From: smd@occlusal.rutgers.edu (Stanley Dunn)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Chess Bits #14, a little late
Keywords: Sorry I was in Paris
Date: 6 Nov 92 12:26:33 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.



		CHESS BITS
		ISSUE #14
		NOVEMBER 3, 1992

Editorial Staff:

Stanley Dunn 	smd@occlusal.rutgers.edu (for all correspondence)
Alan Brunelle
John Pope
Ed Maillet

In this issue:

	- Some comments from your editor
	- Users versus MChess, part III by Louir Blair
	- Technical article on the Sicilian Najdorf by Jim Riechel
	- ``On the lighter side of Chess'' by Alan Brunelle
	- Bits Mates ``To Play and Win'' by Ed Maillet ``White''
	- Bits Q&A  by John Pope

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Found in Chess Life, November, 1992.  Catalog page C12

Winning with the Dutch by IM Bellin.  1. ... f3 is a challenging
answer to 1. d4.

Indeed, 1. ... f3 is a challenging answer.  Even this Life Novice knows that.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the wrong end of 1600 (Editorial)

Although I did not take an interest in the game until 18 months ago,
I remember watching F-S I on PBS 20 years ago.  F-S I may have piqued
my interest in the game, but I attribute most of my early chess
knowledge to my mother's diet plans.

You see, there was the grapefruit diet, the pineapple diet, weight
watchers, lean line, behavior modification, the complex carbohydrate
diet, nutri-system and other fads including Tommy Lasorda.  Did they work?
Do they work for the general public?

So when I took up chess 18 months ago, I bought My System, How to Reasess
Your Chess, 1001 Combinations, Practical Chess Endings, Dvoretsky's book
and a bunch of opening books.  Did they work?  Do they work for
the general public?

The recent discussion of Alburt's book on rec.games.chess made me think
about the similarity between my chess books and my mother's diet plans.
Probably, both will work in rare instances, but not in general and both
make outrageous claims about their success rates.  Both misrepresent the
hard work and discipline it takes to conquer a difficult task.  I have always
considered diet plans to be irresponsible in that they mislead the public
into thinking how easy it is:  ``Just a shake at breakfast and lunch and 
a complete dinner and you too can lose 10 pounds in a week'' or ``From novice
to expert in a year.''

Yes, it takes discipline and I know about discipline.  I lost 70 pounds
without all the fads; it took 18 months.  So what is the disciplined 
way to learn chess, without all the hype and fads?  That is my question
to you, the Chess Bits readers.  I would like to know for my own benefit,
but also as an educator.  I believe that Chess can teach people the 
critical thinking skills necessary to succeed in life, which makes it 
more than just a game to play for fun.  

With all the talent we have here on the net, surely as a group we can 
produce some real study aids for life novices like me or those interested
in taking up the game.  Let me hear what YOU think - pro or con and how
we can contribute to the game.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Users versue MChess, part III by Louis Blair

Here is another installment of the users vs mchess game.

First, a recap:

1. e4	e5
2. Nf3	Nc6
3. Bb5	a6
4. Ba4	Nf6
5. O-O	Be7
6. Re1	b5
7. Bb3	O-O
8. c3	d6
9. h3	Na5
10. Bc2	c5
11. d4	Qc7
12. Nbd2 Nc6
13. dc  dc
14. Nf1 Be6
15. Ne3 Rad8 
16. Qe2 c4

and now, back to the game:


On September 20th, 1965, Bobby Fischer sat in a room at the Marshall
Chess Club in New York and faced this position for the first time.
His opponent, Ratmir Kholmov, and the rest of the players in the
Capablanca memorial tournament were in Havana, Cuba.  The
U. S. State Department had refused to allow Fischer to travel there,
and special arragements were made to allow him to play his games
by teletype.  As far as I know, this was the only time that someone
ever participated in a tournament this way.  Fischer was probably
a little bit surprised by 16 ... c4, since 16 ... g6 was the usual choice at
the time.  For his first 16 moves, Fischer had only used about two
minutes.  After about three more minutes, Fischer played

17 Ng5 (N-N5)

just as M-chess did, a quarter of a century later.  Stuart told me
that M-chess was now out of its opening book and had thought
about its 17th move for more than nine hours, examining 30
million nodes.  "M has a number of plans it is following that
include Queenside and Kingside attacks. Its evaluation recently
jumped nearly a half-pawn (from -0.2 to +0.2), which is usually
indicative of some gain it has achieved in the search.  Black better
watch out on both sides of the board."  17 Nf5 and 17 Bd2 have also
been tried, but for all of these moves, it is now believed that black
can equalize.  Looking through the material on this variation, I
get the impression that if there is something good for white
remaining to be found, the 17 Nf5 lines are the best place to look,
but there is not much motivation for top players to investigate.
Somebody reported, "I have been completely unable to find any
games that reached this position in any of the Informants for the
last eleven years.  My guess is that few games have followed this
line since both our 9th move, Na5, and our opponent's 13th move,
dc, have come to be regarded as out of fashion."  (12 ... Nc6 might
also have been mentioned as another out of fashion move.)  The
13th edition of Modern Chess Openings only mentions 17 Nf5,
but psychological factors might suggest one of the alternatives.
For example, if one thinks that one's opponent does not have
much book knowledge, then one might think that the book
response to 17 Ng5 will be particularly hard for black to find
over the board.  (In Fischer's case, in 1965, the book had not
yet been written, and he probably did not anticipate the black
response.)  Fortunately, we had on our team a number of people
with access to relatively recent analysis, and we knew that
the recommended reply to 17 Ng5 was

17 ... h6 (P-R3)

but that did not mean that people would be eager to play it.
17 ... h6 must be the sort of move that separates the grandmasters
from the rest of us.  It seems to violate all the principles that one
learns over the years.  As one voter put it, "we can't let our kingside
get wrecked, especially with 17 ... h6."  However, here is what Edmar
Mednis had to say about it:  "A great idea!  Black not only ignores
White's threat of gaining the two bishops while ruining Black's
kingside pawn formation, but even forces White to execute it
immediately!  Normally Black cannot afford such weaknesses,
but the position is just uniquely different here:  all of White's pieces
are passively placed and Black has a preponderance of key squares
in his command after 18 Nxe6."  Bikhovsky wrote that after 17 ... h6
18 Nxe6 fe, "White has the two bishops and has given his opponent
doubled isolated pawns.  On the other hand, Black is ahead in
development and exerts pressure on the f-file; also, in many
variations it becomes clear that the seemingly weak e-pawns keep
important central squares under control.  Therefore the attacking
chances are rather on Black's side, and if White doesn't play
carefully he will end up in a difficult situation."  However,
some people were not easily convinced.  A supporter of 17 ... Bc5
wrote, "h6 is interesting but weird, very anti-intuitive.  If the
group is interested in playing this sort of line, I don't see why we
need to move the h pawn.  M-chess is already threatening the
bishop and should take it whether or not we force the trade.  Why
not assume the computer will take it and use our move to set up for
the ensuing struggle?"  According to Edmar Mednis, since the
Fischer-Kholmov game, "There have been subsequent attempts to
try to save the `unnecessary 17 ... h6' tempo for Black, but without
positive results (e. g., 17 ... Bc5 18 Nd5!)."  Bikhovsky's 1983 book
said that 17 ... Bc5 is "a perfectly playable alternative", but the move
does not seem to have been tested as much as 17 ... h6, and the recently
published second edition of Batsford Chess Openings mentions only
17 ... h6.  Nobody else voted for 17 ... Bc5.  The fact that the books do
not mention 17 ... Bc8 inspired one person to write, "Since nobody -
not even the books - has any reason why 17 ... Bc8 might be unsound,
that's my vote.  Nobody complained about Bc8 when we chose move
15 - why complain now?  Isn't it ridiculous that we played 15 ... Rad8
so as to make room for the bishop, and now we're not going to move it?"
That last sentence refers, I believe, to a remark that someone made in
the discussion of the 14th move, but nobody else at the time said that
they agreed with the Bc8 idea, although it must be admitted that
nobody at the time said that they disagreed with the idea either.
In the discussion of our 17th move, Bill Vaughn came up with the
line, 17 ... Bc8 18 Nd5 Nxd5 19 ed Bxg5 20 Bxg5 Rxd5 21 Qe4.  (I
originally thought that I would preserve everyone's anonymity,
but in the case of worthwhile analytical contributions, it seems
appropriate to me to give credit where credit is due.  If anyone
objects, they should let me know.)  In the end, only two people
voted for 17 ... Bc8.  There were single votes for 17 ... Qc8 and
17 ... Nh5, but most decided to believe that the books knew what
they were talking about and went along with 17 ... h6.  One
person wrote, "17 ... h6 has been the long-standing refutation of
17 Ng5.  Notice the hedgehog formation that Black's pawns take
on after 18 Nxe6 fe.  The underdevelopment of White's pieces
combined with the solid Black position and pressure on the f-file
leave M-Chess with an uphill battle.  If M-Chess is correct, and
this position is favorable for White (seems like a remote possibility)
then we can look forward to M-Chess unveiling a theoretical
novelty of considerable importance, well worth the price of
admission."  One person dropped out of the game.

Facing this position for the first time in 1965, Bobby Fischer (who
had spent five minutes on his first seventeen moves) spent five
minutes deciding to play

18 Nxe6 (NxB)

Stuart told me that M-chess had the same conclusion after
looking at 34 million nodes for more than 10 hours and deciding
that the position was "quite favorable to M".  Nothing else is
played in this position.  No gains come from a knight sacrifice
or a retreat.

I suspect that all computers would evaluate this position as
"favorable to" white.  Black's counter-chances are probably
quite hard for a machine to detect.

18 ... fe (PxN)

Not much choice here, either.  One person (who had been the source
of a lot of argument in the past) remarked on this occasion, "Let the
record show that I agreed with the crowd on at least one move this
game."

When Fischer faced this position for the first time in 1965, he had
used about ten minutes for his first eighteen moves.  He spent about
twenty five minutes on his nineteenth move and came up with a
move that is now regarded as a loser, 19 b4.  The game continued
19 ... Nd4 20 cd ed 21 a3 d3 22 Bxd3 Rxd3 23 Ng4 Kh7 24 e5 Nxg4
25 Qe4+ g6 26 Qxg4 Rf5 27 Qe4 Qd7 28 Be3 Qd5 29 Qxd5 Rxd5
30 f4 g5 31 g3 gf 32 gf Rf8 33 Kg2 Kg6 34 Rg1 Rd3 35 Kf3+ Kf5
36 Rg7 Bd8 37 Rb7 Rg8 38 Rb8 Rg7 39 a4 h5 40 ab ab 41 Rxb5 Bh4
42 Ke2 Rg2+ 43 Kf1 Rh2 44 Kg1 Re2 45 Bb6 c3 46 Kf1 Rh2 0-1.  In
case you are wondering how Fischer tried to improve on his play
in this game, I found one subsequent game where someone (O'Kelly)
tried to use this defense against Fischer.  Did Fischer try some new
way to defeat that strange looking 17 ... h6 move?  I'm afraid not.
He deviated earlier with 17 Nf5.  The game continued 17 ... Rfe8
18 Bg5 Nd7 19 Bxe7Nxe7 20 Ng5 Ng6 21 g3 and Fischer eventually
won, although it is now believed that O'Kelly could have equalized
with 20 ... Nf8.  I wonder if Fischer would have eventually made
the switch to 13 d5.  We will almost certainly never know since,
even if Fischer DID start playing again, the chances of anyone
playing 9 ... Na5, 11 ... Qc7, AND 12 ... Nc6 against him are remote.

Mchess played

19 b3 (P-QN3)

According to John Donaldson, writing for Inside Chess, it is "essential"
for white to play "either 19 a4 or 19 b3" in order "to maintain equality".
It's odd to see talk of white trying to maintain equality after so much
planned aggression.  Something must have gone wrong for white
somewhere.  According to Bikhovsky, even 19 a4 is not such a good
idea.  He gives the continuation 19 ... Bc5 20 ab ab 21 Rf1 Qf7 22 b3 Nh5
23 bc Nf4 24 Qf3 b4 25 Ba4 Qa7 26 Nc2 Nd3, resulting in a "clear
advantage" for black.  Bikhovsky also mentions the untested Keres
idea, 19 g3, but 19 b3 is the one move that all the books think is okay
for white.  White is trying to undermine the pawn chain leading
to his hole at d3 and perhaps open a diagonal to one of black's doubled
pawns.

19 ... Bc5 (B-B4)

This IS the number one choice in the opening books, but once again
there was a crisis over whether or not to trust them.  Three people
wanted to play 19 ... Na5 and indeed Bikhovsky says the line 20 b4
Nc6 21 a4 Qb7 22 Rd1 Bd6 23 Ng4 Bc7 24 Be3 Bb6 results in an even
position, but someone objected, "The move 19 ... Na5?? does not have
any effect in this position, other than to misplace the knight on the
edge of the board.  Note that after 20 bc bc we have the same pawn
structure that would exist without the knight move, but with Black
in a very passive stance, using a sidelined knight and the queen (!)
to protect an isolated pawn.  If instead, black plays 20 ... Nxc4, then
white will cheerfully exchange as many pieces as black cares to
parlay on c4, ending again with an isolated black pawn on c4
requiring protection."  Nobody replied to this, and the most votes
went to 19 ... Bc5, a move that increases the black pressure on f2
and is trickier for white to handle.  (I'll talk about what happens
if white takes the pawn next time.)  It was pointed out that the
second edition of Batsford Chess Openings "says that 19 ... Bc5 is the
move for us to play, but after that BCO2 will have no additional
help to offer."

One person wanted us to play 19 ... Nd4, but everyone else wanted
to heed the warning of Bikhovsky:  "19 ... Nd4 is bad:  20 cd ed
21 Nxc4 with a clear advantage for white."  An advocate of 19 ... cb
also failed to get followers.  Another person dropped out of the game.

At about a quarter to ten (his time) on Monday morning, Stuart
told me that M-chess was thinking about taking the pawn on
c4.  "So far, after 40 million nodes, M chess believes the humans
only gain back about .3 pawn in positional value, leaving .7 pawn
positional value for M chess.  M was started last night around 11pm
and I'm letting it search all of today, perhaps till 6pm.  When I left
this morning it was on the third variation at ply 8."  (When I read
this, I immediately thought of the words of Bikhovsky, "if White
doesn't play carefully he will end up in a difficult situation."
According to the books, 20 bc is a weak move that allows black
to get a clear advantage with 20 ... b4.)  Eleven and a half hours
later, Stuart told me, "M will play

20 Rd1 (R-Q1)

The search was 80 million nodes.  M feels it has an edge".  This
is the book move in this position, but I began to think that there
was a good chance that M-chess might misplay the position
somewhere along the way.

20 Rf1 has also been tried in this position, but with less than
satisfactory results.  After 20 ... Rc8 21 a4 Qf7 22 ab ab 23 bc b4
24 cb Bxb4 25 Ba3 Nh5 26 Bxb4 Nxb4 27 g3 Nc6 28 Bd1 Nf6,
black had a clear advantage.

20 ... Nd4 (N-Q5)

It no longer makes sense to talk about the most popular move.  As
far as I know, only one previous game in chess history has reached
this position.  I'll talk about that game more later.  20 ... Nd4 WAS
what was played, and most voters were happy to go along with
this.  "After the forced 21 cd ed, white's best is 22 Nxc4 bc 23 bc
and the complications arising with the major theme white's
weakness on f2 give us at least an equal game."  One player
advocated 20 ... Rxd1, saying, "if 20 ... Nd4 21 cd ed 22 bc de 23 Bxe3
Bxe3 24 Qxe3 (Rxd8 Rxd8 or ... Rxd1 Bxd1 may be somewhere
between these moves), it looks like white has no problems at all
but the pawn structure of black seems to be a slight disadvantage."
Someone replied, "I think that after a subsequent 24 ... Qxc4 (or
25 ... Qxe4 if rooks are exchanged) black's (connected) pawn
majority on the queenside outweighs the isolated e-pawn.  If
black later on manages to play (and support) e6-e5, white's
bishop becomes weaker than black's knight, thanks to this pawn.
However, I admit that I didn't fully analyze 25 Bb3 Qxe4 - I
suspect that black can give back the pawn and exchange queens
to equality."

One player suggested 20 ... Ne7, but the idea was ignored by everyone
else.  Upon hearing that we chose 20 ... Nd4, one player (who had been
briefly away from the game) reacted with, "So we sacked a Knight?!
Why was Nxc4 a refutation last move when it isn't now?"  Of course,
we knew that the piece loss was only temporary.  As for cd ed Nxc4,
we will see that the presence of the black bishop on c5 appears to be
important.

I think 20 ... Nd4 illustrates the dangers of relying on a book like
BCO2.  As mentioned in my last note, Batsford Chess Openings 2
advises you to play 19 ... Bc5 and then leaves you on your own.
I wonder how many players would come up with the "correct"
follow-up, 20 ... Nd4, over the board.

One voter said, "HELP I'M LOST!  I would like to ask someone out
there to post what is going on in this position.  I just don't get it so
please... what are the ideas and themes of where we should be heading
with this position."  Nobody answered.

Stuart told me, "M's 21st move is

21 cd (PxN)

The search was 8 ply (complete) and part of the 9th ply.  Total nodes
was 41 million.  M sees a big advantage for white."  White is not
likely to play anything other than 21 cd since he does not want to
give up one of his bishops, and, anyway, there are no good places to
put the queen.

21 ... ed (KPxP)

As you might guess, there was no need for discussion here.  This
is how black regains the piece.  He will get either the knight or
the bishop.  "There is no other sane move in this position!"

22 Nxc4 (NxP)

Stuart told me that "47 million positions" had been "evaluated", and
the resulting conclusion was that the situation was "very favorable
to M."  It wasn't too surprising that M-chess chose this over 22 bc.
White is trying to disrupt the black queenside pawns and perhaps
come out a pawn ahead.

22 ... bc (PxN)

"gee, surprise..."

International Grandmaster Alexei Suetin, author of Modern Chess
Opening Theory (with an extensive discussion of the Ruy Lopez), faced
this position in 1966.  His opponent was International Master Ivo Nei.
With Fischer's loss from the previous year, no doubt, fresh in his mind,
Suetin had chosen 19 b3 instead of 19 b4.  Now, he played 23 bc, and after
23 ... d3 24 Rxd3 Ng4 25 Qxg4 Rxf2 26 Be3 Bxe3 27 Rxe3 Rxc2 28 Rg3
Qe5, the players agreed to a draw.  Nobody seems to have found any
improvements for either side, and, since then, books have been evaluating
this line as drawn.  Edmar Mednis referred to this game as "a fine (or
frightful!) example of the theoretical knowledge a modern master
must have to survive in the chess jungle."  For some time, a number
of people had been justifying their votes with comments like:  "Still
following the Suetin-Nei game", but there was always the question
of whether or not M-chess would deviate with some improvement
for white.  Now, at last, a deviation came.  Instead of 23 bc, M-chess
played

23 Qxc4 (QxP)

a move that is not even mentioned in Bikhovsky's book.  Fortunately,
someone had a copy of ECO and informed us that 23 Qxc4 is considered
to be a "mistake" that gives black "the upper hand".  I never was able
to find any record of a game played with this move.  My guess is that
the ECO evaluation comes from some remark made by an annotator
of the Suetin-Nei game in some Russian chess magazine.  At any rate,
we were immediately wondering if M-chess had found a new mistake
in ECO.  (People find such mistakes all the time, and Stuart had
told me that M-chess "feels comfortable" after examining "38 million
nodes".)  There was also the question of what exactly "black has the
upper hand" means.  ECO has three different ways of saying that the
game favors black:  (1)  "black has a decisive advantage", (2)  "black
has the upper hand", and (3) "black stands slightly better".  In a
strict mathematical sense, black either has a forced win or he doesn't.
Presumably, "black has a decisive advantage" means that black
DOES have a forced win, but what about the other two?  Perhaps,
"black has the upper hand" means (1) black has a forced win, but
the winning moves can be hard for black to find over the board; or
(2) white can draw, but the drawing moves can be hard to find over
the board; or (3) the annotator thinks that black has a forced win,
but he is not 100% sure and wants to indicate a little uncertainty;
or (4) black has, at least, an easy draw, and perhaps a win although
the annotator has not worked out a forced win in detail.  Based on
our experience in this game, that last interpretation seems to be the
most appropriate.

The move that ECO tells black to play in this position is

23 ... d3 (P-Q6)

but that is the end of the line.  There are no more moves and no
explanations.  We were finally entirely on our own.  Credit has
to go to Renos Melas for producing the first detailed analysis to
appear in any of our discussions.  We made modifications, but
essentially, for the next few moves, we followed his plan.  I won't
present all of what he said now.  It will be easier to mention the
ideas as we go along.

There was no trouble getting everyone to go with this last move
that the book had for us.  One voter explained, "the possibilities
favor Black, who now has the initiative.  23 ... d3 is probably
best because it opens up the bishop's line of fire on f2 and forces
White to react to the attack on his bishop, keeping the momentum
going."  Another said, "Go for it."

On Tuesday, October 16th, I sent 23 ... d3 to Stuart.  A few hours
later, I received from him a note that said, "There is going to be
a delay in the response to d3.  It may be as much as a week.  I
feel we're at a critical juncture in the game, so I can't compromise
in order just to get a move sent.  Please be patient."  Six days later,
I received, "Sorry for the delay.  We appreciate the inconvenience
everyone is undergoing."  On Sunday, October 28th, I received, "The
story with our game is as follows.  I mistakenly sent back to the
designer the version of M Chess we are using in the match.  Rather
than use another, more bugfree version, we decided to use the same
one -- so he's had to send it back.  It was completely a mistake.  I
hope to have a move by next weekend."  I urged Stuart to use the
strongest, most bugfree version available.  On October 31st, he
replied, "M's 24th move is

24 Rxd3 (RxP)

This is the identical version we have been playing, though a stronger
version is ready.  The designer would prefer this version be used for
the rest of the match.  Then if the net wants to rechallenge, we will
update this version.  By the way, a local master says Black is shot.
The attack on f2 is illusory.  He says M has the advantage in position
and material."  Stuart also said that M-chess spent more than 10
hours examining 37 million nodes and coming up with the evaluation,
"Hey Mikey, he Likey!", thus producing one of the biggest mysteries
of the game.  Nobody at the time seemed to have any idea what Stuart
meant by that quote.  Eventually, someone explained to me that this
was a reference to a TV cereal commercial about a hard-to-please
little boy and his parents who have finally discovered a brand of
cereal that he is willing to eat.  (Something like that, anyway.  I
never saw the commercial, myself.)

If M-chess had played 24 Qxe6+, Renos Melas had suggested that
we reply with "24 ... Kh8 25 Bxd3 (Rxd3 loses a piece for White after
25 ... Bxf2+) Bxf2+ 26 Kxf2 Ng4+ 27 Ke2 (If Kg1, then Qh2 mates.
If 27 Ke1, then Qg3+ and mate in two.) Qg3! and White cannot
effectively avoid a killing check on f2."  Another person suggested
that we respond to 24 Qxe6+ Kh8 25 Bxd3 Bxf2+ 26 Kh1 with Nh5.

If M-chess had played 24 Bxd3, Renos Melas had suggested that we
reply with "24 ... Bxf2+ (again the same theme) 25 Kxf2 (If white
does not take the bishop and plays Kh1, we can, among other moves,
play Qe5 followed by Nh4 with a devastating attack.) Ng4+."  Kees
de Graaf pointed out that if White played 26 Ke2, we would have
an easy mate with "26 ... Rf2+ 27 Ke1 Qg3, etc."

The Renos Melas response to 24 Rxd3 was

24 ... Bxf2+ (BxP+)

but I will give his analysis of this line later.  We finally had no
opening book to tell us what to do, and people were very nervous
about it.  One advocate of 24 ... Rxd3 wrote, "The sacrifice on f2
is always in the air anyway and there's no good reason to rush
into it.  After all, if we wait, it won't be a sacrifice at all!"  The
line, 24 ... Rxd3 25 Qxd3 Qe5 26 Rb1 Ng4 27 hg Rxf2 28 Be3 Rxc2
29 Qxc2 Bxe3+ 30 Kh1 Qg3 was rejected when Renos Melas and
Dan Pless pointed out that white might play 30 Kf1.

Some people were already suggesting that we play for a draw
and one voter said, "Black can play 24 ... Qe5 25 Rxd8 Rxd8
26 Rb1 Nxe4 27 Be3 Nd2 28 Bxd2 Rxd2 29 Rf1 Rxf2 and draw
the opposite color bishop ending a pawn down", but another
objected, "If all we can get is a dubious endgame a pawn down,
I don't know what the opening book meant by `black has the
upper hand'!"

We were fairly confident that after 24 ... Bxf2+ we could at
least get a draw by perpetual check.  (I'll give the details later.)
One voter said, "Those who consider waiting before taking are
missing the boat!  Timing is all important, and this is the last
time this move will be effective.  As many have pointed out, at
worst we can force a draw by repetition from here, so why not
push it and see if we can find a kill?"  Another said simply, "Bxf2+
is my kind of move."

Stuart had encouraged me to allow the voters to have extra
time, and we took two days longer than usual to come to a
final decision.  After I sent Bxf2+ to Stuart, he told me, "Due to
a disk failure, we are reverting from M Chess 1.03 to 1.10 and
soon 1.12.  The last is the most recent and contains everything
the designer is able to throw into it."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Riechel--Chris Schumach, Correspondence, 1992

The first half is straight from book.  It's a Silician Najdorf.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Be7 8. Qf3
Qc7 9. o-o-o Nbd7 10. g4 b5 11. Bxf6 Nxf6 12. g5 Nd7 13. a3 Rb8 14. h4 b4 15.
axb4 Rb4 16. Bh3

Now Black has an innovation.  White often sacs on e6 in this variation, and
Black's next move further protects his Pe6.  A usual book move is 16... o-o.

16... Nc5 17. f5

White also concentrates on e6, and seeks to gain space and create weaknesses in
Black's camp. 

17... g6

Chris liked this move, though i would have been more partial to exchange and
simplify.  Certainly not 17... e5? 18. Nd5 winning the exchange without obvious
compensation.

18. f6 Bd8

Black might have tried Bf8 and not worried about castling for a while.  Bf8
would prevent White's "combination" that's initiated on the next move.

19. e5!?

Sharp, but probably not best.  The complications that ensue, however, seem to
favor White.  White is prepared to sacrifice an exchange.

19... Bb7

Chris disliked 19... d5 because it'll allow White a break on the Kingside with
an eventual h5.  19... d5 also locks in Blacks bishops, though he might be
able to keep White busy for a while protecting his backward King pawn.

20. exd6 

The immediate point of 19. e5!?  20... Bxf3 is met by 21. dxc7 Bxh1 (Bxc7 22.
Nxf3) 22. c8/=Q.

20... Qd7

A complicated alternative is 20... Qb6, which I planned to met with 21. Qf1
as in the text.  Chris thought 20... Qb6 weak because of 21. Qe2, and White
breaks in the center with a sac.  I don't know.  20... Qxd6 is disasterous.

21. Qf1 Bxh1

Black needn't take the exchange.  A good developing move followed by 
22. Bg2 Bxg2 23. Qxg2 would probably have been fine.

22. Qxh1 Rb6 23. Bg2 o-o 24. Nc6 Nb7

Black's last allows White to regain material equality.  But 24... Nb7 may be
best.  If 25... Kh8 then 26. h5!

25. Ne7+ Kh8 26. Bc6

This regains the exchange, but there is a fine alternative in 26. h5!

26... Rxc6 27. Qxc6 Qxc6 28. Nxc6 Bb6 29. d7 1-0

In this position, either White's c or d pawn will promote and win a piece
doing so.

Please send any comments and analysis to:  jriechel@bonnie.ics.uci.edu

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the lighter side of Chess, by Alan Brunelle

I just received the January 1967 issue of _Chess Life_, and I found it
very interesting. Just kidding - even the USCF isn't *that* slow! Actually
I found the issue when going through some stuff at home, so I thought
I would share some chess history.

---

Membership in the USCF was $10.00 / year. Newstand cover price was $0.65.

---

On the cover there was a picture of US Championship Committee Chairman
Maurice Kasper, and some guy named "Robert J. Fischer" - whoever that
is... Cover story was about Fischer winning the US Championship for
the eighth time, the story (written by Burt Hochberg) was titled: 

	"Fischer Wins U.S. Championship (Ho-Hum)"

The cross-table for the event follows:

					  1 1 1
			1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2
			- - - - - - - - - - - -
 1. Robert J. Fischer	X % 1 1 1 % 1 % 1 1 1 1  9.5 - 1.5 	+8 =3 -0
 2. Larry Evans		% X % % 1 1 % % 1 1 0 1	 7.5 - 3.5 	+5 =5 -1
 3. Pal Benko		0 % X 0 1 0 % 1 % 1 1 %	 6.0 - 5.0 	+4 =4 -3
 4. James T. Sherwin	0 % 1 X % 1 1 % % 0 1 0	 6.0 - 5.0 	+4 =4 -3
 5. Arthur B. Bisguier	0 0 0 % X % 1 0 % 1 1 1	 5.5 - 5.5 	+4 =3 -4
 6. William Addison	% 0 1 0 % X 1 0 1 % % 0	 5.0 - 6.0 	+3 =4 -4
 7. Anthony Saidy	0 % % 0 0 0 X 1 1 % 1 %	 5.0 - 6.0 	+3 =4 -4
 8. Robert Byrne	% % 0 % 1 1 0 X % % 0 0	 4.5 - 6.5 	+2 =5 -4
 9. Samuel Reshevsky	0 0 % % % 0 0 % X % 1 1	 4.5 - 6.5 	+2 =5 -4
10. Nicolas Rossolimo	0 0 0 1 0 % % % % X % 1	 4.5 - 6.5 	+2 =5 -4
11. Donald Byrne	0 1 0 0 0 % 0 1 0 % X 1	 4.0 - 7.0 	+3 =2 -6
12. Bernard Zuckerman	0 0 % 1 0 1 % 1 0 0 0 X	 4.0 - 7.0 	+3 =2 -6

[ Is it me or does there seem to be an inoordinate amount of decisive
  games here? 43 won/lost, 23 drawn. - adb ]

Some game scores and light annotation follows, here is game one:

Benko - Fischer

 1. g2g3 g7g6   2. Bg2 Bg7    3. d2d4 Nf6   4. e2e4 d7d6   5. Ne2 O-O
 6. O-O  Nbd7   7. c2c4 e7e5  8. Nbc3 c7c6  9. d4d5 c6xd5 10. Nxd5 Nxd5
11. Qxd5 Nc5   12. Rd1 Bg4   13. f2f3 Be6  14. Qxd6 Bxc4  15. Nc3 Qa5
16. Bg5  Ne6   17. Be7 Rfe8  18. Nd5 Be2   19. Rdc1 Nd4   20. Qb4 Qxb4
21. Bxb4 Nxf3+ 22. Kf2 Nd4   23. Nc7 Bh6   24. Re1 Rec8   25. Nxa8 Rc2
26. Rxe2 Rxe2+ 27. Kf1 Rxb2  28. Bc3 Rc2   29. Bxd4 e5xd4 30. e4e5 Be3
31. Bxb7 Rf2+  32. Ke1 d4d3  33. Ba6 Re2+  34. Kd1 Rxh2   35. Bxd3 Rd2+
36. Ke1  Rxd3  37. Ke2 Ra3   38. Nc7 Bd4   39. Nb5 Bxa1   40. Nxa3 Bxe5
41. g3g4 Kg7   42. Nc4 Kf6   43. Kf3 

0 - 1

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Play and Win by Ed Maillet "White"

  If the problem calls for White to move and mate in some number
 of moves, then you must find the move for White that will force
 checkmate of Black in that many number of moves (or possibly less
 if Black errs.)
  If the problem calls for White to move and win, then you must find
 the move for White that leads to an overwhelming advantage, such as
 a win of a piece, or a passed pawn which can not be prevented from
 Queening.


 White: Ra1 Rf1 Kg1 Pa2 Pb2 Pc2
        Pf2 Pf2 Pg2 Ph2 Qb3 Bc3 Pg7

 Black: Bc6 Qe6 Pf6 Pa7 Pb7 Pc7
        Ph7 Pb8 Re8 Rg8

      Black to play. Mate in 6

   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
 8 |   |.K.|   |...| R |...| R |...|
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  On a scale of 1-10, this problem
 7 |.P.| P |.P.|   |...|   |*P*| P |  rates at about a 3.5 at best. The
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  solution will be in the next issue.
 6 |   |...| B |...| Q |.P.|   |...|
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  If you have a chess problem(s) that
 5 |...|   |...|   |...|   |...|   |  you would like to have included
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  send it to me and I'll take a look
 4 |   |...|   |...|   |...|   |...|  a it. If it's a good one, I'll put
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  it in with credit given, of course.
 3 |...|*Q*|*B*|   |...|   |...|   |
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  Enjoy!
 2 |*P*|*P*|*P*|...|   |*P*|*P*|*P*|
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  ----- Ed Maillet (White)
 1 |*R*|   |...|   |...|*R*|*K*|   |  ip05872@portland.maine.edu
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
     a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h

Solution to Last Months:
   1. Bg2-d5+   Re8-e6   White: Rb1, Rf1, Kg1, Pe2, Pf2, Bg2,
   2. Bd5xe6+   Kg7-h8          Ph2, Pg3, Qb4, Nh4, Pb5
   3. Nh4-g6+   Ph7xg6   Black: Pe5, Pb6, Pf6, Pa7, Qc7, Nd7,
   4. Qb4-h4++                  Pg7, Ph7, Rd8, Re8, Bf8, Kg8
   or                    White to play. Mate in 4.
   1. Bg2-d5+   Kg7-h8
   2. Nh4-g6+   Ph7xg6
   3. Qb4-h4++

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chess Bits Q&A by John Pope

Q:  John, here is a game between two Life Novices.  As white, I thought
I had the initiative early in the game and thought I could mate Black 
soon, but lost the combination somehow.  Can you find what went wrong?

	USCF Correspondence Match, 1991/92
	Colle Opening

	LN Dunn		LN Dockery
1.	d4		Nf6
2.	Nf3		d5
3.	e3		e5
4.	de		Ne4
5.	Bd3		Bf5
6.	O-O		g5
7.	Nbd2		g4
8.	Nh4		c6
9.	Nxf5		Nxd2
10.	Bxd2		Be7
11.	Qxg4		Nd7
12.	Ng7+		Kf8
13.	e4		Nxe5
14.	Ne6+		fe
15.	Bh6+		Kh8
16.	Qh5+		Nf7
17.	Bg7		Rg8
18.	Qxh7		Kd7
19.	ed		cd
20.	Bb5+		Kc8
21.	Rac1		Ng5
22.	Qg6		Bf8
23.	f4		Bc5
24.	Kh1		Qe7
25.	fg		Rxg7 [ and now its downhill ]
26.	Qh5		Rxg5
27.	Qh8+		Qd8
28.	Qh7		a6
29.	h4		ab
30.	hg		Qxg5
 
and 0-1 soon.  What did White do wrong?  How did the initiative get 
lost, or is it that white really never had anything?