Q& A

For the price of a pawn Black has some temporary piece activity but it is not enough compensation. 19 )3d1 h6 20 4)e1 )3c8 21 Jl.c4 a7 22 h3 d5 23

exd5 4)bxd5 24 Jl.h2 )3e8 25 )3a1 d7 26 4)fl 4)f4 27 d2 g4 28 4)e3 g5 29 laxa8! The attack is snuffed out and White can go on the offensive. 29 )3xa8 30 4)f3 4)e4 31 c2 4)h3+ 32 fl f4 1-0.
.

Of course, the Anti-Marshall is not to everyone's taste, as the positional lines gives Black plenty of opportunities to create counterplay. Is the Marshall really to be feared? In the world's elite Michael Adams has often had the chance to play his beloved opening, usually after his opponent has prepared a novelty around move 25 ! At the recent Dos Hermanas tournament, Adams maintained the honor of an opening that sacrifices a pawn in return for extraordinary complicated variations. J .Polgar-Adams, Dos Hermanas 1 999: 1 e4 e5 2 4)f3 4)c6 3 Jl.h5 a6 4 Jl,a4 4)f6 5 0-0 Jl.e7 6 )3e1 b5 7 Jl.h3 0-0 8 c3 d5 The move that signals the Marshall. Of course, it is named after Frank Marshall who played it against Capablanca in the New York tournament 1 9 1 8. 9 exd5 4) xd5 10 4) xe5 4) xe5 1 1 )3 xe5 c6 12 d3 - 12 d4 is a major alternative. 12 Jl,d6 13 )3e1 h4 14 g3 h3 15 lae4 f5 16 4)d2 g6 17 lae1 f5
.

17 .. :xd3?? has been played here and after 18 -'tc2 Black can put the pieces back into the box. 18 f3 In round two Anand had tried 18 a4 against Adams but had made little progress; the game continued 18 . . . !!b8 19 axb5 axb5 20 <tlf3 f4 2 1 <tle5 .Q.xe5 22 !! xeS fxg3 23 fxg3 .llg4 24 i!t'e 1 .llh 3 25 Ae3 !! fl + 26 i!t'xfl .ilxfl 27 ):] xfl !! f8 28 . xf8+ -. 18 h8 19 .Q.d1

1 08

Q&A
B lack has good compensation a fter the greedy 19 -'txd5 cxd5 20 'i!i'xd5 ..a7 when B l ack 's l ight-square bishop will be a menace. 19 f4 20 g4 h5 21 h3

4)f6 22 "ttg2 hxg4 23 hxg4 Axg4 24 e6!

This would appear to be a star move. The pin on the bishop means that the rook cannot be taken and Adams will suffer a material loss.

24 *h5! An inspired idea

to give up a piece in return for maintaining the pressure on White's exposed king.

The alternatives seem to dictate the decision: a) 24 ... ..ad8 25 .\e4 and the twin
threats of 4Jxd6 and after

4Jxf6 followed by

taking on g4 looks decisive. b)

24 ... .. ae8

seems to be in the spirit of the opening by activating but is proven tactically flawed

25 . . . 4:lxg4 26 .. xg6 .. e 1 + 27 r;tlg2 .. xd1 28 .. xg4 25 .sl,xg4 4)xg4 26 xd6 ae8 27 4)e4 4)e5 28 f3 4) xf3+ 29 f2 4)h4 30 *h1 g5 31 b4 g4 32 .sl,b2 g3+ 33 'iflg1 4)f3+ 34 g2 4)h2 35 c4+ g8
when leaves Black busted.

25 'i!i'xg4!

36 g1 when his 36 . . .f3 37 4Jxg3 f2 + 38 g2 fl + 39 xfl ! .. xfl 40 4Jxh5 ..e2+ 4 1 h3 .. xb2 42 .. xfl 4Jxf1 .. xc6 when White has the better
Jon Speelman suggests that White can improve with analysis continues chances for victory. Therefore, Adams should be content to settle for a draw with

36 *dl?

36 . . . 4Jf3+ 37 g2 4Jh2 38 r;tlg1 4Jf3+ repeating the position. 36 {3+ 37 'iflxg3 *g4+ 38 c&>f2 *h4+ 39 e3 *f4+ 40 d4 "tte5+ 41 e3 4)g4+ 42 d2 *xb2+ 43 'ttc2 'tt x a1 44 g6+ h7 45 xg4 f2 0-1.

The Bo/DeFirmian/Omega/Arafat!Reynolds/Hanke Gambit Q:

An interesting item by Claudio Correa (Brazil) "Please, pay attention to this

Bo Gambit.

A club player has scored a lot of victories in this opening line." Bo

Detthow-C. S adde, Brazil:

1 d4 4Jf6 2 e4 4Jxe4 3 4Jc3

1 09

Q& A

<tlxc3 4 bxc3 d5 5 Aa3 g6 6 h4 h5 7 Ad3 <t!c6 8 f4 Ag4 9 <tlf3 d7 10 0-0 Ah6 1 1 g3 Ah3 1 2 .f2 .g8 1 3 <it'h2 Ag4 1 4 e1 f6 1 5 .b1 <tld8 16 c4 b6 17 cxd5 Af8 18 .ilb5 c6 1 9 dxc6 <t!xc6 20 e4 . c8 21 d5 ..lli5 22 dxc6 1-0.
A: I am quite sure that Bo wins in spite of his opening due to his superior play. Normally, a gambit will offer some compensation such as better development or obvious attacking chances. In this case the semi-open e-file is not enough for the pawn. However, I would welcome contributions from readers who feel that an off-beat line should be credited with a name of a club player or something else. For example: I am reliably informed by eight-year-old Cameron Thompson (Australia) that if White puts his pawns on the squares a4, b3, c4, d3, e4, f3, g4 and h3 then it is The Great Wall of China! What do you think?
Swedish grandmaster Ferdinand Hellers has joined in the fun of trying to find a suitable name for the astounding gambit arising after the opening moves 1 d4 <tlf6 2 e4? <tlxe4 3 <tlc3 <tlxc3 4 bxc3. In the July column I revealed that the Brazilian player Bo Detthow has played it repeatedly with success and speculated that it should be known as the Bo Gambit. However, there appears to be another candidate who should get all the credit. Says Hellers, "I would like to inform you that the so called Bo (?) gambit is a great favorite of GM Nick DeFirmian in blitz games, especially after he and his opponent, for example me, have had a few glasses of wine !" I feel sure that the amiable American will be glad to know that his many years devoted to chess have been rewarded with the naming of the "DeFirmian Gambit," which of course is a lousy opening ! If anyone thinks this opening or anything else should be named after someone else, please let me know. The naming of obscure openings is always something of a minefield. I have had numerous replies to my inquiries concerning the "Bo Gambit." However, it looks like all these claims should be suspended in view of comments from Clyde Nakamura (USA): "I was a bit disturbed by the naming of the gambit (1 d4 <t!f6 2 e4) as the 'Bo Gambit. ' In Schiller's book Unorthodox Openings, 2nd edition, the same gambit was called the 'Omega Gambit. ' It is the name that I had given it in the 1 980's after watching the Charlton Heston movie The Omega
1 10

Q& A
this g a m bit a ppeare d in the German Theoretical publication 1 984. It featured the game Nakamura-Roods. A player named Arafat had also played a form of this gambit and named the line (1 d4 .Jf6 2 l.'4 .Jxe4 3 Ad3) as the 'Arafat Gambit. ' I do know that Grandmaster DeFirmian had also played this gambit. I have one DeFirmian game from my chess database, but it was a declined line, which transposed into regular standard lines. A US National Master named Robert Reynolds has also been known to play this gambit. The gambit can also be played from an Alekhine's Defense (1 e4 .Jf6 2 d4)."
Man . A n art i c l e on Rand Springer in

I managed to track down an entertaining game played by Robert Reynolds against Harold Winston at Ventura in 1 972. 1 d4 .\f6 2 e4? This opening is certainly a lot of fun but in my opinion White loses a pawn for just about nothing. 2 .\ xe4
...

3 .\c3 4) xc3 4 bxc3 c5 5 4)f3 g6 6 h4

A move which is in the spirit of the opening. The emphasis is on attack. 6 Jl,g7 7 h5 b6 One possibility for Black is 7 . . d5 with the better game. 8 hxg6 hxg6 9 ..xh8+ Jl.xh8 10 .\g5 -'l.g7 l l '(tg4 The game would stop after 1 1 f3 which threatens the rook on a8 and checkmate on fl. l l e5 12 Jl.d3 f5 13
. .

j}, xf5 gxf5 14 '(th5+ 1-0.

Luciano Amaral kindly sent some background information. Bo Gustawson Detow was born in Denmark and moved to Brazil in the late 1 940s. A keen amateur, he often qualified for the national championships and played his gambit on a number of occasions. The power of publicity should not be overlooked, which is why in the USA the opening is known as the Omega Gambit. The name coined by Mr. Nakamura was given credibility by prolific chess author Eric Schiller, who mentioned it in a few books. It seems that the best way to have an opening named after you is to play it consistently and just as importantly get it mentioned in print. However, Timothy Hanke (USA) makes a good point in entertaining style, concerning the tenuous links between the moves and the naming of some openings. "If we are going to name this gambit after the first person who admits that he played it in a serious game, then I must claim pride of place over the other players you mention. In 1 975 or so, I played this line myself in an inter-club match. At the time I was rated about 1 800 USCF. My club had put me on board
111

Q&A
I . so naturally I faced the other club's best pl aye r I o pe n ed with my usual l e4 and he countered with 1 . . .4Jf6. I have never liked facing Alekhine's Defense and so spent some time pondering my second move. I rejected the standard 2 e5 because I didn't know the theory (still don't). I rejected 2 4Jc3 because of a previous game in that line that had gone wrong, while 2 d3 looked like an admission of failure. Suddenly I noticed a very promising move that I had completely overlooked. After considering this new option for all of two seconds I banged out 2 d4!!?? with confidence, and sat complacently admiring my strong center. Until my puzzled opponent banged out 2 . 4Jxe4, which opened my eyes to the tactical drawback of my new move. Making the best of things I continued 3 4Jc3 4Jxc3 4 bxc3 and after 40 moves or so Black resigned. On the strength of my deposition I expect that future opening works will call this opening the 'Hanke Gambit. ' "
. ..

# % $ @ $!
Q: Michael Flanagan from Britain comes up with an intriguing question: "The other day down at the club I saw a game that began 1 f4 d5 2 e4? dxe4 3 e2?!. Does this #%$ @ $ ! thing have a name? I' ve played the Bird for years but I never saw this one before."

A: The position

is certainly unusual, and this was a real challenge for me. Having carefully read historic documents I can confirm that no one that I know has had the cheek to claim credit for it. However, to find out what a group of amateur players thought of the opening I showed it to some members of the Anderlecht chess club. I asked for a short answer and they said "GOOD." Impressed, I asked if they cou ld expand on the answer. They replied "NOT GOOD."

Advance French
Q: Erwin van Pelt from Groningen, Netherlands, reveals some original analysis
"I have two questions about an interesting, I think, variation in the French Advance Vari at i o n : 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 c3 4Jc6 5 4Jf3 b6 6 b4!!??

1 12

Q&A I huvc never seen it

variations:
u) 6 lh4 7 Ad3 bc3 8 <tlc3 Ab4 9 Ad2 <tld4 1 0 t!b1 a5 11 t! b4 <tlf3 12 f3 h4 1 3 <tlb5 e7 14 <tld6 \t>f8 1 5 0-0 f5 1 6 Ab4 h4 17 Af5 and White is w i n n i ng, Van Steenis-Geurink (Elo ca. 2300), Groningen 1 998. h ) 6 cb4 7 Ad3 Ad7 8 0-0 bc3 9 <tlc3 <tld4 10 t!b1 <tlf3 11 f3 c7 1 2 <tlb5 dH 13 g3 Ac6 1 4 Ag5 d7 1 5 t!fcl a6 16 <tld4 g6 1 7 <tlc6 bc6 18 Aa6 and White is winning. The best variation for Black is, I think: c) 6 cd4 7 b5 <tla5 8 <tld4 Ad7 9 Ad3 t! c8 and White has some play with his pawn on e5, but B lack has good play against c3 and c4.

in a

theoretical book or any database. Here are some

"To be honest, it is not my variation, but from my Staunton teammate, the very creative player Menno van Steenis. He has played many interesting games with this variation. My questions: I ) What is your opinion about this variation, does it deserve a footnote or maybe more in the books or not? 2) Has this move been played before by masters or grandmasters?"

A: I have to say that despite writing a book on the Advance variation called Beating the French, this line completely escaped my attention ! The gambit is certainly entertaining but White should have little compensation. For instance:

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 c3 4)c6 5 4)f3 b6 6 b4?

6 cxb4 (I agree with your analysis that after 6 cxd4 7 b5 <tla5 8 <tlxd4 Ad7 9 Ad3 t!c8 Black has the better chances) 7 .Q.d3 .Q.d7 - It makes sense to avoid giving White a lead in development with 7 . . . bxc3 when 8 <tlxc3 introduces the possibility of <tla4 or <tlb5 and t!b1 . 8 0-0 c8 when the threat of taking on c3
followed by a discovered attack by the c6 knight gives B lack a clear advantage. I have been unable to find evidence of any master who has played the variation but I will keep on looking.

1 13

Q& A

Short Subject Q: Finally, a genuine e-mail from Nigel Short who currently lives in Greece: "Can you suggest a good opening for me to play next time I play against K.asparov? Or Anand or Kramnik, for that matter?"
Well Nigel, I noticed in your World Championship match against Kasparov that you always played an opening that had a certain amount of shock value. Therefore, after a scan of all three players' games I noticed a flaw in their repertoire. No one had yet faced the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit! This opening which for years has been the preserve of attacking minded club players deserves a wider audience and after the opening moves 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 <tlc3 <tlf6 4 f3 I am sure Garry will be startled. Here is a taste of what you might expect. Szentra-Thiele, Deizisau 1 998: 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 c3 f6 4 f3 This move indicates the start of the gambit. 4 ...exf3 5 xf3 e6 6 Jl.d3 Jl.e7 7 00 0-0 8 tke1 c5 9 dxc5+ bxc5 10 h1 c6 11 .Q.g5 h6 12 h4 Jl.e7 13 .1lxh6! e8 If 1 3 ... gxh6 then 14 xh6 intending .\g5 is a winner. 14 Jl.g5

f5 15 laad1 J}.d7 16 Jl.c4 f6 17 lafe1 tkc8 18 la x d7 1-0.

If there are any other World Championship contenders looking for new ideas then just e-mail !

An Arbiter's Notebook
Geurt Gijssen
This column, begun Apri/ 1 998, is quite different from those of Pandolfini and Lane. Geurt Gijssen (born 1 934, Holland), is a high- ranking International Arbiter for FIDE, the International Chess Federation. In that capacity he has directed numerous high-level events, including major tournaments, Olympiads, and several world championship matches. He has also had an important role in setting and enforcing the rules of international chess, which are much more complex than a casual player may realize, and which have been in great flux in recent years due to technological advances and other factors. The questions in his ChessCafe column come mostly from other arbiters, tournament directors, and organizers, and deal with technical details of that complex set of rules.

Article 10
With ad journments a thing of the past in international play, one of the more controversial and hard-to-handle of FIDE rules has been Article 10, the topic of many questions put to /A Gijssen. We precede those questions with the text of the rule itself:

1 14

Q&A
A l't icle 1 0: Quickplay H n i sh 1 0. 1 . A q u i ck p l a y tinish" is the last phase of a game, when all the remaining moves must be made in a limited time. 1 0.2. If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his c loc k, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter. a. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall dec lare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the
"

claim.

b. If the arbiter postpones his decision, the opponent may be awarded two extra minutes thinking time and the game shall continue in the presence of an arbiter, if possible. The arbiter shall declare the final result after a flag has fallen. c. If the arbiter has rejected the claim, the opponent shall be awarded two extra minutes thinking time. The decision of the arbiter shall be final relating to 10.2 a, b, c. 1 0.3. If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell tirst the game is drawn.

Q: It is unspecified in the rules whether or not a claim based on Article 10 can be withdrawn if the position on the chessboard has significantly changed since the claim was made. (The withdrawal ofthe claim without any significant change in the position should most likely be forbidden and treated as misconduct. ) White makes a claim based on Article 10 and the game continues under the watchful eye of the arbiter. As the game goes on, black makes a blunder and white has a decisive superiority. White then informs the arbiter that he withdraws his claim. Is this allowed? As soon as white acquires a decisive superiority his claim becomes that the opponent cannot win by normal means. Should the arbiter declare the game drawn without giving a chance to the player to withdraw the claim ? - Pierre Denommee, Quebec, Canada A: This is, in my opinion, one of the main problems with Article 1 0. Before I answer your question, I would like to review the recent history of this Article. Since 1 985 we have had so-called Quick Play (Guillotine) Finish Rules. In 1 994 these Rules were used for the first time in a FIDE event (Olympiad, Moscow 1 994). We also played according to these rules in Yerevan 1 996, and in some other FIDE competitions (e.g., zonal tournaments) as well. The main thrust of these rules was: "If the arbiter is satisfied that a player is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that the game may not be won by normal means then he may declare the game drawn. This may still apply even though one player's flag has fallen."
I have always understood that the meaning of this article is to protect the player who had a better, even superior position, and is short of time. Until l July 1 997 there was no possibility of claiming a draw. In the new Laws of Chess a player
1 15

Q &. A
has to make a clai m . And sti l l I bel ieve that the intention of this Article (now Article 1 0.2 of the Laws of Chess) is to protect the player who has a better position and has no time to bring his position to a good end.

As a matter of fact at this moment cases like these are not covered in the Laws of Chess. This means it is still up to the arbiter how to decide, but generally I should say, but not as Chairman of the rules Committee, a player who claims a draw, cannot win the game. I do not think that this principle is unreasonable. I am collecting examples of cases of Article 1 0 in order to prepare a proposal to change or extend it. Withdrawing a claim is, in my opinion, not possible. Q: You have stated that the purpose of Article 10 is to protect the player with the better position. I don 't think this is true. I f he claims a draw, then the player with an inferior position will accept the draw or gamble on a gross blunder being made.

The purpose is to protect the player with the inferior position who has little time left, but who may have a totally drawn position. A good example might be bare king against king and two knights. You have only seconds left. Of course it would be possible to lose. You should claim a draw and I am certain both you and I would award it a draw. W e did discuss the matter of a rule for blitz chess different from Article I 0. If you remember, we were extremely unclear about whether to include Article 1 0 for blitz. Eventually we decided against interference. Then we introduced C4 as an amelioration of the problem. We accept that a player can play on with king and rook against king and rook, although no doubt we dislike it. I think C4 might eventually appear in the standard Laws, but I don 't think the world was ready in 1996. I thought the same of 6. 9 and 9. 6. but have been proven wrong I am moving towards 10.2(d) I f the opponent subsequently wished to accept the draw effectively offered by the player when claiming a draw, then he may do so, provided the game is still in progress. Ifthe player wishes to withdraw his claim ofa draw, he may do so before stopping his clock. The opponent shall then be awarded an extra two (perhaps five ?) minutes thinking time. This is just the ro ugh idea. The final wording needs cleaning up. - Stewart Reuben, London, UK

A : It is possible to have a very long discussion about who is protected by Article 1 0.2. Let us read again the relevant part of Article 1 0.2: "If the player has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall stop the clocks and summon the arbiter. (a). If the arbiter is satisfied the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is impossible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision."
1 16

Q&A
This art icle says,

in my opinion, that the player who is short of time will be protected. And I am still wondering whether it is correct to protect a player who has an inferior position. Your suggestion to add the above mentioned article I 0.2d to the Laws of Chess is very interesting and I would like to discuss this in the Rules Committee.

Q: Here is a situation, which occurred recently in Malaysian chess. I would like to have your comments. There was a team match using a 90-minutes time control (Game/90). In one of the games, both players were very short of time and they were blitzing. Player A s flag dropped and two or three seconds later, Player B noticed it. But as he was about to stop his clock, his own flag dropped. The arbiter saw everything and gave the win to Player B. How correct was this, and would the decision be any difference if no arbiter was present ? - S. S. Quah, Malaysia A: A "game in 90" time control means the game is not a rapid game, but is conducted under the "normal" Laws of Chess. The provisions of Article 10: (Quickplay Finish) must be applied. Article 10. 1 states that a "quickplay finish" is the last phase of a game, when all the remaining moves must be made in a limited time. And, such is the case in 90-minute games. What the arbiter has to do when a flag falls is described in several Articles:
Article 6.8: A flag is considered to have fallen when the arbiter observes the fact or when a valid claim to that effect has been made by either player. In light of the above, it is clear that the arbiter was right when he gave the win to Player B. But what would have happened, if the arbiter had not seen Player A's flag fall but Player B 's flag had also dropped? Article 6. 1 1 states: If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell first, the game shall continue. But this is impossible in a 90-minute game. Now we will look to Article 1 0.4, the Quickplay finish. It states: If both flags have fallen and it is impossible to establish which flag fell first the game is drawn. By the way, if in such games DGT clocks are used - and this is not an endorsement of DGT clocks - there are no problems, because the DGT clock indicates clearly which flag fell first. One final remark: the arbiter has no discretion in rapid and blitz games. If both flags are down, the game is a draw, even when the arbiter observed which flag fell first.

Q: I played in a Rapidplay tournament this last weekend and was involved in two incidents in successive rounds. In round 3, I was winning, as White , a bishop vs. knight ending. (See diagram top of next page.)
1 17

Q& A

Black had stopped the clocks with 2 minutes left and claimed a draw. The game continued, all the time Whiteplayingfor a win and indeed winning, the procedure being to keep the bishop on the fl -a6 diagonal, push the g-pawn, and force Black to sacrifice the Knight. Black had the very bare minimum of time left here, but White made the incredible error 1 .JJ. c2?. Black then played J . .flxg4 2. xg4 b5 and claimed a draw. White took the pawn on b5 and the Black flag fell. If he had had time to play another move, he would undoubtedly have played 3. . Kxb5 and a draw ensues. However White has mating material on the board.
. . .

For me what was significant was that all of the time I had playing for a win, at no stage were moves repeated (in retrospect this might have been an easier option in view of Black 's time shortage, though 1. .tJ.f l might have induced resignation). So because White makes one slack move, Black gets a draw; what is to stop Black making one too - however unlikely ? The TD was very poor (this was agreed upon by most players) and seemed incapable of making a decision. Unfortunately other players became involved, which the TD should not have allowed, and certainly a lot of bad feeling was aroused (but not between the two players themselves). The TD ruled a draw. In the next round a mutual time scramble occurred. My flag fell, my opponent had a little time left when a schoolboy spectator pointed out that I had lost on time. I was very annoyed and stated that I was not prepared to accept a loss as my opponent 's flag might have fallen. My opponent suggested that both players be given two extra minutes. The TD, in his wisdom, awarded me a zero! I later discovered that this same TD had, the week before, awarded a draw to a two fold repetition! He is apparently a qualified TD but is short on experience. W as I unlucky, stupid or should I have had more pointsfrom this unfortunate double ? - Laurence Ball, South Africa

A: Let us analyze what happened in the third-round game. First of all, one of the players stopped the clocks and claimed a draw, apparently using Article 10 of the Laws of Chess . A player has the right to claim such a draw, also in rapid games, but this is a very clear case where the arbiter should postpone his decision. I understand that the arbiter ordered the game to continue. This was a correct decision. The game continued and then we had the following position: White:
118

Q&A
.!lwt. Ad, pawn b5 Black: 'rt>c5, pawn aS. Black has the move and at this moment h i s flag fel l . After Kxb5 the position is a draw. I myself would also have declared t he game a draw. The arbiter 's decision was completely correct.

The incident in the fourth round is also interesting. Signaling a flag fall is the responsibility of the player. Even the arbiter shall refrain from it. Unfortunately an innocent (?) schoolboy pointed out that your flag had fallen and your opponent claimed a win. I understand that you were very annoyed, because the game is a draw when your opponent's flag has fallen as well. If there was enough time for another game, my decision would have been to play another game, even with less time on the clocks for both players. If this is impossible - and in rapid tournaments this is often the case - I do not see another decision other than that which the TD made. I agree with his decision, although I must say that I can see how this made you feel very unhappy. Q: Article 10. I note much discussion and confusion about arbiters during blitz games, and also for limited-time endings of regular games, especially time delay protocols using Fischer mode. Kasparov-Kramnik played their 24-game blitz match in Moscow in an entirely different way, and in a system recently tested to the satisfaction of half a dozen Petersburg GMs. Kasparov/Kramnik developed the following: at 30 seconds remaining, each player shall have 3 seconds to make a move without time penalty. (Kasparov said that anyone with 20 seconds and 2 seconds per move could complete a game, Kramnik demurred and said 3013) .

There is now a clock with this mode built into it. It has the advantage of not requiring an arbiter to interfere, and avoids the somewhat ludicrous situation of a player making nonsense moves in Fischer mode in order to gain time. This Kasparov-mode works in conjunction with a (digital) clock linked to a sensory board, for a local opponent, or a remote one, linked via the Internet. I would say because of the interest expressed by strong players in determining the game themselves, the reception of this new time-delay mode will become the default system, obviating much of the current rules and arbiter intercession. Has a set of rules been developed to accommodate Kasparov-mode time delay and in preparation for the regular broadcasting of these games on the Internet? Phil Innes, USA

A: Before answering your question, I should explain a few things to the readers about several time limits used in different chess tournaments. First of all we have the "classical" time limit: 40 moves in 2 hours, then 20 moves in 1 hour and finally 30 minutes for the remaining moves. When we use this time limit we apply Article 1 0 in the last period of 30 minutes for the rest of the game. A player, who has the move and less than 2 minutes at his clock, may apply this article.

1 19

Q&A
Furthermore we have the so-called Fischer mode. After each move a certain amount of time will be added. In FIDE events this amount is 30 seconds, but there is an option to add more or less time after each move. In the annual Amber Tournament in Monaco, 20 seconds are added in the blindfold games and only 10 seconds in the rapid games. The same happens in the tie-break games of the World Chess Championship tournament: 10 seconds after each move. I have also to mention, that the time saved by a player is added to his time for the next move. What does it mean? Suppose in a game 20 seconds are added after each move. At the moment a player starts to think about his move the clock shows 1 8 ' 3 1 ". The player uses 1 2". At the moment he stops his clock the clock will show 1 8 ' 1 9". Then 20" will be added. This means that 1 8 ' 39" are available for his next move.

The next option is the so-called Bronstein mode. It is quite similar to the Fischer mode, but with one big difference. And the best way to explain this system is to use the example of the Fischer mode, mentioned above. The clock shows again 1 8' 3 1", the time the player uses is again 1 2". The clock will show 1 8 ' 3 1". It means the 8" the player "saved" are "lost." As long a player uses 20 seconds or less his clock will not change. The big difference between the Fischer and Bronstein modes is that in the Fischer mode, a player, by making some quick moves or a repetition of moves gains some time; with the Bronstein mode, this is impossible. I have the impression that especially in blitz games more and more players prefer the Bronstein mode. The Kasparov mode starts out in a more or less "classical" way and then, at a certain point in time, it switches to the Bronstein mode. I think it is a very good idea to avoid situations in which players with a winning position will lose on time. For over-the-board games, the current Laws of Chess cover the Fischer, Bronstein and Kasparov modes. At the present time, FIDE has Regulations for International Clock-Controlled Telechess Contests. I am not sure that these regulations are also valid for Internet play. I will try to find out and will you inform as soon as possible. Q: For many years now, we have experimented with the "sudden death, " say, 1 hour for each player in the last part of the game. Since now the duration of the game (in time) is strictly limited, why keep the obligation to play a definite number of moves in the first part (say, a time control of 40 moves/2 hours) ? Giving instead 3 hours to mate to each player (4 hours at the international level, maybe), would allow them to use more time in a complex middlegame, if they wish, provided they play faster afterwards. Players would enjoy more freedom, including the freedom to err. And making decisions, good or bad, is the core of life, and chess also! Removing intermediate time controls would also make it easier for the arbiter and put an end to disputes about losses on time around the 40th move. 1 have put this question on a few forums already,
1 20

Q&A
and I can 't believe this idea has never been tried before. What is your opinion ? - Richard Sauve, Canada
A : I am not so sure your idea is a good one. It is my opinion that with a time

li mit of 3 or even 4 hours for the whole game per player, and one session, we shall have more problems. It may happen in many games that players shall play very slowly, and that in these 3 or 4 hours, more or less the same number of moves will be played as in 2 hours. With more time controls, the players are forced to play 40 moves in the first period, again 20 moves in the second period, meaning that we have a guarantee of at least 60 moves at the start of the third period with very probably an endgame position. If we should have only one overall time control, I am sure that the arbiters would have to make decisions about claims with middlegame positions on the board. The simplest solution is still to play the Fischer modus. Q: In July of this year I made a submission to FIDE that the current limit is cumbersome, that the useless 40-move control should be dropped and that serious games should be played with a "pure " Fischer mode of a base time plus an increment of 30 seconds from the start. For your interest I append a copy of this submission.

T o the FIDE Secretariat, Ladies and Gentlemen, The new standard time control (40 moves in 75 min, then 15 min to finish with 30 sec. incrementfrom the start) is a very sound one, however I think it can be improved further. For many years now I have been campaigning against the guillotine finish (when ALL moves have to be completed in a set time), mainly because it is quite impossible to stop players attempting to win on time: see for example my article N1C (8195). The current limit, which has the 30-second increment throughout, completely solves this problem. With the proliferation of the DGT, increments ofsome form or another are being ever more widely used and this is an excellent thing. With the problems of the guillotine finish now becoming a thing of the past, perhaps it is time to examine the 40-move time control and its place in things. The DGT when set to the current official limit will count the moves played so that it knows when to add the 15 minutes. Unfortunately there are many ways, in which this can get out of sync, e.g. : a neighboring player accidentally presses your clock instead of his, an illegal move is played etc. etc. All of this is a nuisance tof u: up and we ought to re-examine why we need a control at move 40 or indeed anywhere. The time control at move 40 or elsewhere was introduced in the days of adjournments. One couldn 't allow players to reach a complicated position at
121

Q&A
(.my) mo ve 12 and s uddenly cullfor un adjournment! Hence a minimum number journments are a l{ moves before adjournment had to be set. Now of course ad thing of the past and it is suddenly apparent that the 40 moves control serves no purpose whatsoever except to complicate things for everybody!

I strongly support the pure Fischer mode (a fixed time, plus an increment from move one and that 's all) and suggest that it be adopted as the standard. The most sensible increment is 30 seconds, since this enables all games to be fully recorded by the players. The base time could be a bitflexible. Perhaps organizers could fine-tune this, within guidelines supplied by FIDE, to suit their schedule and circumstances. A minimum of90 minutes for a serious game seems sensible. The advantages ofa limit such as this are immediately apparent: (i) Undignified time scrambles are a thing of the past; (ii) Games can be fully recorded (by the players not the arbiters!) with obvious benefits; (iii) There are no longer any arguments about whether 40 moves have been reached; ( iv) The concept of playing to win on time vanishes all together; and (v) The time control is simple for everybody, players, arbiters, spectators, and organizers. Since chess players are creatures of habit, one has to ask whether players are ready to drop the 40-move control that they have grown up with. Recent experience in Australia suggests that they are, the pure Fischer mode seems to be catching on like wildfire over here with many clubs and established tournaments switching over to it. I played in one quite recently. There was one problem I found; namely that inexperienced people setting the clock on mode 23 sometimes don 't realize that the increment has to be set twice (i. e. for both players). That aside however the tournament in question ran exceptionally smoothly; with a minimum offuss people just sat down and played chess. Hence the advantages of the pure Fischer mode are not just theoretical, they are proven in practice and both players and organizers have shown that they are ready for it. The time has well and truly come to drop the control at move 40. The pure Fischer mode restores the clock to where it should be something that regulates the length of the game but does not become part of the game itself. Under the pure Fischer mode the game of chess is restored to what it was always supposed to be; a dignified intellectual contest in which the only way to win is to checkmate your opponent. I trust that you willfind the above comments useful. Please feelfree to publish or circulate the above as you see fit. - Roland Brockman, Australia

A : In fact, I have not too much to add to Mr. Brockman's letter. We both agree that the Fischer modus is the ideal modus for chess on a professional level. I would like to add that in all tournaments with the Fischer modus games lost by overstepping the time limit are very rare. With a new time limit 75 minutes for 40 moves with an increment of 30 seconds, the player has in fact 75 + 40 x 0.5
1 22

Q&A
mi nutes = 95 mi nutes = I hour and 35 minutes instead of 2 hours as in the old system. Although the players have less time, the number of games decided by overstepping the time is less. And this is in my opinion very remarkable. When we go to one period of, e.g., two hours with an increment of 30 seconds per move from move 1 , then we need for a 60-move game a maximum of 5 hours. In this case we have to consider whether two games a day is possible or not. I would like to suggest 3 games in 2 days. It saves some money for the organizers and the chessplayers have the opportunity to play in more tournaments.

Latest news (September, 2001 ) : During the meeting of the Executive Board of FIDE in Greece the following decisions were taken: I . For the World Championships to be organized in Moscow the time limit of 40 moves in 75 minutes, then the remaining moves in 15 minutes with an increment of 30 seconds per move from move 1 will be applied. 2. In 2002 the aforementioned time limit or 90 minutes for the whole game with the same increment will be used for events organized by FIDE or organized on behalf of FIDE. For the Olympiad the 90-minute time limit will be used. 3. During the FIDE Congress in B led (at the time as the Olympiad) the General Assembly will make a final decision. This decision will be based on the experiences with both time limits during the year 2002. 4. It was also agreed that 3 games in 2 days are permitted. This means that tournaments played according to the schedule 2- 1 -2- 1 -2- 1 and so on are valid for titles and rating calculations. 5 . The Olympiad in B led will be played according to the old schedule: 1 game per day. 6. Organizers of private tournaments are free to choose the time limit. As long as it is according to the regulations the rating changes will be calculated and title norms are valid. The 50-move Rule
Q: 1 am curious about the current status of the rule that stated "if 50 consecutive moves occur without a capture or pawn move, the game is drawn. I believe computer analysis has shown that endgames previously thought drawn are now known to be winning, e.g. lJ + .ti. vs. lJ Win in 56 moves at most, and .11. + fJ vs. fJ win; there is no fortress defense as thought earlier. My source is Speelman 's Endgame Preparation (1 989). He says that in both the above positions, the attacker has 100 moves to win. I would be grateful if you could clarify the rule. Also, has any win been found in the ending 2 knights versus lone king ? - Santhosh Matthew, India
"

A: In the FIDE Laws of Chess, published in 1984 and 1 988, you will find that the 50-move rule is extended to 75 moves for the following positions:
(a) King + Rook + Bishop against King + Rook; (b) King + 2 Knights against King + pawn;
1 23

Q&A
(c) King + Queen + pawn one square from promotion agai n st King + Queen ; (d) King + Queen against King + 2 Knights; (e) King + Queen against King + 2 Bishops; and (0 King + 2 Bishops against King + Knight

In 1 992 during the FIDE Congress in Manila the Rules Committee suggested establishing one rule for all endings: 50 moves. The General Assembly of FIDE approved this. The same happened in 1 996 during the congress in Yerevan. I would like to mention that the Laws of Chess apply to over-the-board-play. This means, for instance, that study composers may ignore the 50-move rule. Concerning your last question, it is still impossible to mate a King with two Knights. By the way, there is a nice story about this ending. In the Zurich 1953 Candidates tournament this ending appeared on the board in the game Kotov Najdorf. After move 50 the following position arose:

"Now Kotov maliciously announced that he intended to play on, to see whether Najdorf might blunder into being mated inside fifty moves. Najdorf complained wildly to the tournament committee against the idea of a Grandmaster being subjected to such an indignity; and finally Kotov agreed to the draw. . . !" (B . H. Wood, The World Championship Candidates ' Tournament, published by Chess, Sutton Coldfield, England, 1 953/54). Another version says that Kotov informed Najdorf that a Russian chessplayer had found a way to win this ending. Najdorf was shocked, but then Kotov told him that he was joking. Q: Dear Mr. Gijssen: A question about the 50-move rule - when assembling a collection of games with knight + bishop vs. bare king endings, I found the following curious game: Milos Jirovsky (2435) - Stefan Neidig (2260) Pardubice Open 1998: 1 . 4Jf3 d5 2. e4 e6 3. g3 4Jf6 4. -'tg2 -'te7 5 . 0-0 0-0 6. d4

4Jbd7 7. 'l!lre2 e5 S. exd5 4Jxd5 9. 4Je3 4Jxe3 1 0 . bxe3 exd4 1 1 . exd4 4Jb6 12 . .Q.d2 -'td7 13 . .ll a 5 Ae6 1 4 . e3 Ad6 1 5 . fe 1 eS 16. e2 .11 e 7 1 7 . ab 1 -'te4 1 S . b5 -'te6 1 9 . be5 'l!lre7 2 0 . 'l!lrel -'td6 2 1 . 5e2 Aa3 2 2 . Axb6 axb6 2 3 . a l Aa4 24. xeS xeS 2 5 . 4Je5 Ae2 26. 'l!lre2 'l!lre7 27. 'l!lrb5 f6 2S. 4Jd7 'l!lre3 29. fl Ad3 30. xb6 .Q.xfl 3 1 . 'l!lrxe6+ hS 3 2 . .ll x fl 'l!lre6 3 3 . 'l!lrf7 dS 34 . Ah3 'l!lrd6 3 5 . 'l!lrb3 b6 36. 'l!lrb5 g6 37. 'l!lrb3 r:J g 7 3S. a4 Ab2 39. "{!Ja7 r:Jh6 40. 4Jxb6
1 24

Q&A

.Jlxd4 4 1 . exd4 \'txd4 42. a4 c5 43. Ad7 f5 44. i*a6 f4 45. bS d4 4 6 . h4 fxg3 4 7 . 'i!i'g5+ '3;g7 48. e7+ 'iff h 6 49. i*e3+ i*xe3 50. fxe3 \fJhS 5 1 . a5 Et b8 52. e4 Et b7 5 3 . e5 Et a7 54. e6 Et xa5 55. e7 Ete5 56. e8= Et x e8 57. AxeS xh4 58. g2 'it>g4 59. d5 'iff f5 60. xg3 'it>e5 61 . e3 h5 62. h4 \t>f4 63. d5 + 'ifte5 64. e7 g5+ 65. \t>xg5 h4 66. g6+ e4 67 . Ad7 h3 68 . Axh3

68 . . . 'iftd4 69 . f4 d5 70. Af5 'it>d4 7 1 . e7 c4 72. 'ifte5 \t>c3 73. 'iftd5 'it>b3 74. d4 \t>b4 75. Ae6 'it>bS 76. AdS b6 77. \t>c4 'it>c7 78. 'it>cS 'iff d 7 79. fS 'it>e8 80. 'it>d6 'it>f8 81 . '3;e6 g8 8 2 . \t>f6+ 'it>f8 83. Ac6 g8 84. e7+ 'it>f8 85 . g6+ 'iftg8 86. Ad5 + 'it>h7 87. Ac4 'it>h6 88. Ag8 hS 89. e5 h4 90. 'it>f5 'it>g3 9 1 . Ab3 f2 92 . 'it>f4 'it>e2 93. 'iff e 4 d2 94. \t>d4 '3;c1 95. 'iff c 3 'iff b 1 96. f3 'it>cl 97. d4 'it>b 1 98. c2 cl 99 . Aa2 'it>d 1 1 00 . d4 'it>e 1 1 0 1 . d3 'it>f2 1 0 2 . Af7 g3 1 03. '3;e4 'it>g4 1 04. e6 'it>g3 1 05 . AhS 'it>f2 1 06. 'it>f4 'it>g2 1 07 . gS 'it>f2 1 08 . Af3 'it>fl 1 09. e 3 e1 1 1 0 . e6 'it>f1 1 1 1 . f4 'it> e 1 1 1 2 . d 3 + f l 1 1 3 . \t>f4 \t>g 1 1 1 4 . 'iff g 3 'ift f l 1 1 5 . A g 4 'it>g 1 1 1 6 . Ae2 'it> h 1 1 1 7 . f4 'it>g1 1 1 8. h3+ 'iff h 1 1 1 9 . Af3 , -.
Most fascinating is the fact that the game ended with 1 19 . Af3 mate, but nevertheless the game was drawn! This might be because of the 50-move rule: at move 68 - Axh3 - the last pawn was captured. The move 1 19. Af3 is the 51st after that! Now my question: 1 suppose that 1 19.Af3 was actually played on the board. Is it legal for the checkmated player to claim "post mortem " a draw according to the 50-move rule ? Dr. Guenther Ossimitz, Austria
-

A: What really happened here is a mystery to me. But let us have a look at the game. At White's 68th move the last capture was made. Black's 68th move is the first move we have to take into account when applying the 50-move rule. After White's I 1 8th move both players had completed 50 moves without moving a pawn or capturing a piece. At that moment Black, who has the move, may have claimed a draw pursuant to Article 9.3b. There was also another way to claim the same result: he may stop the clocks, write on his scoresheet Kh 1 , declare to the arbiter that he intends to make this move, which results i n the last 50 moves having been made by each player without the movement of a pawn and without the capture of any piece.
1 25

Q&A
The player who has the move may c l a i m the draw. A rti c l e 9.4 is also re levant . I t states that if the player makes a move without hav i ng clai med t h e draw, he loses the claim, as in Article 9.2 and 9.3, on that move.

It is clear that claiming a draw afterwards is not possible. What probably happened is the following: The game was played on an electronic board and before the arbiter could interfere, White played 1 1 9 Ah3. The computer registered this move and it was also published in the bulletin. Therefore, when in a tournament where the games are played on electronic boards, the players have to leave the final position on the board. Otherwise it is very difficult to find out what the real moves are. Q: With regard to the 50-move rule: Does a tournament organizer/arbiter have the freedom to suspend the 50-move rule ifthey wish and to substitute a practical alternative set of rules ? For example, admittedly an extreme one, suppose a computer-computer tournament involved only computers with proven capability to use the available 3-to-6-man endgame tables. Potentially, there could be theoretically won (and therefore won-in-practice) endgames with phases of up to 243 moves. Moreover, these could be played out at lightning speed. Computers would find these positions in theirforward-search trees and steer towards them unless they were programmed to avoid wins deeper than 50-moves-per-phase. If arbiters have been given the freedom, under FIDE rules, to declare under certain circumstances that games are drawn, might they not also be given in the future the freedom to declare that a position, though a deep win beyond the 50-move limit, is winnable and that the attacking player is 'clearly ' capable of winning it. The word 'clearly ' indicates that players must prove their capability to win deep endings before the tournament starts. Some benchmark of efficacy could easily be established based on the use of endgame tables. Although there is a danger of creating one set of laws for the "have endgame tables " players and another set for the "do not have endgame tables " players, in practice today, endgame tables are the only way of establishing effectiveness in deep endgames. - Guy Haworth, UK

A: If an organizer or arbiter likes to make his own rules or Laws of Chess, he may do so. There is only one thing he has to keep in mind: if such a rule or Law conflicts with the current Laws of Chess, this tournament cannot be rated, cannot be considered as a title tournament; it means that norms cannot be achieved. And the organizer or arbiter must know that it is very uncomfortable for players to play under different regulations.
I am very happy that we now have only one rule for endings: the 50-move rule. John Roycroft, one of the greatest endgame and studies expert, tried to convince the Rules Committee to extend the number of moves for some endings. The Rules Committee decided to stick to 50 moves and emphasized that the Laws of Chess cover over-the-board play.
1 26

Q& A

Annoying Behavior, Stinking Players Q: It is said that when Samuel Reshevsky would get in time trouble he would play with his hand hovering over the board. Is this against some rule, and can the arbiter stop people from doing this ? - Foster James Pinkney, USA A: It happened twice that Mr. Reshevsky was a player and I an arbiter in the same tournament. I never got any complaint from any player about Mr. Reshevsky's behavior. It is clear that it can be disturbing when a player has his hand hovering above the board. It is for the arbiter to decide whether it is disturbing the opponent or not. In Las Vegas I saw several times how World Champion Khalifman hovered with his hand over the board, but I decided not to take any action, because his hand was so high over the board that I was sure it was not disturbing his opponent. I would like to add that I intervened twice in Las Vegas when a player started to fiddle with captured pieces. Neither player commented, and apparently they accepted my decision. Finally I would like to say that it is very difficult to decide when a player might be disturbing his opponent. Generally an arbiter must follow his intuition.
Q: Dear Mr. Gijssen: What shall we do with a "stinking " player ? Recently, I was the arbiter of an international tournament in Germany and we had a participant who obviously hadn 't washed himselffor at least a week nor had he changed clothes. It was an offensive smell not only for his opponent but also very unpleasantfor the players on the surrounding boards. Can I treat this as a violation ofArt. l 2. 1 ? He was told to wash himself before the next round (which was the next day). The smell decreased somewhat but it still was not such that one would like to sit near this person.

A: Well, your question about the stinking player is not so easy to answer. I understand from my own experience how bad the smell of some players can be. I have often seen players arriving before the start of a tournament with a very small bag. And I would wonder how it is possible to be properly dressed throughout the tournament. And sometimes the bad smell gets worse from round to round. To be honest, this does not only apply to players, but also to some arbiters. And I have to admit, that it is very difficult to make clear to these people that something is wrong. I have the same question as you have. Can we use Article 1 2 . 1 : High standards of etiquette are expected of the players? And what about Article 1 2.5: It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever? I am of the opinion that this problem must be solved another way, and not with the Laws of Chess in your hand. It must be done quite discreetly and perhaps not even by the arbiter, but by the organizer. It is very difficult to prescribe exactly how to handle it, but if there are situations in which only very diplomatic people may be able to achieve something, this is one of them.

1 27

Q&A
Q: In one of your recent columns Mr. Ulri ch Schmidt, Germany, stclttd tht following: "I played in Budapest this April, and as usual / applied the p rocedu re offirst writing down my move before making it, which shortly distracts me from my previous 'deep considerations ' and brings me 'back to earth, ' so that I now see the position with fresh eyes and am able to notice that I was just about to hang my Queen or commit some other gross blunder (which you sometimes fail to notice, when you are some moves deep into your variations and have 'lost contact with reality '). Then in one of the later rounds - I had just written down my move and covered it with my pencil and was checking the position once again for blunders - the arbiter came up to me, took away my pencil and said to me 'You can 't do this, we are playing under FIDE rules here! ' Ofcourse Ifelt disturbed! "
This seems to me to be a clear case of a player benefiting from keeping notes. His whole playing approach is built around the act of writing his move down. It seems to me that this is a clear case of violating not only the letter but also the spirit of the law about not being allowed to write notes. This is a case of writing down a "candidate move " since the player does not feel bound by the move written. I agree entirely with the arbiter. Am I missing something ? - J. Franklin Campbell, USA

A: It is not prohibited, before making a move, to write down the intended move. And I should repeat that if a player changes his written move several times during the game, the arbiter must step in. My personal experience is that very seldom does a player changes his written move.
Q: I need your advice on an incident related to the application of FIDE lAws of Chess. In a Rapid Team Tournament (4 players per team, TL G/60) Team A was playing against Team B. Players 1 and 3 of Team A were playing with white pieces. They were playing the same moves as their opponents on board 2 and 4 who were playing white too! I think there are similar cases in the past, when Alekhine was playing a simul - when the champion was playing one game with white pieces and the other with black pieces - but Alekhine succeeded in overcoming this cheating by his skill. Here in our case, the arbiter noticed the cheating ofplayers 1 and 3 of Team A. They were laughing after making their moves. They were creating a lot of distraction and annoyance to other players in the playing hall. After about 8 moves, the games on boards 1 and 3 were identical to the games on boards 2 and 4, with colors reversed! According to article 13.4, the arbiter warned the players of the cheating team to respect the FIDE lAws. But they continued their cheating, laughing and leaving their board - on their time - without making their moves, waiting for the opposing players on boards 2 and 4 to play their moves. Then they went to their boards to play the same moves!

1 28

Q&A question: Can the arbiter terminate the match by declaring that the team loses 0-4 by applying article 12. 7? Anyway, our arbiter decided to continue the match. He decided to separate tables 2 and 4 from tables 1 and f (about 15 meters apart), and ordered the players to continue the match. Team A refused to comply with the decision and didn 't continue their games. The arbiter left all chess clocks running until all players of team A had lost on time, then he declared the match lost 0-4 in favor of T eam B. What is your opinion about this strange case ? W as the arbiter right in his decision to separate tables I and 3 away from tables 2 and 4 ? Was the team A right to refuse this decision l?f the arbiter? What is your opinion about the final result of the match ? Hesham Elgendy, Secretary General, United Arab Emirates Chess Federation
duating
.

My . fi rst

A: You referred to a simul game of Alekhine, but there is also a recent example of this. In the Corus Tournament (before it was named Hoogovens Tournament) Wijk aan Zee 2000 the same happened in Round 7. It concerned the games Kasparov-Anand and Van Wely-Short. According to the newspapers Van Wely and Short were copying very carefully the moves made by Kasparov and Anand. But at the moment Anand sacrificed a pawn Short chose another move. After the game he declared with a big smile, that he had proven that he was much stronger than Anand. By the way, both games ended in a draw. And the arbiter did nothing. I think this arbiter was right not to take any measure against these players. This seems to answer one of your questions.
Another point is the behavior of the players. It is clear that the behavior of the players is awful: laughing and distracting the opponents and also the other players in the playing hall is not acceptable. The arbiter was right in fact to take some measures to stop this. If in his opinion separating the tables could solve the situation, I agree with his decision. I understand that the players disagreed and they let their clocks run out of time. This is their responsibility and they have to bear the consequences of this. They overstepped the time and the consequence was that they lost the match 0-4. In short, there is nothing to do against this kind of cheating, but I am not opposed to the measures of the arbiter based on the behavior of the players. It would also be helpful to know if an Appeals Committee was appointed.

Drawish Complications Q: 1n recent magazine articles, 1 have seen two assertions by GMs concerning what they consider improper draw offers. The first: that it is unethical for a player in a "lost position " or an "inferior position " to offer a draw. The second: that it is improper for a player to offer a draw when the opponent is in time trouble. Are these assertions correct? - M. J. Holmes, Canada A: There are several provisions regarding draw offers:

1 29

Q&A
Article 9. 1 : A player can propose a draw after making a move o n the chessboard . He must do so before stopping his own clock and starting the opponent's clock. An offer at any other time during play is still valid, but Article 1 2.5 must be considered. No conditions can be attached to the offer. In both cases the offer cannot be withdrawn and remains valid until the opponent accepts it, rejects it orally, rejects it by making a move, or the game is concluded in some other way. Article 1 2.5: It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever; this includes the persistent offer of a draw. The proper procedure to offer a draw is clearly stated in Article 9. 1 : ( 1 ) Make a move; (2) Offer a draw; (3) Press your clock. And if the offer is not made in this way, the offer is still valid, but the arbiter has the possibility of penalizing the player who offered the draw. Article 1 2.5 seems to add that apparently it is possible to annoy the opponent by offering a draw in a correct way if the offer is made frequently. And again the arbiter has the possibility of imposing a penalty. This is very clearly written in the Laws of Chess. But there is something more. It is customary in professional chess that the player who has an inferior position shall not offer a draw. Recently there have been cases where a player did not follow this unwritten Law of Chess. In the third game of the 2000 Kasparov Krarnnik match in London, in a very drawish position, Krarnni k offered a draw and, if the journalists are to be believed, Kasparov was quite irritated and rejected this offer. Three moves later he himself offered a draw. In the last Dutch championship there was a similar case. Tiviakov was playing against the computer Fritz 6 and had a winning position. But it was clear that he would lose the game as a result of a shortage of time. The game was in the quickplay finish stage. If Tiviakov had claimed a draw, I am not sure that the arbiter would have declared the game drawn, because the position was quite complicated. The operator of the computer did not like that the computer might win on time in an inferior, probably even lost position. He decided to offer a draw when Tiviakov's clock was running. Tiviakov rejected it, but after a couple of moves he offered a draw and Frans Morsch, the operator, accepted immediately. After the game Tiviakov protested vehemently and claimed that the operator had an obligation to resign on behalf of the computer when the computer was losing. In short, it is not correct to offer a draw in a lost position, although the Laws of Chess do not expressly forbid this . Q: I was deputy arbiter in the "World Cup of Active Chess " i n Cap d 'Agde (France), one year ago. The players (Karpov, Gelf and, lvanchuk, Polgar and others) were very nice and correct, and we had no problems. But during a tiebreak (blitz in 5 min. ) a strange situation occurred in the game Karpov Adianto. The game was almostfinished and Karpov had only a few seconds on his clock. Hefound a perpetual check, andAdianto accepted the draw. As Karpov won thefirst game, this draw meant he qualified. What would happen ifa player refuses the draw and continues to play a perpetual check in blitz ? In the Laws
1 30

Q& A
of Ches.. perpetual check doesn 't exist and according to blitz rules C5. "Article /0.2 does not apply. " The player can move his king, waiting for his opponent 's flag to f all. This situation is absurd, maybe it is absurd to play blitz and you must accept that time is more important than the position. My question is simple: Can I punish a player who re fuses an obvious draw in blitz? - Stephane Escafre, France

A: No, you cannot punish such a player, because he is not doing anything wrong. First of all , I have to emphasize that in blitz games, the clock plays a more important role than in normal games. But also important is that almost all ''normal" Laws are valid in blitz chess. A player can claim a draw on the basis of triple repetition of the position or the 50-move rule. And he does not have to show a scoresheet. The arbiter must check the claim and this is the problem. How to check it? In prestigious tournaments - and I consider the tournament you mentioned a prestigious one - all games are played on computer boards, which register all the moves. In the Amber tournament in Monaco, we even have a crosscheck: all games are recorded on videotape. Every incident (touched piece) can be checked. I agree with you that there is a big problem if you do not have this help. But in general, if you expect this a kind of a problem, try to count at least the number of moves played (50-move rule) or try to write the moves down (triple repetition). Q: I occasionally direct somefairly small (40-50players) scholastic events. Recently thefollowing event occurred: White made a move, which placed Black in stalemate. Black, unaware either that the position was a stalemate or ignorant ofthe stalemate rule, looked at the board, shrugged, and resigned. White reported that he had won the game. Some time later, but before the next round was paired, Black 's father (who as it turns out is also the coachfor Black 's school team) came to me and told what happened. After gathering together both players and their coaches, I determined that the above scenario is what actually happened. I scored the game as a draw, based on the idea that at the point in time the stalemate occurred, the game ended, and therefore Black 's subsequent resignation was irrelevant, since it occurred after the end of the game. I disregarded the f act that the actual events were reported by Black 's f ather and coach, feeling that it was most important to get the correct result. Was I correct in my handling of this event, or how should I have handled it? - David Surratt, USA A: Article 5.2 says: "The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal
move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in 'stalemate. ' This immediately end the game." This last sentence means that nothing that happens after the stalemate, is relevant. The game is over and a draw. Your decision was completely correct.

Miscellany Q: What software do you recommend to do the pairing for Swiss System tournaments ? T. Budiman, Indonesia
-

131

Q&A
A: As you probably know, there is a Swiss Pairings Committee uf Fl OE. The Chairman of this Committee is Mr. C. Krause. He has all the information about the software for Swiss Pairings. His e-mail address is krause.forstern @ t
online.de.
Q: Is it considered unsportsmanlike or illegal, to use two hands when time is almost spent? In other words, is there a rule mandating that the same hand that moves a piece must also hit the clock? - Robert Spieler, USA

A: Until 1 July 1 997, the rule that you may not use two hands for moving a
piece and hitting the clock was applicable only to one-hour, rapid and blitz games. When the Rules Committee met in Paris in 1 995 to consider some rule revisions, it had as a central theme to have, if at all possible, the same rules applying to all forms of the game: 'normal' chess, quick-play finish, rapid and blitz chess. With this in mind, you may not be surprised that we have now the following rule: Article 6.7(b): A player must stop his clock with the same hand as that with which he made his move. It is forbidden to keep the finger on the button or to "hover" over it.

Q: 1Wo questions that arose after two separate incidents: one happened recently in a club tournament in Mexico City, and another at the annual Mexican Open a few years ago. None of them could be happily resolved by the arbiters.

The first incident was during a mutual time scramble between a master from Argentina and a Mexican FM; they were using an electronic (digital) clock. Suddenly the Mexican s time expired and the Argentine player shouted "time! " and attempted to stop the clocks the usual way but he couldn 't (most electronic clocks are stopped some other way, by pressing a start-stop button). Then he called the arbiter (his clock was still running) and by the time the arbiter arrived, his own time had expired as well. According to the rules, the arbiter declared that the game was drawn because any player who claims to have won by time must stop the clocks before making his claim to the arbiter. That draw was unfair, but was legal. What do you think ? Is one supposed to know how to stop all sorts of clocks before entering a tournament? The other incident makes one ashamed of some players. Again a mutual time scramble in the last round of an open tournament. The winner would get a cash prize, the loser nothing. It was a pawn ending where both players were rapidly advancing a passed pawn toward the eighth rank, but it was clear that the player with the black pieces would queen his pawn first (with check) and then would give a forced checkmate in four or five moves more.

132

Q&A /lut it happened that as both players were furiously advancing their respective the one with the white pieces quietly grabbed the black queen from the edge of the table and hid it in his pocket! Thus, when Black got his pawn to the eighth rank he said "Queen, check! ". After looking in vain for the black queen, he started checking with the pawn. White then claimed that it was illegal to use a pawn as though it were a queen, and demanded that the co"ect piece be used. Then Black (with his clock running) tried to look for the queen on the floor and under the table, but could not find one and, in the process, hit his head on the edge of the table. He then decided to grab a black rook and placed it upside down, saying again "Queen, check! ", but once more his opponent refused to accept the move: "That 's not a queen; if you want to promote a rook then you have to say it! ". Black was of course very upset and angry and rose to look for the arbiter, but by the time the latter showed up Black 's time had run out. (In the meantime, White quietly took the piece out of his pocket and was witty enough to hide it behind a cup).
passers,

The arbiter declared that Black lost on time. Very unfair, don 't you think ? Is one supposed to go to a chess tournament with extra queens in his pocket in order to avoid such incidents ? - Gabriel V elasco, Mexico

A: The two cases are completely different, but in fact I can give the same answer. In both cases the player must stop the clocks. And with the DGT clock it is very simple. Press the start/stop button and the clocks do not run. In both cases the player shall summon the arbiter.
In case 2 the player should ask the arbiter to give him a queen; he may stop the clocks and summon the arbiter under Article 6. 1 2(b), which says: "A player may stop the clocks in order to seek the arbiter's assistance. And if a queen is not available, he may ask the arbiter for his help." In case 1 the situation is even clearer. Article B7 (Rapidplay and Blitz) says: ''To claim a win on time, the claimant must stop both clocks and notify the arbiter. For the claim to be successful the claimant's flag must remain up and his opponent's flag down after the clocks have been stopped." Finally, Article B 8 says: "If both flags have fallen, the game i s drawn." Conclusion: it is very wise to ask the arbiter, before the start of the tournament, how to stop the clocks. And my advice to the arbiters is: please explain before the start of the tournament how and in which situations a player may stop the clocks.

1 33

Humor

1 34

Hum11r

Humor has a dm ittedly not been a major theme at the ChessCafe, but certainly not an absent one. The uninitiated do not understand how chess can have any element of humor at all; grizzled veterans know all too well that the game does have a lighter side, but often of the darker sort.

India
Tony Miles
It is well known that there is a lot of extreme poverty in India. However a new and alarming development is that it has become contagious to chessplayers. A few years ago I played in the Goodricke tournament in Calcutta. As I entered rather late I did not get written confirmation of all the f mancial conditions, so on my arrival I approached the organizer, a Mr. S. Mazoomdar, to clarify the situation. He assured me that there was no problem, but he just had to sort out some minor detail. As the event wore on he was either absent or still had to sort out that detail ... until at the end he just smiled sweetly as I had to leave to catch my flight. Oh well, one learns from experience. So, this year when I accepted an invitation to the Commonwealth Championship in Bikaner, Rajahstan, I was careful to get clear confirmation of terms from Mr. P. T. Ummer Koya, the secretary of the Indian Chess Federation and Vice President of FIDE. Good organization, it must be said, is not a strong point on the subcontinent. I first saw details of the event barely three weeks before it started, and so thought it unlikely that I would be able to arrange to play. However enquiries revealed that the (lack of) pre-publicity had been such that no one else knew about it either, and so the organizers were absolutely desperate to secure some GM participation to retain the event's credibility. So desperate in fact that they agreed to terms with the Dublin-based Russian GM Seamus O ' Baburine (Alexander B aburin) without noticing that Ireland is not part of the (appropriate) Commonwealth ! This particular source of embarrassment was eventually dealt with at the opening by deciding that he would not be eligible for the Commonwealth title, should he win the tournament. Anyway, back at the ranch, my early investigations revealed that Bikaner did not possess an airport and was, according to Mr. Ummer Koya, a "very comfortable" 1 1 -hour overnight train journey from Delhi. As one who doesn't sleep easily on trains, and having heard horror stories about Indian railways, I was not too enthusiastic about this. However, UK told me that it would be possible to fly to Jodhpur, from where the train would only take 4 hours. This I decided was OK, as at least one night's sleep would be saved.

1 35

A n d so it came to pass that I set off w i th the President of the Conunonwca lth Chess Association Peter Wilson for Bikaner.

On our arrival in Delhi we were pleasantly relieved to be met by a driver. That, though, was the end of the good news. As I had passed through Delhi before, I soon realized that we were not being taken to the National Air Terminal. Instead we went to a hotel where we met Mr. Ummer Koya. The flight to Jodhpur, he told us, was "not convenient." Instead we would take - surprise, surprise - the "very comfortable" overnight train. "We will all go together," he added. "Em . . . except me . . . I have t o stay for a meeting." ! ? Indian railways lived u p to their reputation; the compartment slept four, one of whom was an obese local who snored deafeningly for the entire journey. I spent the night reading a book. Staggering bleary-eyed from the train into the bright sunlight of the Bikaner morning, we were met by a reception committee replete with garlands of flowers and photographers; I had the feeling of one who has stumbled from his hotel room into a crowded corridor expecting it to be the bathroom. Quite what the random tourist who was greeted so warmly thought I have no idea . . At least the enthusiasm of the local reception was appreciated. The hotel/playing hall was also fine, a converted palace. The composition of the tournament, though, was disappointing. Apart from myself and the in-transit O ' B aburine, the only other GMs were the Indians Thipsay and Barua. The international element was made up of President Pete (= "PP'' "Piddle") of Guernsey, a Scotsman who happened to be studying at a nearby university, and half a dozen other young Brits and Bangladeshis who felt like a spot of chess tourism. The total entry was I believe 62. This was not in itself a bad thing. Had there been more play ers it would have been even more noticeable that there were only 1 5 chess clocks in Bikaner.
=

A flustered organizer, or even a competent one, would have reacted by sending out a distress message and importing some more from another town. Not a chance ! With admirable composure they spread the precious timepieces around the hall - not even on the top boards - and those games without clocks proceeded at whatever speed the players chose until they inherited one from a completed game . . Readers lacking first-hand experience of Indian organization will be getting the feel by now. Further amusement followed as Seamus arrived minus his luggage, and Piddle, having left something behind in Guernsey, arranged to have it delivered to him by DHL. "DHL - 48 hours to anywhere in the world." ? ! Uh, plus two weeks to anywhere in India. Daily bulletins of the package's progress back and forth as it failed to find Bikaner became the focal point of the
1 36

Humor
tournament. Only a stroke of genius by the hotel manager got it there at all. He, a retired colonel, found an acquaintance in DHL and told him that the package contained the President's ceremonial medals which he needed urgently for the closing ceremony. That did the trick ! Meanwhile, back at the palace, I was getting hungry. The in-house cuisine was not so bad, but I felt the urge to get out and explore and eat elsewhere. Having been promised my pocket money, traveling expenses and starting fee, I enquired when I would receive them. Mr. Ummer Koya told me that he was leaving, but that his assistant Mr. S. L. Harsh would take care of everything. Mr. Harsh pointed out that it was the weekend, but promised to pay me on Monday. On Monday he failed to appear. Likewise Tuesday. On Wednesday he arrived and promised to pay me after the game. After the game he came to my room and asked how much I was owed. Since this had been clearly agreed long ago I began to get an eentsy bit irritated. "How would you like to be paid?" he asked. I assured him that cash would do nicely. "Oh," he seemed surprised "We'll have to send someone to Jodhpur then." There was, apparently, no cash in B ikaner. "How about travellers cheques?" he punted. "What sort?" I queried. "Thomas Cook or AmEx would be acceptable." I tried to compromise, having established that these companies operated in the neighborhood.
"Em
.

. Bank of Bikaner," he replied.

.

I observed that I would prefer something a little more internationally acceptable. By now I was developing an alarming sense of deja vu. As Thursday was a rest day I told him that I would be most grateful to be paid before the start of the next round. So grateful in fact that I would actually play the next round. Another two days should surely be sufficient. Mr. Harsh assured me that there would be no problem. "It's 99% sure," he said. "Then it's 99% sure I will play the next round," I replied. I spent an enjoyable free day at the local camel races and returned to the hotel late. At half-past midnight I received a call from Mr. Harsh. Could he come to my room? Soon after a delegation consisting of himself, the Chief Arbiter, and Piddle arrived.

1 37

llumtr
"Uh
. . .

we can ' t get the cash ."

"Why not?" "There's been a change of regulations." "Travellers cheques?" "Thomas Cook won ' t sell them to us." "Why not?" "Change of policy." "OK. No problem. I don't play." The meeting adjourned inconclusively at 1 : 30. At 6:40 my phone disturbed my deep sleep. I heard Piddle's voice. "What time is it?" I interrupted. "6:40." "I' m trying to sleep," I said, and hung up. However the disturbance had been so sudden that I could not get back to sleep, and duly met both the president and Seamus, who had been similarly awoken, for an early breakfast. "Ummer Koya phoned me to guarantee that there is no problem," Piddle announced. "He gives his personal guarantee as FIDE Vice President." Seamus and I exchanged glances. His starting fee had not appeared either, and you do not need a PhD in brain surgery to conclude that if there really is no problem it is not necessary to drag everyone out of bed to tell them. Further phone calls ensued, and at 9:20 Mr. Harsh called to say he would be at the hotel in 10 minutes to sort everything out. An hour and a half later I got fed up with waiting and went back to bed. But not before Seamus had drafted a letter giving a further 24-hour deadline before we both withdrew. It gave the organizers four options: cash, acceptable travellers cheques, bank transfer, or an independent guarantor. As UK kept giving his word as FIDE Vice President we suggested the English FIDE treasurer. Surely one of these would be possible. Frankly I was getting fed up with ever-receding deadlines but I felt that the Irish delegation's support was worth having.

1 38

HumtJr

Quite by chance l woke up five minutes before the round; I could just as easily have slept through it entirely. I quickly established that there had been no further developments and pondered over whether to play or not. It was clear that my mind was not on chess, but after a plea from PP to give them another day I walked in half an hour late, played 20 quick moves and agreed a draw. At 9 o' clock that night Mr. Harsh came to the hotel, and told us that he had decided to pay the owed monies by bank transfer to my account. He gave me a photocopy of the bank instruction to prove that it had been done. As it happened the paper he had given me also carried details of another transfer, which made it easier to understand. On inspection, the transaction reference number on the other transfer was a very long number. For my transaction there appeared only the date. More worrying: on the other the beneficiary bank was named as a clearing bank in New York, while on mine the single word - "Yourself' - was written. Concerned, I telephoned my bank. They informed me that if the transfer had been done correctly they should know about it within 24 hours. They also told me that given the (lack ot) information on the form, it would be impossible for the transfer to go through. Subsequent enquiries after the tournament revealed that there had been no authorization of payment with the "transfer." So . . . Baburin and I wrote another letter expressing our dissatisfaction. This was answered rather curiously and indirectly by one from Piddle at the request of Ummer Koya telling us that he was a man of honor and integrity and we should accept his word. This seemed a little strange as he had been saying how terrible and inefficient things had been up ' til then. In any case his assessment of Ummer Koya was subsequently modified to "lying shyster" a month after the tournament when he too had not received his traveling expenses. By the time of the next round nothing further had happened. Baburin was of the opinion that if we withdrew we would never be paid anything. Personally I had had enough. As a compromise I decided to withdraw, giving the perfectly valid reason as exhaustion due to my sleep pattern being disrupted. Baburin continued to play. That night, though, his sleep too was disturbed by a phone call from Mr. Mazoomdar, now incidentally Treasurer of the All India Chess Federation, who found the proceedings so amusing that he couldn't resist phoning to convey his greetings to me ! In due course Seamus won the tournament. At the prize-giving I was intrigued to see first prize being presented in travellers cheques - Thomas Cook travellers cheques ! Enquiries about them were met by the response "Oh no. Those are Bank of Bikaner travellers cheques."

1 39

llumtr
As the tournament concluded, Mr. Ummer Koya, who had always been promising to return to sort things out, wisely didn't, whilst Mr. Harsh made conciliatory noises about regretting any misunderstandings. By the following day, though, he had apparently changed his mind, as he refused to pay for calls I had made at his request, and then made a blatant attempt to make me miss my travel connections. Only the reliably late departures of lndian rail and airlines prevented me from being stranded for two weeks .

The Commonwealth title, I should mention, was won by the untitled Indian Atanu Lahiri, making a comeback after a six-year retirement - a remarkably impressive result! On my return to England I was amused to meet a representative of the Indian tourist board who gave me a baseball cap inscribed with "Visit India for the Millennium." I felt an urge to insert the word "Fourth," but decided against it that might still be too soon. (July 1999)

When Sally Met Harry (A Love Story)

Chris Depasquale
Chris Depasquale (born 1961, Adelaide, Australia) gained the FIDE Master title in 1986. He has represented Australia in three cross-board Olympiads and one email Olympiad, and in 2001 he won the New Zealand Championship. Winner of the 1992 C. J. S. Purdy medal for services to chess journalism, Depasquale has produced the weekly chess columnfor the Melbourne newspaper The Age since 1989. His irreverent musings have appeared in Kingpin magazine, Australian Chess Forum, and his collection My 60 Memorable Columns was published by Chess World in 1995. His column "The View from Down Under" appeared at the ChessCafe August 1999-December 2000. His humor combines satirical wit and a keen perception of human nature, with chess smarts and colorful Aussie candor, in a way that makes Paul Hogan ( a.k. a. Crocodile Dundee) seem tepid by comparison. Apart from writing, Depasquale 's greatest contribution to chess is to set back the game in England by at least twenty years, by having a generation of promising English playersfall in love with the Trompowsky Openingfollowing the immortal game Depasqule-Kudrin, London, 1986. For this most people are extremely grateful.
Kylie and I go back a long way, and, like all really good friends, we are always there for each other. Kylie frequently comes to me for song-writing tips, and whenever I get one of those threatening letters from the bank about my overdraft I just send it off to her. To this day I have no idea what she says to them, but, whatever it is, it always seems to do the trick.

1 40

Humtlr

When Ky lie rang that day with her request (she made it sound more like a royal decree) I thought I had misheard due to the low commotion emanating from the neighbors, but it turned out that I hadn't. The following day she was participating in a charity picnic, and her partner for the three-legged race (Jason Somebody, I think she said) had come down with the ' flu, and I was needed to substitute. As one makes the transition from skinny, impecunious, pimple-faced youth to balding, overweight, middle-aged man, one's value systems change. The things that one valued so much in younger days, like money and the company of beautiful young women, are still on the scale somewhere, but rank way below basic human needs, like maintaining one's dignity. But a royal command is just that and, besides, I figured it would provide a suitable opportunity to give Kylie the letter I had just received from the bank.

The Picnic
I can't say for certain at which stage of the egg-and-spoon race I fell in love with Sally. She caught my eye during the warm-up, probably due to the cheeky shorts she had sported for the occasion. Furthermore, the egg is a universal symbol of fertility, and Sally glided up the track as though she had been born with a silver spoon in her hand.

All of these considerations may have had something to do with it, but none, individually, would be conclusive. Everybody loves a winner, of course, but when Sally breasted the tape the blood coursed through me in a way that made me feel I could win that three-legged race all by myself. I was head-over-heels.
I was head-over-heels three more times during that afternoon, all during the agonizing eternity it took Kylie and me to cover the fifty-meter course set out for the three-legged race. Our performance was the subject of considerable mirth in the hospitality tent afterwards. I tried to laugh it off: "Yes, it's funny, Kylie and I always seem to be in tune with one another until it comes to getting a leg over," but Kylie was less than amused. I didn't fully understand quite why she was so furious. After all, as any of her true fans would know, she clearly doesn't object, in principle, to looking ridiculous in public. It turned out, however, that the dress she had used for the occasion, now completely ruined with grass-stains, was a designer number she had borrowed from her sister, and would cost a fortune to replace. I bit my tongue at the time, but it did occur to me that she, or her sister, would look more fully dressed wearing just two medium-sized hankies, at a total cost of $4.95 from Safeway.

Anyway, despite giving the appearance of being displeased with me, when I timidly produced the latest diatribe from my bank Kylie snatched it from me as if overly eager to attend to the matter. She wasn't very communicative after that, however, and I sort of drifted off to wonder how I might right the wrongs.
141

"" """

'l'he Introduction
I was awakened from my reverie by an angelic voice offering me a penny for my thoughts. I turned to find I was being addressed by none other than Sally. Before I could respond she had introduced herself, and then remarked, "You' re that writer chap, aren't you? Kylie' s friend." I nodded dumbly. "What are you working on at the moment?" Sally continued by way of conversation.

There is a classic scene in the movie Caddyshack where Chevy Chase knocks on a door, and unexpectedly finds it answered by a voluptuous young lady wrapped only in a towel. Without missing a beat, Chevy says, "My car j ust hit a water-buffalo. Can I borrow your towel?". Ever since seeing that, I have been prepared for the moment a beautiful young lady asks me what I write. "At the moment I am working on a telephone directory," I told Sally without pausing, "and it would help me if you were to give me your address and telephone number." Sally giggled, and we got talking. When Sally found out I coached chess, she insisted on signing up for a course. Not wanting to miss out on the chance to spend time in the presence of this goddess every week, I made her sign a contract then and there.

Sally's Chess Career

I really threw myself into it over the next few months. Sally was little more than a beginner, but she learned fast, and I focused all my efforts on her. Soon we decided it was time for her to make her tournament debut. This was her first game: White: Sally Black: J. Seesahr: l.d4 d6 So much for opening preparation we had expected Sally to be able to play the carefully prepared Barry Attack against this opponent. 2.e4 g6 3.Jl.e3 Jl.g7 4. 'ltd2 f6 5.c3 c6 6.J}.h6!? I would prefer to castle here, but Sally was never backward about coming forward.

6 J}. xh6 7. 'ltxh6 c5 8.dxc5 dxc5 9.e5 d5 10.0-0-0 e6 ll.J}.c4 c6 12.J}.xd5 exd5 13.4) xd5 'lta5 14.'ltg7 f8 15.f6+ fl]e7 16.d5+ fileS 17.'ltf6 J}.e6 18.e7+

1 42

Humor most e x t rao rd i n ary thing happened: both players resigned I t transpired that Sally had initially thought that 18.e7 was mate, but when her opponent lapsed into thought, she realized that the knight could capture her queen. Distraught at losing her queen in such a promising position, Sally decided to resign. Sally's opponent, one step ahead of her, had worked out that capturing the queen led to mate next, and also decided to resign. After hearing evidence from both sides, the arbiter decided, as they always do, that the game should continue, and it concluded: 18 ... xe7 19.-tlf6 1-0. At t h i s po i n t

the

s i m u l taneous l y ! !

A win in her very first tournament game, and a spectacular one at that ! This called for a celebration. Unfortunately, I was a bit short in the ready cash department, but around the comer from the chess club was a bar owned by a mate of mine, a chap by the name of Pilanski. He could usually be relied upon to let me have a few drinks on the slate. I ushered Sally to a seat, and sought out my mate at the bar, and prepared to do a bit of groveling.

"Friend," I would call him, I thought to myself, and then paused, wondering if that might be not personal enough. Perhaps I should address him simply as "Roman," his well-worn nick-name, but then again, that might come across as not respectful enough. "What title did one give a publican?" I mused, but before I could take that thought any further he was at the bar in front of me. In desperation, I decided to use all three. "Friend, Roman, publican," I began, "lend me some beers." This brought a faint smile to his face, and he asked me what the occasion was. I described in graphic detail Sally 's famous victory at the chess-board, including our unsuccessful opening preparation, and the dual resignation. Pilanski then asked me who Sally had played. Although not a player himself, enough of the chess club crowd adjourn to his premises on a regular basis that he knows many of the names. I told him, but the name didn't ring any bells for him, and he asked me whether Sally's opponent was a good player. I thought about this for a moment, wondering how I should reply. If I said the wrong thing my source of free beers might dry up, with much embarrassment to me. "We came," I said at last, "not to praise Seesahr, but to Barry him." That did the trick; Pilanski laughed uproariously, and the beers flowed all evening. That first game set the tone for Sally 's chess career; what she lacked in skill she made up for with the most incredible good fortune. The following game she played just two days after I had taught her the "Greek Gift" sacrifice. White: Sally Black: NN: 1.d4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.-tlc3 -tlf6 4.e5 fd7 5.f4 c5

6.-tlce2 c6 7.f3 cxd4 8.-tlexd4 Jl.c5 9.c3 -tl xd4 10.cxd4 Jl,b4+ ll .Q.d2 Jl xd2+ 12:l!t' xd2 0-0 13.Jld3 -tlb8 14.0-0 c6 15.Jl.xh7+!? Cit'xh7 16.g5+ Cit'g8

1 43

Hutntlr

In this position, Sally played 17. h5!! And, I suppose, I would too, if I thought I could get away with it. Sally's opponent, however, had other ideas. He replaced her queen on d2, and required her to play a legal move with it. Unperturbed, Sally continued:

17.d3 e8 18.h7+ f8 19.h5 g6 20.h7 c7 21.acl d8 22.f3 'ltd7 23.h3 'lte8 24. 'lth4 e7 25.e4+ f6 26. 'lt x f6+ d7 27.h7+ e7

28.'ltxe7+ xe7 29.f6 1-0.

Enter Harry
Things were going swimmingly, until one day I was a few minutes late for one of our scheduled sessions. (Later, my psychiatrist would insist that my lateness on that occasion was a sure sign that I had started taking Sally for granted; that the magic had gone out of the relationship. Personally, I blame Malcolm Pein, editor of Chess Monthly magazine, but you can read my side of the story below, and make up your own mind.) While waiting for me, Sally started browsing through a back-issue of Chess Monthly, and got e ng ro s sed in an article by Jonathan Rowson on his match with Michael Adams. Now, I have never been to Scotland, and cannot vouch for the language they speak there, but this article might just as well have been written in Martian for all the sense it made. A typical annotation would run something like this:
1 44

HumtJr "Later at the King ' s Head, Spe ss said he liked White here, because of Edward
' '

the Fifth, and the simple plan of rolling Harry up the board."

I ntrigued, Sally wanted to know what it all meant. I told her that it was meaningless, but she insisted. After examining the article at length I eventually formed the opinion that the King's Head was the pub where the post mortems to the match games were held, 'Spess' was Jonathan Speelman, Edward the Fifth turned out to be a pawn on e5 , and Harry was the h-pawn. "Harry H-pawn," said Sally. "I like that." I tried to ignore it, but Sally became infatuated. Despite my most earnest urging, Sally completely changed her opening repertoire, and started pushing her h-pawns at the earliest opportunity. (Later, my psychiatrist would insist that when Sally stopped responding to my urges . . . but I digress.) All the classical training I had given her went out the window, as she started playing the h4 Trompovsky (l .d4 4Jf6 2. Ag5 4Je4 3.h4), and even worse. I watched the following moves in one of her tournament games: White: Sally Black: NN: l.d4 d6 2.h4 c6 3.c3 d7 4.g4 eS S.e4 A,e7

6.gS h6 7.dxeS dxeS 8.t;tf3 hxgS

"Well, that should teach her a lesson," I thought, as I adj ourned to Pilanski 's bar, "she is losing a pawn straight out of the opening." To my surprise, I learned later that the game only went one more move: 9.-'tc4! and Black resigned, as he loses a piece in all variations:

9 . . . f6 1 0 . hxg5 xh l l l . x h l 4Jf8 ( l l . . .f8 1 2 . h8) 1 2 . Axg8 ; 9 . . . 4Jgf6 1 0 . hx g 5 xh l l l . x h l 4Jg8 1 2 . h5 g6 1 3 . h7 ; 9 . . . -'tf6 1 0 . h x g 5 xh l l l . x h l Axg5 1 2 .h5 ; 9 . . . 4Jdf6 1 0 . h x g 5 f! x h l ( 1 0 . . . -'tg4 l l . xh8 A x f3 1 2 . g x f6 f8 1 3 . fxe7+ '{f;f x e 7 1 4 . 4J x f3) l l . x h l 4Jg4 1 2 . '{f;fh 5 g6 1 3 . '{f;fh7 d7 1 4 . -'t x f7 .
Even with the black pieces, Sally would ignore the principles of classical development to roll Harry up the board.

1 45

llumor

White: NN B l ac k : Sally: 1.e4 hS 2.d4 dS 3.exd5 c6 4.d x c6 eS S.c x b7 Jl,xb7 6.dxe5 xd1 + 7.'1f1xd1 c6 8.f3 0-0-0+ 9.Jl.d2 h6 10.c3 g4 11.'1f1e1 b4 12.lac1 Ac5 13.Ab5 h4 14.h3 xf2 15.lafl lah5 16.Ae2 Jl.xf3 17.Axf3 la xe5+ 18.e2

18 ... la xd2 19.'1f1 xd2 Ae3+ 20.'1f1c3 xa2+ 21.'1f1b3 xcl+ 22. xcl f5 23.c3 g5 24.e2 g4 25.hxg4 fxg4 26.A,c6 '1f1c7 27.Jla4 h3 28.gxh3 gxh3 29.g3 h2 30.Ciflc2 lagS 31.h1 xh1 32.laxh1 Jlf4 33.Ab3 '1f1d6 and White resigned, as . . gl cannot be prevented.
.

Our relationship deteriorated over this period, but the last straw was this monstrosity of an opening: White: Sally Black: NN: 1.d4 e6 2.h4 f6 3.h5 h6 4.g4 xg4 5.e4 f6

6.e5 g8 7.Ad3 c5 8.dxc5 a5+ 9.c3 xc5 10.Ae3 xe5 ll.b5 c6 12.{3 b8 13.e2 f6 14.0-0-0 a6 15.bd4 d5 16.'1f1b1 Ae7 17. lahg1 x e3 18. x e3 xd4 19. x d4 Jlf6 20.f5 e5 21.b6 '1t1f8 22.d6 xh5 23.f4 f3 24.Ae4 xf4 25.ladf1 e5

26.j},g6! 'l!td4 (26 . . . fxg6?? 27:d8 ) 27. xd4 Jl,xd4 28.la xf7+ '1f1g8 29.lae7 1-0.
Of course, Sally kept winning her share of these games, and that would be enough for some chess coaches. As I mentioned earlier, however, there are such things as dignity and style, and I felt I had to divorce myself from these Harry-inspired extravagances. In the end, the court annulled our coaching contract, officially on grounds of "irreconcilable differences in opening repertoire."
1 46

HumtJr
I

haven ' t s ee n Sally for a while now; she has dropped out of the chess scene, and

I don' t get many invitations to charity picnics these days. From time to time,

however, when I am reporting on a chess tournament somewhere in the world, and I see somebody try the Greek Gift with the queen on the wrong square, or an early h-pawn advance, you might observe a wistful look in my eye as I fondly recall those heady days with Sally. (September 1999)

The Rook
Chris Depasquale
Author's Preface: This article, a chess-based parody of Franz Kafka's classic piece of literature The Castle, first appeared in the October 1 998 issue of Australian Chess Forum, and is reproduced here with the kind permission of the editors. That it is resurfacing here is largely Bruce Pandolfini 's fault. In his regular ChessCafe column The Q & A Way, Pandolfini, in his 24 May 2000 article entitled "Write or Wrong", discussed "chess writing" versus "literature." For me, this was like a red rag to a bull as I have, in the past, written extensively on this subject for a literary magazine. The connecting thread can be found in my View From Down Under column dated 14 June 1 999, entitled "The Write Stuff'. At the end of that article I invited readers to compare and contrast The Rook to The Castle. For the uninitiated I should mention that reading Kafka is much like improving at chess: it is hard work, often frustrating, but brings a real sense of achievement in the end. Chris Depasquale, Alice Springs, June 2000.

The Invitation R. clutched to his chest the letter inviting him to be the twelfth participant in this
year's Victorian Chess Championship. He had devoted all his life towards this task - for it is not all that easy to achieve such exalted status as a state championship participant - and, as he made his way through the wind-swept wasteland known as Ripponlea, he realized that all his endeavors had been worthwhile. Of course, R. might have had doubts about his participation - after all, on other occasions had not fate intervened at the last moment to prevent him taking his place in the field? - but this time it was different. The letter that he had was signed personally by Oysters, and it was well known that Oysters was a big man in these parts - perhaps even the highest official of them all, although this was

1 47

doubted by a few who had never seen him - and that should be sufficient even for R. He put behind him the year he had been assured of participation, only to find that the event was not to be held at all that year, and that other occasion when his entry was accepted, only to find that the event was changed from a chess championship to an orienteering event.

R. was challenged - as he well expected to be - as he approached the entrance

to the playing venue. "Who are you?" demanded the man at the door but, before R. could reply, one of the assistants of the doorman - and it was true, of course, that all people holding such exalted positions need at least two assistants said, "No, don't tell us who you are . Go away, and if you are needed you will be sent for." "But I have been sent for," explained R. patiently. "I am here as the twelfth man in the Victorian Championship," and he permitted himself a little smile. "Impossible !" snapped the doorman, and turned his back on R. 'This is not a village cricket match, where a twelfth man would be required, this is a chess championship - in fact, of course, it is the chess championship - and only ten players take part," one of the assistants added, in a tone suggesting that anybody standing at the door - as indeed R. was doing at that time - would know that ten players only take part in the Victorian championship, and the assistant also turned his back on R. At another time R. might have given vent to his feelings about this rude behavior, but his confidence in his position prevented him from doing so. "You must be mistaken," he said drawing from his pocket the letter from Oysters, and thrust it under the nose of the second assistant. ''Officials never make mistakes," retorted the assistant, but he did at least take the time to read the letter. "So," said R. once the assistant had f mished reading, "how do you explain that?" The assistant permitted himself a smirk at this remark, wondering to himself how anybody with sufficient intelligence to play chess could be so lacking in knowledge and understanding about the workings of the officials. "You must talk to the arbiter; he will explain it," said the official. "And where is the arbiter?" R. inquired, as patiently as he could under the circumstances. "Why, in the playing hall, of course," the second assistant said, and R. stepped towards the door to the playing hall. The doorman and his assistants blocked his path, and the doorman reminded him that he had no right to enter the room. R., who had seen an enormous collection of people enter the playing hall while he was trying to resolve his position with the doorman and his assistants, inquired who was permitted to enter. "Only players, officials and spectators, of course," explained the doorman . ''Well, I am a player," insisted R. waving Oyster's letter in front of their faces. "You can ' t be," said the doorman, "as a twelfth player is not required." R. considered this for a moment. 'Then I am a spectator," tried R., "and entitled to access." The doorman shook his head sadly. 'This invitation refers to you as a
148