From: smd@occlusal.rutgers.edu (Stanley Dunn)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Chess Bits Issue #15
Keywords: here it is!
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:08:16 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


		CHESS BITS
		ISSUE #15
		DECEMBER 14, 1992

Editorial Staff:

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

In this issue:

	- Some comments from your editor
	- Users versus MChess, part IV by Louir Blair
	- Reprint of ``Building an Expert Chess Player'' by Frank McFadden
	- On the lighter side by Tim Love
	- Bits Mates ``To Play and Win'' by Ed Maillet ``White''
	- 1992 World Open game by Howard Wachtel
	- GNUchess game (Sicilian) by Alan Brunelle
	- 1992 Midwest Class Championship games from Howard Wachtel

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

			Editorial Comments

	Many, many thanks to all of you who have contributed to Chess
Bits, especially Louis Blair, Ed Maillet ``White'', Alan Brunelle, 
John Pope, Howard Wachtel and Jim Reichel.  With this issue, Louis' series
draws to a close and I hope that you all enjoyed reading it.  Also, due
to work constraints, John Pope retires from doing game analysis.

	My bits file is empty!  Please send your contributions: games,
articles or even a nice series like Louis'.  Perhaps we can hear from
some of you who play variants - like those of you in the progressive
tournament.  How about some of you from the Autumn 92 tournament? Your
contributions welcome.  

	Best Wishes to all of you for a joyous holiday season and in
the New Year.  

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

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
17. Ng5 h6
18. Nxe6 fe 
19. b3  Bc5
20. Rd1 Nd4 
21. cd  ed 
22. Nxc4 bc 
23. Qxc4 d3
24. Rxd3 Bxf2+

and now, the final installment from Louis:


25 Kxf2 (KxB)

When we were debating our 24th move, someone said, "I would
very much like the group to seriously look at what we would do
after Kh1," but only one person took up the subject, suggesting
that we might reply to 25 Kh1 with 25 ... Qb6.  Everyone was
pretty confident that M-chess would go for the bishop.  (We never
did regain the piece or the pawn.)  With my limited abilities, I
don't see how black could have accomplished much after 25 Kh1
Qb6 26 Rxd8.  I'm inclined to think that 25 ... Qxc4 26 bc Bd4
27 Rb1 Nxe4 would have been a better response to 25 Kh1.

25 ... Qb6+ (Q-N3+)

This also was a move that had been suggested by Renos Melas.
("It is really tempting to give the discovered check but I couldn't
find a satisfactory continuation.")  Nobody was eager to play
25 ... Nxe4+ 26 Kg1 Qb6+ after Ian Chen pointed out that white
might then play 27 Be3, and 25 ... Ng4+ 26 Ke1 did not seem to
lead anywhere either.  The idea 25 ... Qh2 lost all its followers
after Mark Kernighan noticed the reply 26 Rf3.  The general
attitude seemed to be, "I vote for 25 ... Qb6+ because I see at least
a draw there (still not more than that, though) whereas Ng4+
and Nxe4+ look somewhat doubtful to me, as well as extremely
complicated, which is probably to M-Chess's advantage.  I feel
that there are several ways M-Chess could go wrong (and lose)
when it tries to avoid repetition.  Even if M-Chess would be
happy with the repetition, we could without risk (I think)
switch to a comfortable endgame."

26 Kg3 (K-N3)

Renos Melas had pointed out that we could respond to 26 Re3
with 26 ... Ng4+.  If white had played 26 Ke2, we were prepared
to reply with 26 ... Rc8 and, at the very least, regain all of our
lost material.  Dan Pless had noted that we could answer
26 Ke1 with 26 ... Qg1+.  (27 Ke2 Qxg2+ 28 Ke1 Nxe4.)  26 Be3
was the possibility that had made us most nervous until Kees
de Graaf had noticed that we would be able to play 26 ... Ng4+
27 Ke2 Rf2+ 28 Bxf2 Qxf2+ 29 Kd1 Ne3+.  Renos Melas had
pointed out that 30 Kc1 Qf1+ was a particularly effective
continuation.

26 ... Qb8+ (Q-N1+)

We thought about playing 26 ... Rc8, but we were a little bit
uncertain about lines like 27 Qd4 Qb8+ 28 e5 Rxc2 29 Kh2 Nd5
30 Rd2 Rf4 31 Qxf4 Nxf4 32 Rxc2 Qxe5 33 Bb2 Qe4.  One person
said "At first it looks like White is doing well with the two rooks
for a queen.  But the active placement of the Black queen and knight
and the passed pawn might compensate.  Black must keep the
pressure on or else the rooks wander to the seventh and Black can
get into big trouble very fast."  Another replied, "This line is not
better for Black.  Winning attempts for Black end up with the
worse position.  It's tricky but I see nothing worth playing for in
this line and White could be slightly better (material)."  People
were not in a rush to try 26 ... Rc8 27 Qd4 Qxd4 28 Rxd4 Rxc2
either, although one person wrote, "It looks like black will at
least get his pawn back (probably the e4 pawn) and keep some
pressure.  On the other hand, the outside passed pawn and bishop
vs. knight might tend to favor White somewhat, but I have the
feeling that this is the kind of position that M-chess might not be
so very good at."  26 ... Nh5+ 27 Kh2 did not seem enticing.  Dan
Pless was the first to suggest that we could chase the white king
back and forth with 26 ... Qb8+ 27 Kf2 Qb6+ 28 Kg3 and at this
point everyone seemed to think that white would have no choice.
It seemed best to go for at least one repeat of the position before
trying anything else.  Somebody might come up with a new
good idea, or M-chess might believe it still had the advantage
and do something stupid in an effort to avoid a draw by repetition.

One person did complain about the apparent conservative attitude
of everyone, "why sacrifice if all you can think about after the sac
is how to win it back????", but he went along with nearly everyone
else, voting for 26 ... Qb8+, and he never did offer any suggestions
for an improvement over the perpetual check.

While we were debating about our move, Stuart sent me a note
that said, "You have a draw.  If you try to overextend for more,
Black should lose.  Analysis by the author and a local master.
Precise play is required by both sides."  I asked if this was intended
as a draw offer.  Stuart replied, "No draw offer."

Stuart told me, "The search took 84,193,489 nodes and the move is

27 Kf2 (K-B2)

M Chess thought for about 24 hours on this one."

If M-chess had played 27 Kf3, we would have replied with 27 ... Nd5+
28 Ke2 Qh2 29 ed Qxg2+ 30 Ke3 ed 31 Rxd5 Rxd5 and white would
have been reduced to tossing away material in order to delay mate.
If M-chess had played 27 Bf4, we would have followed Peter Jansen's
suggestion, 27 ... Nh5+ 28 Kh2 Qxf4+ 29 Kh1 Ng3+ 30 Kg1 Nf1
31 Qxe6+ Kh7 32 Rf3 Qh2+ 33 Kxf1 Rd2.

27 ... Qb6+ (Q-N3+)

Since many people were away for Thanksgiving Vacation, I asked if
we could have an extra day or two.  Stuart replied, "Sure, an extra
day or two is fine," but it did not do us any good.  Having our queen
on b8 instead of c7 did not seem to help any.  27 ... Nxe4+ and 27 ... Ng4+
still did not seem to work.  27 ... Qh2 still had the problem that white
might reply with Rf3.  27 ... Rc8 looked worse than 26 ... Rc8.  Somebody
suggested that we might consider 27 ... Rxd3, but nobody felt up to
doing any investigation, at the time.  The prevailing opinion was, "It
does appear that a draw by repetition is imminent.  Let's give the
machine a chance to screw up, cause just about any other response
than repetition does not look good for White."  If there was something
better than 27 ... Qb6+ in our position, we thought that we would
have one more chance to find it after 27 ... Qb6+ 28 Kg3 Qb8+ 29 Kf2.

The difficult decision came to M-chess first.  If M-chess thought that
it had a winning alternative to Kg3 in this position, this was its last
chance to be sure of being able to play it.  After 28 Kg3 Qb8+ 29 Kf2,
black would be able to  claim a draw with the move 29 ... Qb6+.

Late on Thursday, November 29th, I had sent 27 ... Qb6+ to Stuart.  Three
days later, I received, "This weekend saw an unfortunate event:  a disk
crash.  The M Chess move will be delayed several days I'm afraid."  About
28 hours later, Stuart told me that M-chess was playing

28 Kf3 (K-B3)

For the second time (the first was on move 23), M-chess had played a
move that we had completely failed to anticipate in our preceding
discussion.  Nobody had imagined that advancing the king on the
open file was a serious possibility.  As we looked at the move at the
time, we were not sure what the consequences would be, but I am
now confident that after 28 Kf3, black DOES have a forced win.  The
status of the position after white's 23rd move, Qxc4, seems far more
uncertain, despite the claim of the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings
that 23 Qxc4 is a mistake that gives black the upper hand.  If there
is a forced win for black at THAT point, we never felt confident that
we had found it.  We never saw any way to improve our play, and as
far as we could tell, if white had played 28 Kg3, we would have had
nothing better than a draw with 28 ... Qb8+ 29 Kf2 Qb6+.  Anyone
see any improvements for black?

Fortunately for us, M-chess (with a pawn-and-two-bishops-against-
a-knight advantage) evidently thought that it should be winning and
was willing to deviate in order to avoid repeating the position.

28 ... Nd7+ (N-Q2+)

To this day, I still sometimes get notes asking why we didn't play
28 ... Nd5+.  Of course, since 27 ... Nd5+ would have been a very
satisfactory response to 27 Kf3, people were naturally inclined to
consider 28 ... Nd5+, but strange as it may seem, there doesn't seem
to be anything definite for black after 28 ... Nd5+ 29 Kg4.  After
28 ... Nd5+ 29 Kg4, the white king looks very exposed, but nobody
then or since has been able to figure out a way to get at it.  (If you
think that you find something, PLEASE do not send it to me.  It
would be far better to post your idea on rec.games.chess and let
everyone examine it.)  With most proposals black soon looses the
knight, and, with a two piece disadvantage, black needs something
pretty definite.  Unfortunately, the two white bishops guard a lot
of important squares, and the black queen (now on b6 instead of b8)
can no longer get quickly to the kingside.  With only the two rooks
left to help, it just doesn't seem to be enough.  

Two days after we received 28 Kf3, nobody could think of anything
better than 28 ... Nd5+ 29 Kg4 Nf6+, allowing white to repeat the
position with 30 Kf3 or, even worse, take away whatever opportunities
we had by playing 30 Kg3.  If there were something good to play in
this position, this was probably our only chance to find it.  28 ... Nh5+
and 28 ... Rc8 were proposed, but neither attracted much interest.  The
general opinion seemed to be, "I suspect a draw is imminent."  One
person proposed 28 ... Nd7+ 29 Kg3 Qb8+ 30 e5 Qxe5+ 31 Bf4 Qxa1
32 Qxe6+ Kh8 33 Rxd7 Rxd7 34 Qxd7 Qe1+ 35 Kg4 Qe2+ 36 Kg3 Qxc2.
The first objection to this was, "White might try to escape via e2," but
a satisfactory continuation after 28 ... Nd7+ 29 Ke2 was found (more on
this next time), and interest in the idea increased.  After a closer look,
Bill Vaughn noticed that "White can avoid dropping a bishop with
35 Kh2", and people looked for alternatives to 28 ... Nd7+ 29 Kg3 Qb8+.
Somebody suggested 28 ... Nd7+ 29 Kg3 Rc8, but this idea did not seem
to be going anywhere after the response 30 Qd4 Qb8+ 31 Qd6 was
noticed by  Kees de Graaf.  Then came the breakthrough!  Dan Pless
was the hero of the hour, coming up with a response to 28 ... Nd7+
29 Kg3 and analysis to back it up.  Others built on his idea, but he
laid the groundwork.

I think this is the most instructive moment in the game.  A move
that looks like a retreat turns out to produce a forced win.  From
time to time Soltis includes a position in his monthly Chess Life quiz
that has a solution involving a knight retreat.  Nevertheless, it is
easy to neglect to check such possibilities, forgetting how quickly
the knight can bound back into the game in a new powerful position.

By the fourth day, the vote had already turned in favor of 28 ... Nd7+,
but most people still had not yet voted.  Stuart agreed that it would
be okay to let people think for another day.  By the fifth day,
essentially everyone agreed that 28 ... Nd7+ was our move.  This
was only the second time in the game (the first was the great Marshall
debate on move 8) when we changed our mind after the first two
days.  Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to think that we really
needed only two days.  In addition to the fact that our change of
mind on this occasion turned out to be quite important, the four
days that we used for most moves allowed us to have valuable
discussions that increased the amount of communication and
agreement among the players.

29 Kg3 (K-N3)

The plausible-looking 29 Ke2 would have been answered by 29 ... Qf2+
30 Kd1 Nc5 (threatening 31 ... Qf1+ 32 Kd2 Rf2+ 33 Kc3 Nxd3), and
white would have been unable to avoid serious losses.

29 ... Ne5 (N-K4)

We had looked at 29 ... Qb8+ and 29 Rc8, but neither seemed effective.
Dan Pless came up with 29 ... Ne5, and although we did not see a
forced win at the time, everyone felt confident that this move would
give us a good game.

Now, Stuart sent me a resignation, thus catching everyone by
surprise.  At the time, we thought that we were doing okay,
but none of the participants had worked out a forced win.  (One
person even tried to argue that M-chess might have won.)  To
this day, we are not sure exactly what the reason for the
resignation was.  The only explanation that I received from
Stuart was, "Marty Hirsch resigned after one night's analysis
of the position after Nd7.  Marty has a machine that is twice as
fast as the one used in the experiment and so was able to come
to some type of conclusion.  While I was surprised by the resignation,
the following morning, it was obvious that the humans played
impressively when assaying Bxf2."  I am now convinced that
we did have a forced win (after 28 Kf3), but it is far from obvious,
and I regard it as unfortunate that we will now never know if
we would have been able to find the right moves as the game
progressed.  I think the best way to explain the forced win is to
work through a hypothetical continuation of the game.  This
will enable me to show what we had worked out and what
remained for us to do in order to win.  I'll also be able to give
credit to those who contributed the ideas.  In what follows, the
moves that I will give for white do NOT necessarily represent
what Mchess would have played or what it was thinking when
the resignation took place.  For white, I will just choose the moves
that seem to postpone disaster the longest.  The black moves will
be what we had talked about playing, until we get past the
end of the analysis that we had at the time.  After that, I will
use moves for black that force a win.

HYPOTHETICAL CONTINUATION:

30 Be3 (B-K3)

If white tries to hold onto everything with 30 Qc3 Rxd3+ 31 Bxd3,
then (as Peter Jansen has pointed out) he gets mated in three
with 31 ... Qf2+ 32 Kh2 Nf3+ 33 Kh1 Qg1.

If white tries to save the queen and let the rook go with 30 Qa4,
then the extra tempo only delays the forced mate.  After 30 Qa4,
black has a forced mate in seven:  for example, 30 ... Rxd3+
31 Kh2 Nf3+ 32 Kg3 Nd2+ 33 Kg4 Rf4+ 34 Kh5 Qc5+ 35 e5 Qxe5+
36 Kg6 Rg3.

Attempts to give up the queen and get approximate compensation
also fail.  Dan Pless noted that 30 Rxd8 permits 30 ... Qf2+ 31 Kh2
Nf3+ 32 Kh1 Qg1 mate.  After 30 Qc3 Rxd3+ 31 Qxd3 Nxd3 32 Bxd3,
the bishop falls bacause of 32 ... Qd6+.  30 Ba3 Nxc4 31 Bxf8 is
another disaster because black can capture the bishop AND save
his knight with 31 ... Qc7+ 32 Kf2 Rxf8+.

30 Be3, directly attacking the enemy queen is the only thing left
to try.

30 ... Rxd3 (RxR)

This move continues the Dan Pless plan.  Some moves are hard
to explain in any way other than, "it works".  We will see why
it works.

31 Qxd3 (QxR)

Black threatened 31 ... Qxe3+ and (if the queen had not moved)
32 ... Nxc4.  31 Qxd3 is the only way to prevent this.

31 ... Qc7 (Q-B2)

Another Dan Pless it-works move.  In situations like this (with
both queens under attack) you want to move your queen out of
danger and, if possible, create a new threat at the same time.  This
is exactly what 31 ... Qc7 accomplishes.  The possible discover check
gives white serious problems.

32 Bb6 (B-N6)

32 Bf4 would have been answered by the Dan Pless suggestion,
32 ... Rxf4.  Then there would be the following possibilities:
(1) 33 Qxa6 Rf6 34 Qb5 Rg6+ 35 Kf4 Qc3 36 Qe8+Kh7 37 Bd3
   Nxd3+ 38 Kf3 Nf4+ (If 34 Qe2+, then 

32 ... Qxb6 (QxQB)


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


		BUILDING AN EXPERT CHESS PLAYER

			Frank McFadden

	I am not primarily a chess player.  I am a cognitive scientist.  
But I have tried over the years to become an expert, and experimented
with several different ideas and approaches.  If I were to begin
today to train a beginner with moderate talent, my program, with 
efficiency in mind, would have two phases.  The first phase, with 
a stronger emphasis on tactics, ought to result in performance in
the 1600+ range, while the second, more rounded phase, would complete
the drive to expert performance, over a period that might be roughly
measured as 100-200 tournament games worth of experience.

	The first phase is concerned with what computer scientists
might refer to as microprogramming.  The important low-level pattern
recognition procedures need to be firmly established.  Method: read
exactly one good introductory book, then play a mixture of speed games
and tournament games to reinforce the microprogramming.  The main 
point: conscious attention is required to focus on two matters that
may be very obvious from the beginning to very talented players, but
which could easily be missed by the average talent.  Most important,
you must learn to recognize square control very quickly.  You should
not need to spend much conscious effort to know how many of your
pieces are attacking each square, and how many of your opponents'.
This should require only a split second for central squares, and 
should be an efficient procedure for peripheral squares.  As a corollary,
you should develop the ability to calculate quickly the changes of square
control that might result from move sequences.  One specific low level
procedure that should be nurtured in this phase deserves special mention.  
You should develop the ability to see very quickly all the squares 
controlled by a knight, and then all those controllable within two
moves.
	I believe that many A level players have been handicapped 
by insufficient attention to these considerations at the early
phase of chess learning, when they may have been less ambitious.
On the other hand, a player who successfully evolves efficient procedures
at this phases will find the remainder of the learning process to be
much easier.

	There is an imtermediate phase which I take for granted, because
I have never seen a chess player neglect it.  This is the learning
of tactical patterns and basic strategical principles  which is initiated
either by that one good introductory book or by experience.  I won't plug 
any book in particular, but must say that some are not good enough, and 
therefore a waste of time.  An enjoyable and relatively easy book which should
be studied at the same time is Capablanca's "Chess Fundamentals."  This
second book introduces some endgame analysis in a good proportion, which
will contribute to the foundation needed for the second major phase.  
One further remark.  Full games should be studied, and a reasonable 
attempt should be made to understand each move, as one would do in a 
correspondence game.  Approximately 4-6 hours should be devoted to
a game of average length and complexity.

	In the second phase, some of the more subtle aspects of the game
must be learned.  A strong opening repertoire must be developed, strategy
must be better understood, and many, many highly specific positions and
positional themes must be learned.  In addition, it is necessary to 
develop an efficient, disciplined procedure for move analysis.  Endgame 
preparation is also necessary, but can be developed over a longer 
period of time.  My experience has shown that tournament games below
the expert level are seldom won in the endgame.

	Move calculation is the natural follow-up to the microprogramming
of the first phase.  "Think Like a Grandmaster" by Kotov is the best
book that I have seen on the theory of good move calculation procedures,
while the recent "Secrets of Grandmaster Play" by Nunn comes closest to
demonstrating the practice.  It is probably better not to read Kotov's
book, however,  since the book fails to emphasize that time-saving
decisions must be made in order to eliminate the inevitable time-trouble
that would result from attempts to analyze each move exhaustively.  I 
suggest as a goal that you should aim to caclulate an average of 4-6
half-moves in advance, but that it is necessary to develop an intuition
on how and when to prune the tree of variations.  A good way to develop
this is by playing correspondence chess, but giving yourself a time limit
for each move.  Unexpected responses will tell you where you pruned
unwisely.  

	There are two good ways to continue the development of a good
move calculation procedure, both of them essential.  First, you must
analyze your tournament games carefully, as if you were preparing an
article for a chess magazine.  Second, you must continue the analysis
of complete games.  The best sources for complete games are those
annotated by leading players who are also good writers.  I consider
Nunn's "Secrets of Grandmaster Play" to be the best of these, i.e., 
the one most conducive to the development of a good move analysis
procedure.  Others will be mentioned in the list of recommended books
at the end of this essay.

	Opening preparation is a part of the game that A level players
attend to very closely, because at the A level of play, this area of
study produces the best results.  On the other hand, I'm not so sure that
A level players approach opening preparation in the way that will best
further their progress to expert and beyond.  

	Both theoretical and practical study of openings are needed.
This is partly because there are many opening variations that are good,
but not to be found in ECO or in any Batsford monograph.  "The Ideas
Behind the Chess Openings" by Fine is the best introduction to theory,
and has been frequently recommended, but one must be very well aware 
that some of the concrete variations are no longer precise.  Pachman's
book is a more modern treatment, and well written, but probably is less
effective in getting across the idea of what one needs to think about
during the opening phase of the game.  After theoretical grounding, the
development of a practical opening repertoire actually requires several
years of study at several different levels.

	First, I would discourage players from adopting an approach 
to the opening such as always playing the Colle or the Stoewall as
white.  While this may be effective to some extent, and might provide
a relatively quick way for a beginner to reach middle A level, I feel
that one who adopts such a plan is already limiting their horizon's and
also missing out on one of the most exciting parts of chess - the part that
is somehow concerned with the Quixotic quest to determine whether 
chess is a first player win game, or a draw with best play.  These 
safe systems also generally limit one's exposure to different types
of positions that are important to a rounded understanding of the game.

	On the other hand, Keene's "Opening Repertoire for White"
would be a good place to start from.  This covers only 1 d4, but 
does build up the skeleton for a serious opening playbook.  Best of all,
it demonstrates the kind of comprehensive preparation that is necessary
for successful tournament play.  I don't know of any comparable book
for those who prefer to open 1 e4.  Further, I don't know of any
Black repertory books that I would recommend - most of them follow the
expedient of using the French defense as a switch-hitter with the 
Orthodox.  Possible, but avoids mainstream Black defenses, and therefore
not suitable for a program that does not limit the horizon of the 
evolving player.  There is one other specialty book that can be highly 
recommended:  Nunn's "Beating the Sicilian."  This could form the 
statistical backbone of a repertory based on 1 e4, good through the 
A level where the Ruy Lopez is less often played.  At the higher
levels, however, systematic study of the Ruy Lopez would be increasingly
necessary.
	Ultimately, you must build your own opening repertory with thorough
research, both at home and over the board.  Starting from a basic outline,
you must identify those areas where additional preparation will pay off
best, and then prepare them.  Batsford type books can be enjoyable for
this purpose, but are only a beginning.  The important "final" phase of 
opening preparation requires consulation of recent informants (or a good
chess database).  In this phase, it is necessary to identify trends in 
GM play, and the reasons for these trends.  You should try to discover
what GMs DON"T say in the informant analyses, and further, to find
your own theoretical novelties.  This level of preparation will eventually
lead to potential victories over the strongest opponents.

	I briefly discuss strategy.  First of all, DON'T read a strategy
book during your first 10 tournaments worth of experience.  Although
strategic thinking is important, and sometimes truly clarifies all of 
the specific moves needed to win certain positions, the great danger is
that strategy is written of in generalities, and many of the positions
you will encounter are exceptions to well-known strategic rules.  For
example, I lost several games in which I preferred bishops to knights
based on general principles which I learned in strategy books.  This 
is in fact an excellent example of the kind of trade-off that requires
the kind of subtlety that can differentiate an expert from an A player.
My opinion is that it is far better to learn strategic principles from
specific positions, and only later read about the general principles.
In fact, each opening subvariation has its own strategic characteristics,
so that I really consider this aspect of chess study best relegated to
the area of opening study or deep analysis of individual games.  Pachman's
book is pretty good, but it might be more effective to never read a book
on chess strategy.  Haven't computers taught us that a very primitive 
notion of strategy is sufficient, provided that it is enhanced by 
extremely efficient move calculation?!

	Endgame study is important, and increasingly necessary for
good results as one advances closer to the expert level.  I consider 
Pachman's "Chess Endings for the Practical Player" to be by far the
best text for endgame study.  The proportionate emphasis on types
of endgames is particularly well-chosen, avoiding the encyclopedic
approach of most other endgame books.  It might also be wise to
supplement this text with Smyslov's "Rook Endings."  For the aspiring
master, the series edited by Averbakh is also highly recommended.  It is
extremely clear and well-written, but also encyclopaedic.

	Ultimately, when the foundation has been laid with proper study,
progress depends on the understanding of entire games.  As previously 
mentioned, one should heed the frequently heard advice to analyze one's 
own games - and I should add that this analysis should be very thorough.
Well-annotated games are also very useful.  Fischer's
"60 Memorable Games," Speelman's anthology, and most books written by
world champions (or Reuben Fine) are generally far superior to other
collections.  The other collections, in fact, should be regarded as
superficially annotated games, as are those in the Informants.  These
should also be consulted, but far less reliance should be placed on the 
analysis.  I conclude with a short list of game collections that I 
can recommend highly, in addition to those already mentioned.

For Quality:

Alekhine		My Best Games
Alekhine		On the Road to the World Championship
			(including match with Capablanca)
Bronstein		200 Open Games
Karpov			My Best Games
Kasparov		World Championship books
Kasparov		The Test of Time (incl. match with Korchnoi)
Keene			World Championship books
Tal 			My Life and Games
Timman			Art of Chess Analysis

For completeness:

Moran			World Championship: Steinitz to Alekhine
Gligoric/Wade		The World Chess Championship 
			(1948 Tournament - Fischer-Spassky I)
Tartakower/DuMont	500 Master Games of Chess


	This plan is not an easy one.  Depending on the time available
for study, and the level of talent, it might require many years.  But 
the plan is an efficient one.  If you follow it, you will eventually 
succeed.

			Frank McFadden
			[An A player ready to prove expertise.]

WARNING:  on speed games:  Some speed play is good for development of
quick tactical calculation.  But it is easy to play too many speed games,
which is fun but can lead to shallow thinking and impatience.  You must be 
aware that every chess game is a learning experience and affects your
play in subsequent games.  The kind of learning that occurs in speed games
must not be permitted to override the learning that occurs in tournament
games.


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


"Chess is a pool where the gnat can drink and elephant bathe" goes an
old indian proverb, but when you first go to a chess club you may feel
out of your depth. Here's some advise from an old campaigner

OPENINGS :- This is the part of the game where amateurs can give
themselves away all too easily. Every opening's been so exhaustively
analysed that it really doesn't matter what you play nowadays. Openings 
fall into some clearly defined categories. I suggest you pick the type that
appeals to you and stick to it.

   Animals - Dragon, Hedgehog, Bird's, Pelikan.
   Music   - Giocco Piano.
   Travel  - Catalan, Old Indian, Cambridge Springs, English, Spanish,
             French, London, Polish, Leningrad Dutch.
   Biography - Sozin, Lasker, Trompovsky.
   Who-Dunnit - Poisoned pawn, Spike.

For beginners I recommend the travel openings.

Vegetarian have a problem: they can't for instance play the 
Fried Liver Attack or the Wimp variation of the Sicilian (so called
because it was invented in a Wimpy Hamburger bar). There is however
a recommended variation of the Silician called the Cabbage variation
(the letters of `cabbage' giving the order of the pawn moves).
Marxist players will of course have to steer clear of the Kings Gambit,
Queen's Indian etc. Marxist Vegetarians should take up checkers instead.

JARGON :- 
   Book Rabbit - A poor player who depends on opening theory.
   A Cheapo - A move with an obvious threat.
   Taken to the cleaners - Smashed.
   Taken to the laundry - Slaughtered.
   Bunnybashing - Taking Book Rabbits to the laundry.
   It's Double-edged - "I'm losing but I'm damned if I'll admit it."
   Intermezzo/Schwischenzug - "I can play bad moves in many languages."

ETIQUETTE :-
Befriend your opponent before the game. Chat about their recent games
and offer them jelly babies. Sit at the wrong side of the board. When
your opponent points out your error, say "Sorry, I'm a little 
colorblind." Look hurt when they don't laugh. When they play their
first move let an expression or surprize then resignation pass across
your face.

Use foreign (preferably Russian) algebraic if they use descriptive.
If they use algebraic, switch to LONG descriptive. Write `castles
(short)', not `O-O'.

Treat the clock at all times with distain, as a tiresome limitation
on your creativity. Remember that if the game's going badly then 
lose on time.

Take a thick book (preferably on Relativistic Quantum Mechanics) and
read it during the game, glancing up briefly to play your moves.
Ensure that the title is very legible. An alternative strategy, only
to be employed by more advanced students, is to carry around a new 
Fred Reinfeld book.

When capturing a piece use an elegant one-handed sweep. It is worth
practising this at home beforehand. When you have to move a rook down 
the board, especially in endings, Curl it. Vary the way you make
your moves. If your opponent is in time trouble then find a fatuously
impressive move, slam the piece down, sigh, beam sympathetically at
your opponent and put the top on your pen.

Develop idiosyncracies. These can easily play on an opponent's mind.
Many are trade secrets but I shall pass on 2 ideas to get you started
  1. move your knights in a very deliberate `L' shape.
  2. ensure that all the knights point forward.

At Post Mortems the general rule is to appear far worse than you are.
If you win, you could say "It's a funny old game". If you lose, 
mumble about Zeitnot.

If none of the above work you can go for broke.
1. One English chess player used to place a voodoo doll beside the board 
   which he stabbed before the start of the game. This ploy is worth 
   looking into but is, I feel, too extreme to be of general use.
2. Korchnoi used to tear his hair out - not any longer. 
3. Tony Miles has been known to play lying on his chest, saying that he 
   has a back complaint. It worked for him. It might work for you.


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


To Play and Win
  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: Kg1 Pg2 Pb3 Bd3 Rf3 Pa4
        Qe4 Ph4 Rf5 Pe6

 Black: Pd4 Pa5 Pc5 Nf6 Ph6 Rc7
        Re7 Pg7 Qe8 Kh8

      White to play and Win.

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

A Solution to Last Months:
   1. Qe6-h3    Pf2-f3    White: Ra1 Rf1 Kg1 Pa2 Pb2 Pc2
   2. Rg8xg7    Rf1-f2           Pf2 Pf2 Pg2 Ph2 Qb3 Bc3 Pg7
   3. Bc6xf3    Kg1-f1    Black: Bc6 Qe6 Pf6 Pa7 Pb7 Pc7
   4. Bf3xg2    Kf1-g1           Ph7 Pb8 Re8 Rg8
   5. Bg2-f3    Rf2-g2    Black to play. Mate in 6
   6. Qh3xg2++


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


   World Open, July 5, 1992, Round 8

White:  Yves Farges (2109)     Black:  Howard Wachtel  (2188)

          1 e4 c5 2 f4 d5 3 ed5 Nf6 4 Bb5+ Nbd7
5 c4 a6 6 Ba4 b5 7 cb5 Nxd5 8 Nc3 (a TN; Informant 43 game 176 continued
with 8 Nf3, although I didn't know that before this game.) Bb7 9 Nxd5
Bxd5 10 Nf3 e6 11 ba6 Bd6 12 O-O O-O  13 Bb5 Bxf4  14 d6 Bd6  15 Be3 cd4
16 Bxd4 Nc5 17 Bxc5 Bxc5+ 18 Kh1 Qf6 19 Qe2 Qh6 20 a4 Be3 21 Ra3 Bf4
22 Rd3 Rac8 23 Rdd1 Rc5 24 b4 Rc3 25 Rd3 Rc7 26 Re1 Ba8 27 Red1 g5 28 Rd8
g4 29 Rxf8+ Kxf8 30 Rd8+ Kg7 31 Rxa8 Rc1+ and White resigned shortly.


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


[ xboard game file -- Wed Dec  9 08:16:39 1992 ]
[ adb@Sparcstation1 vs. gnuchessx@Sparcstation1 ]

1. e4 c5; 2. Nf3 d6; 3. d4 cxd4; 4. Nxd4 Nf6; 5. Nc3 a6; 6. Be2 e5;
7. Nb3 Be7; 8. Be3 Be6; 9. Bf3 O-O;
	
[ This may be too early. Simple development with Nc6 makes sense. ]

10. Qd2 Nc6; 11. O-O-O Bxb3?!;

[ This seems premature, and certainly not forced. Better is either b7-b5 or
  perhaps Qc7 or Qa5, with the idea of Rfd8, Rac8. ]

12. cxb3(!) Qa5; 13. Kb1 Rfc8?!;

[ It is not clear that with the Black Q in front of the Q-side pawns that
  the KR belongs on this square. The question is: What will the role of
  the QR be in this position? I still think that Rac8 and Rfd8 are better
  locations. ]

14. g4 Nb4; 15. g5 Ne8!?;

[ This is the first time either of my computer opponents has played this.
  I think it is an interesting idea to hold the d6 square with both the
  Ne8 and Be7, as well as thoughts of Be7-f8 shoring up the K-side and 
  trying to clear the 7th rank for R protection and maneuvering. However
  it is a bit passive and is not as forceful as the usual maneuver Nf6-d7-c5 
  with pressure on the d3 square. ]

16. h4 b5; 

[ I don't see what the pawn storm will do with the Black Q and N in the
  way on a5 & b4. However, it does provide for a future Ra7-c7/d7 rook
  lift. ]

17. h5 Rab8!?; 18. g6 Nf6;

[ Good idea I believe, shores up h7 and re-activates the N vs. e4/d5. ]

19. Rdg1!?

[ I got lost round here. I don't know the best way to continue the attack. 
  I figure I must have missed something on move 20 as well, as the GNUchess
  evaluation became -200 after move 19, but then went to -13 by move 21. ]

19. ... Nc6; 20. gxh7+ Kxh7; 21. Rg2!? b4; 22. Nd5!

[ It is interesting to note the time spent by White here (this is a 
  5-minute game): Move 18: 27 seconds, 19: 25, 20: 59!, 21: 14, 22: 27.
  (I had spent a total of 37 seconds on moves 1-17.) After losing the 
  thread on moves 19-21, I finally came up with a good plan starting 
  with move 22. ]

22. ... Nxd5; 23. exd5 Nd8; 24. Be4+ Kh8; 25. Bg5 Bf8; 26. h6 g6; 
27. Bf6+ Bg7; 28. hxg7+ Kg8; 29. Rh8 mate


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


   White:  James Hodina (2045)   Black:  James Ellis (2193)
   Midwest Class Championships, July 1992

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6 6 Be2 Bg7 7 O-O O-O 8 Bg5 Nc6
9 Nb3 Be6 10 Kh1 a5 11 a4 Rc8 12 f4 Nb4 13 Nd4 Bc4 14 Ndb5 d5 15 Bxc4 Rxc4
16 ed5 Nfxd5 17 Qe2 Qc8 18 Bxe7 Re8 19 Nd6 Rxe7 20 Qxc4 Qxc4 21 Nxc4 Nxc3
22 bc3 Bxc3 23 Ra3 Nd5 24 Nb6 Nxb6 25 Rxc3 Nxa4 26 Ra3 Re4 27 g3 Rc4 28 Rf2
b6 29 Rb3 Rc6 30 Rb5 Nc3 31 Re5 a4 32 Re8+ Kg7 33 Ra8 b5 34 Rf3 b4 35 Rxc3
Rxc3 36 Rxa4 Rxc2 37 Rxb4 h5 1/2-1/2


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


   White:  Bill Fuller (2049)   Black:  Gene Scott (2146)
   Midwest Class Championships, July 1992

1 d4 c5 2 Nf3 cd4 3 Nxd4 g6 4 g3 Bg7 5 Bg2 Nc6 6 6 c3 Qc7 7 O-O d6 8 Na3
Bd7 9 h3 h5 10 Nf3 Qc8 11 Kh2 Nh6 12 Bxh6 Bxh6 13 h4 O-O 14 Nc4 b5 15 Ncd2
Rb8 16 Ne4 Na5 17 Neg5 Nc4 18 b3 Nb6 19 Qd3 Bg7 20 Rac1 Qc7 21 Nd4 a6
22 Be4 e5 23 Nf5 gf5 24 Bxf5 d5 25 Qf3 Bxf5 26 Qxf5 Rfd8 27 27 e4 Rd6
28 f4 Rf6 29 Qh7+ Kf8 30 fe5 Qxe5 31 Qxh5 Ke7 32 ed5 Rh8 33 Rfe1 Rxh5
34 Rxe5+ Kd6 35 Nxf7+ Rxf7 36 Rxh5 Rf2+ 37 Kh3 Rxa2 38 c4 bc4 39 bc4 Kc5
40 Rh7 Be5 41 Re7 Bd6 42 Re6 Nd7 43 Rf1 Ra3 44 Rg6 Ne5 45 Rg8 Nxc4 46
h5 Ne3 47 Rf3 Kd4 48 h6 Ra1 49 Rxe3 (49 Rxf2! is winning, according to
Scott) Kxe3 50 Kg4 Rh1 51 Rg6 Bxg3 52 Re6+ Kd4 (52...Kf2 53 h7; now if
53 h7 Be5--Scott) Kxg3 Kxd5 54 Rxa6 Ke5 55 Kg4 Rg1+ 56 Kh5 Kf5 57 Ra5+
1/2-1/2.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess