. Canada: Scott Branton, Jean-Henri Duteau, Terry Parkes, Jeremy Thompson. Croatia: Boris Vodanovic Cuba: Julio Puebla Acebo, Remigio Trejo. Czech Republic Zdnek Nemec Denmark: Jens Cristensen Eastonia: Aleksei Lygun. Egypt: Sultan Ehab. England: Mark Ashley, Magnus Buchanan, Ivan Fernandes, David Foster, Robert Kirby, James Ponder David Sandham, Mark Smyth, Peter Stephens, Ian Witt. Falkland Islands: Simon Oliver. Finland: Harri Haanpaa. France: Christopher Prechac Germany: Denis Grafen, Martin Huber, Manfred Idinger, Mathias Kiep, Thomas Lemanczyk, Udo von Stein. Guatemala: Juan Carlos Sanchez. Hungary: Gyorgy Marjanovics. Iceland: Valur Gudmundsson. India: Lalit Bharadwaj, Anup Dhond, Rupesh Mehta, Kondal Rao Italy: Alfredo Alessandrini, Roberto Ducci, Gianluca Notaricola, Claudio Padovani, Paolo Ramieri, Lorenzo Razzano, Giuseppe Sferrazza, Luca Trentin. Japan: Abe Daisuke. Kazakstan: Armand Bulatov. Kyrgyzstan: Alexander Morozov Mexico: Georg Braeker, Francisco Reveles. Moldova: Stepan Peyoglo. Netherlands: Jan. de Boer, Huip Dolle, Hennie Gertner, Andy Gonzales, Chris Leenders, Roderick Loeber, Erwin Oosterbeek, Jan Wiggerman. New Zealand: Paul Burns. Peru: Oscar Petters. Phillipines: Arsenio Garcia. Poland: Grzeyorz Dworski Romania: Dumitri Laurentiu, Nicolae Nicolaescu, Constantin Sofletea, Valeriu Tudose. Scotland: Stuart Brown, Harold Collins, Ian Foote, Gavin Murphy. Serbia & Montenegro: Oliver Montana Spain: Jordi Cullell, Angel Carlos Lopez, Albert Niubo, Conrado Sanchez, Antonio Sanchez Blanque. Sweden: Thomas Grennefors. Ukraine Vsevolod Mazusenko. Uruguay: Esteban Beron USA: Clark Alford, Matthew Amorso, Thomas Avant, David Beall, Patrick Bellamy, Gerado Blanco, Amanda Butcher, Dustin Clay, Al Dove, Jason Epstein, Arthur Evans, Mark Furey, David Gordon, Marshall Harris, Charlie Hyde, Michael Hyman, Robert Johnassen, Riaz Karmali, Ricardo Laurie, Stuart Lightfoot, Thomas Martin, Sean Monahan, James Nyman, Cyrill Oseledets, Thomas Otterson, Jeff Owens, Matthew Ozor, Paul Pinkston, John Rivenburg, Brian Ruff, John Shaffer-Spencer, Chris Sherwin, Klaus Stark, Paul Walker, Allan Worthley. Wales: Craig Evans, Paul Tew. 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. ------------------ Openings Library Project By Steve Ryan IECC member MARTIN HUBER has made a good suggestion, originally posted on the IECC Discussion List, for a future project some members might like to support - an " Openings Library". I can do no better than to quote Martin's original outline: "Opening studies are an important part of the work of a correspondence chess player. A mistake in the opening can result a sudden ending of a game before it has "really" started. So correspondence chess players are sometimes not sure if they should play a new idea because it might get refuted very easily. Therefore IECC members should think about a platform for presenting opening ideas. This way it is possible to get feedback and enough courage to try an unconventional variant. The Openings Library Project should be a project, where all the players of the IECC can show their ideas about openings. They can write articles about a certain topic. They needn't have new ideas, of course, they can report on known facts. All the articles will produce an opening library, which includes interesting (new) ideas. As all the players can present an opening idea - not depending of his rating - the OLP is interesting for all the players. Players of low rating can learn from articles of his rating or higher and so become better. Players of high rating are maybe confronted by strange variants of players of low rating or can study something new of players of his level. Readers can review articles and suggest some improvement. So the authors of the articles (and the "only -readers") can learn from each other. So no article is foolish and all the players can become authors of an opening article." The directors have established the Discussion List as the primary place to talk about email chess-related topics, but with their agreement I have plucked Martin's suggestion from that list for special mention in the Journal. This project appeals to me very much but two things, in particular, need to happen to give it any chance of success: 1. We will need an Editor to co-ordinate everything. This person should not come from existing IECC staff. We need someone new. Since the contributions (see examples below) will get posted in PGN format this person will need PGN formatting experience beyond the routine recording of a game score. Martin cannot do the job himself because he doesn't think he has enough ability in English. But surely with over 4000 members we can find someone. 2. We will need some place or archive to keep the contributions so all members can have access to them. I don't have any experience in such things so I can't make any suggestions where or how to establish one. [If anyone feels there is a demand for a separate area for opening theory, please contact the board at iecc-directors@yahoogroups.com with a proposal that includes ideas, format suggestion, and assurance there is a large enough demand to justify one or more volunteers to run it. David Glew CEO International E-Mail Chess Club The Openings Library, as Martin said, " can report on known facts" which could mean that even old standbys such as the Ruy Lopez could get a "fresh coat of paint" (so to speak) and perhaps explain why this opening incorporates the moves it does in the order it does. The old joke defines the term "Opening" as "that part of the game in which intelligence plays no part" so instead of blindly making the moves as listed in MCO you might eventually come to understand the reasons behind them. Martin has even provided a brief example of how you might record your ideas on a particular opening (see below) and will act as the CONTACT PERSON for the start-up of this project. If you can help out in some way please e-mail him at ma_huber@web.de. [Event "main line: 1.d4 f5 2.h3"] [Site "?"] [Date "2003.09.01"] [Round "?"] [White "?"] [Black "?"] [Result "*"] [ECO "A80"] [Annotator "Martin Huber"] [PlyCount "3"] 1.d4 f5 2.h3 {The influence of the marginal pawns on the centre fields has not been a relevant theme in opening books, as far as I know. Even grandmasters' books do not report on it. I want to give you a short introduction to that topic with the help of the Dutch Defense. White's move 2.h3 lets Black to choose his way of the development of his pieces freely. Depending on Black's reaction White can place the g-pawn for example on g4, play a gambit and weaken the influence of the pawn f5 on e4. The g-pawn becomes important for the centre fields! If Black accept the sacrificed pawn in the case of 2. ...Nf6 3. g4 fxg4 4. hxg4, White will get the open g- and h-line and can place his bishop f1 on g2 to occupy the diagonal h1-a8. But that is not the only way. White can place his bishop on f4 "normally". After the move e3 the bishop has the field h2 for > withdrawing. The move g4 is always possible to attack the centre fields or the kingside. Let's study three possible black moves. Variant 1: 2....Nf6; Variant 2: 2. ...e6 Variant 3: 2. ...d5} ... and a modest contribution from your editor (if I can contribute then anyone can): [Event "Englund Gambit Studies 1.d4 e5"] [Site "Steve's Computer"] [Round "2"] [Date "2003.09.01"] [White "Fritz 7"] [Black "Ryan, Steve"] [Result "?-?"] [Annotator "Steve Ryan"] {MCO 13 gives only a few lines for this opening (page 450) and considers it an offshoot of the Q's Knight Defence. The Englund can transpose easily into other gambits such as the Danish (1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3). In my games against Fritz I set the time to 20 moves in 2 hours for the engine but give myself unlimited time by the simple expedient of stopping the clock and analyzing on a separate board. Despite this "injustice" the miserable pile of silicon chips never complains but still manages to beat me soundly.} 1.d4 e5 2.e4 exd4 {Fritz always displays what move it anticipates from its opponent. If you actually play the move it has "planned for" you receive an instantaneous response. Here, instead of 2...exd4 it expected 2...Nc6. I still got a virtually instantaneous response anyhow.} 3.Qxd4 Nc6 4.Qe3 g6 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Bd2 Nge7 7.O-O-O O-O { and the game will resume when I find the time to work on it. Time remaining for Fritz to this point 1:43:40.} ----------------------------------------------- Megacorr Giveaway Contest By Steve Ryan You may remember that the previous edition of Chessbits contained a giveaway contest for the latest edition of Tim Harding's Megacorr CD. Contestants had to answer the 5 questions below by searching through back issues of our journal. The first set of correct answers received on my server determined the winner. Since the winner receives the CD via regular post he/she had to agree to reimburse my postage expenses as part of the contest rules. Under those conditions congratulations go to BOB ONDO of Lincoln Park, Michigan, USA as the winner of this latest contest. Bob has long since received his CD and has, I hope, put it to good use. See the answers below (inside the brackets). 1. 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 ---------"? (Efim Bogolubov). 2. What did Siegbert Tarrasch and Jacques Mises play for as first prize in their match of 1916? (A half-pound of butter). 3. What significance does this number have, according to Edwyn Anthony 169,518,829,100,544, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 ? (The number of possible ways to play the first 10 moves of any chess game). 4. At least how many paintings exist called "Checkmate"? (20) 5. Did former world champion Alexander Alekhine die from old age? (No) He died from choking on an unchewed piece of meat. -------------------------------------- Playing Statistics by Country By Philippe Heyvaert Data derived from the Rating List of 2003.10.18 Column 1 - Country Abbreviation Column 2 - Number of players Column 3 - Games Won Column 4 - Games Drawn Column 5 - Games Lost Column 6 - Total Games ARG 43 312 174 135 621 ARM 2 42 26 20 88 AUS 117 670 199 617 1486 AUT 21 259 136 93 488 BAN 2 3 5 12 20 BEL 74 491 228 472 1191 BIH 1 0 0 1 1 BLA 2 1 1 2 4 BLG 4 23 10 62 95 BLR 2 10 4 2 16 BOS 1 119 49 44 212 BRA 1 0 0 0 0 BRS 81 861 441 568 1870 BUL 5 108 32 20 160 CAN 248 2554 971 3119 6644 CHI 10 123 71 41 235 COL 5 52 32 29 113 CRA 4 16 1 4 21 CRO 12 86 36 44 166 CSR 10 146 74 86 306 CUB 4 9 8 17 34 CYP 1 0 0 0 0 CZE 6 100 89 49 238 DEN 36 181 71 127 379 DOM 3 9 5 19 33 ECU 2 41 25 54 120 EGY 11 177 67 64 308 ENG 350 3275 1569 2612 7456 ESP 98 905 458 531 1894 EST 6 9 6 16 31 FAI 1 1 0 3 4 FIN 41 206 136 250 592 FLK 1 0 0 0 0 FRA 132 1143 519 746 2408 GEO 1 7 2 1 10 GER 208 2260 1365 1143 4768 GRC 15 81 47 31 159 GUA 5 9 3 24 36 HKG 4 96 15 72 183 HOL 1 2 0 1 3 HUN 20 51 25 58 134 INA 3 12 9 26 47 IND 34 94 53 98 245 IRL 28 155 56 103 314 IRN 4 11 1 28 40 ISD 2 3 0 2 5 ISL 7 221 86 202 509 ISR 22 270 182 212 664 ITA 146 1333 529 771 2633 JPN 8 60 35 35 130 KAZ 8 61 45 29 135 KEN 2 13 13 16 42 KGZ 2 3 3 4 10 KIR 1 0 0 0 0 KSA 1 17 3 29 49 KUW 1 0 1 1 2 LAT 3 17 3 16 36 LEB 1 1 0 0 1 LEF 1 0 0 1 1 LIT 1 0 0 0 0 LTU 8 156 103 56 315 MAD 1 50 8 31 89 MAL 3 0 0 8 8 MAR 1 18 7 11 36 MAS 11 43 17 69 129 MCD 2 6 1 5 12 MEX 25 104 32 84 220 MLD 1 15 6 16 37 MLT 2 11 5 27 43 MOL 1 0 0 0 0 MRC 2 0 0 1 1 NAM 1 1 0 5 6 NIG 2 4 0 5 9 NIR 4 24 6 15 45 NLD 172 1826 974 1148 3948 NOR 19 123 43 54 220 NZD 36 349 134 288 771 OMN 2 1 1 3 5 PAK 5 1 0 10 11 PAL 1 2 1 3 6 PAN 2 2 2 2 6 PAR 2 1 0 1 2 PER 13 85 40 71 196 PHI 24 142 48 129 319 POL 74 1195 654 681 2530 POR 33 338 172 233 743 PRC 3 28 5 6 39 PUR 5 39 15 5 59 ROM 28 153 86 95 334 RSA 2 70 11 52 133 RUS 71 635 315 333 1283 SAF 53 495 165 526 1186 SCO 42 283 81 179 543 SEN 1 1 0 1 2 SIP 10 26 11 28 65 SLK 10 72 41 39 152 SLO 12 88 43 66 197 SRI 1 2 0 0 2 SRL 1 1 0 4 5 SVE 83 745 325 814 1884 SWE 1 0 0 0 0 SWZ 18 286 185 146 617 THA 3 76 53 53 182 TPE 1 0 0 0 0 TRK 28 214 161 188 563 TTO 1 11 0 1 12 TUR 1 6 1 0 7 UAE 1 1 0 2 3 UKR 20 133 51 59 243 URU 9 50 24 13 87 USA 1453 10690 4177 11488 26355 VEN 11 108 85 108 301 VIE 1 0 0 0 0 WLS 13 147 48 143 338 YUG 22 310 290 118 718 ----------------------------------------------- Totals: 4218 35876 16346 30185 82407 Additional Notes: Top 5 Countries by membership: USA (1453 - 34.4%) England (350 - 8.3%) Canada (248 - 5.9%) Germany (208 - 4.9%) Netherlands (172 - 4.1%) Italy (146 - 3.5%) --------------------------------------- Editorial: Have fun first - OK? I play correspondence chess for different reasons; intellectual stimulation (largely not available in television), companionship, to meet people from different nations and cultures, to pass the time (when I have any - never fear retirement) but mostly for my own enjoyment. Sure, I like to win games and I definitely wouldn't mind a higher rating, but not at any price. All of the above would disappear in a flash if I didn't have fun along the way. So, how do you have fun playing e-mail/correspondence chess? Well, talk to your opponents for one thing. Some players don't want conversation and want to concentrate solely on the game. Fair enough. You have to respect that. But you won't know if they feel that way if you never try to find out. So talk a little. The weather usually makes a good opening conversational gambit. Right now, where I live, we have snow falling. Even so, the temperature remains quite mild, relatively speaking. You don't have to tell your life's story, a list of all your current illnesses, describe your miserable boss/job or anything like that. Most people don't want to hear that kind of stuff anyway. You could even talk a bit about the game in progress and joke around a little. Andy Hutton will agree to that I'm sure. Naturally, if you do any analysis of the game, either while in progress or afterwards, you will want to send them in for publication I should add. Ask your opponent a few questions perhaps - where he lives, what he does other than cc, and other general interest topics. Politics and religion - definitely optional but still possible if both agree. CC clubs have reported instances of two people corresponding year-after-year while constantly playing the same opening. What a delightful thing to happen ! So have fun first - OK? --------------------------------------- Miscellaneous Items By Steve Ryan 1. Viruses continue to bother e-mail systems the world over. One recent and particularly annoying batch allegedly came from Microsoft itself and supposedly contained "patches" for various system problems. Microsoft does NOT distribute patches via e-mail but the virus creators hoped you would fall for it anyway. Strangely enough, the first batch of "Microsoft patches" I received came as plain text files which my anti-virus scanner (AVG) immediately identified as contaminated, perhaps incorrectly as it turns out. Until then I had always understood that viruses could arrive only in "attached" files, especially the "executable" type . Since I have no expertise in this sort of thing I asked the help desk at my own Internet Service Provider (Granite Internet) if viruses could, in fact, arrive in plain text messages and received the following reply: Hi Steve, It's possible to get viruses from executable attachments (.exe files), but they now travel in more forms as well. With the release of Microsoft Office 97, Microsoft included the ability to put executable chunk of code into Excel spreadsheets, Word documents, and a few other formats, called macros. It wasn't long until virus writers were able to exploit these macros, and write viruses that would propagate to any computer set to execute these macros by default. This isn't the large problem it was, however, and it's most virus scanners can detect these macros and remove them if possible. Viruses also used to transfer from computer to computer by diskettes being used between different computers. The advent of the Internet, however, introduced something known as the worm. A worm travels from between computers, and drops it's payload off at each computer before moving onto the next one. The MSBlast worm that just hit the Internet last week was able to infect roughly 300,000 computers within 36 hours of being released. This virus propagated due to an exploit in Windows NT/2000/XP that let remote code run on a system with no authorization to run. I hope this helps Steve. Joey Baumgartner, Granite Internet Services, Inc. ---- Well that answer didn't exactly address the question I asked so I tried again and asked specifically about plain text messages, receiving this reply: Hi Steve, Unfortunately, since the advent of Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express, it's possible for an attacker to throw executable JavaScript code into an email that's written up as HTML. But these are rare and few and far between. A virus can't come in on a text file. It can only come in, in executable form (such as a .exe file) which would have to come in on an attachment. I hope this answers your question. Joey Baumgartner, Granite Internet Services, Inc. So there you have it folks per Mr. Joey Baumgartner at Granite Internet. I believe (but do not know for sure and am quite possibly wrong) that HTML also means "Rich Text". Plain text seems immune. For now. 2. The IECC has appointed GEORGE ANGUS as the new Assistant C.E.O. replacing Tim Nagley who remains on staff as a director. I asked George for some biographical information and he kindly sent the following: "I'm 72 years old, married, with two children, and six grandchildren. I moved to Las Vegas in 1991 after having retired a year earlier with 35 years in the California aerospace industry, all of it in information systems. When I retired I could honestly say my career covered the entire "pc" spectrum: punched cards to personal computers. :o) I can't recall when I first played OTB chess but I do vividly remember playing in an exhibition tournament against George Koltanowski. This was on the Sunset Strip in Hollywood and hosted by Mike Romanoff at his restaurant of the same name. I believe this was around 1954. Koltanowski, as White of course, played against 100 opponents and finished with something like 95 wins, 3 draws and 2 losses as I remember it. The losses, surprisingly (?) came from Mike Romanoff and Humphrey Bogart, one the host and the other a celebrity and an avid chess player. But what made this exhibition so memorable was that Koltanowski played all 100 games blindfolded! I started playing email chess with the original IECG club created by Lisa Powell in 1995. I was one of the earliest members but not one of the original ones. I have since played slightly over 200 games with IECC. My total number of email games, however, is pushing 600 having also played games in the past with IECG, SEMI, UECC, Eclipse, CTON, NOST, the Einladung/Invitation, the ICCF Free Jubilee, Chess Ladder, plus many friendlies. My favorite opening is the Reti which I usually play. But the number of email games I play now, all with IECC, is far less than in previous years. I spend about 2-3 hours a day on board (not chess board) business, sometimes more. Besides chess, I enjoy photography and walking. I am also an avid soccer (football) fan and a retired soccer referee. Our club has come a long way since 1995 and with its dedicated staff of volunteers, who all do a remarkable job I might add, the future of the club continues to look bright. " 3. The IECC has also appointed PAT BELL to the position of Assistant Arbiter and Pat sends along this biographical information: Name: Patricia Bell Age: Middle aged ;-) Residency: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Occupation: Technical Support Analyst Family: Married, 2 teenage children Hobbies: Chess, Quilting and Motorcycling Volunteering: IECC as Arbiter; and FICS as Tournament Manager Chess Background: My husband taught me how to play chess approximately 6 years ago. Once I felt fairly comfortable with one opening and one defence, which I still use, I went looking for places to play on the Internet. One of the first places I came across was IECC. I was enjoying it so much that I decided to give a little back to the organization and signed up to be a volunteer. From May 2002 to June 2003 I worked in the Administration Department compiling the weekly pairing spreadsheet. I decided it was time for a change at that point and signed on to be Arbiter for IECC. Both positions have been very rewarding. The staff are great to work with as they are so helpful and supportive. Chess has become a very important part of my life and I look forward to many years of being part of the chess community and hopefully IECC. 4. I received the following "Letter to the Editor" from Stephen Dunning Dear Steve, I've just been reading your comments in the latest IECC journal about Mailwasher. I have tried Mailwasher in the past and in the end got rid of it. I didn't find it reliable enough, and as it deletes emails on the ISP server, you have only the Subject line to give you a clue to whether it has made a mistake. I now use Spampal, which I have found better for a number of reasons. 1) It is free. 2) It can identify SPAM from the whole message, not just the header. 3) It has plug-ins which can be added to it - I use a Baysian Filter which you train to recognise Spam from the words in it. 4) Spam files can be directed to a directory within Outlook Express so I can check it for mistakes before deleting files. 5) I have found it pretty reliable. 6) You can set email addresses that it will always accept (or block), plus I can set it to allow any email that says 'Chess' or 'IECC' in the subject line to get through. No doubt it will not suit everybody, but it is the best I've come across. You can find out more at www.spampal.org. Best wishes, Stephen Dunning 5. The IECC has an opening for a volunteer in ADMINISTRATION. This person should have some knowledge of Excel (the club's major record-keeping tool). Other desired qualities (per the IECC's own BRAD COULDING) "a friendly disposition, organised and the ability to devote around an hour per day to club business" or the exact opposite of what you need to become a Journal Editor per Steve Ryan. Please contact Brad at bradc2@iprimus.au.com if you would like to apply. The IECC currently has a number of positions open that are in need of staff to help in the organisation and running of the club. These roles include TD-Swiss department, New Member Program Guides, Archivist, and Arbiter. If you are interested in volunteering, and helping the club continue to provide it's high quality services, please send an email to iecc-vol@yahoogroups.com. Include your name, brief details of any experience with Microsoft office applications (Excel or Word) and a sentence or two about why you would like to volunteer to join the IECC's staff. 6. In another amazing development IECC Tournament Director ANDREW (Hong Kong Andy) HUTTON (my current opponent in KO 2043 who thinks he has a superior position in both games but little does he realize the fury about to descend on him) has decreed that from this day on the IECC will ABOLISH RESULTS. No more wins, losses or draws. From now on IECC members will play solely for "the love of chess". Now Andy admits that some "reactionaries" in the club want to retain wins, losses and draws so he made a counter-proposal to rate games based solely on "artistic merit". The problem now arises to find completely impartial judges immune to bribes, national pride and other such influences, in the spirit of the Olympics and professional figure skating. 7. And last but by no means least we have a NEW WEBSITE. See the header. In a message to all IECC staff David Glew explained that "The directors decided to open a commercial web site and have managed to obtain sponsorship from Chessfriend, a new correspondence chess server, whose banner and link you will see on our new homepage. Apart from the tasteful sponsorship banner, there are no advertisements and no pop-ups! In addition the new site gives us greater facilities and greater capacity. We will be looking to improve and increase the services we can offer to our members through our new web site. There is a redirect page on our old Geocities site, but how long this will be allowed to remain is anybody's guess. In the meantime the board hopes that you will enjoy using the new site even more and will be looking at ways to improve the service in the future." --------------------------------- The IECC Rating System By Steve Ryan Humans seem to have a need to quantify progress (or lack thereof) in some manner. For example, those of you still employed probably have to endure an annual ritual of great sadism known as the " performance review". Chess has its own type of "performance review" but in this case it originates solely from a strictly quantifiable concept, based on a mathematical formula the result of which does indeed arise solely from your own performance and not whether the boss had an argument with his wife immediately before he did yours. Chess has a RATING SYSTEM. In the IECC a new member with no cc experience will receive a starting rating of 1000 "points" (for lack of a better term). This figure essentially represents a completely arbitrary number as sure, you could start out at 2000 or 20,000 or even 1, but then everyone in the club would have to have his/her rating adjusted up or down by the same amount. You can make the units of the rating system whatever you want but 1000 makes a nice convenient round number and allows for a system easy to work with and do future calculations. Most clubs use this system as well. If you win (or draw) a game against a player with a rating HIGHER than your own you will gain rating points. If you win against a player with a rating LOWER than your own you still gain rating points but not as many as you would receive with a win against a higher-rated player. If you lose or draw against a lower-rated player you will LOSE rating points since, as the theoretically stronger player, you should have beaten him outright. A draw against a lower-rated player will not cost you as many points as a loss. The precise number of points gained or lost depends on the difference in rating between the two players though only a draw against a player with EXACTLY the same numerical rating results in a net exchange of 0 points. I will not publish the IECC rating formula as you can look it up on our web page easily enough. Some aspects of the rating system did puzzle me and under the somewhat dubious assumption that if I didn't understand something maybe you didn't either, I put a few questions to our hard working board of directors who came through in great style, as usual. My chief concern involved what I call the "order of calculation" since you may have had several games finish close together with assorted wins, draws and losses against others with higher, lower and almost identical ratings to your own. How do you sort it all out? One-at-a-time as it seems. The TD's send in the game results in individual messages which will arrive in a certain order. As each result arrives the people in our rating department take it and apply the rating formula to whatever rating you had before to produce a "new" rating. As another result arrives the process gets repeated to produce yet another "new" rating. Your rating could, therefore, jump around quite a bit in the space of a few days until the ratings department has exhausted all the game results available for you. But, as our CEO David Glew stated it " Games are sent for rating, one at a time, in individual emails, by the TDs concerned and are rated one at a time, in the order they are received, there is no other way to do it.", which makes sense when you think about it. You can start a game at one rating (say 1500) play for several months, post a win against a much higher rated player (say 1900) but only receive a modest increase in rating points because IN THE INTERIM you have increased your rating to 1800 (or whatever). Naturally, it works in the opposite direction if, in the interim, your rating has decreased. The CURRENT rating ALWAYS determines the number of points gained or lost by any subsequent result, not your rating from 6 months ago when the game you won against the higher rated player started. I can't see any other way to do it either. Just win all your games and your rating will always increase. -------------------------------- Web Site Review - TestYourChess.com By Everett Green Reviewed 10-14-2003 If you haven't heard about it yet you should definitely turn your browser to http://www.TestYourChess.com. This is a really nifty site with things for almost everyone. You have many options. You can simply jump in by clicking on CHECKMATE CHALLENGE on the navigation bar on the left. This feature presents about 200 mating problems divided into 8 levels. As a bonus the website keeps track of your "score". My only concern with this feature is the lack of problems that don't involve mates. If you found the problems too easy you probably shouldn't have started at level 1. You can click TAKE THE TEST; this feature grades your level by presenting increasingly more complex mating positions (from actual games!). You keep on solving problems till you get two wrong at which point your "level" is fixed. But you can always retake the test. If your "level" is high enough then you will start with more interesting problems on CHECKMATE CHALLENGE or any of the other features on the site. Most websites have "problem sections". What really attracted me about this site was the PLAY A GAME feature. Like the problem section all games come from actual tournament play. This feature works as follows: You play over a game from actual tournament play. At crucial points in the game you are presented with 3-5 candidate moves. You must then select the "best" move. At the end of the game the website computes your score which is simply the percentage of moves on which your selected "best" choice is correct. These candidate moves can be competing tactical moves; or they can be selections between defense, attack, position consolidation etc. Thus the PLAY A GAME feature allows you to compare your chess judgment with those of the masters. The website also assigns you an "animal" classification based on the percentage right. (So depending on your play you might emerge as a tiger, cheetah, lion etc). This "animal" classification used to annoy me but you can find the coding of animals to percentage correct if you browse through the FAQ section. Thus for example, an alligator classification means you correctly selected between 70 and 80% of the correct candidate moves. The other features on the site are standard for chess sites but seem to be professionally done on this site. For example almost all chess sites have a CHESS LINKS section. What impressed me about the link section on TestYourChess was the scope and breadth--there seems to be a link for everybody. Thus there is chess tutorial for those who don't know how to play the game. There is a beginner link (with 50 annotated games) for those who know the moves but are just starting. Some standard great chess sites (like Exeter, the British site) are there. Finally there is Grandmaster link for Grandmasters (though anyone can peek). Finally the site has a Book link and a send-an-email link for those with suggestions. The site welcomes contributions (whether of games or problems). Overall: I think the site is well designed, easy to navigate, facilitates learning (at any level) and has something for everyone. As the site itself notes, anyone playing over the problems or games is certain to improve their skill levels. ----------------------------------------------- The Changing Technology of Correspondence Chess By Tryfon Gavriel Correspondence chess didn't change much in its first one hundred years. It really only took off in the mid-nineteenth century when postage rates became more affordable to the common man. Before then most games were played between clubs or groups of players who could pool their resources. For the next century our predecessors were happy to exchange their moves on postcards, accepting the fact that the occasional one would arrive illegible (especially in winter), some would take eight weeks to be delivered (from the outer reaches of the Soviet Union) and some would never turn up at all (despite the opponent swearing he had sent it). What a difference the arrival of the computer age meant. Not only could moves now be exchanged virtually instantaneously by email, but many new turn-based chess clubs were set up by fledgling Internet Service Providers such as Compuserve and AOL. Later came the web-based servers like ChessWorld, Gameknot and Red Hot Pawn, but these never seem to have been quite accepted by the "serious" correspondence chess playing community. For the uninitiated, a server-based chess club is basically a clearing house for exchanging moves with your opponents. Most servers make use of Server-Side scripting such as Perl/ PHP/ Asp, and generate standard HTML, so that you do not need to download anything - you just need a standard web- browser to access them. You can make your move from any computer just by logging on to the website. You play your move on a board and the server then takes over and emails the move to your opponent together with (on some servers) a picture of the updated position. No more danger of clerical errors in messages, and the system will also look after the time-keeping aspects of the game. Most of these servers have been set up by keen chess players who also have a good knowledge of programming and the Internet. Some webmasters run their sites as a hobby, while others have given up their jobs and run their sites as a commercial venture. The membership fees are usually modest (15-30$ p.a.) and considerably less than the annual subscription of an OTB club. Nearly all sites allow guest members to play a limited number of games for free, so you can try them out without commitment. In addition to individual games, various types of tournaments are offered e.g. all-play-all, knockout, thematic and Swiss, as well as team games. Various time limits are used (including IECC and IECG) and different sites seem to favour different rating systems such as ELO, Glicko, USCF and BCF. The playing rules of most sites forbid the use of computers for assistance in making moves, although this is, of course, difficult to enforce. Disputes over games are rare. The most common cause is opponents exceeding their time limit. As the server date stamps all moves, the game is either automatically awarded against the player overstepping his time, or the opponent is able to claim a win at his own discretion. In rare cases, the webmaster or an administrator has to step in to adjudicate on a dispute. Most sites have a forum system for exchange of information and posing of questions. The number of players registered at the more popular sites is quite high (often six figures), but the majority of the games are played by an active minority. Most servers have resisted the temptation of offering both live and turn-based games and specialise in either one or the other. Members usually play under a nickname, but are encouraged to reveal their true name and rating (if any) in their profile. My own site ChessWorld (www.letsplaychess.com) actually evolved from a website I set up for Barnet Chess Club. We currently have over 70,000 registered members and have completed over 1,000 tournaments. In addition to the above features, we are playing team consultation games against GM Plaskett, WGM Rajanova, IM Basman and a strong team from TCCMB. These games tend to be dominated by the stronger players, some of whom were active in the Kasparov v The World game. To compensate for this, a recent innovation has been the introduction of consultation games for weaker players against stronger volunteer 'experts' on the site. Education and instruction has always been an important aspect of ChessWorld's philosophy and is supported by such features as being able to request annotation of your games from the other site members. Fischer Random chess was recently introduced and we also now have the facility to run endgame tournaments. It seems that server-based chess is the next logical use of computer technology (after email) yet esteemed organizations like IECC and ICCF appear reluctant to move in this direction. We have a lot of casual players, but also many serious players with a foot in both camps (web-based and email) who have experience of both forms of the game. Once having appreciated the benefits of playing on a server, they wonder why this is not a more widely accepted medium for playing the game. Just a couple more of the advantages are having tournament tables updated after every result and being able to play through your opponents' other games. I am interested in making my server more attractive to serious players, and would be pleased to hear anyone's opinion on how this could be achieved. I would be happy to discuss the possibility of hosting private tournaments for anyone or any organisation interested. Tryfon Gavriel (webmaster@chessworld.net) ------------------------------------------------- A Chess Bits Interview With FRANKLIN CAMPBELL A true gentleman comes along rarely enough in ordinary life and, dare I say it, even more rarely in correspondence chess. In this issue I present to you the exception to the rule, Franklin Campbell. Once again, I have come to know Franklin largely through his postings on The Correspondence Chess Message Board where I have also come to realize that we have much in common. Great minds think alike after all. He has a diverse background and probably more years of CC experience than he sometimes cares to remember. I'm not sure if he "consults the stars" before making moves in his games but if yes, who cares? Whatever works. Franklin has kindly agreed to an interview for our Journal. CB: Can you give us some personal information, whatever you feel willing to share? FC: I was born in 1942, the first in my family to be born in a hospital. They almost didn't allow me to be taken home. They didn't have safety pins for my diapers due to the war metal shortages. I was raised in Tulsa, Oklahoma with an older brother and an older sister. I had an early interest in mathematics and later studied math, astronomy and celestial mechanics at college: MIT, Oklahoma State University and Yale Observatory. My primary jobs have been as a computer programmer and software engineer, most recently as a web site systems programmer. I am currently semi-retired (i.e., unemployed but not looking very hard). I've been married to Anne since 1969 and have a daughter Meg and two grandchildren. I currently live in the small town Mason, Michigan. My other hobby interests are British India coins, photography and astronomy. I started playing chess at 17 years old in 1959 and played my first cc event in 1964. My success in chess has been limited, but I enjoy the game. I've always taken pride in doing many things in chess, not just playing. So I've designed my own chess forms, worked out a careful cc methodology to avoid errors, written chess articles and columns, taken chess photographs, edited team newsletters, drawn chess cartoons, created several chess web sites and serve as an ICCF tournament director. I served for about a year as the ICCF Press Officer, but didn't find that very satisfying. All these different things allow me to enjoy chess to the fullest. My most recent projects are creating two archives at the ICCF-U.S. web site for crosstables and games. We must preserve our chess heritage! CB: Do you have the game score from your first CC game? Can you give us the details of your cc methodology? FC: Sure, I have most of my old records. Here is the first cc game I completed. Cuomo,Jim - Campbell, J. Franklin [C27] 64N125 Golden Knights, 1964 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Qh5 Nd6 5.Bb3 Nc6 6.d4 g6 7.Qg4 Nxd4 8.Nd5 Bg7 9.Bg5 f6 10.Bh4 Nxb3 11.axb3 Nf5 12.Nf3 c6 13.Nc3 d5 14.0-0 Ne3 0-1 That was in the 1964 Golden Knights tournament conducted by Al Horowitz's Chess Review magazine in the USA. Now this same tournament is conducted by the USCF. I learned a valuable lesson in that first event. I scored 5.5/6 in the first round, 4.5/6 in the second, and I was feeling invincible with no losses. Then I hit the real competition in the final round and scored a single draw in six games. I have scored a lot of wins over the years by playing solid chess and not Making the standard mechanical problems of cc. Here is a list of the steps in my postal chess methodology: 1. On arrival, the date of arrival is written on the front of the card. 2. I file the card in the pocket of my Post-A-Log postal recorder. 3. I record the move in my notebook and make the move in my Post-A-Log. At this time I compare the previous moves written on the card to those in my game score to insure my opponent recorded them properly. 4. I analyze the position on a separate board. The Post-A-Log binder contains the actual game positions of all my games and is not used for analysis (this would certainly lead to errors). I use the Post-A-Log diagram to reset the position for more analysis, thus insuring that I'm analyzing the correct position. 5. After deciding on my move, I write it down in my book with the date it will go in the mail, make the move in my Post-A-Log recorder, and write out my postcard. I remove my opponents card from my Post-A-Log binder and file it. 6. I double-check that my postcard is correct. 7. Mail the card. On a regular basis, I check my Post-A-Log binder to see if there are any unanswered cards. I also scan my score sheet binder from time to time to see if I'm on the move in any games and to check for games requiring repeats. Of course, I've made appropriate changes for email, but till I did my games Were error-prone. For me it is essential to have a methodology that I follow Religiously on absolutely every move. Formerly, this netted a lot of points for me, as many of my opponents made the common errors in notation and analyzing wrong positions. Now, with the wide use of computers to generate notation and blunder check and with the use of database software (I use ChessBase) to store current positions and display the absolutely correct position for analysis every time, I no longer pick up any free points. CB: Some players consider a win by a clerical error a second class type of win. They would much rather win by out-playing their opponent rather than by some blunder caused by recording a move incorrectly. The same thing applies to a win by time default. While players don't usually refuse a win under these circumstances it doesn't sit well with them. What do you think about that attitude? Do you have a standard methodology for analyzing a position? FC: Well, of course it's more fun to win a game by outplaying your opponent. Chess has great attractions due to the beauty of play, and it's wonderfully fun to be clever and creative. Chess tournaments test our competitive abilities, though, and good chess play is only one element that leads to success. When playing in tournament games my focus is on winning the game, or sometimes it changes to drawing a difficult game. I would rather win by beautiful play, but any win is a worthy goal, whether it's by superior chess play, better research into openings, avoiding errors, or any legal and fair form of competition. I have written on the subject of chess being a competition as well as a beautiful game (see "The Two Faces of Correspondence Chess" at http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/art002.htm). Some people are ready to criticize opponents who, for instance, refuse to allow their opponent to correct a notation error. I disagree. Competitive cc is a sport which requires a combination of chess skill and other skills and traits, such as accurate bookkeeping, patience and consistency. We can look to other sports, such as basketball, for examples of needing to combine basic game skills with knowledge of the rules and making practical decisions in the attempt to win. I don't do anything to attempt to trick my opponent into a "non-chess" error, but I attempt to outplay him in this area, as I do with the position on the board. When I play a friendly game of chess, I have no objection to my "opponent" taking back a bad move. We may continue playing after the flag falls on the clock. I've played unofficial cc games where I encouraged my opponent to replace a faulty move so we could continue enjoying the contest and testing the opening under consideration. In tournament cc I would not do this, though. I have written letters more than once when journalists praised the "good sportsmanship" of a player who allowed a take-back in a tournament game. This implies "bad sportsmanship" for the player who refuses, and then the player who made the mistake (say a notation error) becomes the good guy and the fellow who made no mistake is considered the bad guy, a grossly unfair characterization. I have no objection to a player allowing take-backs (as long as he isn't a team-mate), but such an approach should be considered the player's personal preference, not as an example of good sportsmanship. In the end I prefer winning by playing superior moves. I even enjoy games my opponent wins by superior chess. Chess is a great game. It also demands careful attention to many so-called non-chess skills. CB: Now how about the Campbell Method for analyzing a position? FC: I can't really recommend my "method" of analyzing, based of my recent poor results. I store all my games in ChessBase. When a new move arrives, normally by email now, I update the game in ChessBase. I keep a comment in my game score "(Last Move.)" which I attach to the last move actually made. This makes it easy to move the pieces around and then return to the current position. Since I started playing cc I've made it a practice to always analyze from the White side. This retains a kind of consistency. I suppose it could lead to a little confusion when I try to use my openings in OTB play, but I haven't had any problems. I rarely play OTB anyway, but I do sometimes play rapid chess on ICC. During the opening phase I constantly search my databases for moves made in master practice. I find in practice that my dependence on databases doesn't really work very well. I constantly find myself in positions that may be roughly equal but where my opponent has better long-range plans. I need to stop putting so much time into my web site work, tournament directing, writing and spending time on TCCMB and instead put some time into developing a quality opening repertoire and honing my chess skills. CB: Yes but we need people to do exactly things like chess web sites, TDs and writing (all of which you do well) . We will get into The Campbell Report later but you make just as essential a contribution to chess as a well Played game by doing the others. In fact, if we didn't have people willing to do them many volunteer organizations would disappear and we wouldn't have as many well-played games. Do you take any interest in what we can call the political side of correspondence (or OTB) chess, i.e. the seeming rivalry between chess groups and the multiplicity of them? FC: I'm rather a fish out of water when it comes to politics. I have no Interest in politics itself, but I am very interested in advancing what I believe are good ideas, and I sometimes write the political leaders promoting my ideas. For instance, ICCF President Alan Borwell has received many of my unsolicited letters giving him the "benefit" of my advice. Others have also heard from me, and I occasionally post my ideas on TCCMB. Politics itself is outside my reality, though. I have on occasion tried to act as a peacemaker between rival politicians, Where I thought their public argument was bad for cc. Unfortunately, that is Usually like throwing yourself between two locomotives trying to keep them from colliding. I can report no success in such foolish efforts on my part. I supported your "open letter" in October 2002 (see http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a021025.htm) encouraging more cooperation among different cc groups. CC organizations should put the well being of the players and of the sport in general above their own special interests. CB: Do you have any ideas how these organizations could go about doing that? FC: Man, you have asked a difficult question there! I admit that my support for cooperation is a rather superficial thing without much substance. I just have the sense of some antagonism between groups occasionally and I regret any such unfriendly attitudes. Some kind of "official" recognition of each other would be nice, such as providing links to each others' web sites. It's already clear to me that many players play in events of multiple organizations. I've been almost entirely involved with ICCF events in my international competition so my experience is limited. I can try to list a few specific ideas, though. 1. Each web site should provide links to the other organizations' web sites. 2. ICCF is well established as representing domestic organizations and providing championship competition (World Championships, Olympiads) and international titles, such as IM and GM ... this should remain so and not be challenged by any other international organization. 3. Free email organizations provide a valuable service and a chance to try cc by email without expense. They offer some interesting competitions and other valuable services, such as training in how to participate in email games. ICCF should officially recognize the proven organizations and feel free to recommend good programs to their players. 4. Friendly matches should be arranged between major international organizations. 5. Specific events by IECC and IECG should provide qualifiers to top ICCF championship events, such as the world championship semi-finals, candidates and world championship finals. This is sort of a reciprocation of my point 2. above. If ICCF is recognized as the only organization to offer legitimate title events, then it should offer qualified players from other groups appropriate entrance into the championship events. 6. Perhaps there are suitable events in IECC and IECG which could accept specific ICCF qualifiers ... I don't know. Events in these organizations which require specific ratings should accept the other organizations' ratings. Perhaps a conversion formula would be needed in this case. 7. Should we be working towards a unified rating system? That's a tough one. I don't know. Maybe not. 8. Each organization should recognize the champions of the other, perhaps with a combined on-line listing. Perhaps some major events in IECC and IECG could offer sanctioned ICCF title norms. 9. Some kind of coordination between organizations should exist as far as announced events go. 10. There should be some method of certifying commercial servers as appropriate for running official games, say ICCF might certify the Chessfriends Chess Server as a legitimate method of conducting ICCF games (just as email servers are used to conduct games by email). This would require some sort of TD access to admin services and some way to compensate the commercial server. 11. Commercial servers, under specific circumstances, should be able to conduct ICCF-rated events with title norms. ICCF should be compensated. 12. Each of these organizations should pay me one cent for every rated game. I will just have to ask everyone to accept this idea on faith, but it really is a terrific idea! :)> I don't know how realistic my ideas above may be, but I'm sure others could come up with their own lists. I believe the different organizations should retain their own identities. Different groups will take different attitudes towards trying new things. Different individual organizers will come up with their own unique and great ideas. Players in multiple organizations may treat games in one group as "serious" and games in another group as "fun" (no worries about rating loss) or "experimental" (try new openings or styles of play, again without concern about rating loss). Is a player being well served by having these different opportunities? Of course! This should make all organizations happy. No one organization can offer everything to players. Of course, friendly competition can bring about fresh ideas and a motivation to improve. For instance, IECG providing competition on a commercial server may spur the other groups to provide even more attractive server chess opportunities. CB: You have hardly outlined anything superficial or without much substance. It sounds like an excellent way to approach things and one that makes a great deal of sense. Do you ever see the ICCF becoming a no-fee non-profit organization? Do you know how or why it got involved in the sale of chess merchandise for example? Could they abandon that approach without seriously damaging the organization? I must admit that my detailed suggestions above came about only after you asked me the question. I couldn't embarrass myself by not giving a thoughtful reply to your difficult query. Perhaps this is a good way to get things done ... to get people thinking about how to solve problems and make improvements. Ask the difficult questions! I don't see how it would be possible for ICCF to become a no-fee organization. It would take a major influx of money from an unknown source. ICCF incurs substantial costs. Web site, travel expenses, prize funds, medals and certificates ... undoubtedly there are a lot of costs I'm not aware of. I remember 10th World Champion Victor Palciauskas receiving his trophy at the ICCF Congress in Daytona Beach in 2000. It is a beautiful silver plate with the crosstable of the World Championship Final engraved on it. For a photo, see http://www.iccfus.com/congress.htm. This is a suitable trophy and not a cheap one. I have been shown some of the medals and certificates given to players on achieving IM, SIM and GM titles. These are very nice and again must cost some money. For photos of these awards see my interview of GM Dr. Ian Brooks at http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a030310.htm. The annual ICCF Congress is an important part of the ICCF culture. It gives both the officers and the many national delegates a chance to get together to discuss important topics and also to bond with one another. I don't think we can underestimate the significance of the social aspect of such meetings. Many of these people work together for many years, and it is so nice to connect a face with the name and to really get to know your comrades in this work. Hey, I actually learned that I like these people who may have given me a bit of a hard time in our electronic and postal communications! The host country for these meetings usually pays the expenses, but some of the travel expenses for officers is covered by ICCF. It is considered very important to have the top officials at the meeting. Also, travel expenses for one delegate from smaller member countries is covered to allow such individuals to attend. Sponsors, like New in Chess, provide some specific prize funds, but ICCF provides some expense money for many events. On a few occasions I've received expense money to reimburse my mailing costs as a tournament director. There is a place for the free organizations and a place for the fee organizations. I think it would be a mistake for ICCF to try to take on the functions of IECC. IECC performs its functions well, and ICCF performs its well. There is a nice division of labor here. This is where cooperation among the different organizations comes into its own. BTW, I'm unaware of the chess merchandise sales you referred to in your question. ICCF did market its own book recently, ICCF Gold. I would recommend that every cc enthusiast get a copy. It is a superb history of international cc and contains a wealth of valuable and interesting information. ICCF-U.S., the USA member of ICCF (only country federations are members of ICCF, not individual players) does sell a few items, such as Tim Harding's MegaCorr CD, in order to subsidize its activities, but basically I know of few sales activities. Incidentally, I've encouraged ICCF to sell a few items to increase the enthusiasm of players towards ICCF. For instance, if I could get a nice pennant with the ICCF logo, it would definitely be on my wall right now. A glimpse of this flag can be seen on the wall in the background of this photo: http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/congress/congress0039.jpg. Oh, that's me on the left playing the 10th World Champion. That was a real thrill. CB: Switching to another topic for now can you expand a bit on what you mean by preserve our chess heritage? FC: I've used this term to explain my new projects at the ICCF-U.S. web site http://www.iccfus.com to collect information about events from our past. Namely, crosstables and games are being archived there. The latest batch of crosstables I posted are from the 1st USA CC Championship (1st USCCC) preliminary round. It's quite fun to see those familiar names, some of strong players who were early in their careers and didn't do so well, others who have been gone for a while. I've discovered that these interesting events haven't been well documented in our literature, or the literature is obscure. These events are an important part of our chess history (heritage) and should be documented. It should be easy to find this information. Same with the games. It's a shame that we can't go to a database and view the games of these past events. So much has been lost. If we don't make an effort to save these games they'll be lost forever. Of course, there is some question about the value of me working hundreds of Hours to collect this information and put in the effort required to insure Accuracy (often published material turns out to be faulty). Are there enough Potential users of this information to make huge expenditure of time worthwhile? I don't know. I just feel it is something that should be done, so instead of Reading opening books or studying annotated games, I do this historical research to document these past events, some rather obscure. I feel "compelled" go do it. Also, as webmaster of the ICCF-U.S. web site I feel this is something that I should make available on the web site. I guess it's just part of my love of the game. It fits into my vision of chess ... experience it in a variety of ways, not just by playing. Those people who never write an article, do a little research, design their own chess form, or set up a chess web site aren't enjoying the full range of the chess experience. BTW, my wife was originally attracted to me when I showed her my chess forms! CB: As well as crosstables and games would you include information on club officials, membership statistics, tournament types, rules and rule changes over the years, entry fees and similar items? How about clubs other than ICCF- affiliated ones? The IECC, for example, has a somewhat obscured history because many of the founders no longer belong or we cant contact them. FC: My intention is to document those events in the USA and NAPZ zone conducted under the authority of ICCF. I will limit myself to information specifically related to these events, such as tournament director and perhaps some photocopies of related papers (assignment sheets, cover letters). I'm not a complete masochist, so I'll limit the scope of this project. I would like to add some photographs and perhaps a few interviews, though. Simple crosstables of 1's and 0's are a bit sterile. I'll leave it to APCT, CCLA, IECG and IECC to provide their own histories. Perhaps someone should write a book covering the whole world of Correspondence chess, but that's not something I'm prepared to tackle. CB: Nobody could tackle such a thing by themselves most likely. It would probably involve a collaborative effort by many people but you have proposed a most interesting idea. Can you tell us a bit about The Campbell Report? FC : This has perhaps been my most ambitious project, but it started very modestly. I had been writing my chess column "The Campbell Report" for the APCT News Bulletin for some years, so I had some content ready-made for the Internet. I was struggling trying to get job interviews. I was a stay-at-home dad for some years and found that potential employers appeared to have the attitude, "we give you credit for taking care of your family, but no interview today." Having been a systems engineer and a software engineer I found that my job skills had gotten outdated. I decided to learn some new skills, so I got a free web page at Angelfire and a book on HTML and went to work. Fortunately, I found a small privately owned business where the owners DID give me credit for being a good family man, and they gave me a chance based on the work I had done on my web site. On that basis, The Campbell Report proved a great success. I guess John Knudsen had already established the TCCMB Message Board because I recall announcing my new site there. Suddenly people were posting, "Don't go to The Campbell Report. It is just a porn site"! Man, what a jolt! I investigated and discovered there was indeed a porn site called "Anglefire" (two letters transposed). If you just transposed those two letters in my URL you wound up at a porn site! Well, that was pretty unsatisfactory. Fortunately, shortly after that John Knudsen invited me to share his cc domain, which has evolved into the fabulous CC.COM domain. My intention with The Campbell Report web site was (besides gaining valuable experience working with HTML) to provide my APCT chess columns on-line along with some other articles. I encouraged others to contribute articles. I even ran a contest for a good signoff for correspondence with the winner announced in my Jan/Feb 1997 print column (see http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/apctcol/c9701.htm). The winning entry "On the Square" is now used as the title of my collection of on-line articles. I've been lucky to attract some first-class writers, such as John Knudsen (who contributed the first article), my long-time friend Roy DeVault (you should read his "How My Wife Almost Wrote a Chess Book" at http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a980723.htm), Robert Rizzo, Christian Sender, and well known chess historians John S. Hilbert and Neil Brennen (Hilbert later published a book of his collected writings, including ten articles first published at my site). Of course, the infamous Steve Ryan has also contributed a couple articles! It grew with time so that now I have an extensive set of annotated chess links, news items, chess cartoons, reviews, ICCF Congress reports, and other features. My most active feature is a set of on-line crosstables. A number of tournament directors send me game reports and I update the crosstables. It is a matter of pride with me that I update the crosstables almost instantly, so the players know the current standings in their events. I am webmaster of numerous sites (APCT, CJA, ICCF-U.S., ICCF Congresses, and other non-chess personal sites), but The Campbell Report remains my flagship web site. John Knudsen pointed out to me that a web site provides what all chess writers want ... readers! Of course he's right. It is a great pleasure to publish my writing on the world wide web. I also enjoy providing a venue for other writers who may not have such easy access to a large audience. And, as you know, I enjoy providing a viewpoint that may not jibe with the majority. I've interviewed people like ChessChick (a chess player with a feminist viewpoint) and Reimund Lutzenberger (the much-criticized owner of the ChessFriends chess server). I published "Steve Ryan's Open Letter to CC Organizations", "USCF Abandons Prison Inmates" (they later reversed this policy), "Numeric or alphanumeric - The final verdict" by Wim van Vugt (a critical discussion of ICCF's official notation), and a review of which I'm particularly proud "Chess Pride Magazine edited by Eric C. Johnson", a magazine devoted to celebrating the achievements of Gay chess players. CB: It so happens that I am reading a book about bias in the news media. Now current events of a general nature can certainly get reported with different spins to them but what about chess news? Do you see any evidence of personal agendas at work in chess news reporting? Does everyone do it, including Franklin Campbell? FC: I suppose I do. It's difficult not to let your personal viewpoints show through. I TRY to present balanced coverage. I particularly don't like it when I see one viewpoint being pushed, and sometimes I probably go to the other extreme to attempt to balance things. For instance, in the discussion of ICCF's use of Numeric Notation as the default, I felt there wasn't enough attention being given to the merits of a better notation, so I started advocating the use of Alphanumeric notation. When Reimund Lutzenberger and his chess server ChessFriends (CFC) was being heavily criticized I posted criticisms of the unfair comments about them (on TCCMB). I even invited Lutzenberger to participate in an interview for my web site, which allowed for a more positive coverage (though I did, naturally, ask him some tough questions). I'm probably considered by some people as "pro-CFC" or even "anti-ICCF" because of my stand. I am critical of USCF's lack of support for cc in the USA, which is clear in some of my writings. I support Tim Harding and his publication Chess Mail, when some criticize him for his "involvement" with CFC. I believe cc organizations should put the player first and support cc in a way that benefits the players of the world. This means I sometimes criticize elements of competition between organizations. Both my published commentary and my personal correspondence has landed me in hot water with some people. I've been placed on a list of people "not to receive cooperation" and almost lost my columnist job over being too forthright in my evaluation of situations. The most hateful letter I've ever received was from a former editor of Chess Life based on a brochure I was distributing listing cc resources for USA competitors (my criticism of USCF was considered inappropriate). It's easy enough to recognize some bias and "personal agendas" in publications. Sometimes it's self-serving, such as Chess Life omitting any reports on problems with USCF being widely discussed in the community. Have you ever read the column "200 Words" by Lev Khariton on the Pakistan Chess Player web site (http://pkchess.bizland.com/)? He has some interesting things to say and I read all his columns, but he is clearly biased, for instance against Garry Kasparov. I've come to the conclusion that it is a mark of achievement to be criticized by Khariton, and I'm proud that I came under his disapproval once with my posting on the FIDE world championship mess (I wasn't sufficiently critical of Kasparov, apparently). The very definition of having an agenda in chess reporting is the web site Ajedrez Democratico (http://ajedrez_democratico.tripod.com/), the "Official Page of the World Players' Council". GM Valery Salov is the President of the Players' Council, but it's not clear to me that he represents the players. He primarily posts articles critical of Israel and supportive of the Palestinians. I agree with much of what he says, but he is totally unbalanced in his reporting. Also, I found out the hard way that politics and chess don't mix all that well when I displayed my opposition to war in Iraq on my chess site. Within two days I removed all my political views from the site. CB: What do you think of Chess Servers such as Lutzenberger's site? Will they eventually replace e-mail chess? FC : Well, it is certainly unwise to predict that e-mail chess will be replaced completely. It is such a nice, clean way to communicate. However, I must say that I am impressed by the promise of server chess. I think what we have seen so far is just the tip of the iceberg. I should caution readers that my opinions are based almost entirely on theory, since I only used a server once to play a single game, and it wasn't a very advanced system. However, I did serve a stint on the ICCF Chess Server Commission. Taking my job seriously, I sat down at the drawing board and put together a design for my concept of what a server should provide. After this "serious think" I came to the conclusion that server chess offers some fantastic advantages. I might add that I've worked professionally on web site development, primarily as a systems programmer, so I understand what can be done using servers. We are going to see server chess become more and more convenient, not only for the chess player but also for the administrator and tournament director. There will no longer be any question about when a move is "sent", the TD will have instant access to all the game details, players will see crosstables without any delays (generated automatically by the server without the need for human intervention), all sorts of bookkeeping will be done automatically (such as reports to the rating commissioner, calculation of title norms, generation of PGN databases, notifications of time limit oversteps to the TD/players, archiving of games, and all sorts of things we may not think of for a while). As a person who manually updates HTML crosstable pages with game results I can say I am going to appreciate the automatic feature. My short answer is "Yes". My longer answer is that in the short run some people may not prefer server chess or not have proper computer access. It's very possible that chess servers will one day provide quite a bit of functionality via email and so avoid many of the objections. We can only guess at some of the other ways to communicate moves ... via a cell phone is an obvious idea. The Women's World Vice-Champion (isn't that a great title?) Alexandra Kosteniuk just played a OTB simul via cell phone. Our world of communications is changing fast with more and more advanced methods of communication becoming available to us. There's no reason to believe that chess players won't be taking advantage of this situation. I believe professional chess servers will lead the way and introduce many great features. I was most impressed by Mr. Lutzenberger when I interviewed him for my web site. He is very forward-thinking and has a great vision for the future of server chess. He and other well financed innovators will surely show the great potential of server chess and either provide services to cc organizations or inspire them to create their own servers. I think we have an exciting future before us. I am personally excited about the promise of the chess server and will stop playing by email ASAP. CB: What you think about using chess engines to help analyze ongoing CC games? FC: You've referred to one of the difficult questions facing cc today. I've tried to maintain some optimism about the future of cc, but there is no doubt that strong computer engines present a major challenge. I believe there is room in cc for a variety of competitions, both those allowing the use of chess engines and those that don't. However, as the strength of the engines increase, the role played by the human player will diminish. There is still plenty of room for the human at the moment, but time will change that. Some top players have pointed out that when both players use computers that the stronger player still wins. If (or when) the computers become much stronger then perhaps the influence of the stronger player's skill will become very small. Actually, it can be quite fun using a chess engine. However, I would like to see competitions without chess engine use become (remain?) the norm, just as in OTB competitions. In OTB there have been some exhibition matches called "Advanced Chess" where the players augment their play using computers to generate analysis and to search databases. This is very entertaining and interesting, but this sort of competition is rare. OTB in general does not allow the use of computers during competition. I understand that IECC forbids the use of chess engines in competition. I'm glad that is true. ICCF takes the view that it is impossible to enforce a rule Against use of chess engines, so the rules do not forbid it. I've been told that it would undermine the rules of play to have a rule that could not be fully enforced. Some find this argument quite compelling. I expect some further action concerning the use of chess engines to be taken at the upcoming ICCF Congress, hopefully something positive. I know there are other cc organizations that forbid the use of computers. Both APCT and CCLA, domestic USA cc organizations I've played most of my games with, take this approach. But is ICCF correct? ... if it cannot be effective monitored, is a rule against computer engine use counterproductive? Should we simply throw up our hands and say cc competitors will cheat if they feel they cannot be caught? I admit that I am naive. I feel my opponents will play by the rules. But am I wrong? If we cannot find a way to play on the basis of everyone following the rules then I fear the doomsayers may prove to be correct. CC may die as a real competition. I want to be clear ... I see nothing incorrect with using computer engines where the rules allow it. I feel that the ethics of play must be based on the rules of play. Expecting players to abide with our personal "unwritten rules" is just plain wrong. As I said above, though, allowing use of computer engines becomes more problematic as time passes and engines become more powerful. We need to find an effective way of prohibiting the use of chess engines if we are to insure the health of our competition for the future. I don't feel we can forbid the use of chess engines for research, so perhaps eventually people will have their opening repertoire's so refined by using engines for research and planning that competition will become a demonstration of a sort that isn't what we think of as competition. What is the solution? How can we insure people will play by the rules? I have a few (naive, no doubt) suggestions. While it is awfully easy for people to bend the rules slightly in the heat of battle, perhaps the following approach would help: 1. Ask the players directly to pledge to follow the rules, and specifically list those rules that cannot easily be enforced. 2. With each new assignment, emphasize that each player has pledged to follow the rules, once again listing those rules (like no computer engine use). 3. Keep these unenforceable rules out in front of the players eyes in club publications and on web sites. Will this work? If a player is continually confronted with reminders that he is breaking the rules by using computer engines, will this solve the problem? I believe many people may be reluctant to violate a rule under these circumstances. It's one thing to sort of let things slide, and quite another to outright lie. Well, I did warn you that I am a bit naive. We need to try something to keep our sport alive and vital, though. I think if we do nothing, then we'll see cc as a competitive sport slowly wither away. We've already seen a lot of active players drop out because of computers. CB: You have, essentially, described the honour system above where you rely on the integrity of the player to follow the rules. How about chess variants such as Shuffle or Fischer Random? Since a lot of an engines power comes from huge opening books would a chess variant like one of them eliminate (or at least reduce) the power of a chess engine? Would you give up CC if it became obvious that everyone uses an engine? FC: I suppose there may be some advantage to playing Fischer Random chess against a computer, in order to eliminate the opening book. However, the player also will be at a disadvantage since opening experience will count for less. I've read comments by masters claiming that the computer will actually benefit more instead of less by playing a chess variant. I have no specific knowledge or experience to enable me to comment intelligently on this. At the moment I'm playing cc in ICCF competitions, where I assume all my opponents are using computers (it's totally legal). Will I give up cc? It is always possible, since I have a variety of other interests, and my current slump encourages ideas of quitting, but actually I don't think I'll quit. It's been a long time since I've prepared my openings seriously, and I'm mostly losing because of my inferior positions out of the opening. It seems that my opponents don't allow me to get back into the games so easily, as I once did. Simply choosing opening moves after scanning my databases seems to have worked out very poorly. I think my switch to email has also encouraged some bad habits. I did better in my old postal events. I could also add that the percentage of chess time I spend on playing is much smaller than before. With my web site work, chess journalism and TD work taking up more and more of my time my chess analysis and study time has become minimal. I sometimes think of cutting back on things like my work with the Chess Journalists of America (CJA), maintaining on-line crosstables and so forth in order to devote more time to improving my play. I can't remember the last time I studied an annotated game. It's possible that everyone will give up cc if something isn't done about Computer use in cc. For now there is still opportunities to beat the computers. Many people talk about the difficulty in computers improving their play much at the longer cc time limits, but I have my doubts. I expect to see major advances in computer playing strength, including at cc time limits, when we'll either find a way to make the honor system work or else the competition will be to see who can make their computer perform the best. Of course, this will be of great interest to a small percentage of cc competitors, but for the rest of us I am not encouraged. CB: Speaking of openings, do you have a favourite one? FC: I don't really have a favorite, but I enjoy playing white against the King's Indian and Nimzo-Indian. I've played the French as black quite a bit, mostly because I don't like any other defense vs. 1.e4. The Caro-Kann does strike me as a very sound opening with clear objectives so I go through periods of playing it. I'm still hoping to one day find my favorite openings because, with quality opponents, if you play the opening poorly you'll probably suffer for 40 moves and then lose. Under the influence of Berliner's book on winning the 5th World Championship I played the Alekhine's Defense in my early days, but I don't think I'd have the nerve to play it today. CB: As an amateur astronomer you naturally watched the Mars close approach Last month, a once-in-a lifetime experience. Do you suppose the Martians use chess engines? Can you give us Franklin Campbell's best game (or at least a good one) with some brief annotations? FC: I did catch sight of Mars recently, but not on that particular night. I even missed that comet that crashed into Jupiter, a really singular event. However, looking at something just so I can say "I saw it" doesn't really appeal to me. I mean, seeing Mars the night I did was really no different than seeing it on that one particular night. In the 1-1/2 years I was at the Yale Observatory, I only looked through a telescope once that I can recall. I can't actually produce a game with notes for you on demand, but I can Point readers to a couple of my better efforts. One was my win over Keith Rodriguez in the 14th USCCC. The crosstable is at: http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/usccc04.htm Amazingly, Keith told me this was his first loss in ICCF play. In this game I played over my head, worked really hard, and got a rare win over a top player. Keith is the perfect gentleman, I must add, and he sportingly agreed to co-author an article with me, where we both provided our independent annotations. The article is at my web site: http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a981113.htm A second game with dual notes is against Stephen F. Collins, a BDG played in an APCT team competition. Here my opponent and I agreed early in the game to produce a dual-annotated game. I recommend this to others. I think it made the game special for both of us, and we had a fabulous and tense game. http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a980521.htm CB: Thank you Franklin, that concludes the interview. ------------------------------------------------- Games & Theory I invite members of ALL rating classes to send annotated games in for publication. You will often find that going over them and making notes (annotations) will help to clarify your own thinking about what both you and your opponent did right or wrong and will aid you in similar positions in future games. A game "not good enough" for publication does not exist. You can always learn something from going back and doing a "post-mortem". I also encourage members to use these games as an archive for future reference even if you don't have time to look at them right now. In this issue I have also persuaded 2 pairs of opponents to comment from their side of the board, an exercise that always proves interesting for the diversity of analysis each one produces. S.R. [Event "CL2-2003.19.09"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.06.28"] [White "Hoogervorst, Paul "] [Black "Sadowski, Marek"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "2135"] [WhiteCountry "NLD"] [BlackElo "2005"] [BlackCountry "POL"] [Annotator "Paul Hoogervorst"] 1.c4 e5 2.g3 {closed-variation of the English Opening A25} 2...Nc6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e3 {prevents intrusion on d4} d6 6.Nge2 Nge7 7.O-O O-O 8.d3 Bd7 9.Rb1 a5 10.a3 {controls b4} 10...f5 11.b3 h6 12.Bb2 Qb8 13.Qd2 Nd8 14.d4 e4 15.Nf4 Ne6 16.Nxe6 Bxe6 17.d5 {white gains space} 17...Bd7 18.f3 exf3 19.Bxf3 g5 20.Bg2 Ng6 21.Ne2 Bxb2 22.Rxb2 Ne5 23.Nd4 Qa7 24.Rc2 Rae8 25.Bh3 {increases the pressure on f5} 25...c5 26.Ne6 {weaker is 26.Nxf5 g4 27.e4 gxh3 28.Nxh6 Kh7} 26...Bxe6 27.dxe6 Qb6 28.Rb2 g4 29.Bg2 Qc7 30.Bd5 !! {is this the winning move?} 30...Qe7 31.b4 cxb4 32.axb4 Rc8 33.e4 fxe4 34.Rxf8+ Rxf8 35.Qxh6 a4 36.Ra2 {Bxe4 Nxc4 37.Qg6+ Qg7} 36...b5 37.cxb5 Nf3+ 38.Kf1 Nd4+ 39.Rf2 Rxf2+ {also good for white is 39.--- Nf3 40.Qg6+ Kh8 41.Qh5+ Kg7 42.Qxg4+ Kh8 43.Kg2 Ne1+ 44.Kg1 Nf3+ 45.Kh1} 40.Kxf2 Nxb5 41.Qh4 {black resign}1-0 [Event "CL2-2003.19.09"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.06.28"] [White "Hoogervorst, Paul "] [Black "Sadowski, Marek"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "2135"] [WhiteCountry "NLD"] [BlackElo "2005"] [BlackCountry "POL"] [Annotator "Marek Sadowski"] 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nc6 3.Bg2 g6 4.Nc3 Bg7 5.e3 d6 6.Nge2 Nge7 7.O-O O-O 8.d3 Bd7 9.Rb1 {last book move} a5 10.a3 {Secures b4} f5 11.b3 h6 12.Bb2 Qb8 13.Qd2 Nd8 14.d4 e4 {Black gets more space} 15.Nf4 Ne6 16.Nxe6 Bxe6 17.d5 {This push gains space} Bd7 18.f3 exf3 19.Bxf3 g5 20.Bg2 Ng6 21.Ne2 Bxb2 22.Rxb2 Ne5 23.Nd4 Qa7 24.Rc2 Rae8 25.Bh3 {f5 seems the pivot of the position} c5 {Black intends g4} 26.Ne6 Bxe6 27.dxe6 Qb6 28.Rb2 g4 {Black wins space} 29.Bg2 Qc7 30.Bd5 Qe7 31.b4 cxb4 32.axb4 Rc8 33.e4 fxe4 34.Rxf8+ Rxf8 35.Qxh6 a4 36.Ra2 {36.Bxe4 Nxc4 37.Qg6+ Qg7 } 36... b5 37.cxb5 Nf3+ 38.Kf1 Nd4+ 39.Rf2 Rxf2+ 40.Kxf2 Nxb5 41.Qh4 {41.Qh4 e3+ 42.Ke1 Qxh4 43.e7+ (43.gxh4 Kf8 44.h5 Nc7 45.h6 Nxd5 46.h7) 43... Kg7 44. gxh4} 41... Qxh4 42.gxh4 {Black resigned} 1-0 [Event "CL6-2003.11.03"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.05.22"] [White "Young, Luke"] [Black "Melo, Olavo"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "1009"] [WhiteCountry "CAN"] [BlackElo "1307"] [BlackCountry "BRS"] 1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 {I like to be aggressive as white} 2...d5 3.d3 dxe4 {but apparently he likes to be aggressive as black!} 4.d4 Bf5 5.Bc4 {positioning for control of the centre} 5...e5 6.d5 Bc5 7.Nh3 {my anxious King wants to get out of the way} 7...h6 8.O-O Nbd7 9.Be3 Bxe3 10.fxe3 {With some surprise that he's encouraging me to develop the Rook} 10... Bxh3 11.gxh3 O-O 12.Qe2 Nb6 13.Rf5 {trying to maintain the initiative} 13... Qe7 14.Rd1 Rad8 15.Bb3 Rd7 16.Qg2 {beginning to realize that he's vulnerable in the corner} 16...Rfd8 17.Nxe4 Ne8 18.c4 Kh8 19.Rdf1 f6 20.Qg6 {positioning for the jugular} 20... Nd6 21.Nxd6 Qxd6 22.Bc2 {the Bishop holds the key to the future attack} 22...Qf8 23.Rxe5 Qg8 24.Rh5 Nxc4 25.Kf2 Ne5 26.Rxh6+ gxh6 27.Qxh6+ Rh7 28.Qxf6+ {obtains the necessary piece advantage and continuing to threaten} 28...Rg7 29.Qh4+ {this move should clinch a Rook} 29...Rh7 30.Bxh7 Rf8+ 31.Bf5+ 1-0 [Event "CL5-2003.11.03"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.05.09"] [White "Phillips, Gordon"] [Black "Dunning, Stephen"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "1455"] [WhiteCountry "GER"] [BlackElo "1533"] [BlackCountry "ENG"] [Annotator "Gordon Phillips"] 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.c4 {Playing the Panov Attack.} Nf6 5.Nc3 e6 6.Nf3 Bb4 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Qc2 Nc6 9.Be2 O-O 10.O-O h6 {The opening seems to be well played.} 11.a3 Bd6 12.Bc4 Na5 13.Ba2 b6 14.Nxd5 exd5 15.Re1 Bg4? {Looses the d-pawn. 15.... Bb7+=} 16.Bxd5 Bxf3 17.Bxf3 Rc8 18.Qd3 Bc5? {Gives white time for development since after 19.Be3 (threatening b4) black should play Bd6.} 19.Be3 Nc6? {Looses the bishop as played in three moves now.} 20.Bxc6 Rxc6 21.Qb5 Qd5 22.dxc5 Rg6 23.g3 h5 24.Rad1 Qf3 25.cxb6 axb6 26.Qd5 1-0 [Event "CL5-2003.11.03"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.05.09"] [White "Phillips, Gordon"] [Black "Dunning, Stephen"] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator "Stephen Dunning"] {The editor's revenge. I beat him in a game so he asks me to annotate one of my losses :). Oh well, there is a first time for everything. } 1.e4 c6 {correspondence chess gives me the confidence to use it OTB. } 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 {The Panov-Botvinnik Attack} 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 {This is the most popular and solid move. Alternatives are: 5... g6 5...Nc6} 6. Nf3 Bb4 7.cxd5 Nxd5 8.Qc2 Nc6 9. Be2 O-O 10. O-O h6 11.a3 Bd6 12.Bc4 Na5 13. Ba2 b6 14. Nxd5 exd5 15. Re1 { 15. Bxd5 Doesn't win a pawn because of 15... Bxh2+ 16. Nxh2 Qxd5} 15...Bg4 {The crucial mistake. Better would be the straightforward 15... Bb7} 16. Bxd5 Bxf3 {Now 16...Bxh2+ doesn't save the pawn, as after 17. Nxh2 white's night attacks the bishop!} 17. Bxf3 Rc8 18. Qd3 Bc5 {Trying to be too clever. The pawn is, of course, pinned, but...} 19. Be3 Nc6 {Better to cut my losses with 19... Bd6} 20. Bxc6 Rxc6 21.Qb5 {I missed this. White is clearly winning, but I played on for a bit - there were a couple of traps he might fall into. An alternative for white was 21. Qc2} 21...Qd5 22. dxc5 Rg6 {A simple mate threat, but also pinning the c-pawn.} 23.g3 h5 {Looking to break open white's pawns with h4.} 24. Rad1 Qf3 25.cxb6 {Were there any perpetual checks along these sort of lines? 25. h4 Rxg3+ 26.fxg3 Qxg3+ 27. Kf1} 25... axb6 26.Qd5 {Time to give up. Once the queens are exchanged, I lose all hope of generating counter play or traps. Well played, Gordon.} 1-0 [Event "M-4771.2"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.07.08"] [Round "?"] [White "Dussetier, Franck"] [Black "Mottershead,Richard"] [Result "0-1"] 1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 Bf5 4.d4 e6 5.O-O Nbd7 6.Nc3 Bd6 7.Bf4 Bxf4 {I am quite happy to exchange bishops because gxf4 opens up White's castled position} 8.gxf4 Ne4 9.Nxe4 Bxe4 {This is a good square for my bishop. Even if White does not exchange, my bishop cannot easily be driven off, it is supported by my pawn at d5 and it is threatening to remove White's defensive bishop} 10.Nd2 {White is being helpful!} 10...Bxg2 11.Kxg2 Qe7 12.c4 Nf6 {The knight is coming to help in the attack.} 13.Rc1 O-O {Would 0-0-0 have been better?} 14.f3 c6 {I am trying to shut out White's rook on c1 here} 15.e4 Nh5 16.f5 Nf4+ 17.Kh1 exf5 18.Re1?? Nd3 19.exf5 Nxe1 {A tempting Q/K fork at f2 will not work 19.exf5 Nf2+ 20.Kg1 Nxd1 21.Rxe7 Nxb2} 20.Qxe1 Qxe1+ 21.Rxe1 Rfe8 22.Rg1 Re7 23.Nb3 b6 {to restrict the Knight} 24.cxd5 cxd5 0-1 [Event "CL1-2003.04.07"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.03.17"] [White "Thomson, Thomas"] [Black "Adams, Mark"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "2408"] [WhiteCountry "SCO"] [BlackElo "2186"] [BlackCountry "WLS"] {B97: Sicilian Najdorf. Poisoned pawn.} 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5 {10.Be2 is the move I played in this position in many previous games, but without any real success, most of my games were drawn.} 10...dxe5 11.fxe5 Nfd7 12.Ne4 h6 13.Bb5 axb5 14.Nxb5 hxg5 15.Nxa3 Rxa3 { I think black is better here and I must consider what to do very carefully. After much thought I realised that my only chances lay on the kingside, so I want to avoid the previous games where black was able to bolster the g5 pawn with by playing f6.} 16.Rb5 { 16.0-0 Nc6 17. Nd6 Bxd6 18.ed f6} 16...Nc6 17.Qxg5 {17.0-0 Ra4[17.....Be7 18.Nd6 Bxd6 19.ed f6 20.Re1 Nce5 21.Qb4 =] 18.Nxd6 Bxd6 19.ed f6} 17.....Rxa2 {17.....Ra4!? the rook is active on this rank and this move may be better than that played (It looks greedy). 18.Nd6 Bxd6 19.ed Re4 20.Kf2 g6 21.Qg3 Nde5 22.Rbb1 Rc4} 18.O-O Rxc2?! {Greed again! b6 with the idea of Ba6 is stronger} 19.Qf4 Nd8 {19......Nde5 20.Rxe5 Nxe5 21.Qxe5 Rc6 22.Rd1 Rh6 23.Nd6 Bxd6 24.Rxd6 f6 25.Qd4 e5 26.Qd5=} 20.Nd6+ {whites plan is to force or entice the black pawns forward creating weaknesses around the black king.} 20...... Bxd6 21.exd6 e5 {21......b6!} 22.Qg5 O-O 23.Rb4 Ne6 {b6!?} 24.Qf5 Rc3 25.Rh4 g6 26.Qg4 Kg7 {preventing Rh6 e.g. 26......Re8 27.Rh6 Nef8 28.Qh4 Kg7 29.Rh8 f5 30.Qh6 Kf7 31.Rxf5 gf 32.Qh5 Ke6 33.Qxe8 Kxd6 34.Rxf8 Nxf8 35.Qxf8 and the tables have turned.} 27.Qd1 f5 28.Qd2 Rc6 29.Qh6+ Kf6 30.Rg4 Rxd6 31.Rxg6+ Ke7 32.Qh7+ Rf7 33.Qh8 Rc6 34.g4 f4 {34.....fg 35.Rxe6 Rxe6 36.Rxf7 Kxf7 37.Qxc8=} 35.g5 Rf8 36.Qh7+ Kd8 37.Rg8 b5 38.g6 Rxg8 39.Qxg8+ Kc7 40.g7 Nxg7 41.Qxg7 Bb7 42.Rd1 Rd6 43.Rxd6 Kxd6 44.Qg6+ 1-0 Steve Ryan and I started a Pyramid game which he asked me to annotate underway for inclusion in the bulletin. This proved to be a stroke of genius on his part with regard to my preparations for our National Closed Championships (OTB), as it forced me to start putting my analysis down on paper in a much more structured form than usual, but also together with my ideas and arguments. It was a rewarding practical exercise to go through alongside the theory available from the middle-game books of the Masters. When I told him I'd be playing this tournament in the midst of our battle he also asked me for an annotated game from OTB-land, and here it is. A win, of course, in order to show the IECC in a good light ... [Event "Norwegian Closed Championship"] [Site "Fredrikstad"] [Round "8"] [Date "?"] [White "Hinman, Chris"] [Black "Aarnes, Carl"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteELO "1336"] [BlackELO "1360"] [First Time Control "40/2"] [Annotator "Chris Hinman"] 1.c4 c6 2.Nc3 {Although I often open with c4, this is the first time I'd met 1..c6. Now, I think I'd play 2.d4 instead.} 2..d5 3.cxd5 cxd5 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 g6 6.h3 {I want to play Bf4, but 6.h3 first enables the retreat to h2 in case of Nh5, and stops the Bg4 pin.} 6..Bg7 7.Bf4 0-0 8.e3 a6 9.a4 {Simply trying to oppose Blacks Q-side expansion.} 9..Nc6 10.Be2 Bf5 {And here I came up with "The Plan". 11.g4 pushes the Bishop back (I didn't consider 11..Be4, though), and then I can threaten on the K-side by walking the King to g2, leaving the Rook on h1, and advancing the pawns. And when (if!) I've got him under pressure I'll switch to the Q-side, hopefully quicker than he can.} 11.g4 Bc8 {11..Be4 was definitely better.} 12.Kf1 e6 13.Kg2 Nd7 {The plan appears to be working, this is almost a panic retreat, especially as both Qb6 and Ne4 are playable.} 14.g5 f5 15.h4 Kf7 16.b4 {Not wrong, but I should have pressured the K-side further with 16.h5 first. He can't take the b-pawn because of Bf4-d6.} 16..Rh8 17.Qb3 {17.b5 was better.} 17..Qe7 18.Rab1 b6 19.Qb2 {Either 19.b5 or 19.h5 were a little stronger, but there's also a Winning Move here, though not so easy to see OTB, and it wasn't until our evening analysis session that a Class A player spotted it ...} 19..Bb7 20.Bxa6 {Played too quickly and not well. Either 20.h5 or 20.b5 would have been strong.} 20..Bxa6 21.b5 Na5 22.bxa6 Rxa6 23.Qe2 Nc4 24.Rb3 {And after gaining and more or less maintaining a slight advantage, this move equalizes brilliantly!! I'd followed The Plan so well I forgot that I could still play on the K-side, 24.h5 is still the best move.} 24..Rha8 25.Rhb1 Nb8 26.Nd2 Nxd2 27.Qxd2 Qd8 {Nd7 protecting the b-pawn was better.} 28.Bxb8 {Not exactly bad, but .. if his Bishop ever gets out it's going to be very strong as all my pawns will be targets, and I should have played Nc3-b5-d6 instead. Please forgive me, Mr Silman.} 28..Rxb8 29.Qb2 h6 30.f4 Bf8 31.Rb5 hxg5 32.hxg5 Bd6 {The good cleric starts to gird his cassock ...} 33.Qb3 Qc7 34.a5 { The push! My opponent was starting to get a little low on time here so it was hopefully the right point to force the pace ...} 34..Rxa5 {And stress took it's toll. It was actually best to leave the pawn alone, for example 34..Qc6 and then if I then take the pawn I hand my opponent the game - 35.Rxb6 (35.axb6 Ra3!) Rbxb6 36.axb6 Ra3!} 35.Rxb6 {And I return the favour - 35.Rxa5 bxa5 36.Nb5 and then 36..Rxb5 is forced, netting me an exchange.} 35..Ra3 {Hoping that after the wipe-out on b8, Rxc3 will give him a draw, but more certain is 35..Rxb6 36.Qxb6 Qxc3 37.Qxd6 Qc2+ 38.Kh3 Qxb1 39.Qc7+ Ke8 40.Qxa5 and then we both have a perpetual ...} 36.Rxb8 Qxb8 {36..Rxb3 was his last chance to salvage something, then 37.R8xb3 Be7. Eventually I'd hope to get something by sneaking around on the Q-side white squares, but it would be a long, hard campaign, and in Class C probably a draw.} 37.Qxb8 {This soon leaves me a piece up, but 37.Qxa3 would've bagged a whole Rook.} 37..Bxb8 38.Rb7+ {The point, as the Grandmasters love to write, and perfectly valid as long as we carefully ignore all the mistakes up to this point. I win the Bishop with check and save my Knight. We played on for a while but it's a won game.} 38..Ke8 39.Rxb8+ Ke7 40.Nd1 Ra7 41.Rh8 Ra1 42.Rh7+ Kf8 43.Nf2 Ra3 44.Kf3 Kg8 45.Re7 Ra6 46.Nd3 Kf8 47.Rb7 Kg8 48.Nc5 Ra3 49.Rb6 1-0 {What we see is that in OTB tournament situations Class C players make a number of tactical mistakes, and a lot of second-rate choices, even while roughly following "The Plan". But I feel that whatever advantages I had during this game were due to the fact that I at least had a plan to follow, whereas my opponent was more or less reacting to what I was doing. - For the statistically-minded, it was a very satisfying tournament for me with 6/9 against opponents with an average rating of 1390, a TPR of 1511 and a gain of 65 rating points. I feel that Steve coaxing me into annotation in addition to normal analysis helped a lot, this result was 33% better than I'd ever scored before in this class.} [Event "TH-M-2167.2"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.07.20"] [White "Evans, Craig"] [Black "Canizares Cuadra, Pedro"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [WhiteElo "1734"] [WhiteCountry "WLS"] [BlackElo "1923"] [BlackCountry "ESP"] [Annotator "Craig Evans"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Bxf7+ Ke7 6.Bd5 Rf8 7.O-O d6 8.c3 Bg4 9.Qe1 h6 10.d4 Bb6 11.h3 hxg5 12.hxg4 Qd7 13.a4 {This is a novelty, and the move I'd been waiting to try out. The usual continuation is 13.Na3 Qxg4 14.f3 Qh5 preparing ...Rh8, ...g4 and a vicious attack.} 13...Qxg4 { I think the inclusion of a4 and ...a5 favour white from standard lines, as being able to play Ra3 to swing over to the kingside, besides a queenside advance with b4-b5 are advantages for white, whereas black as no such advantage from ...a5, and loses the possibility of booting the knight from b5 should it appear there. The text prepares a strong attack.} 14.Bxc6 bxc6 {14...Rh8 15.f3 Qh5 16.a5 Bxd4+ 17.cxd4 bxc6 (17...Qh2+ 18.Kf2 Ng4+ 19.fxg4 Raf8+ 20.Ke2 Qxg2+ 21.Rf2 just doesn't work) 18.Ra4!! exd4 19.Rxd4 seems winning, for example 19...Qh2+ 20.Kf2 g4 21.e5! Rae8 22.exf6+ Kd7+ 23.Re4 gxf6 24.Kd1 +-} 15.a5 Qh5 16.f3 Rh8 17.axb6 Raf8 18.Kf2 {18.Bxg5 Qxg5 19.Rxa7 Ng4! 20.Rxc7+ Kd8 21.fxg4 Rxf1+ 22.Qxf1 Qe3+ 23.Qf2 Qc1+ 24.Qf1 Rh1+! -+} 18...g4 19.bxa7 gxf3 20.gxf3 exd4 {20...Ng4+ is another try, when white's king has to take a long walk: 21.Ke2 exd4 22.Nd2 (22.Qg3 is better for black after 22...Qb5+ 23.Ke1 Rh2! 24.c4 Qxc4 25.Qxh2 Nxh2. White will pick up the black knight, and material is apparently balanced, but after black picks off the a- and b- pawns the queenside pawns should ensure a large advantage for black.) Qh2+ 23.Kd3 Ne5+ 24.Kc2 d3+ 25.Kb3 and black can't have enough for his material.} 21.cxd4 Ng4+ 22.Ke2 Qb5+ 23.Kd2 {23.Kd1 Qb3+ 24.Kd2 Rh2+ -+} 23...Nh2 24.Qe2 { Some incredible variations can arise after 24.Kc2, for example 24...Nxf1 25.Qc3 Qe2+ which actually seems to be a mate in 13 after 26.Bd2, i.e. 26...Rxf3 27.Qxc6 Qd3+ 28.Kc1 Nxd2 29.Qxc7+ Ke6 30.d5+ Ke5 31.Qe7+ Kf4 32.Qxd6+ Kg4! 33.Qg6+ (other checks do not help) Kh4! 34.Nxd2 Rc8+ 35.Qc6 Rf2!! 36.Nf3+ Kg3 37.a8=Q Qf1+ 38.Ne1 Qxe1#. Better is 26.Nd2 but black can just go into a won endgame with his extra exchange. The best move is 25.Ra3!, and after ...Rh2+ 26.Nd2 the position is incredibly complicated and unclear.} 24...Nxf1+ 25.Ke1 Qb4+ {Chances seem balanced in the endgame arising from 25...Nh2 26.Nd2 Qb4 27.a8=Q Rxa8 28.Rxa8 Rxa8 29.Qxh2 Qxd4 30.Qh4+ Qf6 31.Qxf6+ gxf6.} 26.Nc3 {26.Kxf1 seems to hold too after 26...Rh1+ 27.Kg2 Rxc1 28. Qf2! Kd7 (Not allowing Qh4+, ...g5 was also playable.) 29.a8=Q Rxa8 30.Rxa8 Rxb1 31.Kh3.} 26...Rh1 27.Qg2 Ng3+ 28.Kf2 Rxc1 {Also drawn is 28...Nxe4+ 29.Ke3} 29.Rxc1 Qxb2+ 30.Ne2 Nxe2 31.Qxg7+ Rf7 {And black cannot escape the checks. Tempting was 32.Qg5+ Rf6 33.Rb1 (33...Qxb1?? 34.a8=Q), but black easily sidesteps the threat with 33...Qc2.} 1/2-1/2 [Event "Swiss-463.1.08"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.03.16"] [Round "1"] [White "Green, Everett"] [Black "Jonsson, Gudbrandur"] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator "Everett Green"] {This game is noteworthy for a 15 move positional sacrifice for blockade tying up the opponent on both wings and the center} 1.e4 e6 {The French Defense} 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 {The Advanced Variation} 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.a3 c4 7.Nbd2 Na5 8.Be2 Bd7 9.O-O Ne7 {He plans Ne7-f5, g6, Bg2; but modern theory recommends the unorthodox f6 (unorthodox because it attacks the pawn chain at its head rather than at its base); A typical continuation could be 9. ... Qc7 10.Rb1 O-O-O 11.Qc2 f6} 10.Rb1 g6 11.Re1 Bg7 12.Nf1 O-O 13.Bf4 Nb3 14.Ng3 Qc7 15.Bf1 Bc6 16.Qe2 Rfb8 {Each side prepares a wing attack; Black plans b5,a5,b4 etc; white plans h4-5 with an infiltration of pieces against the castled King. But Whites attack is strong-- Therefore blacks proper plan is an opening up of the center with f6 after proper preparation. One possible continuation giving equality is 16. ... Bd7(to strengthen e6) 17.h4 Rae8 18.h5 h6 19.Nd2 Nxd2 20.Qxd2 g5 21.Be3 f6 } 17.h4 Kf8 {Black plays defensively and gives up his Q side attack; We therefore conclude that 16. Bd7 followed by 17. ... Rae8 would have been better} 18.Qe3 Qd8 19.h5 gxh5 20.Bg5 Qc7 21.Nxh5 Nf5 22.Qf4 {Note: Whites 20th move prepared a space for the white Q after blacks Nf5} 22...h6 23.Bf6 Bxf6 24.Nxf6 Ke7 25.Nh4 Ng7 {If white "grabs" the h pawn black a) plans to keep his King safe in the center b) move his rooks to the open g and h files and c) eventually up the center with an attack on the white King from open files and diagonals. Black also plans to attack the white knight via Ne8} 26.Qxh6 Ne8 27.Qg5 Nxf6 28.Nf5+ {The beginning of a deep 15 move combination with both classical and hypermodern elements; Classically white opens up lines by sacrifices against the opponent king; The knight cannot be taken e.g. 28.exf5 29.exf6+ Kd8 30.Qg8+ Kd7 31.Re7+ Kd6 32.Qg3#. However there is a hypermodern element to the combination--sacrifice for blockade--blacks two rooks are "out of play" White will maintain the blockade and bring in all his pieces for the attack; since black is in effect two rooks down he must lose. The blockade aspect of the sacrifice begins on moves 34 and 35} 28...Kd7 29.Qxf6 exf5 {If black leaves the Knight white plays Nd6 etc} 30.e6+ fxe6 {If black refuses to open lines white has many mates e.g. 30...Ke8 31.exf7+ Kf8 32.Re8+ Rxe8 33.fxe8(Q) Kxe8 34.Re1+ Kd7 35.Qxf5+ Kd8 36.Qf8+ Kd7 37.Re7+ Kd6 38.Qf6#} 31.Qxe6+ Kd8 32.Qg8+ Kd7 33.Qf7+ Kc8 34.Re7 Bd7 {this seems best; Qd8 is another possibility} 35.Rbe1 {See note to move 28. Black is playing without 2 rooks; White maintains the blockade and prepares for further attack} 35...b6 {See note to move 42 for an alternative defense} 36.R1e5 Qd8 37.Rxd5 Rb7 38.Bxc4 a6 39.Rdxd7 Rxd7 40.Rxd7 Qxd7 41.Be6 Qxe6 42.Qxe6+ Kc7 {Black had several other defenses at move 35 A rather good one (with white still having a won game) is 35. ...b5 36.R1e5 Qd8 37.Re8 Qxe8 38.Rxe8 Bxe8 39.Qxe8+ Kc7 30. Qe5+ Kb6 31. Qxd5 Rc8 32.Qxf5 White still has mating chances since the black king is exposed} 43.Qxb3 Rf8 44.Qc4+ Kb7 45.d5 Rc8 46.Qxc8+ Kxc8 {White chooses to simplify to a routine K vs. 2 Passed pawns endgame; In such a game the natural idea is to create a passed pawn on the Queen and King wing and march them down; notice how whites King never moves again} 47.c4 Kd7 48.b4 Kd6 49.a4 b5 50.cxb5 axb5 51.a5 Kxd5 52.g3 Kd6 53.f3 Kc6 54.g4 fxg4 55.fxg4 Kc7 56.g5 Kc6 57.g6 Kd5 58.g7 Kd4 59.g8 (Q) 1-0 [Event "CL1-2003.04.04"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.03.17"] [White "Dunn, Carl"] [Black "Adams, Mark"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1955"] [WhiteCountry "USA"] [BlackElo "2181"] [BlackCountry "WLS"] [ECO "B86"] [Annotator "Carl Dunn"] 1.e4 c5 2.a4 { Unusual. Played sometimes by the Dutch Master Gerard Welling. Point is to neutralize Black's Queen side expansion} 2...d6 3.Nc3 a6 4.Bc4 e6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.O-O Be7 7.d4 {game now transposes to a more standard position} 7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Nc6 9.Be3 O-O 10.Kh1 Qc7 11.Bb3 Bd7 {the first dilemma for White; f4, Qe2, and Ba2 also considered} 12.f4 Na5 13.Ba2 {here f5 was better} 13...Rac8 14.f5 Nc4 15.Qc1 Kh8 16.Bg5 Qb6 17.Bxc4 Rxc4 18.Nf3 Qc7 19.Qe3 exf5 20.exf5 Re8 21.Qd3 Qc5 22.Nd2 Rg4 23.Be3 Qc6 24.Rf3 d5 25.Bd4 Bc5 26.Bxf6 {not good. fee6 might be best After this, White is playing for a draw. Black has the initiative} 26... gxf6 27.Nb3 Re5 28.h3 Rg5 29.Nxc5 Qxc5 30.Raf1 Bc6 31.Rf4 d4 32.Ne4 Qd5 33.Re1 Rgxf5 34.Rxf5 Rxf5 35.Re2 Rf1+ 36.Kh2 Qf5 37.Qc4 Bxe4 38.Rxe4 Qxe4 39.Qxf1 f5 40.Qc1 Qe5+ 41.Kh1 f4 42.Qd1 b5 43.Qd3 Kg7 44.axb5 axb5 45.Qd1 Kf6 46.Qg4 h5 47.Qf3 Kg5 48.c3 dxc3 49.bxc3 f6 50.Kg1 {not understanding the position. 50.Kh2 might be best here} 50...Qe3+ 51.Kh2 Qxf3 52.gxf3 Kf5 53.Kg2 Ke5 54.Kf2 54... Kd5 55.Ke2 Kc4 0-1 [Event "TH-M-2024.1"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003"] [White "Corbat, Philippe"] [Black "Morin, Stéphane"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C42"] [WhiteElo "2057"] [BlackElo "2301"] [Annotator "Philippe Corbat"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7 {the Cochrane Gambit, dubious according to Karpov but we should not always believe what a genius says :-)} 4... Kxf7 5.d4 Qe8 {5... c5 is the move recognized by Karpov but it exists some other possibilities for black besides those 2.} 6.Nc3 d5 {Jusupov, in the chess informant (C42), only mentions g6 but d5 has been played some times before (maybe introduced by some Dutch IM back in 1995) with not much success.} 7.e5 {certainly the only move, white has to keep his center} 7... c5 {Apparently introduced by Irina Tetenkina in 2001 this violent move tries to break white's center. Bb4 is the other move tried in this position.} 8.Bb5 Nc6 {Probably a novelty. Well, not exactly because I had the same position against the same opponent last year! (8... Bd7 9. O-O (9. Bxd7 Nbxd7 10. O-O Nxe5 [ what else ?] 11. dxe5 Qxe5 12. Re1 [with a promising white position] 9...Bxb5 10.Nxb5 Qxb5 11.exf6 g6 {Buervenich - Tetenkina, 2001, 0-1} 9.Ne2 { protecting d4 and menacing exf6 at the same time} 9...Nd7 10.f4 {typically in the spirit of the Cochrane} 10... cxd4 11.Nxd4 Ndxe5 {Brutal but I don't think this is an improvement of Nb6 (11... Nb6 [ was the move played by Stephane last time and it appears more logical] 12.O-O Bc5 13.Be3 Bd7 14.Re1 Nxe5 15.fxe5 Bxb5 16.Nf5 Corbat - Morin, 2002, 1-0 in 25 moves} 12.fxe5 Qxe5+ {12... Bb4+ 13.c3 (13.Bd2) 13... Qxe5+ does not seem better for black} 13. Ne2 Bc5 {Ok, so I think I can forget my rochade for this game ...} 14. Rf1+ Ke8 {14... Kg8 (is an interesting idea though the rook at h8 does not look happy for now)} 15.Bf4 {With the black King in the center and both of his rooks inactive , I have to deviate his Queen from the game. And it does not matter if this should cost a pawn.} 15...Qxb2 {another queen move would allow white to play Qd2 eventually followed by O-O-O} 16.Rb1 Bb4+ {16... Qxa2 17. Nc3 Qa5 (17... Qa3 18. Qxd5) 18. Qxd5 Qxc3+ 19. Bd2 Qd4 20. Bxc6+ bxc6 21. Qf7+ Kd8 22. Bg5+ {1-0} {16... Qf6 17.Qxd5 Be7 (17... Bb6 18. Bc7) 18. Nd4} 17.Kf2 {17.c3 (was my first idea but I did not feel very confident in some variations) 17...Bxc3+ 18.Kf2 (18. Nxc3 Qxc3+ 19. Kf2 Qc5+ 20. Kg3) 18... Qxa2 19.Rc1 d4 20.Kg1} 17...Bc5+ 18.Kg3 {Right, this is not exactly the dream position for your king in the middle game but this is apparently safe enough and my king will stay here until the end of the game} 18...Qf6 {the only move for Black who has to bring his Queen back into the game} 19.Qxd5 Qg6+ 20.Bg5 Be7 {20... Qd6+ (is not better) 21.Nf4 Qxd5 22.Nxd5 Bd6+ 23.Bf4 Bxf4+ 24. Rxf4} 21.h4 Qd6+ {21... h6 does not work because of 22.Nf4 Qd6 23. Bxe7 Qxd5 24. Nxd5} 22.Nf4 Qxd5 {there is no option for Black because Rbe1 is menacing} 23.Nxd5 {No more Queens in the game, the 2 opponent rooks inactive, the opponent King trapped in the center and all my figures in attacking position. What more would you want ?} 23...Bd6+ 24.Bf4 Bxf4+ 25.Rxf4 Kd7 {25... Kd8 (does not change anything) 26. Rd1} 26.Rd1 Rb8 27.Rf7+ {27.Nc3+ is more accurate 27... Ke7 (27... Kc7 28.Bxc6 Kxc6 29.Rc4+ Kb6 30.Rb1+ Ka5 31.Ra4#) 28.Bc4 Nd8 29.Re4+ Ne6 30.Nd5+} 27... Kd6 {27... Ke6 ( gives the same result) 28.Rxg7 (for example) 28... Ke5 29.Rg5+ Kd6 30.Nf4+ Kc7 31.Rg7+ Kb6 32.Bd3} 28.Ne3+ {28.Ne3+ Ke5 (28... Kc5 29.Rd5+ Kb4 30.Rf4+ Ka3 31.Rd3+ Kxa2 32.Ra4+ Kb1 33.Rb3+ Kc1 34.Ra1+ Kd2 35.Rd1#) 29.Bxc6 bxc6 30.Nc4+ Ke6 (30...Ke4 31.Rf4#) 31.Rc7} 1-0 [Event "M-4781.2"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.07.15"] [White "Coyne, David"] [Black "Ekaworawong, Prayoon"] [Result "1-0"] [WhiteElo "1921"] [WhiteCountry "ENG"] [BlackElo "1880"] [BlackCountry "THA"] [Annotator "Prayoon Ekaworawong"] 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 {The Semi-Slav Defence} 5.e3 {The other popular move is 5.Bg5 going into the Botvinnik variation.} 5...Nbd7 6.Bd3 {Threatening the e3-e4 push that will gain space in the center and open c1-h6 diagonal for his dark-squared bishop.} 6...dxc4 {Black has no way to stop the White's plan but he can start his plan to develop his light-squared bishop.} 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 {Returning to the best square, supporting the e3-e4 push again.} 8...a6 9.e4 c5 10.d5 {The other good move is 10.e5} 10...c4 11.dxe6 fxe6 {if 11...cxd3 then 12.exd7+ Qxd7 13.Ne5 Qe7 14.Bf4 Nxe4 15.O-O} 12.Bc2 Qc7 13.O-O Bb7 14.Nd4 {Attacking e6-pawn and free the white f-pawn to move to f4, supporting e4-e5 push.} 14...e5? {The only correct way to defend the position is 14...Nc5. It will also bring the black knight in contact with the outpost on d3 and free the d-file for a black rook to put pressure on the white d4-knight. Although the text move prevented the e4-e5 push but it weakened the light squares, particularly f5 and d5, and actually gave the e6-square to the white knight permanently.} 15.Ne6! Qb6 {Black tried to chase the white knight away.} 16.Nd5 {But it is not that easy.} 16...Nxd5 {Of course not 16...Qxe6??, because of 17.Nc7+, but 16...Bxd5 seems better.} 17.exd5 g6 {Preventing 18.Qh5+. Black didn't play 18.Nf6 because he worried about 18.Be3 Qd6 19.Bc5 or 18. ... Qa5 19.b4.} 18.Qg4 Nf6 19.Qg5 Kf7? {Out of the frying pan into the fire. Now black king is standing in the line of attack from the white rook at f1-square.} 20.Be3 Qd6 21.f4 e4 22.f5 {The f-file will be inevitably opened and Black is hopeless.} 22...Rg8 23.Bxe4 gxf5 24.Qxf5 Rg6 25.Qh3 h6 {Nothing is better. if 25...Ke7 then 26.Bc5} 26.Bxg6+ Kxg6 27.Qf5+ {follow with 27. ... Kf7 28.Qxf6+ Kg8 29.Qg6+ Bg7 30.Qxg7#} 1-0 [Event "M-4752.6"] [Site "IECC"] [Date "2003.06.19"] [White "Hamer, Frank"] [WhiteELO "1750"] [Black "Joseph, Steve"] [BlackElo "1750"] [ECO "B04"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] {I've been experimenting with new openings again. The Alekhine's is one that has a bad reputation but gets decent results so it appealed to me. In the following game I had no sense of danger whatsoever. In a game that I was content to draw I blundered in what I thought was an easily drawn game and should have lost at least two pawns. However, I got lucky. I grabbed an opportunity to run to a bishop of opposite colors endgame - albeit a pawn down - and managed to draw-barely.} 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.Nf3 g6 5.Bc4 c6 6.0-0 Bg7 7.exd6 Qxd6 8.Re1 Bg4 9.Nbd2 0-0 10.h3 Bxf3 11.Nxf3 {This position was reached in Ivanchuk. V. vs. Vaganian R. - good role models to follow. I ,however arrogant it may sound, prefer to experiment when playing via e-mail - so . . .} 11...h6 {This position is nowhere to be found in my small database. h6 is played here to prevent Bg5. However this pawn move causes me a problem or two later in the game. Perhaps e6 is better.} 12.c3 Nd7 13.Qb3 N5b6 14.Be2 {I wasn't impressed with this move but Fritz 4.0 likes it. Who am I to argue? Fritz didn't like N5b6 either, a move I thought was necessary} 14...e5 {This game took place as a part of a trio hence it was one of two games that Mr. Hammer and I played. I felt I was winning the other game and was content to draw this one. Although I was aware that c5 was usual here I saw a series of exchanges that I thought would lead to a quick draw.} 15.dxe5 Nxe5 16.Nxe5 Qxe5 17.Be3 Qc7 18.Rad1 Rad8 19.Bc5 Rxd1 {Following my plan of quick exchanges this knee-jerk response is actually losing. I also blundered in my other game about this time reading Qf7 as Qd7 and quickly lost a good game. I must have been having a really bad day.} 20.Bxd1 {This move seems obvious now but I didn't even consider it at the time} 20...Rb8 21.Qa3 {Better, in fact winning, is 21. Rd7 Qf4 22.Bd6} 21...Nc8 {I started to wake up around here. I realized the situation is bad and having blundered in our other game I was motivated to find something here. 22.Re8+ is better than the text but white is still better} 22.Qa4 b6 23.Be3 {I've survived the last few moves and should consolidate with Nc6 but I seem to like punishing myself so . . .} 23...b5 24.Qf4 {And again I am giving a reprieve. Qh4 attacking the h6 pawn I think re-establishes white as the player playing for a win I only considered Qf4 when I played b5 though. I wanted a bishop of opposite color endgame hence the text} 24...Nd6 25.Bxa7 Qxa7 26.Qxd6 c5 {I just don't seem to have any danger sense at all. 26.Bf8 to prevent the rooks entrance on e7 is necessary. I thought the threat of the pin was enough to prevent this but it is not - see next note} 27.a3 {27.Re7 should lead to the win of at least a pawn, perhaps two with a queen sacrifice on g6 the primary motif} 27...Bf8 {finally} 28.Qd2 b4 { I got out my endgame books about here and did a little studying. White is still playing for a win but if black can get the majors off the board a draw is likely - IF} 29.cxb4 cxb4 30.Qf4 {30.a4 seems better playing to win the black b pawn} 30...bxa3 31.bxa3 {Now black has good drawing chances despite the pawn minus} 31...Rb2 32.Re3 [32.Re8 Qd7 33.Ba4 Qd2 34.Qxd2 Rxd2 35.Bb5 Kg7 36.a4 Bb4] 32...Qd7 33.Re1 {Fritz calls this position equal} 33...Bc5 34.Ba4 Qd4 35.Re8+ Kg7 36.Qxd4+ Bxd4 37.Kh2 Rxf2 38.Bd7 Bc5 39.a4 Bd6+ {40.Kh1 Rf1 mate - one can always dream} 40.Kg1 Bc5 41.Rc8 Bd4 {40.Kg1 Bc5 41.Rc8 Bd4 42.Bc6 (I agreed to a draw here. Possibly 42. Rc2+ Kf1 Kf6 etc. but I can see no way for either side to win this. If there is I would appreciate an endgame lesson from whomever finds it)}