IECG - February 1999 Newsletter
vania...@uts.cc.utexas.edu
provide this as a service to the non-web-enabled community, with the disclaimer
that the newsletter is meant for web reading. Please visit our website at
to take advantage of the hypertext capabilities, of chess diagrams and more.
Once again, forgive the numerous missing links (signaled by error messages) in
the text below.
Best,
Vania Mascioni
IECG
===========================================================================
|\_
/ .\_ O F F I C I A L I E C G N E W S L E T T E R
| ( ___) (ASCII Version)
| \
| = | IECG, International Email Chess Group, provides
/_____\ Internet users with the opportunity to play rated email chess
[_______] games with people all over the world for free.
===========================================================================
Febrary 1999 Chief Editor : Scott Kissinger
===========================================================================
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-----------------
In this issue you will find:
Editor's Corner
IECG News
Tournament Watch
Tournament Results
Opening Laboratory
Meet the Player
WebWatch
Reviews
Chess and Computers
Stop the Press
===========================================================================
EDITOR'S CORNER
This month, a new edition called "IECG Gems" has been added to the lineup
of the newsletter. "IECG Gems" takes positions from IECG games, shows the
reader a diagram and then gives the winning solution below. It will surely
make your chess stronger! (Note to text based readers: The "Gems" article
will not be available because it relies heavily upon the use of graphics).
Garth Noakes from Cape Town, South Africa will head up this article in future
issues. A little background on Garth: He is 37 years old, married with a 10
year old daughter. Garth works as a computer consultant in data warehousing
and is currently undertaking a project for South Africa's largest cellular
network.
Garth has played in a lot of OTB local tournaments scoring quite highly in
some! Here are Garth's comments regarding IECG: "I find IECG a fascinating
way of playing - e-mail chess is the future of correspondence chess, and I
foresee improvements in software to handle both the administration and client
aspects, which will enable a much larger organisation."
Garth's goals are to get his email chess rating to 2200 and to play more
interesting chess! His other hobbies include sailing now and again on a Hobie
16 and spending far too much time on his PC (don't we all)!
Welcome, Garth!
The IECG website has now been officially moved to Error! Bookmark not defined..
The website is fully functional and can accept tournament registrations, new
players, you can check your rating, etc. Vania, our webmaster, has been
maintaining both websites (one at EICS and the other at Earthlink) and is now
breathing a sigh of relief that his workload has been cut in half! :)
Enjoy this month's issue!
Scott Kissinger
Chief Editor
TEXT DISCLAIMER: The IECG Newsletter is created to fit onto a web page.
During the conversion to text only in order to satisfy the needs of our members
without WWW access, some data may be lost. Additionally, you may see "Error!
Bookmark not defined.." frequently throughout these article. Please disregard
this error message.
IECG NEWS & UPDATES
by Mickey Blake Micke...@dial.pipex.com
IECG continues to grow at an extremely fast pace over the past 12 months.
Another 177 members have joined since my last update and this is fantastic
news! And, this figure does not include those who rejoin after a short absence.
A warm welcome is extended to all the new members and I hope that you enjoy
many fine games with us.
Many of these players are new to email chess and in some cases this is also
their first experience of correspondence chess in general. It is particularly
pleasing to see that the new members represent every continent of the world,
the Internet has certainly made the world a smaller place!
Among the list of players joining IECG are many top players. The recent list
includes Richard Polaczek (Belgium - 2500) Horatiu Jurca (Romania - 2416) John
Myatt (USA - 2313) and Alan Skarica (Croatia - 2290)
All players joining IECG must undertake to participate in the Tutorial Program
where the aim is to ensure that how to send the email and keep a record of time
is easily understood by the prospective member. If you have a few spare moments
to spare, then this worthwhile task could be your contribution to IECG. If you
would like further details on what being a member of the tutorial team entails,
please Error! Bookmark not defined. and I shall explain how a few minutes of
your week can make a real difference to the club.
History has taught IECG that growth without preparation is a recipe for
disaster. The present staff is determined that IECG will continue to grow and
offer free email chess for all players throughout the world. Such aims demand
great organisation and dedication from the volunteers who administer the
organisation on our behalf. For such reasons the IECG website moved from the
EICS server to Earthlink.
You may register for tournaments, check your rating, download archives, etc.
from the new website.
Another change currently in preparation is the forming of an IECG Council. The
purpose of the Council is to give a better structure to the IECG staff and to
give formal repsonsibiltiy for the running of IECG to a dedicated group of
members. The IECG Council will be answerable to the IECG Staff who comprise the
bulk of volunteers running the tournaments and vital services such as rating,
archiving, newsletter and web site management. Voting has just been completed
and a formal announcement will be made in the next newsletter regarding this
important step for IECG.
The future is bright, the future is IECG! :)
TOURNAMENT WATCH
by Jean-Luc Duriez.
This issue we cover the IECG Championships and Cups, with a special focus on
the final and semi-final stages. The status of these events is in the table
below.
Tournament name
Status
World Championship II (1997)
One decisive game unfinished - unchanged from previous issue
IECG Championship 1998
Five new results and still very unpredictable
IECG Championship 1999
Summarized status of the five groups given below
IECG Cup I (1995)
Final A is now finished - Special focus on the winner below
IECG Cup II (1996)
Finals A & B started on October 20 - No coverage in this issue
IECG Cup III (1997)
Semi-finals started on November 20 - No coverage in this issue
3.1 - IECG world championship II (1997), Final
We still do not know whether GM Simon Webb or the Austrian Martin Pecha will be
the new IECG champion. The crosstables in the December 1998 issue of the
newsletter remains unchanged.
3.2 - IECG Championship 1998, Final
Status reported by Ortwin Paetzold on February, 15th.
With five new results since the last newsletter, the tournament makes progress
but remains unpredictable most participants can still win the event. Martin
Pecha has the temporary head and is the most dangerous candidate for the title
at the moment.
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-----+-----+
| IECG Championship 1998 Final | | | |
| F 1998 Tournament # 001 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Tot | Plc |
+----------------------------------------------+------------------
+-----+-----+
| 012916 Martin Pecha AUT 2345 | # = 1 1 = 1 = | 4,5 | 1 |
| 011219 Dalibor Prochazka CZE 2284 | # = 1 = = | 2,5 | 6 |
| 012085 Juan Morgado ARG 2694 | = # 1 | 1,5 | 8 |
| 010724 Knut Neven CAN 2378 | 0 = 0 # 1 0 0 = 0 | 2,0 | 7 |
| 012571 Floyd Halwick USA 2443 | 0 0 0 # 0 0 = 0 | 0,5 | 9 |
| 013805 John Barlow RSA 2496 | 1 1 # = 0 = | 3,0 | 5 |
| 010126 Christian Koch GER 2399 | = 1 1 = # 1 | 4,0 | 2 |
| 013654 Max Burkett USA 2286 | 0 = = = 1 0 # = | 3,0 | 4 |
| 013287 Albrecht Fester GER 2463 | = = 1 1 = = # | 4,0 | 3 |
+----------------------------------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+
Rating Average = 2421 Category = 7 Start date:
10.06.1998
Total number of matches: 36, unfinished matches: 11, finished matches: 25
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
| IECG Championship 1998 Final | | S.-B. | | still |
| F 1998 Tournament # 001 | Tot | value | Plc |to play|
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
|012916 Martin Pecha AUT 2345 | 4,5 | 10,25 | 1 | 2 |
|010126 Christian Koch GER 2399 | 4,0 | 9,25 | 2 | 3 |
|013287 Albrecht Fester GER 2463 | 4,0 | 9,00 | 3 | 2 |
|013654 Max Burkett USA 2286 | 3,0 | 7,50 | 4 | 1 |
|013805 John Barlow RSA 2496 | 3,0 | 6,50 | 5 | 3 |
|011219 Dalibor Prochazka CZE 2284 | 2,5 | 5,00 | 6 | 4 |
|010724 Knut Neven CAN 2378 | 2,0 | 3,25 | 7 | 0 |
|012085 Juan Morgado ARG 2694 | 1,5 | 4,25 | 8 | 6 |
|012571 Floyd Halwick USA 2443 | 0,5 | 1,50 | 9 | 1 |
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
Below you will find the tense game Morgado-Pecha, annotated by GM Morgado. The
pawn ending is very instructive. It appears to be a simple symmetrical ending,
but is in fact very tricky. As usual, Mr Morgado provides us with a deeply
annotated game and I thank him very much for this materpiece.
Morgado,J - Pecha,M [B97]
IECG CH 1998
[Notes by GM Juan S. Morgado]
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.f5 Nc6 11.fxe6 fxe6 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Be2 Be7 14.0-0 0-0 15.Rb3 Qc5+
16.Be3 Qe5 17.Bf4 Nxe4 18.Nxe4 Qxe4 19.Bxd6 Rxf1+ 20.Kxf1 Bf6 21.Ba3 c5 22.Bf3
22.Bxc5 Bb7!
22...Qc4+ 23.Qd3
23.Qe2 Qxe2+ 24.Kxe2 Ra7 25.Rb8 (25.Kd3!? Kc4 Grasis,Y) 25...Rc7 26.Bb7 Rxb7
27.Rxc8+ Kf7 28.Rxc5 Be7 (28...Bb2 29.Ra5 Rc7 30.Rc5 Rb7 31.Ra5 Rc7 -
Sax-Georgiev,K/Wijk aan Zee 1989) 29.Ra5 Bxa3 30.Rxa3 Rb6=
Grasis,Y-Karklins/USSR 1988/Inf 45 (30)
23...Qxd3+ 24.cxd3 Ra7 25.Bxc5 Rc7 26.d4 Kf7
26...Be7!?
27.Ke2 Bd7
27...e5? 28.Bd6 Rc2+ 29.Kd1 Bf5 30.Bd5+ Ke8 (30...Kg6 31.g4+-) 31.dxe5± Bg5
32.Rb8+ Kd7 33.Rb7+ Kc8 34.Rxg7 Bh6 35.Bb7+ Kd8 36.Rg8+ Kd7 37.Bxa6 Kc6 38.a3
(38.a4) 38...Kb6 39.Bf1 Rc1+ 40.Ke2 Rc2+ 41.Kf3 Rc3+ 42.Kf2 Be3+ (42...Rc2+
43.Kg3 Rc3+ 44.Kh4±; 42...Bf4 43.Rf8 Rc2+ 44.Be2 Bd3 45.Rxf4 Rxe2+ 46.Kf3±)
43.Ke2 Be6 44.Rb8+ Kc6 45.Rb1 Bg4+ (45...Bc4+ 46.Ke1±) 46.Ke1 Rc2 47.Bd3 1-0
Morgado,J-Sutkus,V/cr Lithuania 100 Years 1992
28.Be4!?N
28.Rb6
A) 28...Bb5+ 29.Ke3
A1) 29...Bg5+!?;
A2) 29...Rd7 30.Be4 (30.Bc6!?) 30...Bd8=;
A3) 29...e5 30.Bd5+ Ke8 (30...Kg6? 31.dxe5±) 31.Be4;
B) 28...Be7! 29.Rb7 Rxb7 30.Bxb7 Bb5+ 31.Ke3 Bc4 32.a4?! (32.a3! Hertel)
32...Bd8 33.Ke4 Bb3 34.Bc6 Kf6 1/2:1/2 Morgado 2510 - Hertel 2560, cr Bertl von
Massow-mem 1988/90
28...Bc6 29.Bxc6 Rxc6 30.Kd3 e5 31.Rb6 Rxb6 32.Bxb6 Ke6 33.Ke4 exd4
33...g6 34.d5+ Kd6 35.Ba7 (35.Ba5 Kd7) 35...Kc7
A) 36.Kd3 Kd6 37.Kc4 Kd7 38.Kc5 e4 39.Kc4 Kd6 40.Bc5+ Kd7 41.Bd4 Bd8 42.Be5 Bb6
43.Kb4 e3 (43...Ke7 44.a4 Kd7 45.a5 Bg1 46.h3 Ke7) 44.Kc3 Ke7 (44...Ba5+ 45.Kd3
Bd2) 45.Kd3 Kd7 46.Bf4;
B) 36.g4 Bg7 (36...Kb7 37.Bc5 Kc7 38.Bb4 Kd7 39.Be1 Kd6 40.h4 Kd7 41.h5 Kc7
42.h6)
B1) 37.Bf2 Kd6 38.Bg3 Bf6 39.h4 Bg7 40.Be1 Bh8 41.Bb4+ Kd7 42.h5 Bg7 (42...gxh5
43.gxh5) 43.Bc5 Bh8 44.Bf8 Bf6 45.h6 Bh8 46.Bg7;
B2) 37.h4 37...Bh8 38.g5 Bg7 39.Bc5 (39.Kd3 Bh8 40.Kc4 Bg7 41.Kb4) 39...Kd7
40.a3 Bh8 41.Bf8;
C) 36.Bc5 36...Kd7 (36...h5)
34.Bxd4 Bxd4
34...Be7 35.Bxg7 Bd6 (35...Bb4; 35...h5)
35.Kxd4 Kd6
This is an interesting pawn ending. It seems it is an easy draw for black,
but...
36.g4!
36.h4 h5 37.Ke4? Kc5 (37...Ke6 38.g3 g6 39.a3) 38.Kf5 Kb4 39.Kg5 Ka3 40.Kxh5
Kxa2 41.Kg6 a5 42.h5 a4 43.g4 a3 44.g5 Kb1-+; 36.Kc4 h6 37.Kb4 Kc6 38.Ka5 Kb7
39.g4 g5 40.Kb4 Kb6 41.a4 Kc6 42.h3 Kb6=; 36.a3 Kc6 37.Kc4 Kb6 38.Kb4 Kc6 39.a4
Kb6 40.a5+ Kc6 41.Kc4 Kd6=
36...h6
36...g6 37.g5 Ke6 38.Kc5 Kf5 39.Kb6 Kxg5 40.Kxa6 Kh4 41.a4+-;
36...g5 37.Ke4 Ke6 38.h3 h6 39.a3
A) 39...Kd6 40.Kf5 Kc5 41.Kg6 Kc4 42.Kxh6 Kb3 43.Kxg5 Kxa3 44.h4+-;
B) 39...a5 40.a4 Kd6
B1) 41.Kf5 Kc5 42.Kg6 Kb4 43.Kxh6 Kxa4 44.Kxg5 Kb3 (44...Kb3 45.h4 a4 46.h5 a3
47.h6 a2 48.h7 a1Q) ;
B2) 41.Kd4 41...Kc6 42.Kc4 Kb6 43.Kd5+-;
C) 39...h5!! 40.gxh5 Kf6 41.a4 a5 42.Kf3 Kg7 43.Kg4 Kh6=; 36...Kc6 37.Ke5 Kb5
38.Ke6 Ka4 39.Kf7 Ka3 40.Kxg7 Kxa2 41.Kxh7 a5 42.g5 a4 43.g6 a3 44.g7 Kb1
45.g8Q+-
37.h3! The most demanding and tricky variation for Black
37.h4
A) 37...Ke6 38.Ke4 g6 (38...Kf6 39.a4 a5 40.Kd5+-) 39.a3 Kd6 40.a4 a5 41.Kd4
Kc6 42.Ke5 Kc5 43.Kf6 Kb4 44.Kxg6 Kxa4 45.Kxh6 Kb4 46.g5 a4 47.g6 a3 48.g7 a2
49.g8Q a1Q²;
B) 37...g6 38.h5 gxh5 39.gxh5 Ke6 (39...Kc6 40.Ke5 Kb5 41.Kf6 Ka4 42.Kg6 Ka3
43.Kxh6 Kxa2 44.Kg6 a5 45.h6 a4 46.h7 a3 47.h8Q+-) 40.Kc5 Kf5 41.Kb6 Kg5
42.Kxa6 Kxh5 43.a4 Kg4 44.a5 h5 45.Kb6 h4 46.a6 h3 47.a7 h2 48.a8Q+-;
C) 37...g5 38.h5 (38.hxg5? hxg5 39.a3 Ke6 40.Kc5 Ke5 41.Kb6 Kf4 42.Kxa6 Kxg4
43.a4 Kf3 44.Kb5 g4 45.a5 g3 46.a6 g2 47.a7 g1Q 48.a8Q+=)
C1) 38...Ke6 39.Ke4 (39.Kc5? Ke5 40.Kb6 Kf4 41.Kxa6 Kxg4 42.Kb5 Kh3 43.a4 g4
44.a5 g3 45.a6 g2 46.a7 g1Q 47.a8Q) 39...Kf6 40.Kd5+-;
C2) 38...Kc6 39.Ke5 Kb5 40.Kf6 Ka4 41.Kg7 Ka3 42.Kxh6 Kxa2 43.Kg6+-
37...g5!
37...g6 38.h4 Ke6 (38...h5 39.gxh5 gxh5 40.a3 a5 41.a4 Kc6 42.Kc4 Kb6 43.Kd5
Kb7 44.Kc5 Ka6 45.Kc6 Ka7 46.Kb5 Kb7 47.Kxa5 Ka7 48.Kb5 Kb7 49.Kc5 Ka6 50.Kd5
Ka5 51.Ke4 Kxa4 52.Kf5 Kb5 53.Kg5 Kc6 54.Kxh5 Kd7 55.Kg6 Ke8 56.Kg7+-)
A) 39.a4 h5 40.gxh5 gxh5 41.Kc5 a5 (41...Ke5 42.Kb6 Kd6 43.Kxa6 Kc6 44.a5 Kc7
45.Kb5 Kb7) 42.Kb5 Kd5 43.Kxa5 Kc6 44.Ka6 Kc5 45.a5 Kc6 46.Ka7 Kc7 47.a6 Kc8
48.Kb6 Kb8 49.Kc6 Ka7 50.Kd6 Kxa6 51.Ke6 Kb6 52.Kf6 Kc6 53.Kg5 Kd6 54.Kxh5 Ke7
55.Kg6 Kf8=;
B) 39.Ke4 39...Kd6 40.a4! (40.h5 gxh5 41.gxh5 Ke6 42.a3 Kf6 43.Kf4=)
B1) 40...Ke6 41.a5
B1a) 41...h5 42.g5 Kd6 43.Kd4 Ke6 44.Kc5 Kf5 45.Kb6+-;
B1b) 41...g5 42.h5+-;
B1c) 41...Kf6 42.Kd5 h5 43.g5+ (43.gxh5 gxh5 44.Kc6 Ke6 45.Kb6 Kd6 46.Kxa6 Kc6
47.Ka7 Kc7 48.a6 Kc8 49.Kb6 Kb8 50.Kc6 Ka7 51.Kd6 Kxa6 52.Ke6 Kb6 53.Kf6 Kc6
54.Kg6 Kd6 55.Kxh5 Ke7 56.Kg6 Kf8=) 43...Kf5 44.Kc6 Kg4 45.Kb6 Kxh4 46.Kxa6 Kg3
47.Kb6 h4 48.a6 h3 49.a7 h2 50.a8Q+-;
B1d) 41...Kd6 42.Kd4 Kc6 43.Ke5 g5 44.hxg5 hxg5 45.Kf5 Kb5 46.Kxg5 Kxa5 47.Kf4
Kb4 48.g5+-;
B2) 40...a5 41.Kd4 g5 42.h5 Ke6 43.Ke4 (43.Kc5? Ke5 44.Kb6 Kf4 45.Kxa5 Kxg4
46.Kb5 Kxh5 47.a5 g4 48.a6 g3 49.a7 g2=) 43...Kf6 44.Kd5+-
38.Ke4
38.a3 Kc6 (38...a5 39.a4 Kc6 40.Kc4 Kb6 41.Kd5) 39.Kc4 (39.Ke5? Kb5 40.Kf6 Ka4
41.Kg6 Kxa3 42.Kxh6 a5 43.Kxg5 a4 44.h4 Kb3 45.h5 a3 46.h6 a2 47.h7 a1Q-+)
39...Kb6
A) 40.a4 Kc6 (40...Ka5 41.Kb3 Kb6 42.Kb4 Kc6=) 41.a5 Kd6 42.Kd4 Kc6 43.Ke5 Kb5
44.Kf6 Kxa5 45.Kg6 Kb4;
B) 40.Kb4 40...Kc6 41.a4 Kb6 42.a5+ Kc6 43.Kc4=
38...Ke6
Junior 5.0: 38...Kc5? 39.Kf5 Kb4 40.Kg6 Ka3 41.Kxh6 Kxa2 42.Kxg5 a5 43.h4 a4
44.h5 a3 45.h6 Kb1 46.h7 a2 47.h8Q+-
39.a3
39.a4? a5=
39...h5!! The hardest move in the game
39...Kf7 40.Kd5+-;
39...Ke7 40.Ke5+-;
39...Kd6 40.Kf5 Kd5 41.Kg6 Ke4 42.Kxh6 Kf4 43.a4 a5 44.Kh5+-;
39...Kf6 40.Kd5 h5 41.a4 hxg4 42.hxg4 a5 43.Kd6 Kf7 44.Ke5 Ke7 45.Kf5 Kd6
46.Kxg5 Kc5 47.Kf5 Kb4 48.g5 Kxa4 49.g6+-;
39...a5 40.a4
A) 40...Kf6 41.Kd5 h5 (41...Ke7 42.Kc6+-; 41...Kf7 42.Kc6+-) 42.Kd6 hxg4
43.hxg4 Kf7 44.Kc7 Ke6 45.Kb6 Kd5 46.Kxa5+-;
B) 40...Kd6 41.Kd4 (41.Kf5? Kc5 42.Kg6 Kb4 43.Kxh6 Kxa4 44.Kxg5 Kb5 45.h4 a4-+)
41...Kc6 (41...Ke6 42.Kc5 Ke5 43.Kb5 Kd6 44.Kxa5 Kc5+-) 42.Kc4 Kb6 43.Kd5+-
40.gxh5
40.a4 hxg4 41.hxg4 a5 42.Kd4 Kd6=; 40.Kd4 hxg4 41.hxg4 Kd6= (41...Kd6 42.a4 a5
43.Kc4 Kc6 44.Kd4 0.00/40) ; 40.h4 hxg4 41.hxg5 g3 42.Kf3 Kf5=; 40.Kf3 hxg4+
(40...h4 41.Ke4 a5 42.a4+-) 41.Kxg4 Kf6 42.a4 a5=
40...Kf6 41.a4
41.Kd5 Kg7 42.a4 (42.Kc6 Kh6 43.Kb6 Kxh5 44.Kxa6 Kh4 45.a4 Kxh3 46.a5 g4 47.Kb7
g3=) 42...Kh6 43.a5 Kxh5 44.Kc6 Kh4 45.Kb6 Kxh3 46.Kxa6 g4 47.Kb7 g3 48.a6=;
41.Ke3 Kg7 42.Kf3 Kh7=; 41.Kf3 Kg7=
41...Kg7
41...a5 42.Kf3 (42.Kd5 Kg7 43.Kc6 Kh6 44.Kb5 Kxh5 45.Kxa5 Kh4 46.Kb5 Kxh3 47.a5
g4 48.a6 g3 49.a7 g2 50.a8Q g1Q=) 42...Kg7 43.Kg4 (43.Kg3 Kh7=) 43...Kh6 44.h4
gxh4 45.Kxh4 Kh7 46.Kg5 Kg7 47.Kf5 (47.Kf4 Kh6 48.Kg4 Kg7 2.90/40) 47...Kh6
48.Ke5 (48.Kg4 Kh7 49.Kf4 Kh6 -2.66/45) 48...Kxh5 49.Kd5 Kg5 50.Kc5 Kf6 51.Kb5
Ke7 52.Kxa5 Kd8 53.Kb6 Kc8=
42.Kf5
42.a5 Kh6 43.Kd5 Kxh5 44.Kc6 Kh4 45.Kb6 Kxh3 46.Kxa6 g4 47.Kb7 g3 48.a6 g2
49.a7 g1Q 50.a8Q=
42...Kh6 43.Kg4
43.a5 Kxh5 44.Kf6 Kh4 45.Kg6 g4 46.hxg4 Kxg4 47.Kf6 Kf4 48.Ke6 Ke4 49.Kd6 Kf5
50.Kc6 Ke6 51.Kb6 Kd7 52.Kxa6 Kc8=
43...a5 44.h4= 1/2-1/2
3.3 - IECG Championship 1999, Semi-final
Status reported by Ortwin Paetzold on February 15th. The sorted tables below
give the temporary ranking in the five groups. Only the first two players of
each group will qualify for the final. Due to the high number of unfinished
games, even the present leaders cannot be sure to qualify.
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
| IECG Championship 1999 Semi-Final | | S.-B. | | still |
| S 1999 Tournament # 001 | Tot | value | Plc |to play|
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
|014703 Philippe Berclaz SUI 2330 | 6,0 | 14,50 | 1 | 1 |
|010700 Ian Peddie USA 2320 | 4,0 | 8,75 | 2 | 1 |
|013443 Douglas Royston Smith ENG 1994 | 3,5 | 6,00 | 3 | 0 |
|012915 Lueder Tidemann GER 2423 | 2,5 | 8,75 | 4 | 5 |
|012094 Garth Noakes RSA 2104 | 2,5 | 6,50 | 5 | 4 |
|014605 Torsten Schipmann GER 1990 | 2,5 | 5,25 | 6 | 2 |
|014170 Denis Wiegner GER 2215 | 1,5 | 5,75 | 7 | 3 |
|014016 Enrique Nava ESP 2121 | 1,5 | 3,25 | 8 | 2 |
|010774 Raymond Schutt USA 2330 | 1,0 | 3,75 | 9 | 4 |
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
| IECG Championship 1999 Semi-Final | | S.-B. | | still |
| S 1999 Tournament # 002 | Tot | value | Plc |to play|
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
|012401 Stuart B Belanoff USA 2172 | 5,5 | 14,25 | 1 | 0 |
|010685 Sabahaddin Bilsel TUR 2000 | 4,5 | 11,75 | 2 | 1 |
|010819 Jens Arnold GER 1968 | 4,0 | 12,50 | 3 | 2 |
|013915 Herve Daurelle FRA 2308 | 3,5 | 11,25 | 4 | 2 |
|012449 Patrick Mary FRA 2330 | 3,0 | 8,75 | 5 | 1 |
|011826 Giancarlo Bassi ITA 2127 | 2,5 | 6,50 | 6 | 2 |
|010626 Per Nasman SWE 2395 | 2,0 | 5,75 | 7 | 5 |
|013573 Kai Luebke GER 2096 | 1,5 | 5,75 | 8 | 2 |
|011236 Jan Malmstrom SWE 2233 | 1,5 | 3,00 | 9 | 1 |
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
| IECG Championship 1999 Semi-Final | | S.-B. | | still |
| S 1999 Tournament # 003 | Tot | value | Plc |to play|
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
|010933 Mark Leonard ENG 2347 | 4,5 | 11,75 | 1 | 2 |
|013292 Ron Oortwijn NED 2300 | 4,0 | 9,75 | 2 | 1 |
|014074 Gordon Evans ENG 2130 | 4,0 | 8,25 | 3 | 0 |
|011221 Thorsten Winkler GER 2393 | 3,0 | 8,50 | 4 | 3 |
|010420 Marek Kowalczyk POL 2072 | 2,5 | 7,75 | 5 | 4 |
|013130 Pedro P Taboada CHI 2261 | 1,5 | 4,75 | 6 | 5 |
|012326 Jack Hursch USA 2018 | 1,5 | 4,25 | 7 | 3 |
|010198 Alfonsino Lannaioli ITA 1962 | 1,5 | 3,50 | 8 | 1 |
|010301 Flavio Braga da Silva BRA 2165 | 0,5 | 2,00 | 9 | 7 |
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
| IECG Championship 1999 Semi-Final | | S.-B. | | still |
| S 1999 Tournament # 004 | Tot | value | Plc |to play|
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
|012752 Vania D Mascioni SUI 2300 | 5,5 | 17,75 | 1 | 1 |
|010357 Jean-Luc Duriez FRA 2274 | 4,5 | 12,50 | 2 | 0 |
|013552 John Claridge WLS 2070 | 4,0 | 12,50 | 3 | 3 |
|013490 Gusztav Wagner SWE 2134 | 3,5 | 11,50 | 4 | 2 |
|011775 Gerhard Radosztics AUT 2350 | 3,0 | 9,00 | 5 | 2 |
|010392 Dusan Merlini SLO 2158 | 3,0 | 7,00 | 6 | 0 |
|013229 Lionel Frost NZL 2052 | 2,5 | 7,75 | 7 | 0 |
|012844 Paolo Hirschhorn ITA 1900 | 2,0 | 7,00 | 8 | 0 |
|011799 Steven A Smithers USA 2391 | 2,0 | 5,50 | 9 | 4 |
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
| IECG Championship 1999 Semi-Final | | S.-B. | | still |
| S 1999 Tournament # 005 | Tot | value | Plc |to play|
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
|010821 Keith Rust RSA 2290 | 5,5 | 15,00 | 1 | 0 |
|012549 Wilfried Braakhuis NED 2370 | 4,5 | 13,75 | 2 | 3 |
|012834 George Angus USA 1842 | 4,5 | 13,00 | 3 | 1 |
|013530 Alojz Kubasky SVK 2276 | 4,5 | 10,75 | 4 | 1 |
|012787 Jorge Miraglia BRA 2067 | 4,0 | 10,00 | 5 | 1 |
|013040 Robert Sasata CAN 2377 | 3,0 | 7,50 | 6 | 2 |
|014085 Albert Schenning NED 2055 | 2,5 | 5,75 | 7 | 0 |
|011401 Ronan Webb IRL 2137 | 1,5 | 1,25 | 8 | 4 |
|010865 Richard Nelson Ralls II USA 2134 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 9 | 0 |
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
3.4 - IECG Cup I (1995)
Cup I A-final report by Ortwin Paetzold on January 31.
"The first IECG Cup is over. Starting in the fall of 1995, it took 3 1/2 years
to finish with the last game in the finals. Please join me in congratulating
Josef Jaluvka again for his success! The Cup Final itself lasted nearly 17
months. Josef Jaluvka will be invited to the next IECG Championship Final, Per
Nasman as the second placed player to the next IECG Championship Semi-Finals.
All players from the Cup Final except Josef and Per qualified for the next
Cup-Semi-Final later this year (as long as they have not used this
qualification for the previous Cup), while the two first players directly
qualify for the next Cup Final.
I would like to thank all players for their fair playings and wish you good
luck in the future!
Best wishes
Ortwin Paetzold"
+----------------------------------------------+---+---+---+---+---+-----+-----+
| IECG Cup I, Final | | | |
| F 1995 Tournament # 001 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | Tot | Plc |
+----------------------------------------------+------------------
+-----+-----+
| 012174 Luis M. Garay ESP 2298 | # 1 = 1 + 1 0 1 0 | 5,5 | 4 |
| 012916 Martin Pecha AUT 2346 | 0 # 0 1 W = 0 = = | 3,5 | 6 |
| 012593 Joao Henrique Andresen POR 2114 | = 1 # 1 + = = 1 0 | 5,5 | 3 |
| 013114 Gian Paolo Costantino ITA 2226 | 0 0 0 # W 0 0 = 0 | 1,5 | 8 |
| 010286 John R. Phythyon USA 2129 | - w - w # 0 0 - w | 0,0 | 9 |
| 013503 Joe Feagin USA 2345 | 0 = = 1 1 # 0 1 = | 4,5 | 5 |
| 011197 Josef Jaluvka CZE 2096 | 1 1 = 1 1 1 # 1 = | 7,0 | 1 |
| 011018 Philip Cody CAN 2346 | 0 = 0 = + 0 0 # = | 2,5 | 7 |
| 010626 Per Nasman SWE 2440 | 1 = 1 1 W = = = # | 6,0 | 2 |
+----------------------------------------------+-------------------+-----+-----+
Rating Average = 2260 Category = 1 Start date:
01.09.1997
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
| IECG Cup I, Final | | S.-B. | | still |
| F 1995 Tournament # 001 | Tot | value | Plc |to play|
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
|011197 Josef Jaluvka CZE 2096 | 7,0 | 23,25 | 1 | 0 |
|010626 Per Nasman SWE 2440 | 6,0 | 21,25 | 2 | 0 |
|012593 Joao Henrique Andresen POR 2114 | 5,5 | 16,00 | 3 | 0 |
|012174 Luis M. Garay ESP 2298 | 5,5 | 14,75 | 4 | 0 |
|013503 Joe Feagin USA 2345 | 4,5 | 11,50 | 5 | 0 |
|012916 Martin Pecha AUT 2346 | 3,5 | 8,00 | 6 | 0 |
|011018 Philip Cody CAN 2346 | 2,5 | 5,50 | 7 | 0 |
|013114 Gian Paolo Costantino ITA 2226 | 1,5 | 1,25 | 8 | 0 |
|010286 John R. Phythyon USA 2129 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 9 | 0 |
+-----------------------------------------------+-----+-------+-----+-------+
Josef Jaluvka wins with the terrific score of 7 points out of 8! So you won't
be surprised that Josef's rating is higher today and is still increasing. Is it
a real enjoyment for me to offer him some space in the IECG newsletter. So much
skill and kindness in one man is a gift for our association. Now I'll hand you
over to Josef.
The portrait
I am a computer lecturer, system programmer, network administrator - just
'computer man'. I am 30 years old, living with my wife in Brno, the Czech
Republic. I love music many kinds (Vangelis, J.M.Jarre, Enya, Alan Parsons
Project, Pink Floyd, Roger Waters, Queen, W.A.Mozart, A.Vivaldi, famous
musicals etc.), but my favourite composer is MIKE OLDFIELD. My other hobbies
are chess, Go, bridge, sci-fi books, Sonic the Hedgehog, backgammon and
scrabble against my wife. I may say I like brain games.
I started my IECG playing in 1995. I won IECG Cup I with total score +14=4-0 of
really played games, I did not lose any game. I am happy I won this tournament
because I had very strong opponents. Joao Henrique Andresen (from my
preliminary group) took 3rd place in the final round and Steven A.Smithers
(from my semi-final group) took 2nd place in B-final. I would like to make a
mention of Steven A.Smithers here. Steven is a real fair-play chessplayer and I
am glad I played against him. He made no tactical time tricks in our unclear
game even when he had a lot of spared days and he wanted to decide our game
over the board, not thinking about adjudication. Opposite to Steven example I
have to say I do not like to play preliminary rounds at all, because every
round I have some troubles with some low rated players. Anyway IECG is a great
opportunity to play chess for free. After winning IECG Cup my next main chess
goal is ICCF IM title and my next main personal life goal is to be a good
father from July.
The games
Pecha, Martin [AUT] - Jaluvka, Josef [CZE]
IECG, Cup I - final 1997-98
[Notes by Josef Jaluvka]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6
9.Nbd2 Nc5 10.c3 Nd3!?
My favourite line in this opening. This is a very old move, surprisingly not
much played at all. I had ocasion to play this line in all the rounds of IECG
Cup-I with very good success, just in the final round I won two games by that!
11.Qe2 Nf4 12.Qe3 g5
I call this variant 'Wide Open Ruy Lopez'. You can easy see why :-)
13.g3?!
I can understand why white played this move, but unfortunatelly for him, this
move hardly can be good. Anyway, it is not easy to say which move is the right
one at all. In this final round Joe Feagin tried better way 13.Rd1 Rg8 14.Ne4
Be7 15.Nf6+ (15.Qe1 looks well) 15..Bxf6 16.exf6 Qxf6, but after his big
mistake 17.Rxd5?? he fall in lost position after 17..Nxd5 18.Bxd5 0-0-0 19.Bxc6
Bc4 20.Be4 Rd1+ 21.Ne1 Re8 22.b3 Bd3 -+.
13..Nh3+ 14.Kg2 g4 15.Nd4 Nxd4 16.cxd4 h5 17.f4 Bf5 18.a4 Rh6!!
Fantastic play of which I am really proud. Black keeps king's side locked,
there is no hurry to open it. Here is just the time for playing on the queen's
side!
BTW: Moves like this one can not play any computer. You need human feeling to
play it. Because of moves like this one I love chess, I play chess and I have
not any problem in discussion if chessplayer may use his computer or not.
Computer can help in analysing very much, but computer can not win any real
strong tournament itself (not thinking about Deep Blue :)
19.Bd1
Yes, white wants to develop his bishop to d3, because Bf5 is very dangerous for
him.
19..Bb4 20.Re1 bxa4
Another excellent move. I'm calling white's bishop to waste one move.
21.Bxa4+ Kf8 22.Bd1 c5 23.b3 Rc8 24.Bb2
Not much promises 24.Ba3 Kg8.
24..Kg8
Finally black has time to avoid Ba3 in the future!
25.Be2 cxd4 26.Bxd4 Rc2 27.Red1 Rhc6 28.Bd3?
This is a deciding fault in a very uncomfortable position. Tactical strike
follows.
28..R6c3!! 29.Bxc3 d4! 30.Bxc2
Or 30.Bxd4 Rxd2+ 31.Rxd2 Bxd2 32.Qxd2 Qxd4 -+.
30..dxe3 31.Bxf5 exd2 32.Be4 Bxc3 33.Ra4 Qb6 0-1
I really enjoyed this game.
And here is one of the best games of the final round, just deciding one:
Nasman, Per [SWE] - Jaluvka, Josef [CZE]
IECG, Cup I - final 1997-98
1.e4 e5 2.f4 b6!? N
I found no one game with this move anywhere! I am ready to accept tactical
versus positional fight. It could be a new way how to play safety against
king's gambit.
3.d3
This move surprised me. I waited for something more agressive. My local king's
gambit chessfriend is testing me in friendly game playing 3.Bc4 Ba6!?. I
thought Per should play in similar way.
3..Nc6 4.fxe5
There is an interesting line 4.Nf3 f6!? here.
4..Nxe5 5.Be2 Bb7 6.Nh3
This is a typical king's gambit move, better than 6.Nf3 Nxf3+ 7.Bxf3 Qh4+ 8.g3
Qh3.
6..f5 7.0-0 fxe4 8.dxe4 Bc5+ 9.Kh1 Nf6
I did not like 9..Bxe4 10.Nc3 Bb7 11.Nd5.
10.Bg5 Be7 11.Nd2
11.Nc3 is an optional choice, I think.
11..0-0!?
I was happy here, but later I changed my opinion. Another plan with 0-0-0 was
probably better, because white will get good chances on king's side now.
12.Bf4 Ng6 13.Bc4+ Kh8 14.Qe2
Or 14.e5 Nd5 or 14.Ng5 Nxf4 15.Rxf4 Bd6, everytime without any problem for
black.
14..d5
I declined 14..Nxf4 15.Nxf4 Bd6 16.e5 Re8 because of 17.Nd3!.
15.exd5 Nxd5 16.Bg3 Bf6 17.Ne4!!
Per Nasman is a great chessplayer. He gave me a pawn for a very strong attack
on my king. I just missed this move, I saw my winning chances after 17.c3 Re8
only.
17..Bxb2
I had to accept this call. After 17..Qe7 18.Nxf6 Qxe2 19.Bxe2 white stays
better.
18.Rad1
I spent a lot of days analysing 18.Rxf8+ Qxf8 19.Rf1 Qe7 20.Nhg5 Rf8 21.Rxf8+
Nxf8 22.Qd3 (22.Qf3 Nd7) 22..Qd7.
18..Rxf1+ 19.Qxf1 Qd7
Better than 19..Qe7 20.Rxd5 Qxe4 21.Ng5.
20.Qf3 Nge7
20..c6? 21.Bd3! is very bad for black.
21.Nhg5
Or 21.Qb3 Qf5.
21..h6 22.Nf7+ Kg8 23.Rf1
After our game Per found a very interesting move 23.Nxh6+. It looks after
23..gxh6 24.c3 Qf5 (24..Rf8?! 25.Nf6+) white has a small advantage.
23..Qc6 24.Bd3 Nb4
I had to decide which one of two worse variants is better here. I declined
24..Nf6?! because of 25.Nxh6+ gxh6 26.Nxf6+ Bxf6 27.Qxc6 Nxc6 28.Rxf6 Nb4
29.Rg6+ Kf7 30.Rxh6 and white plays for a win in a very comfortable position.
25.Nd8!
From this moment I only had to save my holy life. In ChessMail 2/1999 there is
!? here :-)
25..Rxd8 26.Qf7+ Kh8 27.Qxe7 Rxd3 28.cxd3 Nxd3
28..Nd5?! is very suspicious and 28..Nxa2? is a losing move, because of 29.Qf8+
Kh7 30.Qf5+ Kh8 (30..Qg6 31.Qxg6+ Kxg6 32.Rf2 Nc1 33.Rxb2 Nxd3 34.Re2 c5 35.Nd6
Bd5 36.Nc8) 31.Qh5!! +- with idea 31..Ba3 (or 31..Bf6) 32.Be5.
29.Qd8+ Kh7 30.Qxd3
I was not afraid of 30.Ng5+!?.
30..Qxe4 31.Qxe4 Bxe4 32.Bxc7
Perhaps better than 32.Rf4!? with idea Ra4.
32..b5
It was a move which I had on my mind when I played 24..Nb4. I thought I should
draw this position.
33.Re1 Bd5 34.Rb1 Bc3 35.Rxb5 Bxa2 36.Rc5 Bd4 37.Ra5 Bf7 38.Ra4 Be3
With idea 39.h4 g5 40.hxg5 Bxg5=. Lines 38..Bf6 39.Rf4 or 38..Bb6? 39.Bxb6 axb6
40.h4! are much better for white.
39.Bb8 g5!=
This is a key move which declined the only white's winning chance to play h2-h4
before black's g7-g5. Book draw follows.
40.Bxa7 Bxa7 41.Rxa7 Kg7 42.Kg1 Kf6 43.Kf2 Bg6 44.Kg3 Be4 45.Ra6+ Kg7 46.Rd6
Bf5 47.h4 gxh4+ 48.Kxh4 Bg6 49.Kg4 Kf7 50.Kf4 Kg7 51.Ke5 Bc2 52.Rd2 Bb1 53.g4
Kf7 54.Rd6 Kg7 1/2-1/2
The IECG Cup I B-Final is over (winner Henri Spijkerman). See previous issues
for more information.
TOURNAMENT RESULTS
by Jean-Luc Duriez jl.d...@wanadoo.fr
As usual the detailed results of recently finished tournaments (Class, Quad and
Two Game Matches) fills this section. The number of events shows the good
health of our association.
4.1 - Class tournaments (status : 20-Feb-1999)
M.032
1. Bernd Hoenig GER 5,5 - 2. Jens Arnold 3,5 - 3-4. Wilfried Braakhuis NED,
Matthew Anderton ENG 3,0 - 5-6. Pedro Hegoburu ARG, Plamen Stefanov BUL 2,5 -
7. Ricardo Szmetan ARG 1,0
M.049
1. Ali Dikmen TUR 5,0 - 2-3. Joachim Brueckner GER, Friedrich Bruckmayr AUT 4,5
- 4. Artur Mrugala POL 3,5 - 5. Jovan Naumovic YUG 2,5 - 6. Matthew Anderton
ENG 1,0 - 7. Dennis Baker USA 0,0
M.053
1. Jens Dahlen Lund DEN 4,5 - 2. John W Martin USA 4,0 - 3. Fernando Collazo
USA 3,5 - 4-5. Joop Simmelink NLD, Alexander Kharitonov RUS 3,0 - 6. Milan
Vujadinovic YUG 2,0 - 7. Pascal Fourmiguier FRA 1,0
1.087
1. Paul Zelinski USA 2,5 - 2. Jeff Otto USA 2,5 - 3-4. Des Reilly ENG, Daniel
Ataun ARG 2,0 - 5. Michael Kern GER 1,0 - 6-7. Cliff Dwyer CAN, Todd Rowland
USA 0,0
1.111
1. Jose Ruvalcaba MEX 4,5 - 2-3. Ortwin Paetzold GER, Peter Lim MAL 4,0 - 4.
Brian Burgess CAN 3,5 - 5.Fenghan Rex CHN 3,0 - 6. Thomas keller USA 2,0 - 7.
Jiri Salus CZE 0,0
1.113
1. William Simpson USA 4,5 - 2. Mark Smits NED 4,0 - 3-4. Ian Zimmermann USA,
Michael de Ridder BEL 3,5 - 5. Frans Johanson SWE 3,0 - 6. Pekka Staven FIN 1,5
- 7. Joerg Colberg GER 1,0
1.114
1. Jose Queiroz BRA 6,0 - 2-3. Antonio Scarani ITA, Paul McMahon ENG 3,5 - 4.
Karl Lehnberger GER 3,0 - 5. Ricardo Moro Lorente ARG 2,5 - 6. Fernando Moscoso
ECU 1,5 - 7. Rian Davids NAM 1,0
1.126
1. Eric Benatar FRA 5,0 - 2-3. Andreas Jacubowski GER, Lukasz Piotrowski 5,0 -
4-5. Robert Scharnberger USA, George Ligeti AUS 2,0 - 6-7. Alan Bennett USA,
Chris Cohen USA 0,0
1.140
1. Bert Kuiper USA 5,5 - 2. Dimitry Belov RUS 5,0 - 3. Marcel Hermans NED 4,5 -
4. Andrew Westermeyer RSA 3,0 - 5. Roberto Mori ITA 2,0 - 6. Steven Gaffagan
USA 1,0 - 7. Vedran Baci CRO 0,0
1.142
1. Anatoly Sidenko RUS 5,5 - 2. Vidmantas Grazinys LIT 4,5 - 3. Gino Figlio PER
4,0 - 4. Massimiliano Gerbino ITA 3,5 - 5. Ron Ginther USA 2,5 - 6. Espartaco
Posse Varela ARG 1,0 - 7. Thomas Stahl GER 0,0
1.157
1. Bryan Drysdale USA 5,0 - 2. Martín Alvebring SWE 3,5 - 3-4. Vlad Loktayev
UKR, Frederic Fricot FRA 3,0 - 5. Glen Shields USA 2,5 - 6-7. Simon Downham
ENG, Pavel Stadler CZE 2,0
2.127
1. Karl Heinz Woschkat GER 4,0 - 2-3. Dimitris Regginos CHY, Joannis Teknis GER
3,5 - 4. Bernard Johnson USA 2,0 - 5. Ariel Tamashiro ARG 1,0 - 6-7. Oliver
Burnett-Hall ENG, Christopher Negado USA 0,0
2.133
1. David Da Silva FRA 5,5 - 2. Arryn Allen Pidwell NZL 5,0 - 3-5. Ton Van
Bommel NED, Dominic Sciaretta USA, Daniel Freire AUS 3,0 - 6. Lyle Cherner USA
1,5 - 7. Aaron Lovi CAN 0,0
3.062
1. Dardo Calleros USA 6,0 - 2. Reinhardt Messerschmidt RSA 4,5 - 3. Lyle
Cherner USA 3,5 - 4. David Allwardt USA 3,0 - 5-6. Boris Dimtchev BLG, Reidar
Gramstad NOR 1,0 - 7. Vito Calvani ITA 0,0
3.079
1. Eduardo Altea PHI 3,5 - 2. Matthew Cain ENG, Francis Shim Ng Min MRI 2,0 -
4. Franco Fantoni ITA 1,5 - 5-7. Lee Bassett USA, Jamie Millman USA, Michael
Carl CAN 0,0
4.2 - Quad tournaments (status : 20-Feb-1999)
1.030
1. Andreas Jacubowski GER 4,0 - 2. Michael Hentges USA 3,5 - 3. Fenghan Rex PRC
2,5 - 4. Mike Bartos AUT 2,0
1.033
1. Henk Hage NED 4,5 (9,75) - 2. Ivan Celedon COL 4,5 (8,25) - 3. Hobart Newton
USA 3,0 - 4. Sebastiao da Silva BRA 0,0
1.035
1. Oleg Purga FIN 5,0 - 2. Ivan Celedon COL 4,0 - 3. Antonio Soares BRA 1,0 -
4. Warren Purdy CAN 0,0
1.051
1. Simon Downham ENG 4,0 (1800) - 2-3. Len Barks ENG (1900), Vlad Loktayev UKR
(1950) 4,0 - 4. Peter Adlersburg AUT 0,0
4.3 - Two games matches (status : 31-Jan-1999)
G-12560 Massimiliano Gerbino - Geof Fisher 1-1
G-12561 Beat A Christen - Warren M Purdy 2-0 (Forfeited)
G-12568 Stefano Ghellere - David Johansson 2-0
G-12574 Suradet Jitprapaikulsarn - Sergio Paino Garcia 0-2
G-12578 Daniel Norris - Chuck Sands 1-1
G-12579 Chris Crossman - Stephane Beland 0-2
G-12682 Vladimir Ivanov - Christian Scho 1.5-0.5
G-12700 Arthur Kovacs - Tristram McPherson 1.5-0.5
G-12748 Carlos Dantas - Andrew Fedorko 0.5-1.5
G-12750 Michael J Sheehan - Jacques Tramu 2-0
G-12762 Robert Couttreau - Jim Owens 0-2
G-12764 Lars Mogensen - Robby Gall 2-0
G-12765 Nikolaos Drakas - Pierre Lor 1.5-0.5
G-12771 Pascal Petermans - Peter Schalkwijk 2-0
G-12782 Joachim Baermann - Derek Mann 1-1
G-12785 Charles Ventimiglia - Kevin Steven Hyett 1-1
G-12799 Franco Fantoni - Darren Backhouse 1-1
G-12801 Oscar Lopez Perez - Jens-Ulrich Thormann 1-1
G-12805 Nicolau Morihama - Alberto Anasetti 2-0
G-12812 Bruce Youngren - Joao Ferreira 2-0
G-12813 Bruno Berenguer - Chris Crossman 2-0
G-12826 Hans Werner May - Krister Johansson 0.5-1.5
G-12831 Kenneth Powell - Christos Varsamis 2-0
G-12854 Peter Gorissen - Allan Antoszewski 2-0
G-12864 Allan Christiansen - Klaus Kluge 0-2
G-12869 Matthew Werhan - Mikhail Boikov 0-2
G-12871 Jorge Aguera Sanchez - Edward Strungis 2-0 (Forfeited)
G-12885 Richard Pell - Mike McClung 0-2
G-12886 Charles Ventimiglia - Don Stahlnecker 2-0
G-12894 Daniel Atkinson - John Gibbons 2-0
G-12897 Myer Silverstone - Mike Medveski 0-2
G-12908 Harvey Williamson - Unes Hassim 2-0
G-12910 Tim Van Den Elsen - Simon Poulin 1.5-0.5
G-12915 Dave Costin - Nick Spiridonov 0-2
G-12921 Michael J Bonner - Seved Jenneborg 2-0
G-12933 Roger Applegarth - Kenneth Stephens 2-0
4.4 - Games
This part belong to members ! Any annotated game is welcome ; please me send
your contribution in PGN or ChessBase formats (or even a simple text file will
do well) and I'll do my best to include your game in our columns. If I add
comments of my own in your game, they are always distinguished with those of
the player of the game.
First we have a very sharp game from Bert Kuiper . The number of pieces that
are "en prise" in the opening is amazing. It shows that the King's gambit is
demanding to both sides.
Westermeyer,A - Kuiper,B [C32]
IECG Class 1.140, 1998
[Annotations by Bert Kuiper and Jean-Luc Duriez]
Thank you for the chance to comment. My favorite game was played with Andrew
Westermeyer. The King's gambit (Falkbeer countergambit 2...d5) being the most
aggressive counterthrust to the King's Gambit is one of my favorites as black.
Many claims of the gambit's unsoundness have surfaced over the years. Six
decades ago, Spielmann wrote an article entitled "From the Sick bed of the
King's Gambit," and even Bobby Fischer has written about it, "A bust to the
King's Gambit." Both have been read by many chess players. Actually some of the
worlds finest players have ventured 2. f4 Fischer, Spassky, Bronstein, Tal and
Keres and many others. A few younger players including Mark Hebden of England
and the amazing Polgar sisters, employ this very old gambit with success.
1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4 4.d3 Nf6 5.dxe4 Nxe4 6.Be3
6.Nf3! avoids the annoying Qh4+
6...Qh4+ 7.g3 Nxg3 8.Nf3 Qh5
last book move ... but not the best. In my opinion, 8...Qe7 is better.
9.Bb5+?
After this, White cannot face the pressure of his opponent's pieces. The best
seems to give up the exchange and play for the initiative with 9.hxg3! Qxh1
10.Qe2 Bg4 11.Nbd2 Nd7 12.Bd4+ Kd8 13.0-0-0± Socagin-Al'tsuv/USSR/1971
9...c6
Black gets a strong initiative
10.Rg1 Nf5
A comfortable square for the black knight. Weaker is 10...cxb5 11.Rxg3 Bg4
12.Qe2 =
11.dxc6 bxc6 12.Qd5
12.Bc1 Be7 13.Qe2 0-0
12...Bb4+
12...Qh6!? 13.Bc5 Bxc5 14.Qxc5 Ne7 has some apparent merit
13.c3 0-0 14.Bxc6 Be6 15.Qe4
All this variation is bad for White who loses too much time to capture the Pc6
and now to secure his queen.
15...Nxc6 16.Rg5 Qh3 17.cxb4 Rfe8
17...Nxb4 was also winning
18.Qxc6
White position is desperate and the rest is pure execution. It is too late for
18.Nbd2 Bd7 19.Ne5 f6 20.Rxf5 Bxf5 21.Qc4+ Be6-+
18...Nxe3 19.Nbd2 Rac8 20.Qa4 Bg4
The final nail in the coffin
21.Ke2 Qg2+ 22.Kd3 Red8+ 23.Kxe3 Rxd2! and this is mate in 5 ! 0-1
Now a game from Jose Queiroz, who won the Class 1.114 with the perfect score of
6 points.
Moro Lorente,R - Queiroz,J [B42]
IECG Class 1.114, 1998
[Annotations by Jose Queiroz]
I am very happy to win the class 1.114. I have 28 years old and I play chess
from age of 13. I begin in IECG in 1997. On IECG I had the opportunity to play
international games and learn much more. All the games on tournament 1.114 were
very hard to me. This game against Ricardo Moro Lorente was my favorite because
I have used my favorite Sicilian Paulsen and the critical position on move 20
is very interesting.
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Bc5 6.Nb3 Ba7 7.Qe2
7.0-0 Nc6 8.Qe2 Nge7 9.Be3 Bxe3 10.Qxe3 d5 11.e5 Qc7 12.Re1 Bd7 13.N1d2 f6
14.f4= Parma-Kopilov, 1964, apud Cherta, 1971
7.c4!? Nc6 8.0-0 Qh4 9.N1d2 Nge7 10.c5! Ne5 11.Be2 b6 12.f4 N5c6 13.Nc4 bxc5
14.g3 Qh6 15.f5 Qf6 16.fxe6 Qxe6 17.Nd6+ Kf8 18.Bc4 1-0 Calvo-Korschnoi, 1966,
7...Nc6 8.Be3
8.0-0 Nge7 9.Be3 d6 10.c4 0-0 11.Nc3 Bd7 12.Rfd1 Qb8= Matulovic-Korschnoi, 1966
8...Bxe3 9.Qxe3 d6 10.Nc3 Nf6 11.0-0-0 0-0 12.f4 e5 13.f5 b5 14.Be2 Bb7 15.g4‚
b4 16.Nd5
16.Na4?! Ne7 (16...Nd4? 17.Nxd4 exd4 18.Rxd4±) 17.Nbc5 Bc6 18.b3 Ne8 19.Nd3
Bxa4 20.bxa4=
16...Nxd5 17.exd5
17.Rxd5? Nd4
17...Ne7 18.Bf3 a5= 19.f6! gxf6 20.Qh6 f5!
20...a4 21.Be4 Ng6 22.Rd3 Re8 23.Rh3 Nf8 24.Nd2! (24.Bxh7+ Nxh7 25.Qxh7+ Kf8
26.Nd2 Bxd5=) 24...a3 (24...Qc7? 25.Bxh7+ Nxh7 26.Ne4!+-; 24...Ra5 25.Bxh7+
Nxh7 26.Ne4 Rxd5 27.Qxh7+ Kf8 28.Qh6+ Ke7 29.Qxf6+ Kd7 30.Rh7+-) 25.Bxh7+ Nxh7
26.Qxh7+ Kf8 27.Ne4±]
21.Qg5+
21.gxf5 Nxf5 22.Rhg1+ Kh8 23.Qh5 Nh4 24.Qh6 (24.Be4 f5µ) 24...Rg8 25.Rxg8+ Kxg8
26.Be4 Ng6
21...Ng6 22.Qxd8 Rfxd8 23.gxf5 Nf4 24.Nd2
24.c4?! Rdc8 25.Nd2 Bxd5
24...Bxd5 25.Bxd5 Nxd5 26.Ne4 Ne3 27.Rxd6 Nxf5 28.Rg1+ Kf8 29.Rf6 Nd4 30.Rg2
Ra7 31.c4 a4 32.Rgf2 Rc7 33.c5 Kg7
With the idea Ne6
34.Rg2+ Kh8 35.Rgf2 Rdd7 36.Rd2 b3 37.a3 Ne6 38.Rxd7 Rxd7 39.Rf1 Kg7 40.Rg1+
Kf8 41.Rg8+ Ke7 42.Ra8 f5 43.c6 Rc7 44.Nc3 Rxc6 45.Rxa4 Kf6 46.Rh4 Kg6 47.Kd2?
Nf4 The white rook is lost 0-1
OPENING LABORATORY
by Scott Kissinger skiss...@earthlink.net
Opening's Laboratory is not available this month. With the formation of the
new Council and getting the new website ready, I haven't had the necessary time
to write a good article.
I will continue the study of the Modern Treatment of the Sicilian Najdorf next
month. I am sorry for the inconvenience.
MEET THE PLAYER
by Mickey Blake Micke...@dial.pipex.com
The feedback from last months article was very positive and if you would like
to have your say, please get in touch with me, Error! Bookmark not defined.
Now let us meet the members!!
Joze Novak is a keen player and a member of the staff.
Hi Joze, please introduce yourself to the members.
Thank you, I am 44 years of age and was born in Logatec, Slovenia. I am
currently working as a Mechanical Engineer in Slovenia.
How long have you been playing the game?
Well I started when I was just 5 years old in kindergarten. Soon I played so
well that nobody would play me. I would win so fast that not even the older
children would play!
Do you have any other hobbies?
Sure, I also play basketball, do some skiing, shooting and stamp collecting.
As a member of the IECG staff, do you have time for your own games?
Yes, I joined IECG in 1998 and now work as a tutor for new players and I have
started to work as a tournament secretary since September 1998.
How is your chess these days?
I became very interested in my chess studies during the Fisher - Spassky match
in 11972, I then began theoretical chess studies. I like to solve chess
problems in my daily newspaper and enjoy other tactical chess literature.
I have never played in any club, but I have regularly played games with friends
and co-workers. From 1980 until 1992, I played mostly against computer
programs, I started on C64 - Caissa, than on Mephisto MKIV chessboard and later
on PC's.
After I connected to internet in 1997, my old wish to play correspondence chess
became reality. I join in 1997 IECC and then in 1998 ICCF, IECG and EXCLAM
Since 1995 I am writing my own openings book and study a lot of GM, my and
other chess games, so till now this book has about 3000 pages and includes
comments of GM, chess theory and my studies of different positions. My general
theoretical studies point out that mainly chess games are decided after each 12
moves played. For me are so very important positions close to moves 12, 24 and
36 move of a game.
Do you think correspondence chess is good for your studies?
Correspondence chess is a very good way to study chess theory and E-mail is the
best way to play correspondence chess as respond times are shorter than by
classical CC chess. As E-mail is possible only with use of a computer, the
E-mail CC games are connected with computer analysis of games. It will be fair,
that all CC players today register his/her name and for each game a computer
program, they used for analysis. (if not on the beginning then after the game
is finished)
Although using computers, most games are decided with following human factors:
a) knowledge and study of style and openings repertoire of opponent
c) choosing a right opening
d) deep tree analysis of a game - deeper than computer could count
e) right strategy of important moves when position is equal
f) playing experience of a player and knowledge of chess theory
g) risk and gambling - if you could not decide a right move, use a coin or
dice.
Do you think that computers are a big difference between correspondence chess
and over the board games?
Today it is possible that also OTB players use computers. It is possible to
transfer moves from table to computer with pocket transmitters, typing moves or
using small video cameras and receive back moves as low voltage Morse or
coordinate signals on players muscle ... .. Who knows?
How is your own chess and can you recommend a game to the readers?
My last year results: Win 36, Draw 21 and Lost 4 games. These games were with
IECC, IECG, ICCF and EXCLAM. As my game played on IECG Dunne,Alex - Novak, Joze
was published in the IECG December newsletter ANALYST'S CORNER by Randal W.
Horobik, I must use another game.
Bergman,M (2408) - Novak,J (2237) [B84] CL0-1998.05 IECC, 10.11.1998
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be2 a6 7.0-0 Qc7 8.f4 Be7
9.Be3 0-0 10.g4 Re8 11.g5 Nfd7 12.f5 Ne5 13.f6 Bf8 14.Qe1 b5 15.a4? b4 16.fxg7
Bxg7 17.Na2 Qb7 18.Bh5 Re7! 19.Rd1 Qxe4 20.Rf4 Qb7 21.Qxb4 d5 22.b3 Qc7!?
23.Qd2 Ng6 24.Rff1 Bb7 25.Rc1 Bxd4! 26.Qxd4 e5 27.Qd3 d4 28.Bd2 Nc6!? 29.Rf6 e4
30.Qf1 Rd8 31.Be1 d3 32.cxd3 exd3 33.Bd2 Qd7 34.Rc3 Nd4! 35.Rxd3 Ne5! 0-1
Novak,J (2137) - Verdier,P (2370) [A57] EM/M/GT/A011 ICCF, 08.04.1998
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.Nf3 g6 5.cxb5 a6 6.b6 Qxb6 7.Nc3 d6 8.Nd2 Bg7 9.e4
Nbd7 10.Nc4 Qc7 11.Be2 0-0 12.Bf4 Nb6 13.Ne3 a5 14.a4 Ba6 15.Bxa6 Rxa6 16.0-0
Qb7 17.Rc1 Rb8 18.h3 Nbd7 19.Nc4 Qb3 20.Qe2 Raa8 21.Rb1 Nb6 22.Nxb6 Rxb6
23.Rfd1 Nd7 24.Bg5 Re8 25.Qg4 Ne5 26.Qe2 Nc4 27.Rdc1 Rb4 28.Kh1 h6 29.Bd2 Reb8
30.Be1 Nb6 31.Nb5 Rxa4 32.Na7 Nc4 33.Nc6 Rb7 34.Qg4 Kh7? 35.Qf4 e6 36.dxe6 fxe6
37.Bc3 e5 38.Qg4 Ra2 39.Kg1 Rf7 40.Qc8 a4 41.Nd8 Rf6 42.Qd7 Nb6 43.Qc7 g5
44.Nc6 Nc4 45.Ne7 Rf7 46.Qd8 Bf8 47.Nd5 Qb7 48.Nf6+ 1-0
Many thanks to Joze, if you would like to contribute to this series, please
write to me, Michael Blake.
WEBWATCH
by Mickey Blake Error! Bookmark not defined.
Virus Alert!:
Firstly I must make it clear that I do not believe many of the virus warning I
receive in my email, too many are just attempts to cause alarm in my
experience. However there is clear evidence that a virus is seriously infecting
some IECG members who unwittingly are spreading the virus to their chess
friends.
The virus is named Happy99.exe and the best way to explain it is by way of this
release from a respected anti-virus authority:-
Happy99.Worm
VirusName:
Happy99.Worm
Aliases:
Trojan.Happy99, I-Worm.Happy
Likelihood:
Common
Region Reported:
US, Europe
Keys:
Trojan Horse, Worm
Description:
This is a worm program, NOT a virus. This program has reportedly been received
through email spamming and USENET newsgroup posting. The file is usually named
HAPPY99.EXE in the email or article attachment.
When being executed, the program also opens a window entitled "Happy New Year
1999 !!" showing a firework display to disguise its other actions. The program
copies itself as SKA.EXE and extracts a DLL that it carries as SKA.DLL into
WINDOWS\SYSTEM directory. It also modifies WSOCK32.DLL in WINDOWS\SYSTEM
directory and copies the original WSOCK32.DLL into WSOCK32.SKA. WSOCK32.DLL
handles internet-connectivity in Windows 95 and 98. The modification to
WSOCK32.DLL allows the worm routine to be triggered when a connect or send
activity is detected. When such online activity occurs, the modified code
loads the worm's SKA.DLL. This SKA.DLL creates a new email or a new article
with UUENCODED HAPPY99.EXE inserted into the email or article. It then sends
this email or posts this article. If WSOCK32.DLL is in use when the worm tries
to modify it (i.e. a user is online), the worm adds a registry entry:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunOnce=SKA.EXE
The registry entry loads the worm the next time Windows start.
Removing the worm manually:
1.delete WINDOWS\SYSTEM\SKA.EXE
2.delete WINDOWS\SYSTEM\SKA.DLL
3.replace WINDOWS\SYSTEM\WSOCK32.DLL with
WINDOWS\SYSTEM\WSOCK32.SKA
4.delete the downloaded file, usually named
HAPPY99.EXE
This worm and other trojan-horse type programs demonstrate the need to practice
safe computing.
One should not execute any executable-file attachment (i.e. EXE, SHS, MS Word
or MS Excel file)
that comes from an email or a newsgroup article from an unknown or a untrusted
source.
Norton AntiVirus users can protect themselves from this worm by downloading the
virus definitions
updates released on Jan 28, 1999 or later either through LiveUpdate or from the
following webpage:
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Now you know! The correct term is a worm not a virus but the word virus is
easily understood by most computer users. Please check your systems for this
and beware of opening any .exe files unless form a trusted source.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Boris Schneyderman brings us the excellent Chess Lab site that I mentioned last
month, well worth a visit as it continues to develop. I prefer too use my own
database but this is a very useful resource all the same. Visit
http://www.chesslab.com
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Again one I mentioned last month but to be honest the site should be mentioned
as much as possible. Mark Crowther has done so much good work in his desire to
bring us all the games of note as they happen. In this he is in conflict with
FIDE who wish to copyright games played in their tournaments. As well as the
top games you also get a news bulletin. My only criticism is that sometimes
games are sub 2000, which I am not in a hurry to add to my database.
Visit Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
Andres Valverde is known to many of us as the author of the great shareware
programme ECTool. For those of you who like to keep abreast of developments and
take advantage of the free upgrades for life facility, you may be interested to
know that ECTool 5.01 beta build 02.07 is now available.
I have been testing this program for about 2 weeks now and its main advantage
for me is the new tournament template. Simply enter details of the tournament
and the players and ECTool now creates each gamefile for you. Excellent!
For those who do not know about ECTool, there is now a free restricted version
available as a download. Intended for students and those who can not afford the
full product, this is a great way to take a look at the program. My personal
recommendation is for you to purchase the full product ($15, £12 GBP)
ECTool is basically a text editor for PGN games but it has the added bonus of
being a very useful mail program. Once you have entered your mail servers
details into ECTool, you can download all or selected messages, additionally
another ECTool user can send you the game as an ECTool file and this will be
automatically recognised and your game files updated. Purchasing this program
was the best money I have spent on chess since I bought my computer.
Take a look at ECTool at Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
This site aims to make available all the important games from Dutch chess from
1800 until the present day. The idea came from a site in the UK named BritBase
which was founded by John Saunders back in 1997. By visiting this site you will
find many links to other national databases. A great resource and very
interesting too.
Visit Error! Bookmark not defined.
Error! Bookmark not defined.
This site is similar to DutchBase but whilst working as a tutor for the IECG
new member program, I have noticed that we are attracting many friends from
Ireland and I would like to make them especially, aware of this source of
information. It is also extremely informative and of value to others as well.
The archive contains profiles and pictures of Irish chess players as well as
results of the Irish chess championships from 1865 onwards. Also covered are
the Olympiads, Internationals and other team tournaments. You may also look at
current tournaments and take part in some quizzes!
Visit the Irish Chess Archive at Error! Bookmark not defined.
Finally, Dr. Tor Roennow of Denmark would like some assistance in discovering
whether certain profiles or generalisations can be made about the way chess
players think. The outcome of the survey may produce ideas as to how we can all
look to improve our chess skills. If you have a spare few minutes, why not help
the guy out?
If you have a website and want visitors, or if you know of an interesting site,
please send me the details at Error! Bookmark not defined.
Finally, what is your favourite site? Where do you rely on for entertainment
and fun? Send me details and we will list a top 5 or 10, this will be of great
help to newcomers who want to save time and go straight to the best sites.
REVIEWS
by Mickey Blake Micke...@dial.pipex.com
This month I have less to offer you as I have been extremely busy with other
projects and contributions. However, I do have one very useful resource that
you may like to look at.
Coffee Break Chess:
If I offered you the opportunity to receive a newsletter from a Grandmaster of
Chess, would you be interested? If I told you that is free would I gain your
attention? Okay, Coffee Break Chess is now in its 3rd issue and is produced by
GM Alexander Baburin who currently lives in Dublin, Ireland.
After subscribing to the newsletters you will receive them in your email, they
are then opened and read quite easily although Alexander recommends you use
Internet Explorer 4. You will find that each newsletter contains articles on
topics such as endgames, middlegames and pawn structures. Also there is some
chat and updates on what links are recommended for you by GM Baburin who also
would like your contributions in the form of funny stories, anecdotes etcetra.
The whole idea is to provide you with an interesting read during a coffee break
and this it certainly does. If you have ChessBase then the referred to game
will be opened and played through via the program.
CHESS COMPUTERS
by Flavio A. B. da Silva with introduction by Mickey Blake.
The World of Computers has opened up Correspondence Chess to many more players
but at the same time has led to some experienced players leaving the arena as
lower rated players prove difficult competition. Personally I would prefer
these good players to stay and meet the challenge and not blame a poor result
on their opponents suspected use of a computer.
This article is brought to us by Flavio A. B. da Silva and whilst lengthy, does
provide something for us all to consider and debate. Mickey Blake
Introduction
I will try to give you an idea about Chess Programs and how they work. Anyone
can write a chess program but the programs that really have our attention are
the GM level programs. So I will restrict my thoughts on this kind of products.
A Chess Program is a special computer program which plays chess how it is known
by humans. I have heard a lot of misunderstanding ideas about this matter. Some
years ago a young boy who I was playing a correspondence game asked me about
chess programs. He knew I worked as a system analyst. He told me that computers
could not win a GM player because chess is not only logic but something more
that only humans could do. He finished telling me a comment from Kasparov that
he never would permit a computer beat him. He found himself as the last human
bastion against the computer advances. Today we know what is the real situation
but it's very interesting how people can have so passion in such matter. In
fact I don't know if Kasparov made such idea in some day. That time I had read
an article where he talked that "he didn't know who would be the next world
champion but he was very sure about the next one - a chess computer".
So we know about the emotions are involved here. Now we have to look
technically. Let's try to understand how a chess program works.
How a chess program works
A computer program produces a human work based on logic instructions. We have a
lot of ways a program can work for us. There are business programs that work as
humans just working fast and reporting reliable results. There are scientific
programs exploring computer speed and precision. And there are special
applications only computers can do. A kind of the last one are systems that
predict meteorological conditions. This application is so complex that
thousands of people could not give a precise prediction in time to be useful.
Even if we don't think about time, the possibility to achieve a good result is
very bad. In this case, computers are more than necessary.
Depending on the problem, we have 2 techniques to write a computer program: 1,
we just convert formulas and proceedings to the computer language; and 2, we
have to transform the problem because the human solution is not applicable to
computers due to precision problems, low speed or great complexity. That's the
chess situation.
Let's think about it. A human player uses his/her reasoning in a very complex
way. We find the solution of a combination with a not very clear set of steps.
OK I know about chess theory and related matters. What I'm trying to say is
that it's not so easy to understand how we can transform our chess knowledge in
the solution for a chess problem. When Kasparov won the world championship for
the first time, I remember one of the games. A GM player commenting it said
that the game was so complex that only Kasparov and Karpov could understand it.
If a GM player confess he can not understand some level of the game, how about
us? And how can we transform these kind of knowledge to a computer program? For
now, sorry but it's impossible.
So the only solution here is to transform the problem in a way we can translate
it to a program easier than translate our way of thinking.
The game tree
The programmers found a very kind solution. The great problem in chess is to
look the future situation of the game to choose our present move. We use a
special validation procedure based on all our knowledge about chess. If the
knowledge is greater than level "A" we have a master player. If it is greater
than level "B" we have a grand master and so on. The options to move in chess
are about 40 moves in the middle game. I know there are positions which have
maybe 60 possible moves. In fact I don't know what is the maximum moves a chess
position could have. Some time ago I saw a composition from Nimzowitch (I'm not
sure) where white had all pieces and pawns but did not have a valid move. But
... the maximum number of moves? Man, I don't know. But 40 moves looks close to
the medium number.
So ... if you try to analyze all the possibilities you must stop very soon: 40
moves for the next move, 1600 moves for the opponent answer, 64000 for my next
move, 2,560,000 for the next answer and so on. A human can not work with such
amount of positions but maybe a computer can.
The first step to choose the next move is to construct a tree with all the
options for the first player's move (see picture 1).
Picture 1. A 2 levels game tree.
Here we show position A (the start of our problem) and all the options the
first player has (position B and so on). Player 1 moves on level 1 and player 2
moves on level 2. This structure is a tree where A is the root and level 2 has
the leaves.
The next step is to repeat this procedure again (see picture 2).
Picture 2. The game tree from the second level.
Now the tree starts with the B node from picture 1. We create the 3rd. level
with all the possible moves starting from B position. This operation is
repeated for all sons of A position (B is the A's son if B is originated
directly from A). When the 3rd. level is completed, the situation is: player 1
moves on level 1; player 2 moves on level 2; and player 1 moves again on level
3. The chess programs call the move from just one player a ply. So we need 2
plies to form a chess move (white and black).
The best programs construct a tree with 12 plies in just a few minutes. It
means these programs can achieve 6 moves from both players in the tournament
pace. The amount of positions in the last level is 1.7x1019! It means
17,000,000,000,000,000,000! "Not bad" we can think! But I'm sure a lot of you
can find the problem to do this and I have to confess it's impossible with our
technology. The programs can analyze something like 50000 positions per second.
So a program will spend 10 million years to analyze that number of positions!
What's the secret? Please let me continue. I will come back soon to the
explanation. Picture 3 shows a game tree with 4 levels.
Picture 3. A 4 levels game tree.
What's the next step? We already have constructed the game tree from a stating
position. Now we have to choose the best move.
The evaluation function
Choose a move is related with position evaluation. Now we need a function that
evaluates any chess position to give us a final number. This number says how
good the position is for someone. We already have a kind of measure when we say
pawn's value is 1, knight and bishop's value is 3 and so on. Of course I'm not
talking about a material evaluation but a more general one. Our evaluation
needs to verify all kind of advantages and weaknesses the chess theory may
consider. Without all items pointed by theory, our program will not find some
kind of advantage when it happens. We have to consider pair of bishops, open
files, passed pawns, double pawns, bad bishop, advantage in space or
development, etc. You see, I mean only positional advantage. You don't have to
look for threatens, overloaded pieces, discovered checks, pinning,
interception, distraction, combinations, tactical moves and so on. You will ask
"why not?". Well this is the difference between human thinking and computer
reasoning. The answer is quite simple. Tactical elements are covered with the
game tree. Let's try to understand.
The computer analyzes all moves. It means stupid moves and master ones too. If
a position has the possibility to win the exchange the program will verify it
when the tree is constructed. So if the tree is so deep that the end of the
combination is part of the structure the program will see the difference
between white and black after the combination and will evaluate that path with
a higher number. It will play the combination just for the final result. The
program does not need to know what is a discovered check. It will do it because
it's granted to achieve a better position some moves later.
Due to this different way of thinking I saw a comment about chess programs:
someone said "they don't know how to play chess" during the last match
Kasparov-Deep Blue. In my humble opinion it's not true. The programs know the
rules and they know how to evaluate a situation with positional references.
Tactical elements depend on the way the work is organized.
In fact we don't know how our brain works. Some computer experts with
psychological knowledge are saying that computers are acquiring more and more
capacity. Maybe we will achieve a conscious computer soon. When it happens the
power off will be a crime!
Let's come back for a moment. I told you programs can analyze 50000 positions
per second. What's the reason for such number? Technology is the answer. The
faster popular processors like Pentium II execute something like 10 million
instructions per second (10 MIPS). Even with Pentium III the order of MIPS is
not so great for our purposes (please remember that 20 digits number). A
processor with 10 MIPS analyzing 50000 positions needs an evaluation function
with 200 instructions.
What is a instruction? It is the smallest command a processor can execute. You
have instructions to add, multiply, store values in memory, etc. Just to
understand the problem, if you want to move zero to some value you need 2
instructions. That's the great problem!
200 instructions means a very little evaluation function. It must consider all
positional items from any position and maybe other things giving a final
number. This number will be used to compare all positions to choose the best
one. It's not an easy task I'm sure. Just to inform you, a simple program like
the notepad editor has much more than 1000 instructions.
I'm quite sure it does not have more considerations than all positional
elements our function needs to work.
What is the problem to add more instructions to our function? It would be a
very bad idea. Much more instructions to process and much more time it will
spend. And time is a good we already don't have.
Do you want to see another problem? For example, when analyzing if a position
has a bad bishop, what is the great necessity we have? The answer is obvious
but it's dramatic for our purposes: we need at least ONE bishop! Man this guy
is so stupid someone will say. Not really! I want to say that our function has
an important activity before starting its real work: it has to verify what are
the present elements in the position. Of course it can not give a number due to
double pawns if there is NO double pawns. The great implications of the last
comment: this verification must stay in that 200 instructions too and our
function has a lot of instructions that maybe are not necessary every time.
I will simplify the problem saying that programmers use a lot of tricks to
analyze a lot of elements in just a few instructions.
Now we know we have physical limitations to understand a chess position and
that was my idea in this discussion.
Solving the game tree
Finally we arrived at the last step to choose a move. We already have a game
tree filled, we have an evaluation function which can analyze any position to
give a number meaning the advantage some side has.
Let's talk about the game tree in picture 4. We have an evaluation function
that evaluates a position with a number with a variation from 100 to -100. A
positive number means white is better and a negative one means black has a
better situation. Zero means an equal position. Almost all programs use an
equivalence with pawns. So 1 means white has an advantage of a pawn. Of course
may be it's not a material advantage but a set of positional advantages meaning
a pawn.
The work of solve the game tree is very easy. 1st. the program evaluates all
the last level. It finds a number for all positions of the 4th. level resulting
in the numbers you can see there: 3, 2, 2, -1, 1, 0, ...
Player 2 moves in the 4th. level as we can see in the squares to the right of
the game tree. Player 1 moves in the 3rd. level. Looking for the positions
player 1 has he will choose what is better for him. In the 1st. set of 3
positions he has values 3, 2 and 2. The best choose for white is 3 so the 1st.
position in the 3rd. level values 3 because if white plays in that position he
will choose the best result for his move.
Picture 4. An evaluated game tree.
The next position in 3rd. level has 3 positions in 4th. level: -1, 1 and 0.
White plays in the 3rd. level so he will choose the best possible result. -1 is
better for black and 0 is an equal position but 1 is better for white. So the
2nd. position in the 3rd. level is evaluated as 1 too. The 3rd. position in the
3rd. level has 3 position in the 4th. level: 0, 0 and -1. So white will choose
an equal position. The 4th. position of the 3rd. level has all positions in the
4th. level with a -1 value. So it values -1 too.
After the 3rd. level is filled we can evaluate the 2nd. one. Here black plays
so he will choose what is better for black. The 1st. position has 2 values in
the 3rd. level: 3 and 1. All values are better for white but 1 is better than 3
for black so the 2nd. player will choose this move. The 2nd. position has 2
values in the 3rd. level: 0 and -1. Of course black will choose -1.
In the 1st. level white plays and he has 2 options: 1 and -1. Of course 1 is
better for white so the start position values 1.
The best line for white in the start position is the one represented with
highlighted squares. If white chooses the 2nd. move black will choose the 4th.
move of the 3rd. level and white will have only -1 positions to move.
Even if black makes a mistake in the 2nd. move and he plays the 3rd. move of
the 3rd. level white will achieve only equal positions in the 4th. level.
I know it looks boring but I'm sure everybody can understand the process
with some little attention.
Pruning the game tree
Now all the process is complete. But we have some problems as I said before.
How can a chess program work with a game tree about 12 levels? As we saw the
last level has a number of positions about 20 digits. We already saw we don't
have processors that can work with this game tree and can give us an answer in
time for a chess game. What options do we have? The first one is to stop
earlier. That solution is not very good because the program reasoning is so
best as it goes deepest. In fact if our program could find the checkmate in
every paths of the game tree nobody could beat it. Just see a program playing
tic-tac-toe. Than we have to reduce the game tree.
A very good trick is to prune some leaves of the tree. Just imagine you can cut
half of the moves resulting directly from the first position (a medium of 20
moves). Now that great number we saw before reduces to 4.1x1015. It means
4,100,000,000,000,000. Now our program would spend just 2600 years to choose
the best move! But it is an excellent improvement from the first situation. The
great question is "how do you choose the moves to be pruned?". Let's see. When
a good player analyzes a position he can ignore a lot of moves he finds very
stupid. For example:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bg5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 ...
At least some chess! In this position black has a problem. Pe4 is protected and
the only defense of Pe5 can be changed. So some kind of defensive move is very
interesting. Black is lucky as it has b5, d6 and Bc5. I'm sure all of you can
see these moves are the only moves black can play without lose something. This
is the 6th. move and black has 30 possible moves to play!
So I think it's obvious we have just to teach our program how to know a move
can be discarded and all problems are finished.
OK ... just kidding! It's also obvious that there is no difference between know
a move is bad and can be discard and it's good and must be considered. We are
back to the beginning! But not so completely.
In fact we have some tricks to identify a bad move. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Bc4 Nf6 White can play 4.Bxf7+. The attack to f7 is one of the oldest chess
attacks known today. But here it's not possible. In fact it is a great mistake.
Why is the reason? After Kxf7 White has only a knight to bring close to the
black king. So he will escape. This kind of reasoning is very effective to
identify bad moves like this one. I grant you we have a lot of tricks like that
to help us to identify bad moves.
The horizon
Another problem we have is very interesting. What is the situation if there is
something important after the last level of the game tree? The program will not
see it! This matter is dramatic for a good skill. It is known as the horizon
problem as we consider the last level the program horizon to understand any
position. For example after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 let's imagine the game
tree has just 4 levels.
The program will see that after 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5 Qd4 white has an extra pawn.
Black will capture e4 but it is out of the game tree. The program does not know
it so it will play that line thinking there is a pawn of advantage for white.
Let's going to see an example from GM Raymond Keene:
White: Kb1, Ba1, b3, c2, d2, e3 f4, g5, h4.
Black: Kh8, Qg7, Na4, a7, b7, c7, f5, g6, h7.
Here black plays and he has a queen but just for a while. Imagine our chess
program has just a 3 levels game tree. It can see just 2 moves around. If we
evaluate just the material black has an advantage of 9(the queen = 10 against a
white pawn = 1). All black moves will lose the queen in the next white move
except 2: Nb2 and Nc3+. As the game tree stops in the next white move if black
plays 1... Nc3+ after 2.Bxc3 he has the queen yet. Of course it is just for
this move but the program does not know it. Just playing 1... Nc5 2.Bxg7+ Kxg7
and black has an extra knight.
This problem is very serious for a chess program. To void it the programmers
had choose a very good option. When there is tactical possibilities the program
continue to construct the game tree even after the last level. It means every
move capturing something or sacrificing something will be considered even after
the horizon. It brings more stability to the process because the evaluation of
the position will not change so much with the advance of the game. Also that's
the reason why chess programs are so good in tactical games. In fact don't
expect to win a game against your program only with some tactical combination.
Openings
Chess has a lot of theory about openings. If we can use it we will have a good
advantage. First the program will not lose time analyzing lines covered in the
theory. 2nd. the program can easily play opening traps. With a good opening
database the program will identify even uncommon lines. The programmers
included a very interesting ability in their chess programs. They can recognize
an opening line even if there is some different order in the moves. It can be a
good advantage but it can result in a very interesting weakness. Luiz R. G. da
Costa Jr. wrote an article for the Brazilian correspondence chess federation
showing some bugs.
The classical French Defense: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 ... Maybe every
lines can be reproduced with transposed lines. The programs use to test every
move looking for the present position in their databases. When a program finds
a position it continues with the recorded moves. Fritz 4 had a little bug in
this line. After 1.d4 d5 2.Cc3 e6 it answers 3.Bg5?? with 3... Nf6?? without
capture the white bishop. It is an amazing situation but you have to see how
the programs are constructed to understand how it is possible.
The same kind of construction makes possible a very interesting advantage.
Let's see the French Defense, exchange variation (C01) 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5
exd5 4.Cf3 Cf6 5.Ne5. The last move is not good just because the Fritz 4's move
in the sequence: 5... Bd6! Now we have a Petrov Defense (C42) but with changed
colors! The game continues 6.Be2 O-O 7.Nc3 c5 8.Nb5 Be7. The last move is the
same as white plays in the Petrov (9.Be2). Fritz 4 recognizes the line even
with changed colors and it plays the opening as it is part of the theory!
Just to finish this matter the last joke. Again the French Defense, after 1.e4
e6 2.Bb5 Fritz 4 plays 2... Qg4 looking the g2 weakness. Let's continue with
3.Bf1? Now Fritz 4 recognizes a known position and it plays to get it: 3...
Qd8? In the same situation it's very interesting how programs repeat the same
thing. So after 4.Bb5! Qg4? 5.Bf1 Qd8 1/2-1/2 by 3 times repetition!
I want to say something in favor of programmers. They try to do their best but
of course nobody can predict everything. So maybe we will find more jokes like
these in the future. Of course these problems are already corrected. Fritz 5
now plays 1.e4 e6 2.Bb5 c6!
Style and Beauty
After learning all that information I'm sure you are curious to ask: How can
the programs be so good to beat GM players (and Kasparov!) if they have such
limitations? Of course all problems I showed here are already corrected. But it
is not enough. Programs are done by humans and they will have bugs while this
situation stays the same. As I said before even with such problems I'm very
sure chess programs will beat almost every players in the next years. But the
kind of reasoning the programs will have depends on our sensibility. For
example if we want to see beauty in the programs way of play we have to teach
them how to recognize it.
Let's see a very good example. I think everybody know the famous position from
the game Ed. Lasker x Thomas, London 1912:
White: Ke1, Qh5, Ra1, Rh1, Bd3, Ne4, Ne5, a2, b2, c2, d4, f2, g2, h2.
Black: Kg8, Qe8, Ra8, Rf8, Bb7, Bf6, Nb8, a7, b6, c7, d7, e6, g7, h7.
I did setup the position to ChessMaster 3000. It is not a very good program
today but it found the solution when it constructed the 8th. level just after a
few seconds: 1.Qxh7+ Kxh7 2.Nxf6+ Kh6 3.Neg4+ Kg5 4.h4+ Kf4 5.g3+ Kf3 6.Kf1? I
wanted to arrive here. Why is the reason for this move? I mean, Lasker
continued 6.Be2+ Kg2 7.Rh2+ Kg1 8.Kd2++ (he could do 8.O-O-O++ but he found it
was too much aggressive!). Well we programmed our program to be quick so it is
doing it! After 6.Kf1 Qxf6 7.Nh2++ it finishes a move earlier.
That's because all references the program has are material, time, positional
elements and results. It does not know how to do something beautiful (yet). Of
course it does not change the final result. Maybe computers don't play like Bob
Fisher but they are beating us! Beauty or ugly moves on the board, 1x0 still is
1x0!
Technical improvements
The modern (and stronger) programs don't have all limitations I told you here.
First they don't construct a physical game tree in memory with all leaves and
nodes. It's because they would need an amount of physical memory extremely
large. All computers have limited memory so the programs use to keep just the
path they are analyzing in the moment. They use tables to keep positions
already processed but this positions may be substituted.
The stronger programs work with special prune procedures to analyze just a few
moves in the last levels of the tree. They have reduced evaluation functions.
Some programs have expert functions for each kind of position: opening, middle
game and end game. Other programs have specific functions for some kind of
relations: rooks on the board, bishops, knights, isolated pawns, etc. They
change the evaluation function depending on what happens on the board.
They have opening databases with more and more lines. Deep Blue had a database
for end games. In the same idea I saw the database of a checker program with
all possible positions with 12 or less pieces associated with the best move for
each one.
The evaluation functions are becoming stronger but the programs are receiving
special functions to choose between equivalent moves. They have some
psychological tricks to do the best moral effect against human players.
But the best improvement is the parallel computers. They are computers with
more than one processor. It makes possible to do more tasks in the same time. A
chess program can have separated functions for different aspects of the game:
tactical, positional, defense, attack, kings security, etc. All processors work
together but each one looks its details. When all them have their answers a
master program decides what is the best move in the moment. The master program
can divide the amount of work between all processors. Each one will find an
answer with its value and the master program chooses the best one.
Conclusion
So what's the future for us? Computers will dominate the scenario of world
chess in just a few years. Today it is very difficult to play a correspondence
game because much more players are using chess programs. I know it because I
use to have tops and bottoms in my results. I achieve wins just when I have
time. Players with computers are good players every time. So I have bought
books about computer programs and no one more about chess theory.
There are techniques to play against computers. They are hard and very kind but
very effective. There are experts in the task of playing against strong chess
programs. For a while we have some hope. But the technological skill is getting
better and better. Maybe we have to study special rules for correspondence
chess (and chess by email). I don't have any idea now. But I'm very sure we
have to think about it. Very soon we will see hundreds of players with a 2800
rating. It's just a matter of time.
STOP THE PRESS
by Scott Kissinger skiss...@earthlink.net
With the addition of "IECG Gems," we continue to grow to provide our readers
with a first-class on-line magazine. But, we are always looking for good
contributions from players of any rating. Even if you don't wish to write an
article, but have a great idea, feel free to submit it to me at Error! Bookmark
not defined..
Next month, we may announce the details regarding the new IECG team tournament
and how to register. We should have information on who the seven members of the
IECG Council are. This information will also be posted at http://www.iecg.org
when available.
Now there is a very important thing I would ask all of you to do. In order for
this newsletter to be of interest to you, it must contain the articles,
analysis and features you wish to read. The following link will guide you to a
survey that will ask several questions. This survey is quick and painless.
Please fill it out. It will automatically be emailed to all the members of the
IECG Newsletter team so we can build a magazine that all will enjoy.
The survey is to be found on our website. Thank you in advance for filling it
out!
Scott Kissinger
Chief Editor