The Chicago Chess Player · The Chicago Chess Player October 2007 Officer Contact List ... Rare Authentic Hand-Carved Chess Set from Myanmar

D R E S S P R O P E R L Y this Halloween

October 2007 Volume 51.3

The Chicago Chess Player

The Official Bulletin of the Chicago Industrial Chess League

CICL Contact List

The Chicago Chess Player www.ChicagoChessLeague.org October 2007

Bulletin Editor/Webmaster Tom Friske 1035 E Algonquin Road H:(847) 299-1033 [email protected] Des Plaines, IL 60016 W:{847) 914-8448 Ratings Chairman Art Olsen 714 E Algonquin Road #J102 H:(847) 437-9819 [email protected] Arlington Heights, IL 60006 W:(847) 719-8036 FAX : to SBS OTS, 22NW0644-5 at (847) 719-8151 League President Tony Jasaitis C:(708) 903-6423 [email protected] W:(312) 264-2044 League Secretary Jerry Thomas 745 Hageman Pl H:(630)420-0188 [email protected] Naperville, IL 60563 League Treasurer Paul Freidel 3N861 Babson Lane [email protected] St Charles, IL 60175 Trophy Chairman Marty Franek 9044 S 51st Avenue H: (708) 636-3714 [email protected] Oak Lawn, IL 60453-1730 W: (312) 353-0397 Publicity Chairman Matt Vail C: (312) 933-1516 [email protected] W: (630)505-6557 Banquet Chairman Wayne Ellice H: (708) 636-1303 [email protected] DIVISIONAL CHAIRMEN East Division Adam Muhs C: (847) 877-9629 [email protected] W: (312) 497-1184 West Division Bob Buchner 1316 Kallien Court H: (630) 428-7707 [email protected] Naperville, IL 60540 W: (630) 979-7707 North Division Jim Thomson W: (847) 538-5408 [email protected]

Mark Your Calendars with These Key League Dates: Fall Business Meeting Last Wednesday of August (Aug 29 2007) Spring Business Meeting 3.5 Weeks Before Playoffs (April 16, 2008) Season Playoffs Second Saturday of May (May 10, 2008) CICL Open Second Saturday of May (May 10, 2008) League Awards Banquet First Friday of June (June 7, 2008)

Contents of Issue 51.3 3


Officer Contact List 2 Contents of Issue 3 News 4 2007-2008 Dues Form 6 About David Green 7 FEATURES Best of the ChessNinja.com 11

Games as reviewed by THE PLAYERS ! 17 Halloween Gambit 28 Club Announcements 43 On the cover… A search for Halloween costumes turned up this “winner”. There’s a matching queen one for that special gal in your life (if you can talk her into being seen near it

With contributions from : Tony Jasaitis, Dave Baurac, Lenny Spiegel, Frank Suerth, Bob Buchner, Dave Eustace, and Fred Furtner

NEWS from around the League and beyond… 4


HUGE THANKS to this month’s contributors! It was getting late in the month and I wasn’t coming up with a theme, let alone any ideas for an interesting issue. Then a brainstorm hit – ask for help, why pretend I have a clue ? And within an hour (literally!) my mail box was rained on with ideas and promises for analyzed games. This issue is largely the work of a group, not just me…. and I like it ! ---The Editor SAD NEWS about a long-term CICL member Monday we learned of the death of David W. Green, former ACL/CSE employee. He was killed in a car accident this past Saturday. His son-in-law was also in the vehicle, but thankfully is in stable condition after having surgery. Dave retired from teaching at Albion College in Michigan recently. For those of us new to the Rooks, Dave Green was a fixture on the Argonne chess teams for most of the last 30-35 years, serving as captain of the Argonne Pawns for some 20 years and playing for the Rooks for the last couple of seasons, since his retirement from Albion. More of David’s impact on those he knew is included within this issue. Email alias update An alert reader noticed a couple errors with the aliases as listed in last month’s (September 2007) bulletin. The editor apparently didn’t correctly edit last season’s list ! Jim Thomson is the recipient to the “ChairmanNorth” alias. Also, both Arnie Walker (former Captain) and Brian Aubry receive email to the “Northrop” alias. Rest assured the online aliases have always been set correctly. DUES GRACE PERIOD TO EXPIRE Dues are now DUE !! Get payment in to the treasurer THIS MONTH or face a monetary penalty. Another copy of form follows. Could just call it the “Internet Steal” issue So many portions of this issue are pieced from the Internet, but, oh well. The editor is always amazed at the good stuff out there and intends to keep you faithful readers informed about the best sites. This month, Fred Furtner (AMA) points out a real winner: (TO REFERENCE LINKS, select hand tool in Acrobat Reader and copy/paste site address) I’ve been browsing YOUTUBE for all sorts of things lately. Mainly listening to songs (oldies), political stuff (Senate hearings, candidates, etc.). Also, there’s lots of clips from movies, comedians, and other stuff. Just go to the site, and type in a descriptive word and ‘enter’... http://www.youtube.com/ And, of course, regarding chess... THERE’S A TON OF VIDEOS on YouTube about all-things chess. Just typing “chess” into the search field, for instance, will bring up about 12,000 short videos. From 4-9 minute intros on openings and defenses, to whole games, funny videos, movie clips, etc. How about typing in other words?.... Chess fun. Defensive chess. Chess openings. Fischer. Best chess. Russian chess. Chess tricks. Look what you get there. Some other stuff I found... “I WANT YOU TO CHECK ME, AS HARD AS YOU CAN” (Fight Club): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3rryxkgx9g (Another) FIGHT CLUB CHESS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gan6hUkEqzM CHESS CLUB CHEERLEADERS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM5FNL0zwc0 “The Chess Game” (winner of Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film in 1997) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAjnSm8WI-s MANIPULATING WITH CHESS (lying) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAjnSm8WI-s Documentary Fischer/Spassky (part 1 of 4): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gO5Cro1qUE WORLDS GREATEST CHESS GAME: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DYcOf9GGAg GEORGE COSTANZA PLAYS CHESS (SEINFELD): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc4IPH7XQBA

NEWS from around the League and beyond… 5


But basically, YouTube’s a great site for reviewing chess openings, watching interesting documentaries on players, and getting energized about all things chess. Yes, it’s another gold mine that’s worth tapping. THAT’S GREAT, BUT HOW ABOUT SOMETHING for those with thousands of extra dollars laying around ?? Here’s some Ebay deals for those with “discerning tastes” : 1) Chess Set and Table & Chairs found on eBay for US $1,200.00! Shipping $60.00 but if you drive to Elwood, IN, you can save on the shipping! Chess Set, folding table and chairs LION Heads and feet http://cgi.ebay.com/Chess-Set-folding-table-and-chairs-LION-Heads-and-feet_W0QQitemZ120070234963QQihZ002QQcategoryZ12QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD1VQQcmdZViewItem You can get some photo off the eBay site. 2) Rare Authentic Hand-Carved Chess Set from Myanmar Starting bid:$1,450.00 This is an authentic vintage Burmese (Myanmar) chess set. It was found in 2005 on Arakan mountains buried under ground and brought to Philadelphia in 2006. It has one of a kind hand-carved wooden case. The pieces are beautifully carved out of metal. The case and pieces are in a very good condition and there are no pieces missing. I don't know the exact value of this chess set. From what I've been told by different appraisers, it could be worth anywhere from $2000 to $25000 or more. http://cgi.ebay.com/Rare-Authentic-Hand-Carved-Chess-Set-from-Myanmar_W0QQitemZ250174494347QQihZ015QQcategoryZ19088QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem (You’ll probably want some documentation to prove those claims, I’d think!) BUT THERE’S ALSO GOOD CHESS STUFF CHEAP !! www.chesscountry.com "As a long time CICL participant it is my pleasure to announce that ChessCountry is offering discounts to all CICL members. CICL members will be able to get 30% off on all BadBishop DVDs and 25% off on all other products (books, clocks, software, etc). ChessCountry is an authorized North American dealer for both BadBishop and Convekta (producers of Rybka, CT-ART, Chess Assistant). I can unequivocally state that the BadBishop DVDs are simply superb. Players of all strengths will benefit from the thorough and easy to follow explanations of some of the UK's strongest players such as GM Murray Chandler, GM Tony Kosten, and IM Andrew Martin. These DVDs are a perfect medium in that they can be viewed via a standalone player, laptop, or on a workstation (possibly side by side with a database program!). They are an invaluable tool for absorbing and retaining chess knowledge. ChessCountry is the driving force behind these DVDs and more are in the works including one by former world champion cycle finalist GM Nigel Short. All DVD titles and other products can be found at the ChessCountry store. Look for a short sample clip of the DVDs on YouTube. But even if you don't see the clip you won't go wrong by ordering these DVDs. If you decide to order simply indicate your CICL membership to receive your discount. Enjoy!

Dues Form 2007-2008 Season 6


To: Chicago Industrial Chess League Team Captains From: Paul Freidel, CICL Treasurer Date: August 29, 2007 Re: Dues Charges for the 2007-08 Season Below are the assessments to each CICL team for the 2007-08 season. Please complete the form below and return it with a check made payable to the Chicago Industrial Chess League.

Team Name: Captain: Annual Basic Dues per 6-player Team $55.00 Penalty if postmarked after 11/30/06 $5.00 Penalty if postmarked after 12/31/06 $10.00 Annual Bulletin subscription free! Download from www.chicagochessleague.org Credit from 2006-2007 banquet deposit (-$15.00) (only for teams that paid the deposit in 2006-07) (Enter “DONATE” to not accept credit… Thank You !!) Awards Banquet Ticket (1 required per team) $25.00 Total $ The CICL encourages you to pay team dues before 11/30/07. If you are not able to pay team dues before 11/30/07, please inform the treasurer. Any funds included with late payments in excess of the required amount will be considered a donation to the treasury.

Send payment with form to the following address:

Paul Freidel 359 N. Worth Ave.

Elgin, IL 60123

In Memory of David Green 7


Former Chemistry Professor David Green, '64, Dies in Auto Accident

Story and photo by Morris Arvoy

David Green, ’64, the beloved chemistry professor who endeared himself to his students by working with them well into the early hours of the morning, was killed in an automobile accident Saturday, Oct. 27, on M-60 in Branch County. He was 65. Green's daughter Brenda Green O'Connell, '99, and her husband, Patrick O'Connell, '99, also were injured in the accident and are at Bronson Hospital in Kalamazoo. Green enjoyed a successful 30-year career at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory—during which he eventually became the manager of the analytical chemistry laboratories in Argonne's chemical technology division--before returning to Albion to teach in 2001, his third stint on the faculty. “He taught me to love chemistry,” said Emily Carvill, ’05, a chemistry major from Grand Blanc, Mich., who is applying to physician assistant programs. “Regardless of how you were doing, he always had a way of making you love it.” Carvill, who served as a teaching assistant for Green’s analytical chemistry course, said that the professor had a knack for knowing when his students were anxious or stressed. Carvill remembered Green often eased the tension students were feeling with a joke, witty comeback, or even chocolate. “He made you feel at ease about even the most stressful things,” she said. As a faculty member, he was Phi Beta Kappa president and member, involved with the Project 250 Awards committee, and served on the visiting committees of the Carl A. Gerstacker Liberal Arts Institute in Professional Management and the Institute for the Study of the Environment. In addition, he was a Foundation for Undergraduate Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity (FURSCA) faculty mentor to at least 15 Albion students. Green retired from Albion in 2006 after teaching a total of seven years. He frequently returned to campus to attend sporting events, visit with students and colleagues, and dine with “The Married Bachelors,” a small group of faculty and staff. Students, alums, faculty and staff mourned Green’s death this weekend in the science complex and across campus, as well as via emails, telephone calls, and instant messaging. Students and faculty today (Oct. 29) donned the green T-shirts designed by Jenna Orr, ’07, and Rachel Lippert, ’08, for Green’s retirement party in 2006, at which more than 100 of Green’s students and colleagues feted their friend and mentor. “When he retired it devastated me and some of the other students because he wasn’t going to be here,” Lippert said. “This is a hundred times worse.” Assistant professor of chemistry Vanessa McCaffrey, along with her colleagues, created the chemistry department's webstory <go to http://www.albion.edu/chemistry/dwgreen.asp> this weekend. She remembered Green as a colleague dedicated to bringing out the best in students and faculty. “I always aspired to be just like Dave,” she said. “He was so genuinely interested in everything students did—not simply what they did at Albion College, but what they did beyond Albion College. He had the knack of asking the one question of a student who would then just sit down and tell him their life story. He didn’t just show the interest in the



laboratory, but he would go to the basketball games, go to the dance recitals, the plays. “He really wanted to help people achieve the best that they could in everything they wanted to.” An inveterate Facebook user, Green remained in contact with many students and friends through the online networking program. Messages to Green continue to be left on his “wall” http://albion.facebook.com/profile.php?id=36202714 This Facebook message, from student Steven Schluentz, ’08, is typical of the outpouring: “Dr. Green, I have one last puzzle for you.... Who was the most inspirational man I have ever met, would do anything to help a student, and found a way to keep everything light hearted? That’s right, you. Words cannot describe the admiration I have for you. You taught me so much, not just about chemistry but about life. You taught me to have passion for whatever you do and your passion for chemistry, your family, and helping others is immeasurable. You will be deeply missed.” In an interview for Io Triumphe alumni magazine upon his retirement (see end of this article), Green talked about making a difference. “I think Albion for the most part has really good students,” he said. “I am very sympathetic to students who like to learn and are willing to work at it. In five years I have gotten to know a lot of students. I enjoy teaching the introductory course—you can make a difference in helping students get on the right track in that course. I think it’s rewarding to make a difference in someone’s maturing process as they try and navigate the challenges of college.” Anjali Arora, a 2004 graduate finishing her medical degree at the University of Michigan, was a two-time FURSCA summer research student with Green who also worked on her research with him over three academic years. "It was a great experience working with him," she said. "He was more than just a teacher or a mentor. He became part of my family. I worked with him for so long, he would do anything to help me or any other student. I will never forget that, or him." As an Albion College student, Green was active in Tau Kappa Epsilon (TKE), where he was president for a year-and-a-half, as well as the Chemistry Club, the Physics Club and many other organizations. He was the first recipient of the Putnam Award, given to the chemistry student with the most outstanding record at the end of their second year. Upon graduating, Green earned his Ph.D. at the University of California at Berkeley, where he studied with Professor Leo Brewer. Following Berkeley, he was a postdoctoral research assistant with Nobel Laureate Robert Mullikan at the University of Chicago. After his postdoc, he returned to Albion to pursue his passion of teaching. He was an adjunct professor at Albion College during the fall semester of 1971. He left the College for a job at Argonne as an analytical chemist--during which time he earned an MBA from the University of Chicago's Executive MBA program--but returned to Albion several times as an adjunct professor in 1973-1974 and, most recently, 2001-2006. Green served for many years editor of ALMA, the journal of the Analytical Laboratory Manager's Association and was named that organization’s first Outstanding Lab Manager of the Year in 2005. Before returning to Albion, Green also was a member and president of the DuPage County District 58 Board of Education in Downers Grove, Ill. He had recently assufmed the executive director’s position for ALMA. Martin Ludington, ’64, professor emeritus of physics and a TKE housemate of Green’s during their student days, recalled that Green was a “tremendous” leader on campus. “As a student, he was as much more a math student—he loved mathematics,” Ludington nofted. Ludington, who retired in 2005, remembered Green as a strong and driven athlete, smaller in stature than many varsity athletes, which led to Green’s dominance of intramural games. “He was just amazing as an athlete,” Ludington said. “He wasn’t big enough to be a varsity athlete, but in intramurals he was a terror. He made up for it in motivation and drive. He also had a real passion for golf.” Robert Dininny, professor emeritus of chemistry who retired in 1995, recalled that Green was in his very first physical chemistry course during Green’s junior year. Dininny remembered Green as bright “without one bit of arrogance about that brightness.” “He was just an absolute delight to have in class,” Dininny said. “I really felt that I learned more from him that he learned from me. He really was a self-starter—you just pointed him in the right direction and let him go.”



Dininny recalled using a new book for the “p-chem” course. Nearly each week, Green would leave a piece of paper on Dininny’s desk where he had reworked a problem that was done incorrectly in the book. Dininny commented on Green’s playfulness, remembering the laws of thermodynamics that Green created in addition to the existing three. He recalled his favorite as, ‘It is impossible to pass physical chemistry unless W is greater than Q. W is the work done by the student, and Q is the heat put on by the professor.’” Another law centered on the state of Dininny’s small laboratory as the semester progressed: “As the time left in the semester approaches zero, the entropy in the lab increases without limit.” Years later, as a sabbatical replacement for chemistry professor Daniel Steffenson, Green was using a new book in which the California author had promised readers that he would pay 50 cents for each error corrected in the book. Periodically, Dininny recalled, Green would ship off errors that his students found. “A few weeks later they would get a nice check from California, and they would go downtown for a pizza party,” Dininny recalled. “He really got students invested in it that way.” Ludington called Green “tremendous as a science colleague,” the person many other scientists went to with their chemistry questions. “He was a born teacher—not only did he know the subject, he could explain it to you.” When Green was able to show students “those toys” in the Herbert H. and Grace a Dow Analytical Science Laboratory, Ludington said Green’s face always lit up. “It was as if they built the Dow Lab for him!” Carvill recalled a professor dedicated to helping students at all hours and going the extra mile—even for those who were not in his classes. “Whatever you needed of him, he was willing to do it,” she said. “He nominated me for an undergraduate award from the American Chemical Society Division of Analytical Chemistry, and I wasn’t even his own research student. I was so honored that he chose me. I got it in the spring of 2004.” Carvill described countless evenings spent on the first floor of Putnam Hall outside Green's office with dozens of other students. “It was a revolving door, somebody would go out, another would go in, and we would be there until 1 or 2 in the morning until he had helped all of us.” “He was an amazing professor, and a great friend and a great man,” Carvill said. “Nobody will ever replace him.” Green is survived by his wife, Sally McCullough Green, '66; daughters Laura and Brenda; sons Mark, Brian, and William, '05; and his mother, Dorotha Onweller Green, '38. Funeral arrangements are still pending and will be posted once they have been determined.

David Green, ’64

Visiting Professor of Chemistry

Interviewer: Morris Arvoy

Years at Albion: 7 Education: A.B., 1964, Albion College; Ph.D., 1968, University of California, Berkeley; M.B.A., 1985, University of Chicago Service: Project 250 Awards committee, visiting committees of Carl A. Gerstacker Liberal Arts Institute in Professional Management and Institute for the Study of the Environment, Foundation for Undergraduate Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity faculty mentor to 15 students, Phi Beta Kappa president and member Personal: Married to Mary McCullough Green, ’66; five children, including Brenda, ’99, and Will, ’05 Fun fact: Before coming to Albion, Green was a member and president of the DuPage County District 58 Board of Education in Downers Grove, Ill., and the editor of the journal, Managing the Modern Laboratory, for eight years.

In the past five years you have become very popular with students.I spend a lot of time here. I wanted to spend that time on campus—that was one of the attractions about coming back here. I wanted to go to student events, the plays and concerts and



games, and I’ve been involved a lot with students in research. I enjoy doing it. When I was a student I was active in a lot of things. I work better when I am slightly overcommitted.

This isn’t the first time you’ve taught at Albion College.

I taught from August 1971 to January 1972 (one semester), and then from August 1973 to January 1975 (three semesters). Adding the last five years makes seven total teaching years, plus four as a student and eight years as a parent.

You’ve made working with students your top priority. Why is that important to you? Your background is in research and lab management.

I think Albion for the most part has really good students. I am very sympathetic to students who like to learn and are willing to work at it. In five years I have gotten to know a lot of students. I enjoy teaching the introductory course—you can make a difference in helping students get on the right track in that course. I think it’s rewarding to make a difference in someone’s maturing process as they try and navigate the challenges of college.

Beyond working here, you have many other connections to the College.

My mother and father are Albion graduates [Dorotha Onweller Green, ’38, and the late F. Harger Green, ’40]. My wife and I met at Albion. My sister’s son graduated from Albion. And two of my children. And a lot of friends, too.

What are the changes you’ve seen from your student days to now?

I have a unique perspective. Because I was away for many years, I can see the differences more clearly. Students are much better prepared. There are more students coming in who have had a good high school chemistry class, and in many cases two years of chemistry. We rarely had people with two years of chemistry before. That is one thing. Another thing is that you could always get involved with things at Albion, but it seems to be much more a part of the culture now. There is also more interaction with the town than there was when I was a student. We went downtown to an ice cream place called the Rainbow Dairy, and we’d go to the Bohm Theater, but for the most part there was very little interaction with the town.

When you look back at these seven years here, what will you miss the least?

I have to say lab notebooks have never been my favorite. They just take so long to grade.

How about those things you know you’ll miss a lot?

Well, I still am not sure I am done teaching. I might come back to it sometime. I’ll have to see. Teaching is very rewarding, and there are a lot of chances to interact with students on a more personal level, so I get to know people a lot better.

What are you going to be doing next year?

I’ll probably do a lot of traveling that I have not been able to do, and I have a backlog of reading. I have two grandchildren in Illinois, so [I’ll spend] a lot more time with family and friends.

Finally, name one thing about you that no one knows. My favorite color is really blue!

These articles were brazenly copy/pasted from Albion College website at: http://www.albion.edu/news/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=274 More details can be found at http://www.albion.edu/chemistry/dwgreen.asp

Best of ChessNinja.com 11


Mig on Chess #116, 4.13.99 Dos Hermanas Rounds 4 & 5: Alternating Currents (TWIC)

"When cowardice is made respectable, its followers are without number both from among the weak and the strong; it easily becomes a fashion." -- Eric Hoffer

If you're not going to be able to watch round six on Tuesday, don't worry, you're not likely to miss much. As an even-numbered round it's an unofficial off day and you can expect at least four of the games to be short draws. This isn't Migstradamus talking, it's the numbers so far: Nine out of ten games played on even-numbered rounds have been drawn! That's compared to the 7/15 games drawn in rounds one, three, and five. And of course that should be 6/15, as we'll see a little later.

Rounds full of draws always create talk about solutions to this "problem." Several times I've hashed over this topic in these pages and many people have sent in their ideas on how best to cut down on the percentage of drawn games in GM tournaments. First you have to distinguish good fighting draws from so-called GM-draws. The former are the result of hard-played games in which neither player manages to win (or lose), simply put. The point is that at least one of the players was trying to win the game and had confidence in his ability to do so. A GM-draw results when neither player has much interest in winning or, at the very least, has much more interest in not losing. The term "GM-draw" originates with the plain fact that it's rare for draws of under 20 moves to occur in non-professional games. I think this is because few amateurs believe they have more to lose than to gain in any given game since their livelihoods don't depend on their tournament standings or their elo rating. Rarely would a club player propose, or agree to, a draw unless the position were hopelessly even, or unless he believed his position to be at least minutely inferior.

But many GMs agree to draws in positions that have been reached hundreds of times before and others make peace just when things are starting to get interesting. Though they are rarely pressed about these short draws, when they are asked they usually have no shortage of excuses handy. (Some of them are even valid, I should add.) But how can we determine which are valid draws and which ones were cop-outs? Extenuating circumstances must be factored in, surely. On the other hand, justice must be meted out to those who rob the sponsors of their invested cash and the fans of their good faith by heading for the showers without breaking a sweat. How can we do this? How can we be objective? This is where the "Chicken Factor™" comes in.

I have designed a scientifically precise system we can use to figure out who needs to be tarred and feathered and who already has his own plumage. It assigns values to each of the legitimate factors in the final position and then adds them up to produce the final rating for each player: The Chicken Factor. Many of the off-the-board factors are also included. These factors are based on the common excuses we hear, of course. (Other excuses like "I didn't know what was going on," are not acceptable and receive no adjustments. And if you want to "save energy" go install some solar panels.) You simply run down the ten-point checklist, and there you have it!

CHICKEN FACTOR CHECKLIST

1. "There wasn't any play left in the position." Fine, I believe you, but then what do all those pieces do? If there's enough material on the board anything can happen! A simple piece value count provides us with the first variable in the formula: The total value of the player's pieces and pawns, based on the traditional Queen=9, Rook=5, Bishop and Knight=3, Pawn=1. (Calculated separately for each player to penalize the person with a material advantage.) Short draws are worse than boring and pathetic, they are insulting to the fans and the organizers. Subtract the total number of moves from each player's piece value score. (Additional penalty for draws of 15 moves and under. See Bonuses and Penalties below.) So, a game with no exchanges and drawn in 18 moves would provide a base Chicken Factor of, umm, lemme see, uhhh... 21 for each player (39 piece value minus 18 moves). (See the Bonuses and Penalties section for symmetrical and locked structures.) Note that in a fighting draw this base Chicken Factor will most likely be a negative number. 2. "I had black." Racist! Since when did it become impossible to win with black? Okay, not everyone is a Fischer or a Kasparov, but many players today seem to be terrified of winning with black. They get an equal, or even slightly better, position and the first thing they do is propose a draw, eager to try for the win with white the next day. From a maximization of advantages perspective this makes sense (more energy + first move) so we can't criticize too harshly. But if you don't think you can beat your opponent from an equal position why don't you go home and break out your Barbie? A 10-point penalty is added to the Chicken Factor of the player with the white pieces and black receives a 10-point deduction.

Mig Greengard has been a favorite chess writer since the early days of the Internet. Here is a sample of his work. Visit his site weekly for news and inside views of grandmaster chess !



3. "One look at the crosstable will show you why we agreed to an early draw." Coward! If you're having a bad tournament don't you think trying to win might help improve things? If you're in first place did you get there by wimping out in every game? Rapid draws are common between tailenders near the end of an event because neither player wants to make things worse and lose even more elo points. Anyone in the lead is politely excused from playing a decent game because any half-point edges them closer to tournament victory. But when appearance fees are much higher than the prizes this argument loses weight like Pavarotti with Ebola. The lost elo risk is more of a factor since organizers are so infatuated with putting on the highest category event they can. Since most GMs pay the rent with the money they make at chess there has to be a small adjustment here. If the game was played in the final two rounds and one of the players was in first or last place, deduct 10 points from that player's total. (Of course in a match this deduction only applies to the player in the lead.) 4. "I was just happy to get a draw against So-and-so." This is the cry of the underdog who just drew against a much higher-rated opponent. Who cares about what was happening on the board, Mr. Superduper offered a draw and you grabbed it with both hands! To the barnyard with you! If you were good enough to go toe-to-toe against a higher-rated player so far why aren't you good enough to beat him? And if the guy always beats you wouldn't it be nice to break that streak? Again, elo is a mitigating factor since a draw gives the lower-rated player some points. Plus, the big guy deserves a penalty for letting some wimp off with half a point. Take the difference between their ratings, divide that number by 5 and add the rounded result to the higher-rated player's score and subtract it from the lower-rated player's. 5. "After what happened in my last game(s) I just wanted hang on and get my equilibrium back." YAWN. The medical benefit of trying to force a draw after losing a game has yet to be proven! Still, GMs invest a lot of energy and ego in their games and are often seriously affected by a loss. Deduct 5 points from any player for each preceding consecutive loss. (So if one of the players had just lost his two previous games you deduct 10 points from his Chicken Factor. If a player is coming off a draw or win, no modification is made.)

Bonuses and Penalties:

6. "No play" bonus: If the pawn structure is clearly symmetrical or completely locked, deduct 5 points from the scores of both players. (If the pawn structure is both symmetrical and locked, deduct 10.) 7. "Imminent disaster" bonus: If a three-time repetition occurs because there was no viable alternative. This applies in cases of perpetual check or in those rare cases in which if either player avoids the repetition he will remain with the worse position. (Use very critical judgement here. Most repetitions can be avoided.) Deduct 10 points from both players in these extreme cases. 8. "Been there, done that" penalty: Add ten points to the score of both players if they failed to exceed known games by at least five moves. That is, if they agree to a draw on move 18 and you find another game that reached the exact same position they had reached on move 16, you apply the penalty and add 10 to each player's score. (This adjustment can be ignored by those without access to large databases.) 9. "Why bother?" penalty: A severe penalty for insulting the fans and the organizers by agreeing a draw before your seat gets warm. Draws in 0-10 moves: add 45 points; 11-15 moves: 30 points; 16-20 moves: 15 points. 10. "What, me win?" penalty: A rare penalty, applied to a player who agrees to a draw in a winning or extremely advantageous position. 30 points are added to the player with the clearly superior position. And of course you can't blame the other player for agreeing to a draw in a losing position so deduct 20 points from the player who just received a miracle.

Then we check the Chicken Factor Scorechart to see how they scored. (Generally speaking, below zero is good and above zero is wimpy.)

OFFICIAL CHICKEN FACTOR SCORECHART

> Chicken Factor -50 or less: Fearless Falcon > Chicken Factor -49 - -25: Heroic Hawk

> Chicken Factor -24 - -1: Plucky Peregrine > Chicken Factor 0 - 15: Timid Turkey

> Chicken Factor 16 - 30: Faint-hearted Finch > Chicken Factor 31 - 45: Spineless Sparrow > Chicken Factor 46 - 60: Cowardly Cuckoo

>Chicken Factor 61 or more: Chicken Supreme (a.k.a. King of the Barnyard, Colonel Sanders,

Foghorn Leghorn, El Pollo Loco, Cock-a-doodle-doo, etc.)

So let's put the Chicken Factor to the test by looking at several of the five draws provided in round four of the Dos Hermanas super-tournament.



1 (Base CF (material value minus number of moves)): (37 - 27 = 10) Gelfand: +10; (37 - 27 = 10) Polgar: +10 2 (color): Gelfand: +10; Polgar: -10 3 (standings): Draw did not occur in the final two rounds, no adjustments 4 (rating): Gelfand (elo 2691): +3; Polgar (elo 2677): -3 5 (preceding loss): Gelfand: no adjustment; Polgar: -10 (lost in rounds two and three)

Additional Adjustments: None

Chicken Factor: Gelfand: 23; Polgar: -13

Thus we find that while this draw was fully warranted from Polgar's perspective, Gelfand finds himself right in the middle of Faint-hearted Finch territory.

Gelfand - Polgar, round four Final position after 27...Bf6

(We can also talk of a game's chicken factor by adding the two scores (here it would be 10), although this is often inaccurate due to cases like the above in which one player is much more deserving of blame than the other.)

Korchnoi - Kramnik, round four

Final position after 13...Nbd5

1 Base CF: Korchnoi: 25, Kramnik: 25 2: Korchnoi: +10; Kramnik: -10 3: No adjustments 4: Korchnoi (2673): -15; Kramnik (2751): +15 5: Korchnoi: -5; Kramnik: no adjustment

Additional Adjustments:

8 (known theory): Korchnoi: +10; Kramnik: +10 9 (why bother): Korchnoi: +20; Kramnik: +20

Chicken Factor: Korchnoi: 45; Kramnik: 60

We can see that Kramnik's much higher rating compensates for his playing black and that Korchnoi's loss to Adams in the previous round was also a factor. This pathetic draw put Korchnoi at the top end of the Spineless Sparrow range and Kramnik barely saved himself from the horror of Chicken Supreme.



1 Base CF: Illescas: -5; Adams: -5 2 Illescas: +10; Adams: -10 3 No adjustments 4 Illescas (2585): -26; Adams: (2716): +26 5 No adjustments

Additional Adjustments: None

Chicken Factor: Illescas: -21; Adams: 11

Again the large rating gap played a crucial roll. In all this was a relatively well-played game instead of a lame GM-draw and the Chicken Factor reflects this. Illescas escapes censure while Adams receives mild condemnation for "letting" a player ranked 131 points lower get a quick draw.

Illescas - Adams, round four

Final position after 31.Bd1

Of course there will be some exceptions to the Chicken Factor rule. On rare occasions you will encounter a short, sharp draw in which both players fought hard and tactical skirmishes led to simplification and a clearly drawn position, resulting in an undeservedly high Chicken Factor, but I'm willing to bet that these are rarer than hen's teeth. I look forward to receiving your help in honing the Chicken Factor into a perfect science! Run some games through the formula and see what adjustments you think might be needed or what new factors might be added to better reflect your impressions. Soon the Chicken Factor will be an international standard and included in all database formats, I can see it now!

Let's see what happens when we run what looks like a tough draw through the formula.

Svidler - Anand, round five Final position after 69...Kf7

1 Base CF: Svidler: -66; Anand: -65 2 Svidler: +10; Anand: -10 3 No adjustments 4 Svidler (2713): -14; Anand (2781): +14 5 No adjustments

Additional Adjustments:

10 (clear advantage): Svidler: +30; Anand: -20

Chicken Factor: Svidler: -40; Anand: -81

A brutal, hard-fought draw between mighty birds of prey! They played long and hard and went down to the bare bones so their big negative Chicken Factors should have put them both clearly into the Fearless Falcon class. Unfortunately for Svidler he agreed to this draw with a clear win on the board and so receives a big 30 point penalty. Still, no wimpy draw and the Chicken Factor confirms this obvious fact.

What, you didn't know about the Svidler - Anand game yet? Actually, I feel bad about that penalty for drawing in a winning position when finding out about it later is punishment enough for the player! Poor Peter Svidler has never beaten Vishy Anand and after playing a brilliant sacrificial game in round five he was finally ready to chalk up his first win. After some curious exchanges and messy play they arrived to an ending in which it was hard to see how the black knight and king could deal with all of White's pawns. Then Anand found a brilliant resource: his pawn on d4 was enough to hold the draw thanks to a remarkable check defense. Svidler maneuvered closer with his king, advanced his pawns to prepare the crucial breakthrough, and after his position reached its optimum... he agreed to a draw!!!

The hundreds of fans watching on-line around the world were stunned into silence for nearly a full second! (Trust me, this is not common.) It's clear that White can't advance his king any further and he can't take the d-pawn without losing his a-pawn to ...Nb5+, so Svidler agreed to the draw. But thanks to the precise location of his kingside pawns White can give up the a-pawn and still win! In an amazing sequence the king dominates the knight and forces it to either flee to the queenside or die an ugly death on e7! Either way White queens a pawn in short order and after that it's just shooting knights in a barrel. In fact, if you have a computer program that works together with Ken Thompson's endgame tablebases it will quickly tell you that the final position of Svidler - Anand is MATE IN 21!! AAAAUUUUUUGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!



Thankfully there aren't any high buildings near the playing hall and Svidler's attempt to do himself in via an overdose of toxic substances was unsuccessful, although he won't be in good shape after eating those 17 Big Macs. Here's the beautiful win Svidler missed. (Did Anand see it when he offered the draw!?!) Finally White has maneuvered to his optimum position and... AGREED DRAWN!! UNBELIEVABLE!! AMAZING!! IN ONE WORD FROM CHRISTIAN SÖDERSTRÖM: FLABBERGASTING!!!! With a forced win on the board Svidler throws his brilliant effort away by agreeing to a draw! The win isn't easy to see, but it's still remarkable that a GM misses forcing a pawn to queen in six moves! After giving up the a-pawn the white king completely dominates the black knight, forcing it to either leave the scene on a7 or into the line of fire on e7. A remarkable position, even for a super-GM, apparently.

69...Kf7 70.Kxd4!! Fritzy finds this in around a dozen seconds. I found it myself (someone had already told me by e-mail the final position was a win, so it wasn't too hard) only because there's nothing else to play! Really, there's no risk at all so why not see what happens? Could Svidler really have been so certain that he couldn't win without the a-pawn? That's what makes this so shocking. If he had spent a minute to actually calculate some lines he would have easily found the win, but you just don't imagine that the kingside pawns alone can win against king and knight. After five hours of brutal action he just didn't have the focus to look for something new in the position.

70...Nb5+ 71.Kc5 Nxa7 72.Kb6 Nc8+ 73.Kc7 An active king indeed! A remarkable position. The knight only has two squares and on e7 it will be in just the right place for a pawn fork! Who says there's no luck in chess? 73...Ne7 (73...Na7 74.Kd7 Kf6 75.h7 Kg7 76.f6+ Kxh7 77.f7 Kg7 78.Ke8+-) 74.h7 Kg7 (74...Nd5+ 75.Kd6 Kg7 76.Kxd5 Kxh7 77.Ke6 Kg8 78.f6 Kf8 79.f7 Kg7 80.Ke7; 74...Nxf5 75.h8Q tablebase time 75...Ke6 76.Kc6 Ne7+ 77.Kc5 Ng6 78.Qa8 Ke7 79.Qa6 Kf7 80.Kd6 Nf8 81.Qa8 Nh7 82.Qa7+ Kg6 83.Ke5 Ng5 84.Qg1 Kh6 85.Kf5 Kg7 86.Kxg5 Kf7 87.Qe3 Kg8 88.Kg6 Kf8 89.Qe1 Kg8 90.Qe8#) 75.f6+ Kxf6 76.h8Q++- Over to you, Mr. Endgame Tablebase... 76...Ke6 77.Qh6+ Kf5 78.Kd6 Ng6 79.Qh5+ Kf6 80.Qa5 Kg7 81.Ke6 Nf4+ 82.Kf5 Nh5 83.Kg5 Kf7 84.Qd5+ Kf8 85.Kxh5 Ke8 86.Kh6 Ke7 87.Kg7 Ke8 88.Kf6 Kf8 89.Qd8#

Needless to say Svidler left the playing hall at top speed and in a mood to kick kittens after Argentine GM Daniel Cámpora showed him what Fritz 5 had found while the game was still going on. He was already in last place and while his tournament might have been beyond hope, his first career win against Anand would have been a slice of rainbow after the storm. In a recent video interview with ChessBase Magazine (CD-ROM Extra #68) Svidler waxed poetic on why he plays chess. (After starting out with, "Because it's the only thing I can do!") He said that on a good day you can create music, the maximum expression of art. After this beautiful game and its bitter conclusion I think it's safe to say you can create art even on bad days. A terrible fate for such an interesting and inspired game.

Svidler's brilliant opening conception to revive a discarded piece sacrifice was followed up by ever-increasing pressure against Anand's stranded king. Analysts had given up on the 12.Nxf7 piece sac after only two or three outings, but Svidler's new 16.e6!! (a novelty of the year competitor along with around a dozen Kasparov innovations) might toss the entire line into the dustbin! He gained a ferocious attack and it was rapidly clear that he was going to get his sacrificed piece back with interest. Even after a few imprecisions allowed Black to survive the direct attack it looked like getting the full point in a superior endgame was only a matter of technique for Svidler. But Anand was revitalized by his own miraculous escape from the jaws of death and made things as complicated as possible. By the end of the first time control Black was even generating threats and it wasn't clear if White had any advantage left at all. His extra pawns were on the endangered species list and all three of Anand's pieces were moving in.

Then things changed dramatically once again when Svidler gave up his knight to reach a remarkable endgame with a, c, d, f, and h-pawns against Anand's d-pawn and knight!! (See diagram) 42.Rxh3 Rc1+ 43.Ke2 Rxc3 44.bxc3 Ng1+ 45.Kf1 Nxh3 Nights of analysis will have to figure out best play both sides, but it's clear that white held all the cards as far as winning chances. Knights are notoriously helpless against rook pawns and here Svidler had two of them! White's kingside pawns were positioned so as to make them invulnerable to Anand's king (If he drops back to approach the lead pawn, the other advances, etc.) and then we arrive the final position we are already familiar with. Draw! (But I guess it would have been a little suspicious if Svidler had announced "Mate in 21!" a la Allwerman...)

Svidler - Anand, round five

Position after 41...Ke4

I haven't even started looking at that knight vs. pawns endgame, although I think it was well played by both sides. But if you're looking for tips on where the players might have improved earlier you might look at the obvious 26.dxe6 for white. 26...Rxe6 27.Bf4! Rxe5 28.Nxe5 Ne6 29.Be3 and White is in complete control of the board. Chess journalist par excellence Leontxo Garcia is in Dos Hermanas and writing his superb reports for the Spanish newspaper El País as usual and often provides some comments from the players and their seconds as well as his own analysis. There we learn that Anand's trainer Elizbar Ubilava, or "Ubi" as Anand calls him, suggests 26...c6 as a possible improvement for Black and later a line beginning with 43...Rc2+ 44.Kd1 Rxf2 instead of "winning" White's bishop.

That all seems like a lot of action for one round, but there were other goings-on. Judit Polgar plummeted into last place to join Svidler and Anand (!!) with 1.5/5 after being totally squashed by Topalov. Quite unlike what we've come to expect from the Hungarian, she chose a slow, solid setup against Topalov's Najdorf Sicilian and quickly had the worse of it. Black grabbed the initiative on the kingside and after an attempt by



Polgar failed to hold back the flood by returning the pawn it was over quickly. Moves like 25...e4! are why Topalov is one of the most dangerous attacking players in the world. He rips the center open to reveal White's uncoordinated pieces and the follow-up 26...Qg7! threatens ...Bxd2 and ...fxe4 when Black's heavy pieces are going to crash the party. Polgar has never been much of a defender by nature; she often seems to lose concentration when she's not on the hunt. Her passive opening was poorly suited to her style even if she didn't feel up to a razor-sharp Najdorf theory battle after showing so much rust in her two earlier losses.

Kramnik popped the Illescas balloon with a nice win to put himself into a tie for first with Adams. The Spaniard had been playing very solidly so far, but the man he seconded in Linares put on a display of power chess to drop him to an even score. There were fears that these two friends might not go all out in their game, but Kramnik dispelled any such thoughts with body-blows like 26.c5!. He came through the complications with an extra piece and liquidated the ending in fine fashion. This game was also notable for the duck-row of pawns Kramnik planted on the fourth rank. This formation should remind you of a few famous games although a quick ChessBase search turns up a few hundred games with identical structures. (Alekhine - Gruenfeld, Semmering, 1926 was the first one I could remember, but there's also the famous Fischer - Ivkov, Palma de Mallorca, 1970. If you can't remember back that far try Van Wely - Miles, Capablanca Memoria, 1994 which had SIX pawns in a row on the fourth! (ChessBase turns up another few dozen that match this feat. Try Rickenbach - Ritter, 1997 where six white pawns on the fourth faced off against five black pawns on the sixth!))

Adams held the advantage against Gelfand for the entire game but was unable to land a knock-out punch. The tenacious Gelfand held on tight even when his king came under direct fire and grabbed enough counterplay in the queen endgame to ensure the draw. Chicken Factor: Adams: -14; Gelfand: -43. Good draw!

A game between Anatoly Karpov and Viktor Korchnoi is always something special. Even if you are too young to remember their matches for the world championship I'm sure you have read about them many times. The petty insults and temper tantrums of today pale in comparison to the hate-filled days when these two were the top two chessplayers on the planet. Things were much more peaceful in round five when these two greats sat down to dispute their first game in three years. Karpov might have had chances for an advantage when Korchnoi made the interesting decision to break the central tension with 21...fxe4?!. In the end there were enough weaknesses to go round and the game ended in a tame repetition. Chicken Factor: Karpov: 12; Korchnoi: -22. No problem for Korchnoi, who had black and is rated lower, but a little squawking from the FIDE champ!

GAMES as reviewed by THE PLAYERS ! 17


Spiegel,L (1953) – Zaderej,V (1678) [C21] Fermilab-Molex, 16.10.2007 [Notes by Lenny Spiegel] 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqkvlntr0 9zppzpp+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zpP+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tRNvLQmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

3...dxc3 4.Nxc3 Bb4 5.Nf3 [5.Bc4] 5...Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+ntr0 9zppzpp+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+P+-+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

6...Qf6?! 7.Qb3 Qe6? 8.Bc4 Qxe4+ 9.Be3 Nh6 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+k+-tr0 9zppzpp+pzpp0 9-+-+-+-sn0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+L+q+-+0 9+QzP-vLN+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10.0–0 White preserves his development advantage [10.Bd5 is also strong] 10...0–0 11.Rfe1 11.Bxh6 gxh6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-trk+0 9zppzpp+p+p0 9-+-+-+-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+L+q+-+0 9+QzP-+N+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

12.Bxf7+ Kg7 13.Bd5 11...Qg6 [better 11...Qf5 ] 12.Ne5 Qf6 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-trk+0 9zppzpp+pzpp0 9-+-+-wq-sn0 9+-+-sN-+-0 9-+L+-+-+0 9+QzP-vL-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

13.Bxh6 gxh6 14.Nxf7 Rxf7 15.Bxf7+ Qxf7 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnl+-+k+0 9zppzpp+q+p0 9-+-+-+-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+QzP-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

16.Re8+ Kg7 17.Qxf7+ Kxf7 18.Rxc8 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnR+-+-+0 9zppzpp+k+p0 9-+-+-+-zp0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black can't move Knight or Rook 18...c6 19.Re1 b5 20.Ree8 a5 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnR+R+-+0 9+-+p+k+p0 9-+p+-+-zp0 9zpp+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+-+-zPPzP0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

21.Rxb8 Rxb8 22.Rxb8 Ke6 23.Kf1 Kd5 24.Ke2 Kc4 25.Kd2 XIIIIIIIIY 9-tR-+-+-+0 9+-+p+-+p0 9-+p+-+-zp0 9zpp+-+-+-0 9-+k+-+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9P+-mK-zPPzP0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

25...b4 26.cxb4 axb4 27.f4 1–0 Marshall,J (2249) – Tegel,F (2037) [B07] StCCC-Dragons, 02.10.2007 [Notes by F. Tegel] 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 Bg7 5.Qd2 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zppzp-zppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+-0 9PzPPwQ-zPPzP0 9tR-+-mKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

5...c6 6.h3 b5 7.Bd3 Qc7 8.Nf3 Nbd7



XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zp-wqnzppvlp0 9-+pzp-snp+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-zPP+-+0 9+-sNLvLN+P0 9PzPPwQ-zPP+0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9.a4 [9.0–0 0–0 10.a4] 9...b4 10.Ne2 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zp-wqnzppvlp0 9-+pzp-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9Pzp-zPP+-+0 9+-+LvLN+P0 9-zPPwQNzPP+0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

10...a5 Missed opportunity to equalize with 10...c5 11.dxc5 dxc5 12.Ng3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+k+-tr0 9zp-wqnzppvlp0 9-+-+-snp+0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9Pzp-+P+-+0 9+-+LvLNsNP0 9-zPPwQ-zPP+0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

12...Bb7 13.0–0 c4 14.Be2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+k+-tr0 9zplwqnzppvlp0 9-+-+-snp+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9Pzpp+P+-+0 9+-+-vLNsNP0 9-zPPwQLzPP+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

11.0–0 0–0 12.c3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-wqnzppvlp0 9-+pzp-snp+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9Pzp-zPP+-+0 9+-zPLvLN+P0 9-zP-wQNzPP+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

12...bxc3 12...c5? 13.cxb4 cxb4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-wqnzppvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9zp-+-+-+-0 9Pzp-zPP+-+0 9+-+LvLN+P0 9-zP-wQNzPP+0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

White dominates the position (rook to control c-file, 2 bishops are strong). 13.Nxc3 e5 14.Rac1 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-wqn+pvlp0 9-+pzp-snp+0 9zp-+-zp-+-0 9P+-zPP+-+0 9+-sNLvLN+P0 9-zP-wQ-zPP+0 9+-tR-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...Ba6 14...exd4 15.Bxd4 (15.Nxd4 Nc5) 15...Ne5

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-wq-+pvlp0 9-+pzp-snp+0 9zp-+-sn-+-0 9P+-vLP+-+0 9+-sNL+N+P0 9-zP-wQ-zPP+0 9+-tR-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

16.Nxe5 dxe5 17.Bc5 Rd8 15.dxe5 Nxe5 16.Nxe5 dxe5 17.Bxa6 Rxa6 18.Rfd1 Re8 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-wq-+pvlp0 9r+p+-snp+0 9zp-+-zp-+-0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+-sN-vL-+P0 9-zP-wQ-zPP+0 9+-tRR+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black has a difficult position. His pieces are too disorganized 19.Nd5 Also strong is 19.Nb5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-wq-+pvlp0 9r+p+-snp+0 9zpN+-zp-+-0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+-+-vL-+P0 9-zP-wQ-zPP+0 9+-tRR+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

19...Qb8 20.Nd6 Re6 21.Qe2

XIIIIIIIIY 9-wq-+-+k+0 9+-+-+pvlp0 9r+psNrsnp+0 9zp-+-zp-+-0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+-+-vL-+P0 9-zP-+QzPP+0 9+-tRR+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

21...Qa8 (21...Ra8 22.Rxc6)



19...Qb7 20.Nxf6+ Bxf6 21.Qd6 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+q+-+p+p0 9r+pwQ-vlp+0 9zp-+-zp-+-0 9P+-+P+-+0 9+-+-vL-+P0 9-zP-+-zPP+0 9+-tRR+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

21...c5 22.Qxc5 Qxe4 23.Rd6 Rxd6 24.Qxd6 Bg7 25.Qd7 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+r+k+0 9+-+Q+pvlp0 9-+-+-+p+0 9zp-+-zp-+-0 9P+-+q+-+0 9+-+-vL-+P0 9-zP-+-zPP+0 9+-tR-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

25...Rf8 [25...Rb8 26.Rc8+ wins] 26.b3 White has other lines to consider: A) 26.Bc5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+Q+pvlp0 9-+-+-+p+0 9zp-vL-zp-+-0 9P+-+q+-+0 9+-+-+-+P0 9-zP-+-zPP+0 9+-tR-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

26...Ra8 26...Bh6 27.Bxf8 (27.Rd1 Ra8) 27...Bxc1

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-vLk+0 9+-+Q+p+p0 9-+-+-+p+0 9zp-+-zp-+-0 9P+-+q+-+0 9+-+-+-+P0 9-zP-+-zPP+0 9+-vl-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

28.Bc5 Kg7 29.Qe8 White is winning) 27.Bb6 Qf4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+k+0 9+-+Q+pvlp0 9-vL-+-+p+0 9zp-+-zp-+-0 9P+-+-wq-+0 9+-+-+-+P0 9-zP-+-zPP+0 9+-tR-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

28.Rc7 Rb8 Another choice from game: B) 26.Bd2 Rb8 27.Rc7

XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+-+k+0 9+-tRQ+pvlp0 9-+-+-+p+0 9zp-+-zp-+-0 9P+-+q+-+0 9+-+-+-+P0 9-zP-vL-zPP+0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

27...Qb1+ 28.Kh2 Rf8 29.Rb7 26...Qf5 27.Qxf5 gxf5 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-trk+0 9+-+-+pvlp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9zp-+-zpp+-0 9P+-+-+-+0 9+P+-vL-+P0 9-+-+-zPP+0 9+-tR-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

28.Rc5 f4 29.Bd2 Rb8 XIIIIIIIIY 9-tr-+-+k+0 9+-+-+pvlp0 9-+-+-+-+0 9zp-tR-zp-+-0 9P+-+-zp-+0 9+P+-+-+P0 9-+-vL-zPP+0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

30.Bxa5 30.Rb5 Rxb5 31.axb5 Bf8 32.Bxa5 Bd6

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9+-+-+p+p0 9-+-vl-+-+0 9vLP+-zp-+-0 9-+-+-zp-+0 9+P+-+-+P0 9-+-+-zPP+0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

is complicated 30...Rxb3 31.Rc8+ Bf8 32.Bc7 Rb1+ 33.Kh2 Rc1 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+R+-vlk+0 9+-vL-+p+p0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-zp-+-0 9P+-+-zp-+0 9+-+-+-+P0 9-+-+-zPPmK0 9+-tr-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

34.a5 Rc6 35.a6 Rxa6 36.Bxe5 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+R+-vlk+0 9+-+-+p+p0 9r+-+-+-+0 9+-+-vL-+-0 9-+-+-zp-+0 9+-+-+-+P0 9-+-+-zPPmK0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

36...f3 37.g4 f6 38.Bf4 Kf7 39.Kg3 Bd6



XIIIIIIIIY 9-+R+-+-+0 9+-+-+k+p0 9r+-vl-zp-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-vLP+0 9+-+-+pmKP0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

40.Bxd6 Rxd6 41.Kxf3 Rd3+ 42.Kg2 Rd5 43.f4 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+R+-+-+0 9+-+-+k+p0 9-+-+-zp-+0 9+-+r+-+-0 9-+-+-zPP+0 9+-+-+-+P0 9-+-+-+K+0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

43...h5 44.f5 hxg4 45.Rc7+ Kg8 46.hxg4 Rd3 47.Kf2 Ra3 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9+-tR-+-+-0 9-+-+-zp-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9-+-+-+P+0 9tr-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-mK-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

48.Re7 Kf8 49.Re3 Ra2+ 50.Kg3 Kf7 51.Rb3 Kg7 52.Rb7+ Kf8 53.Kh4 Rh2+ 54.Kg3 Rh1 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-mk-+0 9+R+-+-+-0 9-+-+-zp-+0 9+-+-+P+-0 9-+-+-+P+0 9+-+-+-mK-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+r0 xiiiiiiiiy

55.Kf3 Ra1 56.g5 Rf1+ 57.Ke4 Re1+ XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-mk-+0 9+R+-+-+-0 9-+-+-zp-+0 9+-+-+PzP-0 9-+-+K+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-tr-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

58.Kd5 fxg5 59.f6 g4 60.Rg7 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-mk-+0 9+-+-+-tR-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+-+K+-+-0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-tr-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

60...Rd1+ 60...g3 61.Rxg3 Kf7

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+k+-0 9-+-+-zP-+0 9+-+K+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-tR-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-tr-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

62.Rf3 Re6= 61.Ke6 Re1+ 62.Kf5 Rf1+ 63.Kg6 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-mk-+0 9+-+-+-tR-0 9-+-+-zPK+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+r+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

63...g3 64.Ra7 Ke8 65.Ra8+ 65.f7+ Rxf7

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+k+-+0 9tR-+-+r+-0 9-+-+-+K+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-zp-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

66.Ra8+= (66.Rxf7?? g2) 65...Kd7 66.Ra2 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+k+-+-0 9-+-+-zPK+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-zp-0 9R+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+r+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

66...Rf2 67.Ra1 g2 68.Rg1 Ke6 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+kzPK+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-trp+0 9+-+-+-tR-0 xiiiiiiiiy

69.Re1+ Kd5 70.Rg1 Ke4 71.f7 Rxf7 72.Kxf7 ½–½ Smith,D – Eustace,D (1463) [A65] StChasCC-Dragons, 02.10.2007 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6 7.Bf4 Bg7



XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwqk+-tr0 9zpp+-+pvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+-+PvL-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmKLsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

8.Qa4 Bd7 9.Qb3 Qc7 10.0–0–0 0–0 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+-trk+0 9zppwql+pvlp0 9-+-zp-snp+0 9+-zpP+-+-0 9-+-+PvL-+0 9+QsN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

11.e5 White could complete his development : 11.Nf3 Re8 12.Nd2 11...dxe5 12.d6 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+-trk+0 9zppwql+pvlp0 9-+-zP-snp+0 9+-zp-zp-+-0 9-+-+-vL-+0 9+QsN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

12...Qc6 12...Qa5 13.Bxe5?

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+-trk+0 9zpp+l+pvlp0 9-+-zP-snp+0 9wq-zp-vL-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+QsN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

13...c4 14.Qxb7 Bc6 15.Qe7 Re8

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+r+k+0 9zp-+-wQpvlp0 9-+lzP-snp+0 9wq-+-vL-+-0 9-+p+-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

16.Qxf6 Bxf6 17.Bxf6 Qf5 18.Bd4 13.Bxe5 a6 13...Be6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+-trk+0 9zpp+-+pvlp0 9-+qzPlsnp+0 9+-zp-vL-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+QsN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+LsNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

14.Qb5 a6 15.Qxc6 Nxc6 14.Be2 14.Nf3 b5

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+-trk+0 9+-+l+pvlp0 9p+qzP-snp+0 9+pzp-vL-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+QsN-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-mKR+L+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black has the better play 14...Qxg2 14...Be6 15.Qc2 15.Bxf6

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+-trk+0 9+p+l+pvlp0 9p+-zP-vLp+0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+QsN-+-+-0 9PzP-+LzPqzP0 9+-mKR+-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

15...Qxh1 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.Ne4 Better for White is 17.Bf3

XIIIIIIIIY 9rsn-+-tr-+0 9+p+l+pmkp0 9p+-zP-+p+0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+QsN-+L+-0 9PzP-+-zP-zP0 9+-mKR+-sNq0 xiiiiiiiiy

17...Qxh2 18.Qxb7 Bc6 19.Bxc6 Nxc6 20.Qxc6 Qxf2

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-tr-+0 9+-+-+pmkp0 9p+QzP-+p+0 9+-zp-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-sN-+-+-0 9PzP-+-wq-+0 9+-mKR+-sN-0 xiiiiiiiiy

17...Qxe4 0–1 Thomas,J (1486) – Suits,J (1632) [C10] Dragons-StChasCC, 02.10.2007 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Bd3 Ngf6



XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zppzpn+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-zPN+-+0 9+-+L+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmK-sNR0 xiiiiiiiiy

6.Nxf6+ Nxf6 7.Nf3 c5 8.Bb5+ Moving the piece for the second time, so Black gains a tempo. 8.0–0 cxd4 9.Nxd4

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sN-+-+0 9+-+L+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

9...Bc5 Of course the old trap 9...Qxd4 drops the Queen to 10.Bb5+ 10.Be3 8...Bd7 9.Bxd7+ Qxd7 10.Be3 Nd5 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+kvl-tr0 9zpp+q+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-zpn+-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-+-vLN+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-+QmK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

11.c4 11.0–0 Be7 12.Qe2 11...Nxe3 12.fxe3 cxd4 13.exd4 Bb4+ 14.Kf2 0–0

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zpp+q+pzpp0 9-+-+p+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-vlPzP-+-+0 9+-+-+N+-0 9PzP-+-mKPzP0 9tR-+Q+-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

15.Qb3 Be7 16.Rhd1 Bf6 17.Rd2 Qc7 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zppwq-+pzpp0 9-+-+pvl-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+Q+-+N+-0 9PzP-tR-mKPzP0 9tR-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

18.g3 18.Rc1 Rfd8 19.Qe3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+k+0 9zppwq-+pzpp0 9-+-+pvl-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+-+-wQN+-0 9PzP-tR-mKPzP0 9+-tR-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

19...Qa5 20.b3 18...Rac8 19.Rc1 Rfd8 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+rtr-+k+0 9zppwq-+pzpp0 9-+-+pvl-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzP-+-+0 9+Q+-+NzP-0 9PzP-tR-mK-zP0 9+-tR-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

20.Qd3 Rd7 21.b3 Rcd8 22.Qe4 b5 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-tr-+k+0 9zp-wqr+pzpp0 9-+-+pvl-+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+PzPQ+-+0 9+P+-+NzP-0 9P+-tR-mK-zP0 9+-tR-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

23.c5 Ceding Black the d5 square. Additionally Pd4 becomes backward on an open file, an obvious target. 23.Kg2 bxc4 24.bxc4

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-tr-+k+0 9zp-wqr+pzpp0 9-+-+pvl-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+PzPQ+-+0 9+-+-+NzP-0 9P+-tR-+KzP0 9+-tR-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

24...Qa5 25.Rcc2 23...Rd5 24.b4 Qc6 25.Rcd1 a6 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-tr-+k+0 9+-+-+pzpp0 9p+q+pvl-+0 9+pzPr+-+-0 9-zP-zPQ+-+0 9+-+-+NzP-0 9P+-tR-mK-zP0 9+-+R+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

26.Qc2 The Queen was well placed at e4 and should remain there. White could instead move the king to a safer spot and watch for a possible e6-e5 break, the only way black makes progress 26...Rf5 27.Qc3 g5 28.g4



XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-tr-+k+0 9+-+-+p+p0 9p+q+pvl-+0 9+pzP-+rzp-0 9-zP-zP-+P+0 9+-wQ-+N+-0 9P+-tR-mK-zP0 9+-+R+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

28...Rf4 29.h3 Rd5 30.Kg3 Qc7 31.Kg2 Qc6 32.Kg3 Qc7 33.Kg2 h5 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9+-wq-+p+-0 9p+-+pvl-+0 9+pzPr+-zpp0 9-zP-zP-trP+0 9+-wQ-+N+P0 9P+-tR-+K+0 9+-+R+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

trying to open the position in front of the King to attack. White offered this at move 28.34.gxh5 g4 35.Ne5 gxh3+ [Editor] 35...Bxe5 36.dxe5 Rc4

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9+-wq-+p+-0 9p+-+p+-+0 9+pzPrzP-+P0 9-zPr+-+p+0 9+-wQ-+-+P0 9P+-tR-+K+0 9+-+R+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

weaknesses Pe5,Pb4,Ph3,Ph5,Kg2 (36...Rf3!?) but it will take some study to figure if they can be exploited 36.Qxh3 Bxe5 37.dxe5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9+-wq-+p+-0 9p+-+p+-+0 9+pzPrzP-+P0 9-zP-+-tr-+0 9+-+-+-+Q0 9P+-tR-+K+0 9+-+R+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

37...Qxe5? 38.Rxd5 Qe2+ 39.Kh1 exd5 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9+-+-+p+-0 9p+-+-+-+0 9+pzPp+-+P0 9-zP-+-tr-+0 9+-+-+-+Q0 9P+-+q+-+0 9+-+R+-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

40.Qg2+ Removing queens from play at this point is very important. With queens gone the attack is dead and endgame favors white. 40...Qxg2+ 41.Kxg2 Rxb4 42.Rc1! XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9+-+-+p+-0 9p+-+-+-+0 9+pzPp+-+P0 9-tr-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9P+-+-+K+0 9+-tR-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Great move ! Now black is dead lost as he can't stop both passers. 42...Re4 43.c6 Re8 44.c7 Rc8 45.Kf3 f5 46.Kf4 d4 47.Kxf5 d3

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+-+k+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9p+-+-+-+0 9+p+-+K+P0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+p+-+-0 9P+-+-+-+0 9+-tR-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

48.Ke6 Kh7 49.Kd7 d2 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+r+-+-+0 9+-zPK+-+k0 9p+-+-+-+0 9+p+-+-+P0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9P+-zp-+-+0 9+-tR-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

50.Rd1 1–0 Wakerly,R – Baurac,D (1807) [B17] DownersCC-Rooks, 15.10.2007 [Notes by Dave Baurac] White's finishing attack is so pretty it needs to be shared. 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Nxf6+ Nxf6 7.Ne5 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-zppzpp0 9-+p+-sn-+0 9+-+-sN-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9PzPP+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

7...e6 Better is 7...Bf5 8.c3 e6

XIIIIII



IIY 9r+-wqkvl-tr0 9zpp+-+pzpp0 9-+p+psn-+0 9+-+-sNl+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9tR-vLQmKL+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3=; Also possible is 7...Be6 idea g6,Bg7,etc 8.Be2 Be7 9.0–0 0–0 10.c3 c5= XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9zpp+-vlpzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-zp-sN-+-0 9-+-zP-+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9PzP-+LzPPzP0 9tR-vLQ+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

11.dxc5 Bxc5 12.Qc2 Qc7 13.Nf3 Bd7 14.Bg5 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-trk+0 9zppwql+pzpp0 9-+-+psn-+0 9+-vl-+-vL-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9PzPQ+LzPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

14...Be7 14...Bc6 15.Bxf6 gxf6 16.Qc1= 15.Bd3 g6 Weakening the King, especially the dark squares. 15...h6 16.Bh4. Fritz judges this equal 16.Rfe1 Kg7 17.Rad1 Bd6 18.Qd2± Rfd8

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+-+0 9zppwql+pmkp0 9-+-vlpsnp+0 9+-+-+-vL-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zPL+N+-0 9PzP-wQ-zPPzP0 9+-+RtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

19.Bxg6! Bc6?? Better is 19...hxg6 20.Qxd6 when Black is only down a pawn and has some resources and open lines against White's king 20.Bxf6+ Kxf6 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+-+0 9zppwq-+p+p0 9-+lvlpmkL+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9PzP-wQ-zPPzP0 9+-+RtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

21.Qg5+ I missed this move. Fritz prefers 21.Qd4+ Ke7 22.Rxe6+

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+-+0 9zppwq-mkp+p0 9-+lvlR+L+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-wQ-+-+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

22...Kxe6 22...fxe6?? 23.Qg7# 23.Re1+ Be4 23...Kd7 24.Bf5# 24.Qxe4+

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+-+0 9zppwq-+p+p0 9-+-vlk+L+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+Q+-+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

24...Kf6 25.Qd4+ Be5 26.Qh4+

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+-+0 9zppwq-+p+p0 9-+-+-mkL+0 9+-+-vl-+-0 9-+-+-+-wQ0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

21...Kg7 22.Bc2+ Kf8 23.Qh6+ Ke7 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+-+0 9zppwq-mkp+p0 9-+lvlp+-wQ0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9+-+RtR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

24.Nh4 During the post game analysis, my opponent said he didn't like this move after he played it because it gives back material. In my view, it's much stronger than Bf5 and the subsequent attack demonstrates. I was expecting 24.Bf5. Fritz finds yet another brilliant route to victory 24.Rxe6+!



XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+-+0 9zppwq-mkp+p0 9-+lvlR+-wQ0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9+-+R+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

24...Kd7 25.Rexd6+ Ke8 26.Re1+ Qe7 27.Rxe7+ Kxe7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-+-+0 9zpp+-mkp+p0 9-+ltR-+-wQ0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zP-+N+-0 9PzPL+-zPPzP0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

28.Nd4 Bd7 29.Qf6+ Kf8 30.Bb3

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-tr-mk-+0 9zpp+l+p+p0 9-+-tR-wQ-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sN-+-+0 9+LzP-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

30...Be6 31.Rxd8+ Rxd8

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-tr-mk-+0 9zpp+-+p+p0 9-+-+lwQ-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-sN-+-+0 9+LzP-+-+-0 9PzP-+-zPPzP0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

32.Nxe6+ Ke8 33.Qxd8# 24...Bxh2+ 25.Kh1 Rg8 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+r+0 9zppwq-mkp+p0 9-+l+p+-wQ0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-sN0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9PzPL+-zPPvl0 9+-+RtR-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

still looking for counterplay on the K-side, but it's too late. White finishes with a pretty series of forcing moves that lead to mate: 26.Nf5+ Ke8 27.Ng7+ Ke7 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+r+0 9zppwq-mkpsNp0 9-+l+p+-wQ0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9PzPL+-zPPvl0 9+-+RtR-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

28.Rxe6+!! fxe6 29.Qxe6+ Kf8 30.Qf6+ Qf7 31.Ne6+ XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-mkr+0 9zpp+-+q+p0 9-+l+NwQ-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-zP-+-+-0 9PzPL+-zPPvl0 9+-+R+-+K0 xiiiiiiiiy

BLACK RESIGNED... It's all over after 31...Ke8 32.Rd8+ Rxd8 33.Qxd8# 1–0 Komoravolu,K (1314) – Stoskus,A (1446) [E91] StChasCC-Dragons, 02.10.2007 1.d4 g6 2.c4 Bg7 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 0–0 5.e4 d6 6.Be2 a6 7.Bg5 c6 8.Qd2 b5 XIIIIIIIIY 9rsnlwq-trk+0 9+-+-zppvlp0 9p+pzp-snp+0 9+p+-+-vL-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9+-sN-+N+-0 9PzP-wQLzPPzP0 9tR-+-mK-+R0 xiiiiiiiiy

9.a3 Nbd7 10.0–0 Nb6 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+lwq-trk+0 9+-+-zppvlp0 9psnpzp-snp+0 9+p+-+-vL-0 9-+PzPP+-+0 9zP-sN-+N+-0 9-zP-wQLzPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

11.e5 dxe5 12.dxe5 Qxd2 13.Nxd2 Nfd7 14.cxb5 axb5 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-+nzppvlp0 9-snp+-+p+0 9+p+-zP-vL-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9zP-sN-+-+-0 9-zP-sNLzPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

15.e6 Nf6 15...fxe6 16.Bxe7

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-trk+0 9+-+nvL-vlp0 9-snp+p+p+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9zP-sN-+-+-0 9-zP-sNLzPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

16...Rf7 17.Bd6 16.exf7+ Rxf7 17.Bf3 Nfd5



XIIIIIIIIY 9r+l+-+k+0 9+-+-zprvlp0 9-snp+-+p+0 9+p+n+-vL-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9zP-sN-+L+-0 9-zP-sN-zPPzP0 9tR-+-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

18.Rac1 [18.Nxd5 Nxd5 19.Rab1] 18...Nxc3 19.bxc3 Bd7 20.Be3 Nd5 XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+k+0 9+-+lzprvlp0 9-+p+-+p+0 9+p+n+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9zP-zP-vLL+-0 9-+-sN-zPPzP0 9+-tR-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

21.c4 The weakest of three moves : A) 21.Bxd5 cxd5 22.Bc5 e5 23.Rfe1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+k+0 9+-+l+rvlp0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+pvLpzp-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9zP-zP-+-+-0 9-+-sN-zPPzP0 9+-tR-tR-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black is better due to his Bishop Pair and Pawn duo B) 21.Nb1 Nxe3 22.fxe3 Bh6 23.Rce1

XIIIIIIIIY 9r+-+-+k+0 9+-+lzpr+p0 9-+p+-+pvl0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9zP-zP-zPL+-0 9-+-+-+PzP0 9+N+-tRRmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black is a little better 21...Nxe3 22.fxe3 Rxa3 23.cxb5 cxb5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+k+0 9+-+lzprvlp0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9tr-+-zPL+-0 9-+-sN-+PzP0 9+-tR-+RmK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

24.Bd5 e6 25.Rxf7 Kxf7 26.Rc7 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-tRl+kvlp0 9-+-+p+p+0 9+p+L+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9tr-+-zP-+-0 9-+-sN-+PzP0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

26...Ke7 [26...Ke8 27.Bxe6] 27.Bc6 Rd3 28.Ne4 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-tRlmk-vlp0 9-+L+p+p+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-+N+-+0 9+-+rzP-+-0 9-+-+-+PzP0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

28...Bh6? 28...Kd8! 29.Rxd7+ Rxd7 30.Bxd7 Kxd7

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+k+-vlp0 9-+-+p+p+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-+N+-+0 9+-+-zP-+-0 9-+-+-+PzP0 9+-+-+-mK-0 xiiiiiiiiy

Black wins with his outside passer

supported by the Bishop 29.Kf2 29.Bxb5 Bxe3+ 30.Kf1 Bf4

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-tRlmk-+p0 9-+-+p+p+0 9+L+-+-+-0 9-+-+Nvl-+0 9+-+r+-+-0 9-+-+-+PzP0 9+-+-+K+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

31.Rb7 29...Kd8 Now better is 29...Bxe3+

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-tRlmk-+p0 9-+L+p+p+0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-+N+-+0 9+-+rvl-+-0 9-+-+-mKPzP0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

30.Ke2 Bf4 31.Rb7 30.Rxd7+ Rxd7 31.Bxd7 Kxd7 32.Nf6+ XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+k+-+p0 9-+-+psNpvl0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-zP-+-0 9-+-+-mKPzP0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

32...Ke7? 32...Kd6 33.Nxh7 Ke5 34.Ke2



XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+N0 9-+-+p+pvl0 9+p+-mk-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-zP-+-0 9-+-+K+PzP0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

34...b4 [Editor] Black could win the trapped N, 34...g5 35.Kd3 Kf5 36.Kd4 Kg6 37.Kc5. It costs the passer, but the piece-up ending shouldn’t be too hard. 33.Ng8+ Kd6 34.Nxh6 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9-+-mkp+psN0 9+p+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-zP-+-0 9-+-+-mKPzP0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

34...b4 35.Ke2 Kd5 36.Kd3 b3 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9-+-+p+psN0 9+-+k+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+p+KzP-+-0 9-+-+-+PzP0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

37.Kc3 37.Nf7 b2 38.e4+ Kc5 39.Kc2 Kd4 40.e5 37...Ke4 38.Ng4 h5

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+p+p+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9-+-+k+N+0 9+pmK-zP-+-0 9-+-+-+PzP0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

39.Nf2+ Kxe3 40.Nh3 e5 41.Kxb3 Kd2 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+-+-zp-+p0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+K+-+-+N0 9-+-mk-+PzP0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

42.Ng1 e4 43.Kc4 Ke3 44.Nh3 Ke2 45.Nf4+ Kf2 XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+p+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9-+K+psN-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-mkPzP0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

46.Kd4 46.Nxg6 e3 47.Nf4 e2 48.Nxe2 Kxe2 49.h3

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+p0 9-+K+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+P0 9-+-+k+P+0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

49...h4= (49...Kf2?? 50.g4+-) 50.Kc3 Kf2 51.Kd2 Kxg2 52.Ke2 Kxh3

XIIIIIIIIY 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 9-+-+-+-zp0 9+-+-+-+k0 9-+-+K+-+0 9+-+-+-+-0 xiiiiiiiiy

53.Kf3 Kh2 54.Kf2 Kh1 55.Kf1= 46...e3 47.Nd3+ Kxg2 48.Kxe3 Kxh2 49.Nf4 g5 50.Nxh5 g4 51.Kf4 Kh3 52.Kg5 ½–½ SPECIAL THANKS TO THE MANY CONTRIBUTORS… and at the last minute ! This was an interesting set of games and you did some good analysis ! Hope to see more soon ! --Games Editor

The Halloween Gambit 28


Introduction

The Halloween Gambit was already known by Oskar Cordel in 1888 who pointed to the formidable attacking possibilities in his « Fuerher der Eroeffnungstheorie « but concluded that this finally was not worth the sacrifice.

In that time the gambit was called the Mueller-Schultze gambit, but Rainer Schlenker, well known by all Unorthodox chess lovers, re-baptized it as the Halloween Gambit in his magazine « Randspringer » in December 1993. The name is founded on the fact that players who are for the first time confronted with the surprising and unexpected fourth move of white become so shocked as if they were suddenly confronted with the horror of some scary Halloween mask.

Indeed, this fourth move is shocking. After : 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 when Black is expecting a normal Four Knights Game move as 4.Bb5, White surprisingly takes the pawn on e5 (diagram).

A certain Steffen A. Jakob, German chessplayer and computer programmer was heavily touched by the Randspringer article and created Brause. Brause was a clone of the chess program Crafty loaded with a Halloween gambit opening book and played more than 3000 internet games in the period from 1996 to 1998 in which it scored 72 %. Jakob constantly changed and improved the opening book of Brause up to more than 500 sub-variations.

Brause showed in a lot of short games how deadly this gambit could be. One example : 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Nc6 (this is one main line, the other one is 5 ..Ng6), 6.d5 Nb8 7.e5 Ng8 8.d6 c6 9.Bc4 f6 10.Qh5+ g6 11.exf6 Qxf6 12.Qe2+ Kd8 13.Ne4 and Black resigned Brause (2355)-Betrueger (2315),ICC,1997,1-0(13).

In these days the theory of the Halloween gambit knows a second revival due to new analyses of Maurits Wind and to the extended power of chess programs as Fritz and Hiarcs.

This article is in large part based on an extended analysis by FM Maurits Wind which is going to appear in the German magazine Kaissiber nr 20, an article which will be very interesting for all Halloween fans.

In this article I want to summarize the lines I have met most frequently while playing this gambit, and how to handle so-called refutations and critical lines.

Model game

1.Nc3

The preparation part : the Queens pawn opening is the best way trying to reach the Halloween. Via e2-e4 it’s more difficult : black has more ways to deviate (Sicilian, Caro-Kann, etc.)

1...e5 2.e4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nxe5?!

Here the fun starts!

4...Nxe5

What does White get for the piece? A pawn and the center. Not enough? Let's try it out.

5.d4



Now we are in the second and most amusing part : the hunt for the Knights. The following White moves are not hard to find.

5...Nc6

Ng6 is the other main line.

6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8

The third part of the game : searching for combinations. White has the center, and his bishops are free to run. If there was not the loss of the piece, White would already have a superior position. The strategy is : try to hamper Black's development while attacking, and look for a way to get definitive advantage.

9.d6

Now after cxd6 exd6 White is menacing Qe2 to win back the piece with the better pawnstructure.

9...a6

Black is afraid of the manoeuvre Nc3-Nb5-Nc7.

10.h4

The queenside defended by a6 ? No problem, the point of attack will be switched to the kingside. There still is a knight waiting for us.

10...cxd6 11.exd6 Qf6 12.Qe2+ Kd8 13.Nd5

What follows is typical play in this kind of position.

13...Qxd6 14.Be3

14...Qxd5 being impossible because of 15. Bb6+ and the game is over

14...Nxf4

Black decides to give the piece back, but he still is vulnerable : pawn d7 is isolated and the King has to stay in the middle.

15.Nxf4

Fourth part of the game : trying to win a won position.

15...Ne7 16.Nd3 Nd5 17.0-0-0 Nxe3 18.Qxe3 Qe6 19.Qd4 Qxa2 20.Qb6+ Ke8 21.Re1+ Be7 22.Nb4

With Nd5 in the air.

22...Qa1+ 23.Kd2 Qxe1+ 24.Kxe1 h5 25.Nd5 Rh6 26.Nc7+ Kf8 27.Nxa8 Rxb6 28.Nxb6 and Black resigned, as he will lose the bishop too. keiserpaul (1918)-Thedrum (1748),gameknot,2002,1-0



Index of Variations

The Gambit Declined

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe4 !?

The Gambit Accepted

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4

The Nc6 Section

5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8 9.d6 cxd6 0.exd6 Qf6 11.Nb5 Kd8 12.Be3 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8 9.d6 cxd6 10.exd6 Qf6 11.Nb5 Rb8 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8 9.d6 cxd6 10.exd6 Qb6 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8 9.d6 cxd6 10.exd6 Qa5 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Bb4 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Bd6 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Neg4 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Ne7 7.e5 Nfxd5 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Bb4 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Na5 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Nb8

The following sections are covered in part 2 of this article:

The Ng6 Section

5. .. Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 c6 5. .. Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 d6 8.Qf3 Qd7 9.0-0 5. .. Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 d6 8.Qf3 others 5. .. Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 d5 5. .. Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 Bb4 8.Qf3 Bxc3+ 5. .. Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 Bb4 8.Qf3 others 5. .. Ng6 6.e5 Qe7 5. .. Ng6 6.e5 Bb4

Bb4 and other fifth moves

5. .. Bb4 6.dxe5 5. .. Nxe4 5. .. Bd6 5. .. Neg4 5. .. Qe7

Similar ideas

The Chicago gambit The Halloween gambit reversed

The Gambit Declined


Black is not obliged to accept the gambit, but this is very rarely. Why should he ? After all, a knight is a knight !

4.Nxe5 Nxe4 5.Nxc6 Nxc3 6.dxc3 bxc6 7.Bd3 Be7 leads to equality Brause(2590)-scorpiocy 2410),ICS,1997,1-0(29)

The Gambit Accepted


Nc6 Section

Main Line

The key position of the Nc6 section occurs after following main line:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8 9.d6 cxd6 10.exd6 Qf6 11.Nb5 Kd8 12.Be3 (diagram)



White has created a strong outpost on d6 . Black has tried several moves here, but most of them give no satisfaction.

Of course 12. .. a6 is not possible because of 13.Bb6+ Ke8 14.Nc7+ Kd8 15.Nxa8+ Ke8 16.Nc7+ Kd8 17.Nxa6+ Ke8 18.Nc7+ Kd8 19.Nd5+. Very nice !

12. .. Nh6 !?

This is a very strong reply and hard to find an answer to it.

13.Qd2 b6 and now 14.0-0-0 has proved to be bad :

14. .. Ng4 15.Bg1 Qxf4 16.Qxf4 Nxf4 17.Nxa7 Ne6 18.Be2 Ne5 19.Bxb6+ Ke8 keiserpaul(2006)-1962(1878),gameknot,2002,0-1(52)

14. .. Nf5 15.Kb1 Nxe3 keiserpaul (2014)-chessnake (2033), gameknot, 2002, 0-1 (31)

But what else could have been played ? Moving the Queen a second time 14.Qd5!?(idea : 14. .. Rb8 15.0-0-0 Nxf4 16.Qc4) failed on 14. .. Qe6 and White is obliged to exchange Queens. keiserpaul (2006)-lexherman (2197), gameknot, 2003, 0-1(38) went 15.Qxe6 dxe6 16.Nxa7 bxd6 17.Bxb6 with two pawns for the piece, but this was not enough compensation.

Another interesting idea is the suggestion of M.Wind 14.f5!? forcing the queen capture 14. .. Qxf5 15.Nxa7 Qe6 16.0-0-0 . A game Keiserpaul(2014)-wakigawa(2137), gameknot, 2003, 0-1 (43) went 15. .. Rb8 16.Nxc8 Rxc8 17.Bxb6+ Ke8 18.Bc7 Be7! 19.c3 Bg5 20.Qd3. Also in this game white has not enough compensation with 2 good pawns for the piece.

In this line the move 15.Bd3! leaded to a drawn by threefold repetition in Lexherman(2276)-keiserpaul(1947),gameknot,2003,(43) after 15. .. Qh5 16.Be2 Qe5 17.Bd4 Qf4 18.Be3 Qe5 (18. .. Qh4+ 19.g3 Qa4 does not promise much).

12. .. Qxb2 ?!

The logical idea of making room at f6 and taking a pawn at the same moment fails on 13.Bd4 Qb4+ 14.c3 Qa5 (14. .. Qb2? 15.g3 traps the Queen) 15.f5 Ne5 (15. .. a6 16.Nc7 Rb8 17.fxg6 hxg6 18.Nd5 += analyse Wind) 16.Bxe5 a6 and now not 17.Qd5 17...Nh6 18.Qd4 axb5 19.Bf6+ gxf6 20.Qxf6+ Ke8 21.Qe5+ Kd8 22.Qxh8 Ng8! as in keiserpaul(2004)-lanesra(1936),gameknot,2002,0-1(54) but Antonio Torrecillas winning suggestion of 17.Qh5! axb5 18.Qxf7 Nh6 19.Bf6+ gxf6 20.Qxf6+ Ke8 21.Be2

12. .. b6 ?!

The idea of fianchetting the bishop gives White the opportunity to execute his aggressive plan by taking the a7 pawn 13.Qd5 Rb8 14.0-0-0 Bb7 15.Qd2 ( Wind opts for 15.Qc4 Rc8 16.Qa4) Qe6 16.Nxa7 Ba8 17.Qc3 Bxd6 18.Bc4 Qe7 19.Rhe1 27.Nb5 keiserpaul (2022)-beardsleyx (1906), gameknot, 2002,1-0(27)

12. .. Nxf4 ?!

Doesn’t help Black's development either 13.Qd2 Ne6 14.0-0-0 Qg6 (14. .. b6 15.Bc4 Wind) 15.Bd3 Qg4 16.Qa5+ Ke8 17.Bf5 Qxg2 18.Bxe6 fxe6 19.Nc7+ Kf7 20.Qh5+ Qg6 21.Qe5 Nf6 22.Rdf1 b6 23.Rhg1 Rb8 24.Rxg6 Harms,F-Moeckel,J,TGT ICCF,1998,1-0(24)

12. .. Qe6 ?

13.Qd4 Nf6 14.0-0-0 Qe4 15.Qc3 Qc6 16.Qb4 Ne4 17.f5 with advantage for White (analysis M.Wind)

Deviations on the Main Line

Deviation A) 11. .. Rb8

The Plasma Variation

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8 9.d6 cxd6 10.exd6 Qf6 11.Nb5 Rb8

Brause inconsistently plays 12.Be3 here but Schiller’s Qe2 looks better.



12.Qe2+ Kd8 13.Be3 b6 14.0-0-0 Qe6 p.e. 15.Nc7 Qxa2 16.Bxb6 Nf6 17.Ne6+ Ke8 18.Nxg7#

Deviation B) 10. .. Qb6

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8 9.d6 cxd6 10.exd6 Qb6

B1) 11. Qe2+ ?!

11. .. Kd8 12.f5 (diagram)

Black has played :

12. .. Bxd6 !

Following the Brause DB where White scores 100% , White has not to be afraid for a Black attack and can simply continue his development. But this is not true if we take a closer look. Brause had switched from 14.Nb5 to 14.h3, but both moves are inadequate.

13.fxg6 hxg6 14.Nb5 Bg3+ 15.Kd1 a6 (15. .. Rxh2! 16.Rxh2 Bxh2 17.Be3 Qa6 18.Qf3 qf6 and Black is a pawn up) 16.Qf3 Nf6 17.Be3 Qe6 18.Qxg3 axb5 19.Bxb5 Rxa2 20.Rxa2 Qxa2 21.Bb6+ Ke8 22.Qc7 Qa8 23.Qd8 Brause(2375)-sadatsugu(1895),ICC,1997,1-0(23)

13.fxg6 hxg6 14.h3 Nf6 15.Qf3 Re8+ ( 15. .. Be5! 16.Be2 d6 and Black was better in paulkeiser (2014)-harryman (1974), gameknot,0-1(45)), 16.Be2

Bc5 17.Rf1 Be3 18.Kd1 Qd6+ 19.Bd3 Bxc1 20.Kxc1 Brause (2505)-SirJames (2060), ICC,1998,1-0(43)

12. .. Nh4 ?!

Black cannot save the knight 13.Qg4 Nxg2+ 14.Bxg2 Nf6 15.Qg3 Bxd6 16.Qxg7 Re8+ 17.Ne2 Nh5 18.Qg5+ f6 19.Qxh5 Brause(2555)-OLTS (1995), ICC,1998,1-0(19)

12. .. Nf6 ?!

This development move cannot stop white’s aggression

13.fxg6 hxg6 14.Qc4 Brause(2700)-Drk(2355),ICC,1998,1-0(21)

B2) 11. Nb5

Results in a balanced position according to M. Wind. He gives following analysis : 11. ..Kd8 12.f5 Ne5 13.Bf4 f6 (13. .. Nc6 !?) 14.Qd2 Qc6 (the point of white’s play is that 14. .. a6? fails to 15.Be3 +-) 15.0-0-0 A) 15. .. a6 16.Na3 b5 17.Bxe5 fxe5 18.Nc4 bxc4 19.Qa5+ Ke8 20.Qxe5+ Kd8 = B) 15. .. b6 16.Nc7 Bb7 18.Nxa8 Bxa8 18.h4 idea Rh3

Deviation C) 10. .. Qa5

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8 9.d6 cxd6 10.exd6 Qa5

This move is not very popular, so I can only give the comments and analysis of M. Wind :

Following Wind this prevents Nb5 and brings Qb4 in the position to capture pawn d6. White has two replies, one solid and one very sharp. He gives 11.Qd4! (prevents Qb4 and invites an exchange of queens) Qb6 12.Qxb6 axb6 13.Nb5 Ra5 14.Be3 (14.f5!? Ne5 15.Be3) 14...Rxb5 15.Bxb5 Bxd6 16.Bd4 f6 17.g3 Bc5 18.Bc3 roughly equal 11.Bc4!? Nh6 [11. .. Qb4 12.Qe2+ Kd8 13.Bxf7 ] 12.h4! Nf5 13.h5 Ngh4 14.Qe2+ Kd8 15.Bd2 Bxd6 (15...Nd4 16.Qd3 Qxh5) 16.0-0-0 nice compensation, but very unclear.



Deviation D) 6. .. Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Bb4 !

9.exf6 Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Qxf6 Black has attacking possibilities and the better pawn structure Brause-crafty,ICS,1997,0-1(127)

Deviation E) 6. .. Ne5 7.f4 Bd6 !?

8.fxe5 Bxe5 now that the advance d5 is played and the f4 pawn has disappeared is the bishop well placed on e5 evbad (2390)-agrino (2420), ICC, 1997,0-1(65)

Deviation F) 6. .. Ne5 7.f4 Neg4 !?

This is a suggestion of Bradley Zang : “If you are afraid of the Halloween Gambit just give back the knight. Black will have the better endgame.” 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Neg4 8.e5 Bc5 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Qe2+ Qe7 11.Qxe7+ Kxe7

Deviation G) 6. .. Ne7 7.e5 Nfxd5

8.Nxd5 c6 followed by Nf6. Black has obtained equality.

Deviation H) 6. .. Bb4 !?

White can take the Knight and if black exchange Bishop for Knight , White has the better game due to his bishop pair. 7.dxc6 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 dxc6 9.Qxd8+ Kxd8 Brause(2570)-Axl(2755),ICC,1997,1-0(30)

But Black can do better with 7. .. Nxe4 and now 8.Qd4 Qe7 [ Brause plays 9.Be3?! but was never confronted with 9. .. f5! Which lead to a dubious position according to M. Wind ] 9.Qxg7 Nxc3+ 10.Be3 Nd5+ 11.c3 Rf8 12.cxb4 Nxe3 13.fxe3 Qxb4+ 14.Kf2 dxc6 15.Be2 roughly equal.

Deviation I) 6. .. Na5 !?

Brause had a score of only 42 % after this move but could have played better. Dorobanov(2425)-Tremere(2740),ICC,0-1(25) went 7.e5 Qe7 8.Qe2

Ng8 9.Nb5 Kd8 10.d6 cxd6 11.exd6 with an early Queen exchange, but with 10.Nxc7!? Rb8 11.d6 Qh4 12.g3 White could have keep on the pressure.

Deviation J) 6. .. Nb8 !?

7.e5 Qe7 [An analysis of M. Wind goes 7...Ng8 8.d6 cxd6 9.exd6 with sufficient compensation after 9. .. Qa5! (9...Qf6 10.Nb5 Na6 11.Bc4; 9...Qb6 10.Nb5 Na6 11.Bc4) 10.Bf4 Nc6 (10...Qb4? 11.Qd2; 10...Nf6 11.Bc4) 11.Bc4 (11.Qe2+ !?) Qf5 12.Bg3 Nd8 13.0-0 Ne6 14.Nb5 Kd8 15.Re1] 8.Qe2 Ng8 9.d6 Qe6

8.Qe2 Ng8 9.d6 Qe6 10.Nb5 Na6 and Black has a good position.

Index of Variations

The Gambit Declined


The Gambit Accepted


The Nc6 Section

5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8 9.d6 cxd6 0.exd6 Qf6 11.Nb5 Kd8 12.Be3 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8 9.d6 cxd6 10.exd6 Qf6 11.Nb5 Rb8 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8 9.d6 cxd6 10.exd6 Qb6 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Ng8 9.d6 cxd6 10.exd6 Qa5 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Ng6 8.e5 Bb4 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Bd6 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Ne5 7.f4 Neg4 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Ne7 7.e5 Nfxd5 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Bb4 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Na5 5. .. Nc6 6.d5 Nb8

The sections above are covered in Part 1 of this article.



This page covers the following sections:

The Ng6 Section

5. .. Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 c6 5. .. Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 d6 8.Qf3 Qd7 9.0-0 5. .. Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 d6 8.Qf3 others 5. .. Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 d5 5. .. Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 Bb4 8.Qf3 Bxc3+ 5. .. Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 Bb4 8.Qf3 others 5. .. Ng6 6.e5 Qe7 5. .. Ng6 6.e5 Bb4


5. .. Bb4 6.dxe5 5. .. Nxe4 5. .. Bd6 5. .. Neg4 5. .. Qe7

Similar ideas

The Chicago Gambit The Halloween Gambit Reversed

Ng6 Section

Main Line

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4

This is a key position and Black has several possibilities. We will discuss 7. .. c6, 7. .. d6, 7. .. d5 and 7. .. Bb4.

Line a) 7. .. c6

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 c6

The Cordel variation

8.Qe2 !

Was played by Brause in earlier days hoping for 8. .. d5 which gives White a dangerous check by taking “en passant” as in Brause-lhg,ICS,1997,0-1(17) : 9.exd6+ Kd7 10.Ne4 Qe8 11.d5 f5 12.dxc6+ bxc6 13.Be6+ Kd8 (Qxe6 not being possible because of the familycheck on c5 ) 14.Bg5+ Nf6 15.Nxf6 Qxe6 16.Nd5+ Ke8 17.Nc7+ 1-0.

8. .. Be7 ?! quickly lost after 9.Ne4 d5? (Kf8!) 10.exd6 in Schlenker,R-Schorer,F,1993,1-0(10). But black can do better and 8...b5 and 8. .. Qb6 were critical lines referring to 8. .. b5 9.Nxb5 cxb5 10.Bxf7+ Kxf7 11.Qf3+ Ke8 12.Qxa8 Qc7 ! Brause-fluster,ICS,1997,0-1(45) and 8. .. Qb6 9.f4 Nh6 10.0-0 Nf5 ! Brause- lichtzahn,ICS,1997,0-1(51).

So Brause switched over to the 8.Qf3 variation, but chess evolution doesn’t stop. Nowadays M. Wind again recommends 8.Qe2 ! based on following analyses. The plan is 9.Ne4 followed by Nd6+, Ng5, Bg5 or f2-f4-f5.

8. .. Qb6 9.Ne4! Qxd4 10.c3 Qb6 [10...Qxe5? 11.f4 Nxf4 12.Bxf4 Qxf4 13.Nd6+ Kd8 14.Nxf7+ Kc7 15.g3 Qf6 16.Rf1+-] 11.Be3 Qa5 12.f4 with excellent compensation e.g. 12...Nh6 13.b4 Qd8 14.0-0 Be7? 15.Nd6.

8. .. b5 9.Bb3 Bb4 10.0-0 Bxc3 (10. .. N8e7 !?) 11.bxc3 Qe7 [11...N8e7? 12.f4 d5 13.exd6 Qxd6 14.f5] 12.a4 bxa4 13.Bxa4 Qe6 14.f4 Nh6 [14...N6e7 15.Ba3] 15.Qf3 Ne7 16.Bb3 Qf5 17.Ba3

8. .. Bb4! now white can regain two pawns 9.Bxf7+ Kxf7 10.Qc4+ d5 11.exd6+ Be6 12.Qxb4 Qb6 13.Qc5 Nf6 14.Be3

8. .. d5!? 9.exd6+ Kd7 10.d5 Bxd6 11.dxc6+ bxc6 12.Be3 Kc7 13.0-0-0 Nf6 14.Bxf7 Ne5 15.Bb3 Qe7 16.Rhe1 Re8 17.Qd2

8.Qf3 ?!



8...d5

8...f6 seems logical, looking for breeding space, but after 9.0-0 d5 (black cannot take the pawn on e5 due to the matt on f7) 10.exd6 Bxd6 11.Ne4 N8e7 white has an impressive queen offer with 12.Qxf6 ! gxf6 13.Nxf6+ Kf8 14.Bh6 # Brause-Pfiffigunde,ICS,1997,1-0(14)

9.exd6

now 9. .. Qf6?! leads to a disaster in Brause-BuffaloJim,ICS,1998, 1-0 (15)

10.Qe2+ Kd8 11.Ne4 Qxd4 12.Bxf7 Nh6? (Bf5 is better following an analyse of A. Torrecillas) 13.Bg5+ Kd7 14.Rd1 Qe5 15.Nc5+

But black can try 9...Be6! 10.Bxe6 fxe6 11.Ne4 Nf6 (or 11. .. Bxd6!? 12.Bg5 Be7 13.Bxe7 N8xe7). Now Thiarcs6-TJunior46,1998,1-0(32) goes 12.Bg5 Qa5+ 13.b4 Qxb4+ 14.c3 but 11. .. Qa5+ 12.Bd2 Qf5 13.h4 h5 14.c4 Qxf3 15.gxf3 Nh6 is a better line and gives Black an advantage as show by the DB-statistics in which Black scores 88 % in 54 games.

8.f4

A new idea is 8.f4 d5 9.exd6 Bxd6 10.0-0 N8e7 11.f5 Bxf5 12.Bxf7+ Kxf7 13.g4 Re8 14.gxf5 Nf8 15.Qh5+ Kg8 following an analyse of G. Lhost but there is no practice in this position.

Line B) 7. .. d6

B1) 8.Qf3 Qd7 9.0-0

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 d6 8.Qf3 Qd7 9.0-0 (diagram)

Wind considers this as the gambit’s main line. What I give here is only an abbreviation of his analysis. He considers

9. .. dxe5

10.dxe5 and now

10. .. c6

11.Re1 Qc7 12.Ne4! Be6 [12...Nxe5?! 13.Qg3 f6 14.Bf4] 13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.Ng5 « with good compensation » e.g. 14. .. Bb4 15.c3 Ba5 16.Nxe6, followed by Qh3

Wind didn’t mentioned the Brause move 12.Bg5 Be6 13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.Rad1 Be7 15.Bxe7 N8xe7 16.Qg4 Nf5 17.Qc4 Qe7 18.Na4 0-0 19.Nc5 Rae8 20.Rd7 Brause(2595)-Cheops(2200),ICC,1998,1-0(33) but Black can play better and 14. .. N8e7 15.Qg4 Kf7 was winning for black in keiserpaul(2013)-mnislav(2045),ICC,2002,0-1(39). Maybe 12.Be2!? leading to a draw in faile-amyan,JW2-group,2000,=-=(29) needs more attention.

10. .. Nxe5

11.Re1 Bd6 [11...Qe7?? 12.Rxe5! Qxe5 13.Qxf7+ Kd8 14.Qxf8+ Kd7 15.Be3+- Torrecillas ] 12.Bf4 f6 13.Rad1

[ the nice move 13.Bb5!? seems not to be quite sufficient according latest analyse of M. Wind. Following analyse of Antonio Torrecillas shows the amazing possibilities of this Halloween line 13.Bb5!?



c6 14.Rad1! Qe6! [14...cxb5!? 15.Bxe5 fxe5 16.Ne4 Bc7 17.Rxd7 Bxd7 =] 15.Qg3 Kf8 [15...g5?! 16.Bxe5 Bxe5 17.f4! Qg4!? (17...gxf4 18.Qg7) 18.fxe5 Qxg3 19.hxg3 cxb5 20.exf6+ Kf7 21.Rd8!+- ] 16.Bxe5 [16.Bc4 Qe7! Wind] Bxe5 (fxe5! Wind) 17.f4 cxb5 18.fxe5 Qb6+ 19.Re3 Bf5 20.Rd6 Qc5 21.Rd5+- Qc8 [21...Qb6 22.exf6 Qxf6 23.Rxf5 Qxf5 24.Rf3+-] 22.Qf4 Ne7 23.exf6 Nxd5 24.Nxd5 Qd7 25.fxg7+ Kxg7 26.Qd4+ [26.Qe5+ Kh6 27.Rh3+! Bxh3 28.Qf6+ Kh5 29.Nf4+ Kg4 30.gxh3+ Kf3 31.Nd3+ ] 26...Kg8 27.Nf6+ Kf7 28.Nxd7 Brause(2480)-Resurrection(2830),ICC,1998,1-0(28) ]

13. .. Ne7

[13...Qf5? 14.Nb5! Kf8 15.Bxe5 fxe5 16.Qb3 « black can barely defend his position » (but 16.Qd5?! went wrong in keiserpaul(1994)-hjobo(1925),gameknot,2003,0-1(47) ) 16. .. g6 17.Nxd6 cxd6 18.Rxd6 Nf6 19.Qc3 Ne4 20.Rxe4 Qxe4 21.Bd3 Qf4 22.Rd8+ Kg7 23.Qc7+ Bd7 24.Rxd7+ Kh6 25.g3]

14.Bxe5 fxe5 15.Ne4 « white seems to get decent compensation ». My opinion is that after 15.Rf8! 16.Qh5+ Kd8 17.Qxh7 Qg4 18.h3 Bf5 19.hxg4 Bxh7 20.Nc5 Nc6 21.Ne6+ Ke7 22.Nxf8 Black is clearly better, so the 15.Bb5 line is preferable, after 15. .. Nc6 (15. .. c6 16.Ne4 !), 16.Rxe5+ Nxe5! 17.Bxd7+ Bxd7 18.Qxb7 Bc6 19.Qb3 0-0-0 the black position being only slightly better.

9. .. Qf5

10.Qe3 dxe5 11.f4 e4 [11...Nxf4?! 12.dxe5 g5 13.Nd5] 12.Nxe4 (intending Ng3 and f4-f5) N6e7!? [12...Be7 13.Bd3 Kf8 14.Bd2] 13.Bd3 Qa5 (13. .. Qe6 14.f5 Qb6 15.Nc5 Nf6 16.a4 a5 17.Bc4 Bd7 18.Ra3) (13. .. Nd5? 14.Nf6+ is very nice ) 14.f5 Bd7 15.b4! Qxb4?! [15...Qb6 16.a4] 16.c4 Qa5 17.Rb1 0-0-0 18.Nc5 « with strong attack ».

10.Qe2?! is not so good, because it allows the embarassing Qg4. Antonio Torrecillas brought under attention that Black can play 10. .. dxe5 11.f4 e4! 12.Nxe4 and now not 12...Be7? as in Brause-MeWithMyself(2185),ICC,1997, 1-0(16) but 12...N6e7! could bring White into troubles!

9. .. c6

10.exd6 Bxd6 11.Re1+ Kf8 12.Ne4 Bb4 (12. .. Nh4! 13.Qh5 Nf5) 13.c3 Ba5 « and white has excellent compensation » Wind,M-Van der Kraan,M,KNSB,1991,1-0(19) continued 14.b3 f6 15.Ba3+ N6e7 [15...N8e7 16.Nd6] 16.Qh5 g6 17.Qxa5 Kg7? 18.Nxf6 Kxf6 19.Qe5#

B2) 8.Qf3 others

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 d6 8.Qf3

8. .. Be6

In this case White can safely take the b7 pawn 9.Qxb7 Bxc4? [ On 9. .. N8e7 White can play 10.Nb5 Rc8 11.d5 Nxe5 12.dxe6 Nxc4 13.Nxa7 Rb8 14.Qa6 Nxb2 15.Nc6 Nxc6 16.Qxc6+ Ke7 17.0-0 Rb6 18.Qf3 f6 “with long term compensation“ (M. Wind) ] 10.Qc6+ Ke7 11.exd6+ cxd6 12.Qxc4 Brause(2520)-godel(2250),ICC,1998,1-0(20)

8. .. f5

Stefan Buecker’s analyse on this line goes

9.g4!? (9.h4 ?!) Nh4 [9...N8e7 10.gxf5 or 10.Bg5] 10.Qe2 dxe5 11.Bd2. he gives as example 11. .. Qxd4?! 12.0-0-0 Bd6 13.f4! Ng6 14.Rhf1 e4 15.Nd5 +=

8. .. f6 !

leads to long battle games in which both sides have chances



9.0-0 dxe5 10.dxe5 Nxe5 11.Qe4 (11.Re1? Bd6 -+)

11. .. Bc5 12.Rd1 Qe7 13.Nd5 Qd6 14.b4 Bb6 15.Bb2 Ne7 16.Nxb6 Qxb6 17.Bxe5 Bf5 18.Qf4 fxe5 19.Qxe5 Bxc2 20.Rd2 Bg6 21.Qxg7 Rf8 22.Re1 Qf6 23.Qxf6 Rxf6 24.Rde2 THiarcs6- Fritz5(2430),Blitz,1998,1-0(82)

Wind has 11. .. Ne7 12.Rd1 Bd7 13.Be6 Qc8 14.Rxd7! Nxd7 15.Be3 Nc6 16.Rd1 Bd6 17.Nb5 Ke7 18.Bh3+ Kd8 19.Rxd6 cxd6 20.Nxd6 Qc7 21.Nf7+ Kc8 22.Nxh8+=

8. .. Qe7

9.0-0 (insufficient is 9.Bg5) dxe5 10.Bb5+ Kd8 11.Rd1 c6 [ safer is 11...e4 12.Nxe4] 12.Bxc6 bxc6 13.Qxc6 Rb8 14.dxe5+ Bd7 15.Nb5 Rc8 16.Qb7 Qe6 17.Nxa7 Rxc2 18.Qb8+= (analyse M. Wind)

Line C) 7. .. d5

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 d5

Euwe’s refutation.

8. Bxd5 c6 (diagram)

Note that 8...N8e7 ! ( TLM-Variation) is a critical line 9.Bb3 Nf5! 10.Ne2 c5 11.c3 cxd4 12.cxd4 Bb4+ 13.Bd2 Bxd2+ 14.Qxd2 0-0 and it is doubtful white has enough compensation with two pawns for the piece.

Wind has recommended 9.Bg5 Qd7 [9...h6 10.Qf3; 9...c6 10.Bb3 h6 11.Be3 Nf5 12.0-0] 10.Be4 Nf5 11.Be3 Be7 12.0-0 0-0 13.Qd3 and claims that with two pawns and a strong center, white gets fair chances, but I prefer black. In keiserpaul(2006)-klausbehrmann(1897),gameknot,2003,0-1(56) was played 9.Bg5 Qd7 10.Be4 h6 11.Be3 Nf5 12.0-0 Be7 13.Qd3 0-0 14.Rad1 c6 15.Bc1 Rd8 16.Ne2 a5 but white went wrong with 17.g4?! [17.f4! was necessary]

8. .. Bb4 also has been tried and gives white a good game with 4 pawns for the piece. 9.Qf3 Qd7 10.Bxb7 Bxb7 11.Qxb7 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 Rd8 13.Rb1 N8e7 14.0-

0 0-0 15.Ba3 Rfe8 16.Qxa7 Brause(2705)-oldtimer(2505),ICS,1997,1-0(27)

Let’s continue with 8. .. c6 , the so-called Whitney variation.

Where can the bishop go to ?

9. Bb3

is one possibility leading to a difficult game

9. .. Bb4 and now we have the choice between 10.Qf3!? Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Be6 and 10.0-0 Bxc3 11.bxc3 N8e7 12.f4 ( Wind also gives 12.c4!? and then 12. .. 0-0 13.c3 with the of idea Ba3, Bd6 13. .. Qa5 14.Bd2 Be6 15.f4. This idea leaded to a flattered drawn in keiserpaul(1998)-invincible1(2309), gameknot,2003, ½-½(29)) 12. .. a5 (or 12. .. h5! Stevenson-Ferguson,Bunrattu Open,2001,0-1(29) . Wind gives 12. .. Be6 13.g4!) 13.g4 Nd5 14.f5 Nh4 15.Qe1 h5 16.f6! (suggestion Antonio Torrecillas) hxg4 (16...gxf6 17.exf6+ Be6 18.Qxh4) 17.Qxh4 Rxh4 18.fxg7 Qe7 19.g8Q+ Qf8 20.Qg5

9. .. Be6 is mentioned by Wind. He gives 10.0-0 N8e7 11.Ne4 [11.g4!? Qd7 12.Bxe6 fxe6 13.Ne4 Nc8 14.f4] 11...Nf5 12.c3 Qd7 [12...Be7 13.Qh5 0-0 14.Bc2] 13.Ng5 0-0-0 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.g4 Nfh4 16.f4

9. Be4

9. .. f5 with an exclamation mark by the Halloween father Steffen A. Jakob



10.Bf3 Nh4

10. .. Bb4 11.0-0 N8e7 12.Ne2 Be6 13.c3 and again : does white has enough compensation with two pawns ?

10. .. c5! is also a strong move 11.Nd5 N8e7 12.Bg5 Be6 13.c4 cxd4 14.Qxd4 Nc6 15.Qc3 and Black was winning in keiserpaul(2014)-bishop_vlad(2314),gameknot,2003,0-1(23)

In any case the logical 11.0-0 fails on 11...Nxf3+ 12.Qxf3 Qxd4 13.Bg5 Qg4 keiserpaul-wagnerow,gameknot,2002,0-1(41). Better for white is Antonio Torrecillas suggestion : 11.d5!? Bb4 (11...cxd5 12.Bxd5 Qa5 13.0-0 Bb4 14.Bg5 Ng6 15.e6 with Bxb7 in the air) 12.d6 Qa5 13.0-0 Be6 ( 13. .. Nxf3+ 14.Qxf3 Qxe5 15.Bf4 was winning in lexherman(2224)-felixmiszta(2274), gameknot,2003,1-0(60)) 14.Bg5 Nxf3+ 15.Qxf3

It’s possible to exchange the pawns 10.exf6!? Nxf6 11.Bg5 Bb4 12.Qd3 Bxc3+ 13.bxc3 Kf7 14.0-0 Qd6 15.Bf3 Be6 16.c4 Brause-Oldtimer,ICS,1997,1-0(40)

Line D) 7. .. Bb4

D1) 8.Qf3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 Bb4 8.Qf3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3

This line is the only one in which White does not score positive (40% according to the “Gambit-Eroeffnungstabellen” from T. Born, 2001 )

9. .. f5

Steffen A. Jakob calls this the Fritz4-Variation and gives it an exclamation mark, which I do not agree with.

after 10.h4 N6e7 the old Brause move was to take the bishop on g8 11.Bxg8 Rxg8 with indeed bad results for White, but 11.0-0 seems to be a better move 11. .. h6 12.Qg3 Kf8 TJunior46-TFritz5,Blitz25,1-0(75)

9. .. Qe7

10. 0-0 (diagram) and here we shall consider 6 possibilities

A) 10. .. Rb8 to push the b5 pawn 11.Re1 b5 (spear variation according to S. Jakob) 12.Rb1 a6 13.Qg3 Ra8 14.Bd5 Ra7 15.a4 Bb7 16.Bg5 Qf8 17.Bxb7 Rxb7 18.axb5 axb5 19.Ra1 Rb8 Brause(2530)-MrsLovett(2680),ICC,1998,1-0(35)

B) 10. .. Nh6 with a Queen attack on the wing after the preparation move g3 to prevent the Black Queen coming on h4. 11.g3 0-0 12.Qh5 d6 13.Bxh6 gxh6 14.f4 keiserpaul-raivydas,gameknot,2002,1-0(26). This is the classical Brause move, but Wing’s suggestion 11.Qd3 is a strong alternative. He analyses 11.Qd3! d6! [11...0-0? 12.Bxh6 gxh6 13.f4 with a strong attack] 12.exd6 [or 12.Bxh6 gxh6 13.f4 dxe5 14.Rae1] 12...Qxd6 13.Re1+ Ne7 14.Qe4 Nhf5 15.g4 Nh4 16.a4 Qd7 17.Ba3 Nhg6 18.h3 or 18.Re3

C) 10. .. f6! 11.exf6 Qxf6 12.Qh5 Kf8 13.Bg5 Qf5 14.f4 Nf6 15.Qe2 d5 16.Bd3 Qg4 17.Qe3 Ne7 18.Rae1 Qd7 19.Re2 Kf7 20.Bxf6 gxf6 21.Rfe1 Nc6 22.c4 Rf8 23.Qf3 Kg8 24.c3 Qg7 25.Qxd5+ Kh8 26.Re3 Bd7 27.Qh5 Rf7 28.d5 Na5 29.d6 f5 30.dxc7 Rc8 31.Bxf5 Rxf5 32.Re8+ Bxe8 and here 33.Qxf5 Bd7 34.Qxa5 should have lead to an equal position. keiserpaul(2015)-bafverfeldt1981(2029),gameknot,2002,0-1(34)



D) 10. .. c6 11.a4 Nh4 12.Qg3 Nf5 13.Qd3 g6 14.Ba3 Qh4 15.Rae1 Ngh6 16.Re4 Qg5 17.Bc1 Qh5 18.h3 Rg8 19.g4 Qh4 20.g5 Qh5 21.gxh6 Nxh6 Keiser,P-Agalorian,L,Handel-Tournament,2001,1-0(72)

E) 10. .. d5 often leads to an endgame with 3 pawns for the piece, S. Jakob calls this the EinsNull Variante (= One Zero Variation). 11.Bxd5 Nh4 12.Qf4 c6 13.Bxf7+ Qxf7 14.Qxh4 Ne7 15.Ba3 Be6 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Qxe7+ Kxe7 Brause (2635)-Dorobanov (2430),ICS,1997,1-0(42)

F) 10. .. Nh4!? is also considered by Schiller (“but i think it has its merits”). There is no practice however, except for 5 Brause games won by black blunders.

D2) 8.Qf3 others

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 Bb4 8.Qf3

In most cases the exchange of the black bishop against the white knight at c3 is just a matter of time. But there are a few exceptions.

8. .. d5

9.Bxd5 Qd7 leads to positions with 4 pawns for the piece

10.Bxb7 Bxb7 11.Qxb7 Bxc3+ 12.bxc3 Rd8 13.Rb1 N8e7 14.0-0 0-0 15.Ba3 Rfe8 16.Qxa7 Brause(2705)-oldtimer(2505),ICS,1997,1-0(27)

8. .. Qe7

9.0-0 Bxc3 leads to the same positions as in the 8.Qf3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qe7 section.

8. .. f6

When after castling the black bishop is not exchanged, the white knight jumps to e4 with good effect

8. .. f6 9.0-0 c6 ?! 10.Ne4 b5 11.Bxg8 Rxg8 13.Qb3 as in keiserpaul-davism,gameknot,2002,1-0(27)

9.0-0 Bxc3 10.bxc3 Qe7 leads to the same positions as in the 8.Qf3 Bxc3+ 9.bxc3 Qe7 10.0-0 f6 section but 9.0-0 Bxc3 10.bxc3 d5 11.Bxd5 was 0-1 in

keiserpaul(2014)-urosub(2054),gameknot,0-1(37)

8. .. f5 !

This could be a critical line. Steffen A. Jakob gives this move an exclamation mark and called it the Oldtimer variation. There are a lot of games in the Braun DB but they do not at all convince me. Black could have played better in a lot of cases as in Brause(2525)-brit(2075),ICC,1998,1-0(20)

9.h4 d5 ( Schiller suggest 9. .. Bxc3 10.bxc3 d6 “seems solid” ) 10.Bb3 c6 11.Bg5 Qc7 12.0-0-0 Bxc3 13.Qxc3 Be6 14.h5 Nf8 15.f3 Nd7 16.h6 g6 17.Rhe1 Ne7 18.Rd3 0-0-0 ? .With 18...Nc8 black has a solid position. (diagram)

Deviations on the Main Line :

Deviation A) 6. .. Qe7

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Ng6 6.e5 Qe7

7. Bg5 ?



Was played by Brause in his early days. But Black simply gives the piece back with a plus pawn and the better game.

7. .. Nxe5 8.dxe5 Qxe5+ Brause-OLMECA,ICC,1996,0-1(58)

7. f4 ?!

After a short while with 7.Bg5 Brause always used to play this line.

Practically all games in the Brause DB continue with d6 as in Brause(2545)-loete(2105),ICC,1998,1-0(33) 7. .. d6 8.Be2 dxe5 9.fxe5 Nd7 10.0-0 c6 11.Ne4

but also c6 is playable : 7.f4 c6! 8.Be2 Nd5 9.Nxd5 cxd5 10.Qd3 b6 (10. .. f5!) Brause(2590)-RookieGM (2070),ICC,1997,1-0(33)

7. Bb5 !

Following amazing analysis is made by Wind,M-Buecker,S 7.Bb5 c6 [7...Nxe5 8.0-0; 7...a6 8.Ba4] 8.0-0 cxb5 [8...Nd5 9.Nxd5 cxd5 10.f4 f5 11.exf6 Qxf6 12.f5 Ne7 13.c3 a6 14.Bd3 d6 15.Qb3; 8...Ng8 9.Bc4 d5 10.exd6 Qxd6 11.Ne4 Qc7 12.Qf3 f5!? (12...Be6 13.Bxe6 fxe6 14.Ng5 Qd7 15.Re1 0-0-0 16.Nf7) 13.Ng5 Nh6 14.Re1+ Be7 15.Qh5] 9.Bg5 d5 [9...Nxe5? 10.dxe5 Qc5 11.Re1 Ng8 12.Ne4+-] 10.Qd3 a6 11.Rae1 Be6 12.f4 h6 13.exf6 Qd6 14.Rxe6+ Qxe6 15.f5 Qd6 16.Re1+ Kd7 17.Bd2 b4 [17...Nf4 18.Qf3] 18.fxg6 bxc3 19.Qh3+ Kd8 20.Qxc3 fxg6 21.f7 Be7 22.Qb3 Kc8 23.Ba5 Qd7 [23...Rf8 24.Qh3+ Kb8 25.Re6 Qf4 26.Rxe7 Qxd4+ 27.Kh1 Qd1+ 28.Re1] 24.Qb6 Kb8 25.Qxg6 Rc8 26.Bb6

Deviation B) 6. .. Bb4

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5 Nxe5 5.d4 Ng6 6.e5 Bb4 7.exf6 Qxf6

Eric Schiller : “Black is clearly better, with a significant lead in development and pressure in the center”, and, “Black has such a comfortable game that there is no reason to avoid this position”.

However, in a game M.Wind-E.Karstan there followed : 8.Be3 d5 9.g3 c6 10.Bg2 Bf5 11.Qd2 Qe6 12.h3 h5

13.a3 Bd6 14.0-0-0 0-0-0 15.Na4 with the better game for White. Nor had white problems after 8.Be3 0-0 9.g3 d5 10.Bg2 c6 11.Qd2 in keiserpaul(1982)-tirelli(1707),gameknot,2003,1-0(27)


Giving back the piece


It often happens that players who are not familiar with the gambit are afraid of the complications and return the piece as soon as possible.

5. .. Bb4 ? 6.dxe5 (diagram)

The Uhl-variation

White can simply take the knight and obtain the better game

6. .. Nxe4

both Qg4 and Qd4 are possible:

7. Qg4 d5 lead to animated play in Keiser,P(1949)-Kooyman(1870),Handel-Tournament,2000,1-0(15), White has not to be afraid of the poissoned pawn 8.Qxg7 Rf8 9.a3 there can follow 9. .. Bxc3+ 10.bxc3 Qh4 11.Be3 (11.Bh6+- Collijn) and now Nxc3 is impossible because of 12.Bc5



7. Qd4 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 d5 9.exd6 Keiser,P(1950)-Krukowski,M(1980),Handel-Tournament,2000,1-0(20)

6. .. Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Nxe4 8.Qg4 d5 9.Qxg7 Rf8 10.Bh6 Keiser,P - Vansichen,J,Interclubs,2001,1-0(37)

5. ..Nxe4

is another way to obtain full equality. 6.Nxe4 Ng6 7.Bd3 Be7 8.0-0 d5 Jakob,S(1990)-hamberger(1960),ICC,1998, was 1-0(21) but black could have played better.

5. ..Bd6

also leads to equality. After 6.dxe5 Bxe5 7.Bd3 the position on the board is exactly the same as a well known one with reversed colours after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bc4?! Nxe4! 5. Nxe4 d5 6.Bd3 dxe4 7.Bxe4 Bd6

5. ..Neg4 ?!

Black plans a counterattack via Nxf2 (named The JustInTime variation by S. Jakob )

6.e5 Nxf2 7.Kxf2 d5 8.exf6 Qxf6+ 9.Qf3 Qxf3+ 10.Kxf3 c6 Black has used all his developed pieces and could not continue his attack, Brause(2490)-roundball(2620),ICC,1998,1-0(26)

Another black idea is to win a pawn

6.e5 Qe7 7.Be2 Nxe5 8.dxe5 Qxe5 9.0-0 Bc5 10.g3 but White is well defended and can win the pawn back plus the better pawn structure with Bf4 Brause(2510)-Skydiver(2040),ICS,1997,1-0(12)

5. ..Qe7

6.dxe5 Qxe5 7.f4 Qa5 8.Bd2 with the better game for White

Similar Ideas

We still have to discuss two subjects : The Chicago gambit and the Halloween reversed.

Chicago Gambit

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nxe5 ?

The same idea, but the pawn is taken one move earlier. This cannot be recommended. Contrary to the Halloween gambit, there is not the characteristic Knight Chase by pushing forwards the center pawns. Nevertheless, Phillips,D-Pillsbury,H,Chicago,1899, was 1-0. This is the game :

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nxe5 Nxe5 4.d4 Nc6 5.d5 Nb8 6.Bd3 d6 7.0-0 Nd7 8.c4 Be7 9.Nc3 Ne5 10.Be2 f5 11.f4 Nf7 12.Bd3 fxe4 13.Nxe4 Bf5 14.Kh1 Bxe4 15.Bxe4 Nf6 16.Bf3 0-0 17.g4 Nd7 18.Be3 b6 19.Be4 Nc5 20.Bc2 a5 21.Rf3 Nh8 22.Rh3 g6 23.g5 Qd7 24.Rh4 Rf5 25.Qg4 Raf8 26.Qh3 Bd8 27.a3 R8f7 28.b4 Nb7 29.Bd2 Qe8 30.Re1 Re7 31.Rxe7 Qxe7 32.Bxf5 gxf5 33.Qxf5 Ng6 34.Rh6 Nf8 35.Qd3 Qf7 36.f5 Be7 37.g6 hxg6 38.fxg6 Qg7 39.Qf5 Nd8 40.Rh3 Bf6 41.Bh6 Qe7 42.Re3 Be5 43.Bg5 Qe8 44.Bxd8 Nxg6 45.Bxc7 1-0



Halloween Gambit Reversed

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3 Nxe4!? 5.Nxe4 d5

The gambit can also be played with the Black pieces. White has not the option of playing his Knight to the Queen side.

We follow Ivanov,A(2541)-Husari(2301),Boston rapid,2000 : 6.Nc3 d4 7.Nb1 [7.Bg2!? dxc3 8.bxc3 unclear] 7...e4 8.Ng1 d3! 9.c3 [9.cxd3 exd3 (9...Bc5!? 10.dxe4 Qd4) 10.Qf3 Nd4 11.Qe3+ (11.Qe4+ Be7 12.Bxd3 Bf5 13.Qe3 Qd5 14.f3 0-0-0 equal, unclear) 12.Bxd3 Qd7 13.Nc3 0-0-0 14.Nge2 Bc5 15.Qf4 Rhe8 equal, unclear 16.0-0?! (16.Ne4 ) 16...g5! 17.Qf6 Bh3 18.Nxd4 (18.Bc4 Bxf1 19.Kxf1 Qh3+ 20.Kg1 g4-+) 18...Bxd4 19.Qh6 Bxf1 20.Bxf1 Qf5 21.Nd1 Re1 22.Ne3 Bxe3 23.dxe3 Rdd1-+] 9...Bc5 10.Qh5 Bb6 11.Qh4 Qxh4 12.gxh4 0-0 13.b3 Ne5 14.Na3 Re8© 15.Nc4? Nxc4 16.bxc4 Be6 17.Bg2 Bxc4 18.Nh3 c6 19.0-0 f5 20.a4 Re5 21.Ba3 Rd8 22.Rfb1 Rd7 23.Nf4 Bd8 with advantage for black ( Analyse A. Torrecillas)

SOURCES

R. Schlenker Randspringer #65 1993 R. Schlenker Handbuch der unregelmassigen

Schacheroffnungen Bd.14/I 1997 E. Schiller Unorthodox Chess Openings 1998

S. Buecker Kaissiber nr 20 2003

Web sources

www.chessville.com

http://www.jakob.at/steffen/hal_toc.html (Steffen A.Jakob’s chess page)

http://home.eplus-online.de/schach/Gambits.htm (moves tree)

http://www.asigc.it/teoria/Unorthodox_4.htm (game by Paul Valle)

http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/tour/breeze.htm (guide by Tim Krabbé)

http://www.terra.es/personal2/salclub/enroque12.zip (A.Torrecillas article)

With special thanks to

Antonio Torrecillas Maurits Wind Lex Herman

If you have any comments or questions, please contact me at [email protected]

Two game databases for this Gambit can be found at www.chessville.com or write the CICL Bulletin Editor.

Club News 43


FROM THE RENAISSANCE KNIGHTS

Renaissance Knights has experienced tremendous growth over the last year. In the 2006/07 school year we started funding a school chess program at Hay school in Chicago. As we begin the 2007/08 school year we are again funding a chess program at hay school and added school Graeme Stewart to the program. We are continuing to expand the program by adding Henry Clay School in Chicago as the third site for an after-school chess program funded by Renaissance Knights. Soon we will have a fourth school chess program thanks to Mr. and Mrs. A.B. Steeves who have graciously offered to fund a chess program at a school in Chicago. We are very pleased to have them as our first partners in our Adopt-A-School approach. We have many new locations this year where we will be holding tournaments at. We have partnered with The University of Chicago Quadrangle Club and Chicago State University to have two sites in the city where we can hold both scholastic and adult tournaments at. Additionally, we will be organizing scholastic chess tournaments at various schools throughout the Chicagoland area. Keep a watch on our website as we keep adding new dates to our list of tournaments. I would like to personally thank all those who have helped make Renaissance Knights Chicagoland's premier chess organization and I ask you to consider making a tax deductable donation that would allow disadvantage children to receive the benefits chess. If you require additional information on the programs we run, please contact me at 773-844-0701 and I will be glad to provide it. You may also visit www.RKnights.org where you can make online donations. Sincerely, David Heiser

November 3 - Chicago State Open

at Chicago State University Where: Cordell Reed Student Union Building, 9501 South King Drive, Chicago, IL 60628 Rounds: 4-rounds Swiss Style Tournament, Game/60

Check-in: 9:00 - 9:30 AM. Late reg. will receive ½ point by for 1st round Rounds: 10 AM, 12:30 PM, 3 PM, 5:30 PM Prizes: 1st $145 2nd $70, A/B 1 st $100 2nd $50, C/D 1st $100 2nd $50, Upset Prize $35

Tournament will be both USCF & CXR Rated.

Any questions about this tournament please contact William Blackman @ 773-403-1662.

Chicago State University daily parking rate is $4.

If entering the campus via 95th street, follow the road and turn right on University/Student Life Drive then park.

If entering via King Drive follow the road and take the 3rd left to University/Student Life Drive.

Cordell Reed Student Union Building is the building with the cone shaped top.

Club News 44


November 11 - Knight Quest Renaissance Hotel, 933 Skokie Blvd, Northbrook

Limited to first 50 players 4-round SS, Game 30 (USCF & CXR Rated) Registration: 12:00 - 12:30 PM Rounds: Rounds 1 at 1:00 PM, rest ASAP 3 Sections: Open (Juniors & Adults) Scholastic U1200 (Juniors Only) & U800 (Juniors Only) Awards: Top 5 each section - All others participation medal Entry Fee: Mailed entry $20 postmarked by Nov. 2

Online entry $20 by Nov. 5, $25 after Onsite $25 $5 discount to Renaissance Knights & Junior Knights members ENTER ONLINE QUEST FLYER DIRECTIONS

December 9 - Knight Quest Renaissance Hotel, 933 Skokie Blvd, Northbrook

Limited to first 50 players 4-round SS, Game 30 (USCF & CXR Rated) Registration: 12:00 - 12:30 PM Rounds: Rounds 1 at 1:00 PM, rest ASAP 3 Sections: Open (Juniors & Adults) Scholastic U1200 (Juniors Only) & U800 (Juniors Only) Awards: Top 5 each section - All others participation medal Entry Fee: Mailed entry $20 postmarked by Nov. 30 Online entry $20 by dEC. 3, $25 after Onsite $25 $5 discount to Renaissance Knights & Junior Knights members

For the complete picture of the club, follow the Renaissance Knights link from our website

4R-SS G/60 - $3000 b/80 paid entries

Oakton Community College, Business Institute. 1600 East Golf Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016

Unrated must play in M/X or Class D/E/F/U sections

No playing up - must play in your own class

Entry Fee: $50 Adult, $40 Youth both postmarked by 11/24; $65 Adult, $55 Youth at door (Youth

entries count as 2/3 entry)

Byes: One 1/2pt bye allowed, Rd 4 bye must commit by start of Rd 2

November Rating Supplement used

Schedule: Reg: 8:30-9:30am, Rds: 10, 12:30, 3, 5:30

Re-entry: $25 only 1/2pt in Rd 1 - no re-entries after Rd 2

BRING BOARDS, SETS, AND CLOCKS - NONE PROVIDED

USCF & ICA Membership Required (OSA). Only IL resident can claim class titles

Information: 888-80-CHESS or [email protected]

For further information, online registration and payment visit http://www.nachess.org/ilclass

Chess Vendor will be onsite.

Documents

The Chicago Chess Player · The Chicago Chess Player October 2007 Officer Contact List ... Rare Authentic Hand-Carved Chess Set from Myanmar