From: smd@occlusal.rutgers.edu (Stanley Dunn)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
Subject: Chess Bits, Issue #12
Keywords: finally arrived.
Date: 30 Aug 92 10:53:51 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.



		CHESS BITS
		ISSUE #12

Editorial Staff:

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

In this issue:

- Editorial on new features
- Louis Blair, first installment on Users versus MChess #1
- Benjamin Lin, games from ICS
- Howard Wachtel, games from the Illinois-Wisconsin match

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

Editorial

Here it is folks!  The long overdue Bits issue #12.  Expect us
to put together an issue every 3 to 4 weeks; there are some exciting
things planned for future issues.

I want to thank my new friends Alan Brunelle, John Pope and Ed Maillet
for volunteering to help with Chess Bits.  Alan will be proofreading
and correcting my typographical errors; Both John and Ed have some 
neat features planned.

In future issues, we will be starting two regular columns:  The first,
written by John Pope, will be Bits Q&A:  Send your questions to me,
they will be organized and in a future issue, your questions will be
answered by John.  Ed Maillet has agreed to do a Bits Mate Problem 
column.  Both of these new features will begin with the next issue,
so send your questions right away!

Thanks to everyone for your support as we get organized.  As always,
be sure and send your games and analysis in for inclusion in an
upcoming issue of Bits!

Stan Dunn smd@occlusal.rutgers.edu

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Users vs. MChess, part I by Louis Blair


I have received many notes indicating that
people would like to see a general discussion
of the first game (not just the last move or
two).  In an effort to stimulate such a discussion,
I am going to try to talk about the first game
a little bit at a time from the following points
of view:

(1)  What went on behind the scenes?  What moves
did people consider?  How and why did they
make their choices?

(2)  Optimality.  By a coincidence, the first game
followed an opening that was briefly discussed in
rec.games.chess many months (perhaps years) ago.
Someone made the remark that the moves represented,
in some sense, optimal play on both sides, and that
any player could benefit from studying them.  I
think it might be fun to look into this optimality,
although I don't expect to be able to do much more than
report what the beginner books say and pose questions
about what they fail to explain.

(3)  The first 23 moves of the game are in the opening
books.  What do they say, and are they correct?

(4)  History.  When I can't think of anything intelligent
to say about the other three topics, I will probably
fill up space with history.  A lot of (mostly useless)
chess history has accumulated in my brain, and, from
time to time, I can not resist the temptation to flaunt it.

Game #1:

1 e4 (P-K4)

In the 1800s (Ahem!), this was considered to be THE
way to start a chess game.  Some even thought that
it was dishonorable to play anything else.  The suspicion
seems to have been that players who used other moves
were perhaps playing for a draw (something that was
regarded with strong disapproval in those days) or hoping
to win by trying to prolong the game and exhaust the
opponent.  There were even serious proposals to require
some or all games in serious competitions to start with
1 e4 e5.  Part of this hostility arose because of simple
laziness.  People did not want to be bothered with the
study of other openings.  By the end of the century,
the feeling was beginning to spread that the 1 e4 e5
openings had perhaps been exhaustively analyzed and
that white needed to try something else in order to
have hopes of winning.  Around 1920, Julius Breyer
commented that, "After 1 e4, white's game is in the
last throes."  (Although he continued to use the move,
himself.)  In the great A. V. R. O. tournament of 1938
only 15 of the 56 games started with 1 e4.  Curiously,
books continued to urge beginners to start with 1 e4.
The attitude seems to have been, as William Lombardy
once wrote, "For the amateur, there is no such thing as a
drawish opening.  No one plays perfectly, least of all
the amateur.  General rule for the amateur:  all
openings offer excellent winning chances."  I suspect
that the resurgence of interest in 1 e4 at the higher levels
of chess was caused, of course, by Bobby Fischer.

Is 1 e4 optimal?  First there is the question of the word
"optimal", itself.  In a strict mathematical sense, a move
can only be said to be better than all others if (1) it forces
a win when all other moves lose or permit a draw, or
(2) it forces a draw when all other moves lose.  Failing
this, a move can only be best in some psychological
sense:  maximizing the probability that the opponent
will make a mistake.  Thus the optimality of a move
such as 1 e4 (which surely does not satisfy either of
the two mathematical requirements) depends on the
circumstances.  At the highest levels, 1 d4, 1 c4, and
1 Nf3 are equally respected weapons.  Amateurs, in
accordance with the remarks of Lombardy, can do
well with almost any wild thing.  In users vs M-chess
game #2 some players even advocated that we play
1 g4, but more traditionally minded temperaments
prevailed.  For a computer as white, 1 e4 is a sensible
choice.  The advance of a pawn into the center unpro-
tected (in contrast with d4) tends to lead to a more
open game where tactical ability (the computer's
greatest strength) has the best chance of being a
decisive factor.  However, in a pseudo-correspondence
game where the human opponents have access to
opening references during the game, 1 e4 is perhaps
not so good a choice.  Probably no other first move has
been quite so thoroughly analyzed - a valuable resource
for black.  (Well, at least the history was a little bit
relevant.)

1 ... e5 (P-K4)

In any game conducted by vote today, only 1 ... e5
and 1 ... c5 have a chance of winning.  Other respectable
choices (c6, e6, Nf6, d6) received, at most, a vote or two
each.  There were no adventurous advocates of the
less-well-respected moves such as d5 or Nc6.  1 ... e5
has, of course, been popular ever since pawns acquired
the right to advance two squares on their first move,
but 1 ... c5 took a long time to reach its current position
as the most popular response to 1 e4.  Staunton recommended
1 ... c5, way back in the 1840s, but Morphy scorned the
move and for many decades, his opinion was the more
influential one.  1 ... c5 took a step toward respectability
when Lasker used it twice in his 1910 world championship
match with Schlechter, but I suspect that many at the
time attributed Lasker's choice to desperation.
He was behind by one point and needed a victory
in a hurry in order to retain his world championship title.
Then, and for many decades afterwards, 1 ... c5 seems
to have been regarded as risky, usually getting less
space in opening books than 1 ... e5 or even 1 ... e6.  At
that A. V. R. O. tournament nobody played 1 ... c5.  (There
were eight games with 1 e4 e5, five games with 1 e4 e6,
and two games with 1 e4 c6.)  Around 1948, interest in
1 ... c5 began to pick up.  Again, I suspect that 1 ... c5
received its biggest boost in popularity from Bobby Fischer.
Although now the most popular response to 1 e4, 1 ... c5
has retained its reputation as a tactical opening, and
a number of supporters of c6, e6, Nf6, and d6 were
afraid of playing it against a computer and switched
their support to 1 ... e5.  One person wrote:  "Although
both 1 ... c5 and 1 ... e5 seem a bit odd to play against a
computer, I think 1 ... e5 is the lesser evil."  The vote was
close, but in the end 1 ... e5 came out ahead.  None of the
alternatives to e5 and c5 had a chance.

Although 1 ... e5 remained the response of choice to 1 e4
well into the twentieth century, nobody today is likely
to claim that it is the best move at any level.  Again
this is largely a judgment based on psychology.  Other
moves have come to be regarded as either more likely
to lead white into error (1 ... c5) or less likely to lead
black into error (1 ... c6).  Also, people simply want
to avoid an opening line for which analysis has been
accumulating for centuries.  In a correspondence game
this is less of a problem.  Also, 1 e4 e5 is discussed in all
the beginner books.  Thus, a sort of lowest-common-
denominator pattern was established and repeated
throughout the early portion of the first users vs
M-chess game.  Most players have their own pet
ways of avoiding the well-beaten path, but with
the possible exceptions of the Sicilian (1 ... c5) and
the Marshall (to be discussed later), no one method
had any chance of getting enough support to win
the vote.  People would choose the beginner-book
move rather than any single alternative.  Thus
we ended up playing a variation that was known
to almost everyone, but I suspect that almost none
of the voters had any experience with it.  We con-
stantly talked about leaving the book, but, in the
end, it was the book that left us.  We kept on playing
book moves until there were no more book moves
to play.  Things turned out fine in the end, but
it seems to me that there is a serious problem for
any game conducted by vote:  getting the voters
to agree on some non-beginner-book line of play
that takes advantage of expertise within the group.
I would be interested to hear any thoughts on this
problem from others.  (Is anyone out there still reading
this?)  We will have to deal with it in the second game,
although the problem may be less severe since white
deviations from the familiar are on-the-whole safer.

I think it is interesting to ask why so many
beginner books dwell on 1 e4 e5, even today.  Many
rationalizations are often presented, but I take a
rather cynical view.  So much of the theory of
1 e4 e5 has become cemented into place by centuries
of experience, that I suspect that it is easier to
write about these openings with a reasonable
certainty of avoiding embarrassing errors.

After the first move, one advocate of 1 ... e6 and two
advocates of 1 ... c5 never voted again.  Another
player could not resist grumbling later:  "I think
Black is in deep trouble after missing 1 ... c5!!"
Even in a correspondence game, many chess players
seem to have a STRONG preference for their own
favorite opening.  Throughout the first few moves
people went through all sorts of contortions in order
to argue that their own favorite opening was the
best to play against a computer.  In some cases,
when such a claim would be just too preposterous,
a player would instead say that we should play
this-or-that opening so that we would have
a greater challenge.

2 Nf3 (N-KB3)

Although not optimal in the strict mathematical
sense, this move is optimal in just about every
other way.  (1)  It attacks the enemy pawn, thus
limiting black options.  (2)  It helps to prepare
castling.  (3)  It gains influence in the center.
(4)  Unlike 2 Nc3, it leaves open the attacking
possibility of playing c3, followed by d4 at some
point.  (5)  It encourages black to play Nc6, thus
preventing black from hoping to play c6 and d5.

It is hardly surprising that throughout almost
all of chess history, Nf3 has been the most popular
move to play after 1 e4 e5.  The only drawback
is that it blocks the f pawn.  Those who do use
2 Nc3 sometimes hope to use f4 in their attack.
However, judging from history, it appears that
the possibility of c3 and d4 gives black harder
problems.  Of course, if black has spent a lot
of time studying those problems, white might
have a better chance trying to catch black
with something less common.  Players of
2 Bc4 are apparently trying to have the best
of both worlds.  Philidor advocated this move,
saying that it was not a good idea to block the
pawns, but the move has never really been
popular.  White usually ends up playing
d3, making the c3-d4 maneuver too slow.
Also, players do not like choosing a location
for the bishop so early.  Even less popular
is 2 d4, although I understand that someone
once got a good game against Karpov with this
rarely seen move.  (Does anyone know the
details of this?)  The other major alternative
is 2 f4 which was popular during the early
part of the 1800s, but not since then, although
the move has retained its romantic appeal.

2 ... Nc6 (N-QB3)

Also the most popular move throughout chess
history.  Philidor advocated 2 ... d6 (still trying
to avoid blocking pawns), but most players
preferred to avoid blocking the king bishop.
Nobody voted for it.  Nor were there any votes
for the wild moves 2 ... f5 and 2 ... d5.  There
were a few votes for the one major alternative,
2 ... Nf6, but 2 ... Nc6 won the vote easily.

Although, 2 ... Nc6 has been the most
popular move in this position throughout chess history,
it should be noted that 2 ... Nf6 IS regarded as a
perfectly safe alternative, used even in world championship
matches.  Perhaps the reason that 2 ... Nf6 is significantly
less popular is that it gives White a relatively easy way to
play for a draw:  3 Nxe5 d6 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Qe2 Qe7 6 d3 with
a queen exchange coming soon.  Black players apparently
usually prefer to avoid giving white such an easy drawing
option.  It seemed that only a few of the voters had much
familiarity with 2 ... Nf6, so 2 ... Nc6 won easily.

3 Bb5 (B-N5)

Up until a few months ago, nobody would have hesitated
to say that this move was optimal.  Now, of course, people
will be taking a second look at 3 d4, but it seems likely that
3 Bb5 will remain the number one choice.  With the exception
of the 1990 match and the 1981 match (where Karpov
obtained two draws with 3 Bc4), nobody has played anything
other than 3 Bb5 in a world championship match since 1908.
However, unlike 2 Nf3, 3 Bb5 was not always the preferred
move.  Throughout much of the 1800s people would play
3 Bc4, 3 d4, 3 Nc3, or even 3 c3.  The explanation that is
usually given for this is that 3 Bb5 is a more positional move
and people were still thinking predominantly in terms of
tactics.  However, I suspect that another factor was that
most chess experts probably found themselves at one time
or another explaining to a beginner that placing bishops
on KN5 or QN5 was often not a good idea, and chess players
can be very slow to admit that there can be exceptions to
their principles.  A similar phenomena may have taken
place in the Queen's Gambit.  It took many years for the
value of 4 Bg5 (after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6) to be perceived.

As far as I can tell 3 Bb5 works better than other moves
because it is part of an attempt to gain a gradual advantage
by compelling black to play awkward moves while white
prepares to attack.  The alternatives seem to try to attack
too quickly.  The advantage of the first move does not seem
to be enough to sustain such attacks against a well-prepared
opponent.  However, as with all moves that are psychologically
optimal, but not mathematically optimal, there can be factors
in any one game that make an alternative more attractive.
More than once in the past Karpov has had difficulty after
his opponent chose an unusual opening.

3 ... a6 (P-QR3)

As with 3 Bb5, 3 ... a6 is regarded as best today, although
it took the chess world many years to reach that conclusion.
Steinitz was not very impressed with 3 Bb5.  He thought
that black should have no trouble as long as he defended
properly, using the Steinitz defense, of course.  (3 ... d6)  In
his Modern Chess Instructor he wrote, "we have come
to the conclusion, after careful analysis, that this form of
opening is no exception to the general rule, inasmuch as the
pinning of the Knight by the Bishop in the early part of the
game cannot be of any advantage; and we find now that at
the utmost the game can be made even by White against the
best defense, which we think is 3. ... P-Q3."  A few years
later, Lasker was telling everyone to play 3 ... Nf6.  White,
however, continued to get victories and all sorts of wild
and not-so-wild ideas were tried:  3 ... Bd6, 3 ... g5, 3 ... f6,
3 ... Qf6, 3 ... Qe7, 3 ... Bb4, 3 ... Na5, 3 ... d5, 3 ... Nge7, 3 ... g6,
3 ... Bc5, 3 ... Nd4, and 3 ... f5.  One player even suggested
changing the official starting position of the game so that
black's queen rook pawn would start on a6 and thus prevent
3 Bb5.  Just after the turn of the century, Chigorin introduced
his system based on 3 ... a6.  3 ... a6, itself, had come to be called
the Morphy defense (although he was not the first to play it)
because Morphy had used it in his famous match against
Anderssen, but the system was Chigorin's idea.

3 ... a6 is certainly not the only possible move, but the attitude
of top players toward the alternatives seems to be similar to
the attitude taken by Reuben Fine toward 3 ... d6:  "Perhaps
the decisive reason why this defense has gone out of fashion
is not so much that Black must lose by force (such a claim
would be exaggerated), but that the best he can possibly do,
and that only in a few cases, is draw after a long uphill fight."
The attitude seems to be that black's game is easiest if he
begins immediately to do something about the bishop on b5.
Again psychological considerations can make alternatives
attractive.  In the case of rec.games.chess a large number
of players are eager to play a gambit of some sort.  There
were five votes for 3 ... f5, a gambit described by the latest
edition of Modern Chess Openings as "probably not quite
sound".  3 ... Bc5, 3 ... Nf6, 3 ... g6, and 3 ... Nd4 received a few
votes, but 18 voters chose 3 ... a3.  A fair number of the people
in that last group were looking forward to playing the Marshall
Gambit.

A feeling of pessimism was beginning to develop.  One
voter asked, "Do we have any Ruy Lopez specialists on
our side??"  Nobody answered.  Five voters dropped out
of the game at this point.  One of them commented, "My
prognosis: humans will lose, because someone will get
us into complications, while we have to play positionally
to win."

4 Ba4 (B-R4)

The only real alternative is 4 Bxc6.  There is no point
to 4 Bc4.  If white wanted his bishop on c4, he should
have played it there in the first place.  There is no
advantage for white arising from the move 3 ... a6.

Some books recommend 4 Bxc6 for amateurs since
it gives white a lasting advantage in pawn structure
and many opponents will blissfully permit exchanges,
thus helping white to bring about a favorable endgame.
At the higher levels of chess, the general attitude seems
to be that black will have the skill to derive sufficient
compensation from the pair of bishops.  4 Ba4, trying
to continue to hamper black's development, is by far
the more popular move.

Even if white DOES want to exchange the bishop for
the knight, there are advantages to waiting a move
or two before doing so.

Incidentally, in case anyone out there does not know,
white can not win a pawn with 4 Bxc6 dc 5 Nxe5
because of 5 ... Qd4 or 5 ... Qg5.  If white DOES play
4 Bxc6, he usually follows up with 5 O-O or 5 d4.

4 ... Nf6 (N-B3)

As far as anyone knows this move is not forced,
but many books give it as the only choice at this
point.  The move's main advantage is that it cuts
down on white's choices because he has to deal
in some way with the attack on the e4 pawn.  I
have always thought that 4 ... b5 would also have
the cutting-down-on-white's-choices advantage,
but this move is disapproved because black "would
be insufficiently developed to deal with an immediate
white attack against his Q-side pawns by, for example,
an early a4."  Also, there is the problem that white's
bishop would be driven to a square where it attacks f7
before black was prepared to castle.  Nevertheless, the
move 4 ... b5 apparently is playable, if black continues
with 5 ... Na5 in order to be able to exchange off the
bishop at the right moment.  According to Shamkovich
and Schiller, 4 ... b5 5 Bb3 Na5 "is no bizarre line favored
only by kooks", but it also is not very popular.  Evidently,
the loss of time by black at this early stage (black's knight
takes two moves to reach the bishop) allows white to
get a good game from an early d4 (a move that in the
main line requires more preparation).  Thus, most
of the time black prefers to delay b5 until later, but
if he intends to play it at all, Nf6 is the best move now.
Otherwise, white has time to play 5 c3 and when the
move b5 does come, white is able to move his bishop to
c2 (the bishop's ultimate destination in most variations)
in one move.  Black wants to be able to play b5 before
white has a chance to play c3 so that white's bishop will
end up using two moves to get to c2.  4 ... Nf6 is a way
for black to simultaneaously prepare to castle (thus
making b5 safer) and prevent white from playing c3.
(You may well ask, "Why does white want to get his
bishop to c2 ?"  I'll tell you.  I don't know.  But maybe
I'll figure it out later.)  If black decides that he doesn't
want to play b5 at all, the normal move is 4 ... d6 so
that black can get his bishop to d7 in a hurry.  The
chess world does not have as much confidence in this
strategy, and 4 ... Nf6 (with the intent of using the
queen bishop elsewhere) is the preferred move, by
far.

There is also the gambit 4 ... f5 to consider.  After
3 ... f5, the line 4 Nc3 fe 5 Nxe4 d5 6 Nxe5 is troublesome.
Now, black can play 4 ... f5 and answer 5 Nc3 with 5 ... b5.
The drawback is that at this point the move d4 has become
more inviting.  After 3 ... f5 4 d4 fe 5 Nxe5 Nxe5 6 de, black
can win a pawn with 6 ... c6 and 7 ... Qa5+.  Now, with
white's bishop on a4 instead of b5, this maneuver does
not work and the game that white gets from 4 ... f5 5 d4
is good enough to deter most from this line.

In the vote, 4 ... Nf6 was the unanimous choice.  (Our first.)
We did not even have to discuss it.

5 O-O (O-O)

As I mentioned before, Steinitz (world champion
from 1886 to 1994) believed that the best that white
could do was to "[make] the game ... even", if black
used the Steinitz defense, 3 ... d6.  How did Steinitz
think that white could punish black for playing
3 ... a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 instead?  By playing 5 d3, of course!
Tarrasch thought that 5 Nc3 was a reasonable choice
as well.  However, today, these moves are not believed
to be nearly as hard for black as 5 O-O, because they
interfere with the c3-and-d4 plan that white is hoping
to use soon.  Nevertheless, occasionally books for
amateurs will suggest moves like 5 d3, 5 Nc3, or 5 Qe2
because (1) they avoid some of the complicated defenses
that white may not have had time to study, and (2)
As Lombardy once said, "For the amateur, there is no
such thing as a drawish opening. ... all openings offer
excellent winning chances."  5 Qe2 is the Worrall attack.
Sometimes those wishing to play the Worrall will try
for 5 O-O Be7 6 Qe2, but in this case they have to be
prepared for 5 O-O Nxe4.  The person who plays 5 Qe2
does not have to worry about 5 O-O Nxe4, but he DOES
have to worry about 5 Qe2 b5 6 Bb3 Bc5.

Another possibility to consider is 5 Bxc6, again, playing
for an advantage for white in the end-game and difficulties
for black in defending the pawn on e5.  Of the three
opportunities to play Bxc6 (move 4, move 5, or move 6),
this one is the least popular amongst the top players.
4 Bxc6 has the obvious advantage that it does not waste
a move (Ba4) for white.  The reason for delaying Bxc6
is that black can be lured into posting his pieces in places
that make defending after Bxc6 more difficult.  For
example, after 4 Bxc6 it is common for black to defend the
e5 pawn with f6.  After 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 Bxc6, black's knight
is in the way.  However, the belief seems to be that this
is not enough to justify the loss of time for white.  Top
players of a delayed Bxc6, usually wait until the sixth
move, hoping that black will misplace TWO pieces.  After
4 Bxc6 or 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 Bxc6, black may find it useful to play
Bd6 at some point.  After 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Bxc6,
playing Bd6 would involve a loss of time.  The disadvantage
of waiting until the sixth move to play Bxc6, particularly
for the amateur, is that, as with the player of the delayed
Worrall, white has to be prepared for 5 O-O Nxe4.  Also,
black may get up the nerve to play 5 ... b5, since he is
closer to being ready to castle than he was on move 4.

One last alternative to mention is 5 d4, but this is considered
too premature to lead to a good advantage for white.

5 O-O is by far the most popular move in this position.  It
continues white's development, it doesn't interfere with
the c3-and-d4 plan, and it responds to the attack on the
e4 pawn.  Because white's rook can get quickly to the
e-file, black can not hope to take and hold the pawn.

5 ... Be7 (B-K2)

Around the turn of the century (before Chigorin
came up with his defensive ideas), people believed
that black was obliged to play 5 ... Nxe4 in this position,
although, like most of today's top players, they were
apparently not comfortable with the state of black's
pawns in the open position resulting from the usual
continuation: 6 d4 b5 7 Bb3 d5 8 de Be6.  Back then,
people were moved to look for alternatives to 3 ... a6,
but today, the greatest confidence lies in the 3 ... a6
4 Ba4 Nf5 5 O-O Be7 line.

5 ... Bc5 is tried from time to time, but it is unpopular
because of the problems arising from white's pawn
advancing to d4.  Also, it is felt that the bishop might
be needed closer to home to defend the king.

Surprisingly, 5 ... d6 is still a possibility, although not
a popular one.  The player of an early ... d6, usually
wants to keep open the possibility of playing ... Nge7
in some lines (with the king bishop eventually being
moved to g7).  Most books do not even mention 4 Ba4 Nf6
5 O-O d6, but it was played in some of the World Cup games.
What advantage does 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O d6 have over the
4 Ba4 d6 line?  I do not know.

5 ... b5 is another alternative that the books don't mention.
Indeed, I wonder why this move is not played more often.
Evidently most players would prefer to run the risk of
white playing 6 Bxc6 after 5 ... Be7, rather than play
5 ... b5 6 Bb3 6 Be7.  I wonder what they are afraid of.
Apparently they really want to be able to castle before
spending a move driving the bishop to the a2-g8 diagonal.

Since black (for some reason that I do not really understand)
usually wants to delay ... b5 for another move, he wants to
do something in the meantime that will keep white occupied
and discourage 6 c3.  5 ... Be7 accomplishes this and also
helps black prepare to castle.  Part of white's initiative
in the 5 ... Nxe4 line derives from the exposure of black's
king.  After 5 ... Be7, white can no longer allow black to
capture the e4 pawn and hope to get much of an attack.
Thus, 5 ... Be7 obliges white to do something to prevent
... Nxe4 and thus gives black one last chance to get in the
move ... b5 before white can play c3.

There were seven votes for 5 ... Nxe5.  One advocate tried
to appeal to the gambit lovers by saying, "I would like to
drum up interest in the Dilworth Attack, a variation of the
Open Defense in which black sacs 2 pieces for a rook, a pawn,
and an attack against white's king."  An advocate of 5 ... Be7
said that 5 ... Nxe5 "is tactically risky and would be playing
into M-Chess's hands(?)"  Ironically, a fair number of the
fifteen who voted for 5 ... Be7 were looking forward to playing
the Marshall gambit.  Although it was not yet necessary to
make a decision, the battle lines were already starting to
form.  One player said, "KEEP AWAY from deep lines!  I don't
know the Marshall Gambit, but I know its reputation, and
if Capablanca could cook Marshall's variation over the
board, M-Chess might be able to cook whatever variation
we choose".  Another said that the Marshall was "an *ideal*
opening to play against a computer.  The sacrificed pawn offers
absolute compensation in the form of a kingside attack.
Repelling a long-term strategic attack should prove very
difficult for M-chess."

There was one vote for 5 ... d6, but nobody paid any attention.

Five people dropped out of the game.

6 Re1 (R-K1)

Around 1895, World Chess Champion Lasker gave a
series of lectures, telling people (amongst many other
things) that the best defense to 3 Bb5 involved 3 ... Nf6.
He also said that if black DID play 3 ... a6 4 Ba4 Nf6,
then the best response to 5 O-O was 5 ... Nxe4.  If black
ignored all this advice he thought white should charge
forward with 6 d4.  I suspect that really strong players
are often prone to this sort of illusion, confusing the
results of their superior ability with the quality of their
opening moves.  Eventually, Lasker (along with everyone
else) came to realize that although 6 d4 is certainly not
a losing move, a more gradual approach was better for
making black's game difficult.  Moves like 6 d3 and 6 Nc3
are playable, but also lack that special punch that derives
from the c3-and-d4 plan.  The Worrall player can proceed
with 6 Qe2.  His reward for demonstrating a willingness
to play 5 O-O Nxe5 is that now, he does not have to worry
about 5 Qe2 b5 6 Bb3 Bc5.  Both 5 Qe2 and 5 O-O Be7 6 Qe2
have the disadvantage that some support has been taken
away from the advance of the d pawn.  The exchange player
can proceed with 6 Bxc6.  His reward for losing a tempo on
4 Ba4 and demonstrating a willingness to play 5 O-O Nxe5 is
that now, black has blocked the advance of his f pawn to f6
and placed his bishop on e7 instead of d6.  Books often
suggest moves like d4, d3, Nc3, Qe2, and Bxc6 for the
amateur as a way of avoiding the necessity of being
prepared for various sorts of complicated defenses that
black can try in the main line.  At the highest levels
of chess, none of these moves are considered very fearsome.
White seldom plays them and black does not seem to
be very motivated to try to avoid them.  White DOES
want to protect the e pawn.  With the path to the black
king blocked by the bishop, white can no longer hope
for an initiative if the e pawn is captured.  The only
way to protect it and keep the c3-and-d4 plan going
is with 6 Re1, the move that is nearly always played
by the top players in this position.

6 ... b5 (P-QN4)

I've seen ... d6 played on move 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, but never
on move 6.  The usual reason that the books give for
not playing 6 ... d6 is that it gives black the chance to
play c3 and later, move his bishop to c2 in one move.
However, it seems to me that the same objection applies
to 3 ... d6, 4 ... d6, and 5 ... d6.  The players of 3 ... d6
and 4 ... d6 apparently don't mind because they have
chosen a system of defense that does not usually involve
... b5 and hence they are not worried about playing
... b5 before white can play c3.  I don't know what the
player of 5 ... d6 is thinking (the books don't talk about it),
so I don't know why a player can't play 6 ... d6 and think
the same way.  Perhaps it has something to do with the
fact that it is no longer at all practical to bring the king
bishop to g7, or maybe there is simply no perceived
benefit to 6 ... d6.  5 ... d6 is already pretty unpopular;
it is not too surprising that nobody is eager to try a
modification of an already doubtful idea.  Or maybe
6 ... d6 will be the next big innovation.  I sure don't
know.

Now that white's e pawn is protected, he, for the first
time, really threatens to gain the black e pawn with
Bxc6 and Nxe5.  Since nobody plays 6 ... d6, everybody
plays 6 ... b5.  Well, almost everybody.  There were
two votes for 6 ... O-O (from beginners, I suspect).  One
of them proclaimed, "I play a very aggressive game of
chess".  Everyone else (except for one nut who suggested
6 ... Nxe4) voted for 6 ... b5.  Most of the discussion dealt
with our plans for move seven.  The Marshall debate
continued.  One player said, "Many people have opined
that we should avoid tactical lines because that is where
the computer's strengths lie.  This is reasonable if you
are playing to win at all costs.  If you are playing to learn,
to really test yourself, then this is probably the wrong
approach."  Another said that the Marshall "is a sound
line for Black and dangerous waters for a computer
suddenly out of book."  Somebody asked "if [playing the
Marshall] has a purpose other than playing 30 theoretical
moves."  An opponent of the Marshall wrote, "For my part,
I am not all that afraid of staying with the book.  While
M-Chess may have a fantastic book, I am sure that many
of the net players also have a great deal of experience with
the Ruy and I still think that when M-Chess hits the end
of the line, so to speak, it may not have a good grasp on the
resulting position.  The strategic underpinnings of the game
will probably not be lost on the net team, though, and perhaps
we can take advantage of the programs indecision to improve
our position."

Another person dropped out of the game.

7 Bb3 (B-N3)

As I said before, I call a move strictly mathematically optimal if
(1) it forces a win when all other moves lose or permit a draw, or
(2) it forces a draw when all other moves lose.  As far as anyone
can tell, this is the first strictly mathematically optimal move of
the game.  There is no sound bishop sacrifice at this point.

7 ... O-O (O-O)

Around 1950, it was fashionable for black to delay castling until
move eleven.  (7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 Na5 9 Bc2 c5 10 d4 Qc7 11 h3 O-O.)
I'm not sure why.  Since then taste has shifted back to what
was popular near the beginning of the century, castling at move
eight.  Perhaps this is because of lines like 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 Na5
9 Bc2 c5 10 d4 Qc7 11 a4 b4 12 cb cb 13 h3 O-O 14 Nbd2 Be6
15 Nf1 Rfc8 16 Ne3 g6 17 b3 Nh5 18 Bb2, or perhaps it is because
the whole ... Na5 idea is no longer trusted.  At any rate, castling
at move seven has remained relatively rare throughout the
century.  In the early days, when white had a tendency to
rush to play d4, 7 ... d6 had a natural appeal because white
would have to avoid 8 d4 Nxd4 9 Nxd4 ed 10 Qxd4 c5 11 Qd1 c4.
Now that an early d4 from white is no longer feared, I am not
sure why 7 ... O-O is not more popular today.  Our reasons for
playing it were (1) we thought we might want to play the
Marshall gambit (7 Bb3 O-O 8 c3 d5), and (2) if we changed our
minds and decided that we did not want to play the Marshall,
we could always transpose into the more traditional line on
the next move by playing 8 ... d6.  There was some fear that
white might respond to 7 ... O-O with the so-called anti-
Marshall line, 8 a4.  One voter said, "I have avoided the Marshall
(as Black) in serious play for some time because [of] the rather
free position which White can obtain [with 8 a4], with most of
the hard work burden on Black (given correct play by White.)",
but most felt that the possibility of 8 a4 was not a serious worry.
Even those who were not eager to play the Marshall thought that
it might be nice if White were bluffed into playing the anti-
Marshall line.  One voter said that 8 a4 was a "weaker line"
and another said that "we should be happy to play [against] an
anti-Marshall system."  What I would like to know is why more
top level players do not think this way.  If the 7 ... O-O 8 a4 line
is not a big problem for black, why doesn't everyone play 7 ... O-O ?
For whatever reason, the most popular move at this point IS
7 ... d6.  Is it just tradition?  Perhaps most players would rather
not be bothered with the preparation necessary for being ready to
handle 7 ... O-O 8 a4 over the board.  Perhaps at the top levels there
is not really much hope of bluffing white into playing 8 a4 if black
himself does not have a reputation for playing the Marshall.

At any rate, nearly everyone seemed happy to play 7 ... O-O and
"defer the discussion on whether [or not] to go for a Marshall attack,
until move 8."

Incidentally 8 a4 is seldom played after 7 ... d6, because 8 ... Bg4
is an effective response.

8 c3 (P-B3)

Mchess called our bluff!  There ARE alternatives that are
sometimes used by players of the white pieces who do not
want to get into the complications of the Marshall Gambit:
8 d4 and 8 a4 (known as the anti-Marshall system).  These
moves are more promising than they would be if black had
played 7 ... d6, but at the highest levels of chess, players
evidently feel that the best chance for white is obtained by
sticking with the original plan and allowing black, if he
chooses, to play the Marshall (8 c3 d5).  Mchess appears to
feel the same way.  Superficial beginner books sometimes
say that white is giving his king bishop an escape square
in case black plays Na5, but the main purpose is that
c3-and-d4 advance that white has been aiming for all
along.  Also white may actually WANT his bishop on c2 and
often moves it there even when black does not play Na5.
On c2, the bishop helps to protect the pawn on e4, helps
to cover a possible hole at d3, and makes possible an advance
of the white queen knight pawn.  (Thanks to Joe Gillon for
help on this point.)

Now the people on the black team faced the moment of truth.
The decision on the Marshall could not be put off any longer.
One player raised the fear that "for the next ten moves, this
game will probably be monopolized by three or four bookaholics."
Another asked if the game would be any "less bookish if we
play 8 ... d6".  In answer to the question, "How many of us
have a detailed understanding of the [Marshall] Gambit?",
someone said, "I am a member of the Marshall Chess club.  Do
you think this will help?  Anyway, aren't we counting on some
sort of collective intelligence to help carry us through? ... we
shouldn't be afraid to play a line we're not all experts in. ...
Tactical lines aren't bad against a machine in a postal game,
because our selective searching may go deeper than the machine's.
The Marshall is particularly good because of the positional pressure
we get for a (mere) pawn, who's value the computer may
overestimate."  There were some who said things like, "I'll go
with the Marshall, although I don't know anything about it,
since that seems to be where we're headed anyhow", and some
who said we should "meet the program where it is strongest."
However, opponents of the Marshall believed that "if there are
any tactics in the game that is coming up, the computer will see
them long before we do."  Another player said, "I love the Marshall,
but don't see the point of playing another 20 book moves against
this machine.  If it's book is inadequate, and we capitalize on a
known error, where's the creativity?"  A Marshall opponent
told us, "I checked into the Marshall last night, and although
recent games seem to equalize in variations thought better for
white, not much is left to win with. ... the attack fizzles out. ...
if there is some tactical novelty to be found it will probably
be by MCHESS, and I wouldn't like a surprise while a pawn
down."  All the opponents of 8 ... d5, favored 8 ... d6, except for
one who said we should play 8 ... Kh8.  ("Let M-chess do
something.")

At decision time the vote was tied between d5 and d6.  Somebody
posted some lines used by Fischer against the Marshall:  "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 d5 9 ed Nxd5 10 Nxe5 Nxe5 11 Rxe5 c6 12 g3 Bd6 13 Re1 Nf6
14 d4 Bg4 15 Qd3 c5 16 Bc2 [and] 9 ... e4 10 dc ef 11 Qxf3 Bg4
12 Qg3 Bd6 13 Qh4 Re8 14 f3 Bf5 15 d4 Bxh2+ 16 Kxh2 Ng4+
17 Kg3 Qxh4+ 18 Kxh4 Rxe1 19 fg Rxc1 20 gf Rd8 21 a4".  Nobody
proposed specific improvements for black, but the remark was made
that since the time of these games (about a quarter of a century
ago), "There have been many improvements in the Marshall ...
John Nunn, in particular, has been responsible for a lot of new
vitality in the Marshall."  People on both sides began to volunteer
to drop out of the vote in order to break the tie.  Incredibly, the
number of volunteers for this purpose was at first the same
on both sides!  Gradually however, support for the Marshall
began to slip away in greater numbers.  As one player put it,
"If half of us aren't comfortable with the Marshall, we shouldn't
play it."  The advocate of 8 ... Kh8 also switched to 8 ... d6.  In the
end, people who had on previous occasions voted for the Sicilian
(1 ... c5), the Caro-Kann (1 ... c6), Alekhine's defense (1 ... Nf6),
the Petroff (2 ... Nf6), Bird's variation (3 ... Nd4), the Schliemann
(3 ... f5), the Berlin defense (3 ... Nf6), and the open variation
(5 ... Nxe4) united with the advocate of 8 ... Kh8, some defectors
from the Marshall camp, and perhaps two or three who had
been happy all along with the main line of the Ruy Lopez and
out-voted the Marshall advocates.  Our move was:

8 ... d6 (P-Q3)

This had some disturbing consequences.  For one thing five
advocates of the Marshall dropped out of the game.  Surprisingly,
four others also disappeared.  Perhaps some were turned off
by the debate itself.  Also, after only eight moves, we were
in a line that was the first choice of only two or three players.
Every deviation that may have been preferred by one group
or another had been voted down by the rest.

d6 IS the move that is almost always played by those who do
not want to play the Marshall gambit, although usually it
is played on move seven with castling taking place on move
eight.  Players who do not want to play the Marshall (or
attempt to scare their opponent into thinking that they might
play the Marshall) apparently prefer to avoid the possibility
of the anti-Marshall.  d6 lets out the queen bishop (the possibility
of Bg5 is a little bit troublesome for white) and adds support
to black's e5 pawn (particularly helpful if black decides that
he wants to move his queen knight).

What IS the verdict on the Marshall Gambit these days?  It
depends who you ask.  Ehlvest, Nunn, and Nikolic have used
it in World Cup games.  On the other hand, Karpov has written,
"Innovative ideas and sharp continuations are discovered from
time to time but the overall statistics of victories and defeats
implacably grow in White's favor."  In the 1989 World Cup
games, the Marshall was tried nine times.  Black won once,
lost twice, and the rest were draws.

<< To be continued next month >>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Games from the recently concluded Illinois-Wisconsin match:
(July 26; Illinois won 29.5-10.5)

by Howard Wachtel


Marc Lonoff (IL, 2327)--Roman Levit (WI, 2301)
1. c4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. b3 d4 4. Bb2 c5 5. e3 Nc6 6. ed4 cd4 7. d3 e5 8. Nbd2
Nf6 9. g3 Bf5 10. Nh4 Bg4 11. Qb1 Bb4 12. f3 g5 13. fg4 gh4 14. h3 hg3 15.
a3 Bxd2+ 16. Kxd2 h5 17. Qe1 h4 18. Bg2 a5 19. Bxc6+ bc6 20. Qxe5+ Kf8 21.
Bxd4 Rh6 22. g5 Rg6 23. Qc5+ Kg8 24. Bxf6 Rxf6 25 gf6 Qxf6 26. Kc2 Rd8 27.
Rae1 Qg6+ 28. Re4 f5 29. Qe7 Rd6 30. Qe8+ and White won on move 49.

Alan Watson (IL, 2235)--Alex Betaneli (WI, 2118)
1. d4 d6 2. Nf3 Bg4 3. c4 e6 4. e3 Nf6 5. Be2 c6 6. Qb3 Qc7 7. Nc3 Nbd7 8.
h3 Bxf3 9. Bxf3 Be7 10. Bd2 O-O 11. O-O Rfe8 12. g3 Bf8 13. Bg2 e5 14. d5
Nc5 15. Qc2 e4 16. b4 Ncd7 17. Rac1 cd5 18. cd5 Rac8 19. Qb1 Qc4 20. Nxe4
Qb5 21. Nc3 Qb6 22. e4 Rc4 23. Na4 Qb5 24. Rxc4 Qxc4 25. Re1 Ne5 26. Nb2
Qd4 27. Rd1 Nc4 28. Nxc4 Qxc4 29. Rc1 Qb5 30. Qc2 g6 31. a4 Qb6 32. a5 Qb5
33. Bc3 Rc8 34. Qb2 Bh6 35. Bd2 Rxc1+ 36. Qxc1 Bxd2 37. Qxd2 Qc4 38. f3 Nd7
39. Kf2 Ne5 40. Bf1 Qb3 41. Be2 f6 42. Qd4 Qc2 43. Qxa7 Nd3+ 44. Ke3 Qc1+
45. Kxd3 Qb1+ 46. Kc4 [White almost played 46 Ke3?? Qg1+] Qc2+ 47. Kb5
Qxe2+ 48. Kb6 Qc4 49. Qb8+ Kg7 50. Qc7+ 1-0

Scott Kittsley (WI, 1605)--Bill Smythe (IL, 1964)
1. f4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. e3 Nc6 4. Bb5 Bd7 5. b3 e6 6. Bb2 Nf6 7. O-O Bd6 8.
d3 Ng4 9. Qe2 d4 10. Bxc6 Bxc6 11. ed4 Bxf4 12. dc5 Ne3 13. Rf2 Nf5 14.
Nbd2 Be3 15. g4 Bxf2+ 16. Qxf2 Ne7 17. h3 h5 18. Bxg7 Rg8 19. Bf6 hg4 20.
Bxe7 gf3+ 0-1
_________________________________________________________________________

ICS game score from Benjamin Lin


[ ICS game 8-5-92 ]
[ Benoni - Hippie ]

1       P/e2-e4          P/c7-c5 
2       N/g1-f3          P/e7-e6
3       P/b2-b3          N/b8-c6
4       B/c1-b2          N/g8-f6 
5       N/b1-c3          P/d7-d5 
6       P/e4-e5          N/f6-d7 
7       B/f1-b5          Q/d8-c7 
8       o-o              B/f8-e7

[ Another ics game with Mika went: 
  8...    Ncxe5 
  9 Nxd5  Nxf3+ 
 10 Qxf3  exd5
 11 Rae1+ Kd8
 12 Bxg7??  instead 12 Qxf7 wins
]
 
9       R/f1-e1          P/b7-b6 
10      P/d2-d4          P/c5-d4 
11      N/f3-d4          N/c6-d4 
12      Q/d1-d4          o-o
13      N/c3-d5 !?/?!    P/e6-d5 
14      Q/d4-d5          R/a8-b8 
15      P/e5-e6          N/d7-f6 
16      P/e6-f7          R/f8-f7 
17      B/b2-f6          P/g7-f6 
18      B/b5-c4          B/e7-b4 
19      R/e1-e8          K/g8-g7 
20      Q/d5-f7          Q/c7-f7 
21      B/c4-f7          K/g7-f7 

[ Here I got in time pressure and the rest
  of the game was a blurr.  I dropped my
  rook, but he didn't take it :-)
  The tactics in this game are interesting. 
] 

[ Notes by benoni -> linb@ucs.orst.edu ]

[ ------------------------------------ ]
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICS game score from Benjamin Lin


[ ICS Tournament Championship Game 8-6-92 ]
[ Zon - Linda ]

[ Their first game was drawn, so another game was
  played to decide the winner.  Enjoy! ]       

1       P/b2-b3(0:04)          P/e7-e5(0:04)
2       B/c1-b2(0:02)          N/b8-c6(0:09)
3       P/e2-e3(0:04)          N/g8-f6(0:03)
4       B/f1-b5(0:04)          P/d7-d6(0:04)
5       N/g1-e2(0:04)          B/f8-e7(0:06)
6       P/d2-d4(0:05)          P/e5-d4(0:04)
7       N/e2-d4(0:03)          B/c8-d7(0:07)
8       N/d4-c6(0:02)          P/b7-c6(0:05)
9       B/b5-d3(0:03)          o-o    (0:05)
10      o-o    (0:03)          B/d7-g4(0:18)
11      P/f2-f3(0:14)          B/g4-h5(0:12)
12      P/e3-e4(0:09)          N/f6-d7(0:11)
13      N/b1-d2(0:07)          B/e7-f6(0:06)
14      B/b2-f6(0:03)          Q/d8-f6(0:05)
15      N/d2-c4(0:09)          P/d6-d5(0:15)
16      P/e4-d5(0:17)          P/c6-d5(0:05)
17      N/c4-e3(0:02)          P/c7-c6(0:15)
18      Q/d1-d2(0:09)          R/f8-e8(0:13)
19      R/a1-e1(0:03)          B/h5-g6(0:12)
20      B/d3-g6(0:13)          P/h7-g6(0:05)
21      N/e3-g4(0:31)          Q/f6-d6(0:07)
22      P/c2-c3(0:58)          P/a7-a5 (0:04)
23      R/e1-d1 (0:10)         P/a5-a4 (0:52)
24      P/c3-c4 (0:04)         P/a4-b3 (0:10)
25      P/a2-b3 (0:04)         Q/d6-c5 (0:17)
26      K/g1-h1 (0:36)         N/d7-b6 (0:05)
27      P/c4-d5 (0:08)         N/b6-d5 (0:06)
28      R/d1-c1 (0:12)         Q/c5-b5 (0:05)
29      R/c1-b1 (0:34)         R/e8-e2 (0:10)
30      Q/d2-g5 (0:26)         R/e2-b2 (0:18)
31      Q/g5-c1 (0:42)         R/a8-a2 (0:54)
32      Q/c1-g5 (0:27)         R/a2-a8 (0:15)
33      Q/g5-c1 (0:04)         R/b2-e2 (0:09)
34      Q/c1-c4 (0:17)         R/a8-a2 (0:13)
35      R/f1-g1 (0:21)         P/f7-f5 (0:25)
36      Q/c4-d4 (0:22)         P/f5-g4 (0:10)
37      Q/d4-g4 (0:02)         N/d5-e7 (0:25)
38      R/b1-d1 (0:10)         R/a2-d2 (0:14)
39      R/d1-a1 (0:08)         Q/b5-b8 (0:14)
40      Q/g4-c4 (0:07)         K/g8-f8 (0:08)
41      R/a1-e1 (0:07)         Q/b8-e5 (0:11)
42      R/e1-a1 (0:08)         R/d2-a2 (0:12)
43      R/a1-e1?? (0:06)       R/e2-e1 (0:07)

[ I think Zon meant to play 43 Rad1 but made a typo. ]
[ -------------------------------------------------- ]
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Captured on the net, posted by Mark Ginsburg


Here's a lost Judit Polgar game to serve as a test for the new
Chessnews.

J Polgar (2335 only) - M Ginsburg   NY Open 1988

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cd 4. N:d4 a6

(Two years later Judit started to play the Paulsen, scoring fairly well).

5. Be2 Nf6 6. Nc3 Bb4

(White has been tricked into an equal line)

7. Qd3 Qc7 8. Bd2 Nc6 9. N:c6 bc 10. a3 Bd6 11. h3 Bf4 12. O-O d5
13. Bf3 O-O 14. Rfe1 Rb8 15. Bf4: Qf4: 16. b4 a5 17. Ne2 Qc7 18. c3

How unwieldy!  White's next move was accompanied by a draw offer.  Although
she had a cute teddy bear and often conversed animatedly with her sisters
between moves, I had to continue.

18...Nd7 19. Nd4 c5 20. Nb5 Qb6 21. a4 Ne5 22. Qe2 N:f3+ 23. Q:f3 cb
24. cb ab 25. ed ed 26. Q:d5 Be6

Black is appreciably better and fortunately I manage to play the next phase
accurately.

27. Qe5 b3 28. Rad1 Qa5! 29. Re4 Rbd8 30. Red4 R:d4 31. Q:d4 h6  
32. f4?

Creating unnecessary weaknesses.

32...Ra8 33. Qe4 Rd8 34. R:d8+ Q:d8 35. Qb4 Qb6+ 36. Kh2 Qf2 37. Nc3 Qc2
38. a5 Bc8! 39. Na4 Ba6 40. Kg3!? Kh7 41. Qb6 Bf1 42. Qf2 Be2!

Delicate.  The obvious 42...Bb5 allows counterplay after 43. Nb2 Qc3+
44. Kh2 Q:a5 45. Qc5! with the idea of Qf5.

43. Qd4

Again, she offers a draw!  This time, though, it's completely hopeless for
white.

43...Bd3 44. h4 Be4 45. Qf2 f5 46. h5 Qa2!

The end.

57. Nb2 Q:a5 48. Qe3 Qd5 49. Qb6 Qf7 50. Kf2 Bc2 51. Qd8 Q:h5 52. Qe7 Be4

and white resigned.  0-1.

At the time, I thought I played this ending very well but maybe in hindsight
it wasn't so hard.

Comments?

--IM Mark Ginsburg

[ Any discussion?  Let's get some response and see it in Bits! Ed.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky rec.games.chess:6474 rec.games.go:1708 rec.games.board:8232 news.groups:17159