Sex and Drugs and Rock & Roll

The Mail Bag

Well it is now a year since my first column appeared at The
Chess Cafe, and I cannot further delay attending to the mailbag.
I have avoided responding to what might loosely be called "fan
mail" during my career, due to an unfortunate incident in my
early days as a chess columnist.
Taking the view that "the customer is always right" I did
attempt to follow the instructions of the writer on that occasion,
without much success. Firstly, her suggestion as to where I put
my head was anatomically impossible. Secondly, the attempt
caused me a back injury that prevents me from undertaking any
form of hard work.
My psychiatrist urges me to tackle the mail issue, insisting it
would be good therapy for that unfortunate incident. He points
to the outstanding efforts of Gary Lane, Bruce Pandolfini and
Geurt Gijssen, who respond to their readers' letters openly and
expertly every month.
My psychiatrist is a particular fan of Gary Lane's on this point.
Gary seems to get lots of letters along these lines:
"Dear Gary, I have come up with this brilliant new
opening that has never been seen before, where I
start by giving up three pawns and marching my
King up to e4. My first effort was a brilliant
victory. (Some have argued that, had my opponent
not had that fatal heart attack at the board he might
have had the better chances, what with the extra
queen and so on, but the opening is designed to
shock, so I have chalked that one up as a
resounding success.) Since then, however, I have
had an unexpected run of 1297 consecutive losses
with this opening. Can you tell me where I am
going wrong? Yours etc."
I had to agree with my psychiatrist that, had I received such a
letter, it would have been trashed in the twinkling of an eye.
Yet Gary Lane manages to start with something like that and
produce a column on the cutting edge of opening theory, full of
useful information and flashy games.
It is through Gary's inspiration that I have the confidence to
tackle some of the mail I have received over the last twelve
months. Before I start, however, I must confess that most of the
correspondence was trashed long ago, and is reconstructed
hereunder from memory, so please be understanding if my
paraphrasing is not up to your usual eloquence.
OK. Here goes nothing. (Takes deep breath.)
Sex vs Chess
Ingrid from Sweden wrote:
"I am a seventeen-year-old Swedish girl and I have
recently discovered both chess and sex. I am
writing to you because you are the only chess writer
who ever mentions sex, and I found your column
When Sally Met Harry (A Love Story), published at

the Chess Cafe last September, very romantic. I

have three questions:
1.
Which is better in your opinion chess or sex?
2.
Ethically speaking which is worse - cheating at
chess or faking an orgasm?
3.
Did you have sex with Sally? (Your article was
obscure on this point.)
PS Say hi to Tony Miles for me, I think he's cute."
Well, Ingrid, your first question is a gimme. As long as you
don't play "bullet" (ie. chess with one minute each on the
clock) both chess and sex are good, but chess lasts longer.
As a person I can honestly say that I would never do anything
unethical in chess, sex, or life itself, but as a journalist I don't
expect anyone to believe what I say about ethics.
And, yes, Sally and I had sex, but I faked all the orgasms.
PS Hi Tony, I think you are cute, too.
Drugs
D. U. from Amsterdam wrote:
"In your article Cheating at Chess (A Potted
History) at The Chess Cafe in October 1999 you
advocated the use of drugs to improve performance.
Other chess journalists have suggested that it
should be open slather for drug use by chess
players. I am concerned about the message this
sends to the general community. For one thing, we
don't know yet whether the drugs the grandmasters
are presently taking will, with protracted use,
permanently alter their minds."
Well, DU, from what I know of those grandmasters, I think I
speak for all of us when I say I hope the drugs really do
permanently alter their minds.
Rock & Roll
Bill from England wrote:
"I sampled your song-writing ability in your first
ever Chess Cafe column (Organising the Perfect
Chess Tournament August '99), and then learned
the following month that you give song-writing tips
to Kylie. I was surprised that your CV, disclosed in
The Write Stuff (June 2000), didn't include a career
in rock & roll. Is there some reason for this?"
Well, Bill, I had to choose between chess and rock & roll, and
decided I couldn't abandon chess. The two cannot be combined
ever since Nigel Short's exploits with the band called Pelvic
Thrust because it is just too damaging to your social life. You
go to a party and get chatted up by a young lady. She asks what
you do, and you tell her you do chess and rock & roll. She
immediately starts thinking "short pelvic thrust" and loses
interest in you.
Where's the Chess?
Peter Russell-Clarke wrote:
"I read your columns regularly, and can't help

noticing that you seem to be obsessed

alcohol. I can't find a single one of
for The Chess Cafe where at least one
not mentioned. Aren't you supposed to
writer? Where's the chess?"

with sex and

your columns
of them is
be a chess

Well, Peter, there are two reasons for this. I do, occasionally
make the mistake of writing about chess, but, by-and-large, it is
far too controversial. I also think that we lose sight of what
chess is. For a very minute proportion of all the world's chess
players, chess is serious business, but for the rest it is
(supposed to be) pleasure. My research indicates that the
majority of people, including chess players, associate pleasure
with activities that involve sex and/or alcohol.
Where's the Chess Journalist?
A. S. of Spain wrote:
"I thoroughly enjoyed your coverage of the Monaco
tournament which appeared at The Chess Cafe in
April as Crocodile Dundee-Pasquale. I made the
trip there myself this year, and don't recall you at
all. Were you the chap who was rescued by a
mounted policeman while hanging from a lamppost in the middle of peak-hour traffic?"
I generally take a low-key approach to covering chess, as the
article you refer to demonstrates, so it is not surprising you
didn't see me there. As for the horse incident, I think you have
mixed me up with my mate, Paul. If it had been me, it would
have been a camel, not a horse.
Where's the Action?
Tom from Melbourne wrote:
"I read with interest your article Internet Chess
(March). I cannot understand how anybody could
move from Melbourne, the chess capital of
Australia and the sporting capital of the world, to
Alice Springs. OK, so you can play chess by
Internet, but don't you miss the major sporting
events?"
Well, Tom, when they decided to hold the world's biggest
sporting event of the year in Australia they didn't choose
Melbourne, did they? You know what I'm talking about, don't
you? No, not the Olympic Games. I am talking about Australia
vs USA in the final of the Po Camelo World Cup, held recently
in Alice Springs. In case you are not familiar with Po Camelo,
it is much like polo (the preferred sport of the Royals and the
rich and famous, Tom) but the players ride camels rather than
horses, and strike the ball with canoe oars (traditional polo
mallets not being long enough).
Po Camelo is almost on a par with chess for skill, largely
because the camels are quite difficult to steer. One member of
the International Order of Camel Jockeys described it as "like
being strapped to a poorly functioning washing machine
moving at 35 miles an hour". So don't sneer at me, Tom, until
Melbourne is awarded the Po Camelo World Cup final. (The
final score, by the way, was Oz 7 USA 4.)

Chess Prowess
M. P. from the USA wrote:
"I am sure I am not Robinson Crusoe when I say
that I had never heard of you until you began
writing for The Chess Cafe. Imagine my surprise
when I saw you received a vote for the Chess
Player of the Century. Could you enlighten us about
your chess achievements, and perhaps show us one
of your victories against a world champion?"
Thanks, MP, for raising this issue. I was originally chuffed to
get a vote in the Chess Player of the Century. At the time I put
it down to my history changing game against Kudrin in
London, 1986, which commenced with the opening moves 1.d4
Nf6 2.Bg5 Ne4 3.h4. My rationalisation of it all was that my
victory in that game triggered a chain of events which saw the
Trompovsky move from sideline to the point where Anand
chose the Trompovsky in his must-win final match game for
the FIDE Championship with Karpov. But I digress.
I was not quite so chuffed when all my friends accused me of
voting for myself! Some time later (too late, unfortunately, to
prevent me from having to demote all my friends to
acquaintances, and having to move to Alice Springs in the hope
of finding some real friends) I got an email. The sender told me
that he had voted for me, and asked if I would send him an
autographed copy of my book, My 60 Memorable Columns. I
was so pleased to have proof that I hadn't voted for myself that
I sent the book the same day.
Over the next two months I got about 3000 emails from people
claiming that they were the one person who voted for me, and
asking if I would send them an autographed copy of my book!
Well, MP, you asked to see one of my victories against a world
champion. A tough task, there are so many of them. (World
champions, that is, not victories!) I would like to show you one
of my spine-tingling battles with Kasparov from Linares but
they keep forgetting to invite me. Actually, that may not be
true. I don't speak a word of Spanish, and the card I receive
from Linares each December goes straight in the trash. I have
always assumed that "invitacin" is Spanish for "Merry
Christmas" and "invitar" means "Happy New Year". Perhaps
my Spanish correspondents can clarify this.
In the end, I settled on this game, from the 1986/87 AdsteamLidums International.
Chris Depasquale Susan Polgar
Adsteam-Lidums International Adelaide, Australia (7),
04.01.1987
1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 c5 Of course, in those days nobody dared play
2...Ne4 against me, because of 3.h4! 3.d5 Ne4 4.h4 h6 This
move, which had never been in favour before this game, went
out of favour after this game. Last year Nunn held Hodgson to
a draw after playing 4...g6 here. 5.Bc1! Precise play. The
bishop becomes a target after 5.Bf4? e.g. 5...e6 6.f3 Bd6! as
played in Draganic-Jurkovic, Zagreb 1998. Now it is too late
for 7.Bc1? Bg3#. 5...e6?! 6.dxe6 dxe6 If 6...fxe6 the hole on g6
is a problem: 7.Qd3 d5 8.Nd2 and Black has to resort to 8...c4

9.Qf3 Nf6 when 10.g4! justifies all of White's previous moves.

7.Qxd8+ Kxd8 8.Nd2 Nf6 9.Nc4 Nbd7 9...Ne4 was more
consistent. 10.Nf3 b6 11.a4 Ng4 12.Bf4 Bb7 13.Rd1 Ke8
14.e3 Be7 15.Be2 h5 16.0-0 f6
[Diagram]
An acquaintance of mine (who was a friend at the time, this all
predates the Chess Player of the Century stuff) was baffled that
I could end up with such a lead in development when I had
moved the bishop three times to get it from c1 to f4. The point
is that Black has used two moves to get the pawn from h7-h5,
and another two to get the King from e8 to, well, e8.
Furthermore Black has spent four moves to get her knight from
g8 to g4. That wouldn't be a problem, except that the knight
will have to move at least three more times to get to a useful
square! That is important, because later it takes me five moves
to shift my knight from f3 to f4. 17.Nd6+ Bxd6 18.Bxd6 Bc6
19.b3 Nh6 20.Bc4 e5 21.Rd2 Nf7 22.Rfd1 Nf8 23.Bxf8 Rxf8
24.Bb5 Bxb5 25.axb5 e4 26.Nh2 Rd8 27.Nf1 Rxd2 28.Rxd2
f5 29.Ng3 g6 30.Ne2 Ke7 31.Nf4 Rg8 32.c4 Nd6 33.Ra2 Nc8
34.Kf1 Kf7 35.Rd2 Ke7 36.Ke2 Rg7 37.Rd5 Rg8 38.Re5+
Kd7 39.Re6 Ne7 40.Rf6 Ke8
[Diagram]
Well, the time control had been reached, this was the position,
and I had a long think. After the game several people asked me
what I was thinking about, speculating that I was trying to work
out some sort of zugzwang to penetrate to the seventh rank. I
must confess that I was thinking how pretty my opponent was,
and whether I should invite her out to have a drink and see a
band. I also mused as to whether she would be more likely to
accept if I offered a draw as part of the package, or whether she
would be more impressed if I defeated her. While these
thoughts may appear less than honourable, I can assure you that
the idea of penetration (or zugzwang) never entered my head.
41.Rd6! Kf7 I had thought that my move was just marking
time while I pondered the issues discussed above, but it turns
out Black is in zugzwang, and can't prevent White's rook
reaching the seventh rank. For example 41...Rg7 42.Ne6 Rg8
43.Rd8+ Kf7 44.Ng5+ Kf6 45.Rd6+ Kg7 46.Rd7 42.Rd7 Kf6
43.Rxa7 Rb8 44.g3 Nc8 45.Nd5+ Ke6 46.Rg7 Ra8 47.Rxg6+
Kf7 48.Rc6 1-0
And no, Ingrid, I am not going to tell you what happened after
the game. So don't even bother writing. Not for another year, at
least.