In the Blogosphere this week:
EJH on the Streatham & Brixton Chess Club blog details a strange adventure tracking down an opponent in IECG that had been reported deceased. A certain Mark Mills had his games adjudicated when his wife reported his death. EJH then noticed some strange occurrences, including a fluid Wikipedia page, and investigated...
Over at Correspondence Chess in CyberSpace, Harvey ponders the benefits of Correspondence Chess matches between chess clubs via web servers for OTB play.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Sunday, June 10, 2007
ICCF WS/O/109: Plotz - Owens
Some games you learn from. Some games you just let go. Once I allowed White to have a passed pawn and centralized control, it was over.
[Event "WS/O/109"]
[Site "ICCF"]
[Date "2007.3.3"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Pötz, Florian"]
[Black "Owens, Steve"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb5 d6 6. N1c3 a6 7. Na3 b5 8. Nd5
Nge7 9. c4 Nd4 10. Be3 Nxd5 11. cxd5 Be7 12. Bd3 O-O 13. O-O Bf6 14. Qd2 Bd7 15.
Rac1 h6 16. f4 exf4 17. Rxf4 Be5 18. Bb1 b4 19. Nc4 Bxf4 20. Bxf4 Nb5 21. Qxb4
f5 22. e5 a5 23. Qe1 dxe5 24. Bxe5 a4 25. Qf2 Rc8 26. Bd3 f4 27. Re1 Bf5 28. Bf1
Bg6 29. Qb6 Be8 30. Qe6+ Kh7 31. Bd3+ g6 32. Nb6 f3 33. gxf3 Qg5+ 34. Qg4 Qd2
35. Qe4 Rc1 36. Rxc1 Qxc1+ 37. Kf2 Qc5+ 38. Qe3 Qe7 39. Nc4 Qd8 40. Qe4 Qe7 41.
h4 h5 42. d6 Qd7 43. Qe3 Qd8 44. Kg3 Bc6 45. f4 Qe8 46. Qc5 Qd7 47. Kh2 Bf3 48.
Ne3 Bc6 49. b4 1-0
[Event "WS/O/109"]
[Site "ICCF"]
[Date "2007.3.3"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Pötz, Florian"]
[Black "Owens, Steve"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 5. Nb5 d6 6. N1c3 a6 7. Na3 b5 8. Nd5
Nge7 9. c4 Nd4 10. Be3 Nxd5 11. cxd5 Be7 12. Bd3 O-O 13. O-O Bf6 14. Qd2 Bd7 15.
Rac1 h6 16. f4 exf4 17. Rxf4 Be5 18. Bb1 b4 19. Nc4 Bxf4 20. Bxf4 Nb5 21. Qxb4
f5 22. e5 a5 23. Qe1 dxe5 24. Bxe5 a4 25. Qf2 Rc8 26. Bd3 f4 27. Re1 Bf5 28. Bf1
Bg6 29. Qb6 Be8 30. Qe6+ Kh7 31. Bd3+ g6 32. Nb6 f3 33. gxf3 Qg5+ 34. Qg4 Qd2
35. Qe4 Rc1 36. Rxc1 Qxc1+ 37. Kf2 Qc5+ 38. Qe3 Qe7 39. Nc4 Qd8 40. Qe4 Qe7 41.
h4 h5 42. d6 Qd7 43. Qe3 Qd8 44. Kg3 Bc6 45. f4 Qe8 46. Qc5 Qd7 47. Kh2 Bf3 48.
Ne3 Bc6 49. b4 1-0
Friday, June 1, 2007
USCF Forums: I Quit
I have resigned my position on the USCF Forum Oversight Committee.
Here is the text of my post on the USCF Forums announcing my resignation:
Post:50570 Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:35 am
I quit.
I have to. The abuse in terms of petty bickering and in outright assault is not worth this. Mike Nolan, you are a saint. You did this for months. My term is just over a month.
I took on the responsibility of being on the Forum Oversight Committee determined to approach each matter honestly and with judicious impartiality. Having reviewed actions that I have been a participant, I can honestly say that I think I have done this. I have voted to sanction a friend, I have voted to exonerate those who dislike me. In each complaint matter I have tried to apply the Accepted Use Guidelines in a manner consistent with Executive Board policy.
I have pushed for and the FOC has accepted several ideas regarding the manner in which deliberations are structured, a time limit for complaints to be adjudicated, and other things I think protect the membership's interests. I confess to a certain satisfaction that some of my ideas were welcomed by my fellow FOC members, and I thank them for the consideration they afforded my viewpoint.
Happily, I have gained a few valued friends in this experience. Sadly, I have also lost several whom I considered friends, and that pains me. I have damaged other friendships in my quest to do the best I could in this position, and to those friends, I offer my most humble apologies. One of these is Rodney Vaughn. You were correct, I was wrong. I hope you will forgive me and I hope you still consider me a friend.
SysAdmin, please remove my FOC access as soon as possible.
Steve Owens in Tennessee
Just a USCF member, just like I always wanted to be.
If you are a USCF member, I encourage you to vote your conscience in this election. You should be getting your ballot in the mail shortly with your June Chess Life. Please inform yourself regarding the candidates and mail your ballot back in before the deadline.
My choices, should this interest you, are as I posted on the Forums:
Post:48418 Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 6:00 pm
My over riding desire in an Executive Board member is for the ability to facilitate the abilities of others to organize, sponsor, direct, and play in chess tournaments. I keep hearing that "so and so" has brought in amounts of money, has name recognition, has sponsored this and that...
But, so what?
It is not the ability to do any of those things that is important. It is the ability to propose, enact, and support USCF policy that enables all of those things that is important. We need leadership that facilitates others, not leadership that simply points to the leaders' accomplishments in terms of money raised and tournaments organized. I believe [these] candidates are the best to set the desired policies, and that is why I am voting for them.
1) Randy Bauer.
-I'm voting for Randy because of the way he was able to work to make the USCF better on all issues. Randy was the ultimate team player and worked to make USCF policy succeed even when he did not support that policy during discussion stages (the Crossville move, for instance). The ability to passionately fight for something during debate and then to work for the policy when it is decided is something that is lacking in the current board, and is an ability that Randy has mastered. I don't agree with Randy on many issues, but I trust, and Randy has proven this trust in his previous term on the board, that he has the best interests of the USCF in mind at all times and that he will act on those interests. That makes Randy Bauer my hands down first choice.
2) Joe Lux.
-I'm voting for Joe because of the way he has shown the ability to listen to opposing opinions, and when convinced, will change his mind. It is my opinion that Joe will do this as a member of the board while still retaining the drive to support his opinion of what is correct for the USCF. My interaction with Joe, and the interaction I have seen Joe have with others, here on the Forum has convinced me that Joe wants to enact policy that is in the best interest of the USCF.
3) Stephen Jones.
-I'm voting for Stephen Jones largely based on his record as a past organizer and his professional resume. The limited interaction I have seen from Mr. Jones indicates a willingness to listen to other viewpoints. In fact, one thread he started asked for opinions (Online Chess) and it was my perception the answers were incorporated into one of Mr. Jones' "platform" points. Mr. Jones, from what I have seen, also displays an ability to set aside his favored ideas for those that better benefit the USCF.
Post:50270 Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:30 pm
4) Don Schultz. My fourth vote is going to Don Schultz. Early on I asked Mr. Schultz pointed questions about the USCF and his interaction with FIDE. Mr. Schultz did not flinch and gave me straight answers just as he gave straight answers to others that have asked questions of him here and elsewhere.
Mr. Schultz detailed, with surprising candor, the mistakes he has made during his lengthy career in chess, and the lessons he has learned from them. Mr. Schultz, in his answers and his actions, displays a vast amount of wisdom gained from these experiences. Despite his request last Fall that we not vote for him should he run again, it is my opinion that the USCF would be poorer for not having Mr. Schultz on the EB for another term.
In talking to those knowledgeable about USCF governance and FIDE relations, the one thing that everyone said about Mr. Schultz is that he tries his best to work with everyone, on the board and off, for the betterment of the USCF and the membership. So, despite Mr. Schultz's request to the contrary, he gets my vote.
One last note about USCF leadership and then I'm done with chess politics on this blog:
I have received many notes of thanks for the effort expended from members of the Forum and from my fellow committee members, even those that vehemently opposed me. I thank them for their thoughts and welcome the many new relationships that have come about as a result of my time on the committee.
However, I find it very illuminating that not one member of USCF governance has chosen to say anything positive or negative. Despite their posts on other subjects they can't seem to find the time to jot one small line, in public or private, to acknowledge that someone contributed something to the organization they govern. As a committee member I received, and am still receiving, daily threats and abusive emails, private messages, and public posts running the gamut from character assassination to legal threats to threats of physical violence.
It is no wonder that so few wish to volunteer their time to the USCF. It is largely a thankless effort, and one that is dangerous to boot.
It is time to put in place Executive Board members that value the efforts of regular USCF members and volunteers.
Please vote.
Here is the text of my post on the USCF Forums announcing my resignation:
Post:50570 Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 8:35 am
I quit.
I have to. The abuse in terms of petty bickering and in outright assault is not worth this. Mike Nolan, you are a saint. You did this for months. My term is just over a month.
I took on the responsibility of being on the Forum Oversight Committee determined to approach each matter honestly and with judicious impartiality. Having reviewed actions that I have been a participant, I can honestly say that I think I have done this. I have voted to sanction a friend, I have voted to exonerate those who dislike me. In each complaint matter I have tried to apply the Accepted Use Guidelines in a manner consistent with Executive Board policy.
I have pushed for and the FOC has accepted several ideas regarding the manner in which deliberations are structured, a time limit for complaints to be adjudicated, and other things I think protect the membership's interests. I confess to a certain satisfaction that some of my ideas were welcomed by my fellow FOC members, and I thank them for the consideration they afforded my viewpoint.
Happily, I have gained a few valued friends in this experience. Sadly, I have also lost several whom I considered friends, and that pains me. I have damaged other friendships in my quest to do the best I could in this position, and to those friends, I offer my most humble apologies. One of these is Rodney Vaughn. You were correct, I was wrong. I hope you will forgive me and I hope you still consider me a friend.
SysAdmin, please remove my FOC access as soon as possible.
Steve Owens in Tennessee
Just a USCF member, just like I always wanted to be.
If you are a USCF member, I encourage you to vote your conscience in this election. You should be getting your ballot in the mail shortly with your June Chess Life. Please inform yourself regarding the candidates and mail your ballot back in before the deadline.
My choices, should this interest you, are as I posted on the Forums:
Post:48418 Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 6:00 pm
My over riding desire in an Executive Board member is for the ability to facilitate the abilities of others to organize, sponsor, direct, and play in chess tournaments. I keep hearing that "so and so" has brought in amounts of money, has name recognition, has sponsored this and that...
But, so what?
It is not the ability to do any of those things that is important. It is the ability to propose, enact, and support USCF policy that enables all of those things that is important. We need leadership that facilitates others, not leadership that simply points to the leaders' accomplishments in terms of money raised and tournaments organized. I believe [these] candidates are the best to set the desired policies, and that is why I am voting for them.
1) Randy Bauer.
-I'm voting for Randy because of the way he was able to work to make the USCF better on all issues. Randy was the ultimate team player and worked to make USCF policy succeed even when he did not support that policy during discussion stages (the Crossville move, for instance). The ability to passionately fight for something during debate and then to work for the policy when it is decided is something that is lacking in the current board, and is an ability that Randy has mastered. I don't agree with Randy on many issues, but I trust, and Randy has proven this trust in his previous term on the board, that he has the best interests of the USCF in mind at all times and that he will act on those interests. That makes Randy Bauer my hands down first choice.
2) Joe Lux.
-I'm voting for Joe because of the way he has shown the ability to listen to opposing opinions, and when convinced, will change his mind. It is my opinion that Joe will do this as a member of the board while still retaining the drive to support his opinion of what is correct for the USCF. My interaction with Joe, and the interaction I have seen Joe have with others, here on the Forum has convinced me that Joe wants to enact policy that is in the best interest of the USCF.
3) Stephen Jones.
-I'm voting for Stephen Jones largely based on his record as a past organizer and his professional resume. The limited interaction I have seen from Mr. Jones indicates a willingness to listen to other viewpoints. In fact, one thread he started asked for opinions (Online Chess) and it was my perception the answers were incorporated into one of Mr. Jones' "platform" points. Mr. Jones, from what I have seen, also displays an ability to set aside his favored ideas for those that better benefit the USCF.
Post:50270 Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 2:30 pm
4) Don Schultz. My fourth vote is going to Don Schultz. Early on I asked Mr. Schultz pointed questions about the USCF and his interaction with FIDE. Mr. Schultz did not flinch and gave me straight answers just as he gave straight answers to others that have asked questions of him here and elsewhere.
Mr. Schultz detailed, with surprising candor, the mistakes he has made during his lengthy career in chess, and the lessons he has learned from them. Mr. Schultz, in his answers and his actions, displays a vast amount of wisdom gained from these experiences. Despite his request last Fall that we not vote for him should he run again, it is my opinion that the USCF would be poorer for not having Mr. Schultz on the EB for another term.
In talking to those knowledgeable about USCF governance and FIDE relations, the one thing that everyone said about Mr. Schultz is that he tries his best to work with everyone, on the board and off, for the betterment of the USCF and the membership. So, despite Mr. Schultz's request to the contrary, he gets my vote.
One last note about USCF leadership and then I'm done with chess politics on this blog:
I have received many notes of thanks for the effort expended from members of the Forum and from my fellow committee members, even those that vehemently opposed me. I thank them for their thoughts and welcome the many new relationships that have come about as a result of my time on the committee.
However, I find it very illuminating that not one member of USCF governance has chosen to say anything positive or negative. Despite their posts on other subjects they can't seem to find the time to jot one small line, in public or private, to acknowledge that someone contributed something to the organization they govern. As a committee member I received, and am still receiving, daily threats and abusive emails, private messages, and public posts running the gamut from character assassination to legal threats to threats of physical violence.
It is no wonder that so few wish to volunteer their time to the USCF. It is largely a thankless effort, and one that is dangerous to boot.
It is time to put in place Executive Board members that value the efforts of regular USCF members and volunteers.
Please vote.
ICCF WS/O/109 Game: Kyhos - Owens
[Event "WS/O/109"]
[Site "ICCF"]
[Date "2007.3.3"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Kýhos, Alois"]
[Black "Owens, Steve"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "1701"]
[BlackElo “1800P”]
[Opening “Sicilian: Nimzovich-Rossolimo attack (without ...d6)”]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 e6
The Nimzovich-Rossolimo has the benefit of removing Black from his pet variation of the Sicilian while still retaining White's first move initiative.
4. O-O Nge7 5. Nc3 Ng6 6. Re1 Be7 7. d4 cxd4 8. Nxd4 O-O 9. Be3 Qc7 10. Bd3 a6 11. Qh5 Qe5 12. Qxe5 Ncxe5 13. Be2 b5
This is a mistake. I lost sight of the fact that c6 will be weakened when the d pawn moves. a6 had already stopped the Knights and light Bishop from Queen side mischief. I was overly worried about a Knight maneuver via a4 and b6. With b5 I had in mind, and did in fact play, the Bishop to b7. There it is misplaced and not a contributor to the defense as it would have been at d7. I had planned to post the Bishop there, but varied from the plan, a basic error.
14. Rad1 Bb7 15. f4 Nc6 16. Nb3 d6 17. a3 Rac8
The Rook would have been better placed at d8. I was leery of Bb6 after Rad8, another impact from the b5 move.
18. Bg4 Rfe8 19. Rf1 b4
I could find no decent defensive moves or anything that would consolidate the position so I looked for something dynamic to see if I could manufacure an advantage, or at least equalize. 19...b4 will eventually lose the a pawn to a Rook attack, but I thought I could trade off some of his more active pieces for my less active pieces. At this point I want to trade the light Bishops, and see if he will trade the dark Bishops, too.
20. axb4 Nxb4 21. Rd2 Bf6 22. Bd4 Bxd4+
I'm only too happy to see the two dark Bishops leave. My outlook has improved considerably. My light Bishop, once buried, has a long diagonal, though it is tied to defense of the a pawn. My Knight on b4 bothers his Queen side. The a pawn can't be adequately defended, but I can get some compensation for it.
23. Nxd4 Rcd8 24. h3 Ne7
24...Nxf4 25. Rxf4 e5 might have been better. With 24...Ne7 I'm trading the a pawn for the f pawn and hoping I can then stop the passed b pawn before it causes trouble.
25. Ra1 e5 26. Nb3 exf4 27. Ra4 Nbc6 28. Be2 Ne5 29. Bxa6 Bxa6 30. Rxa6 Nc4 31. Rd4 Rc8
The d pawn is immune. White has active Rooks but he can't make decent use of them. The b pawn is held in place and I hope to soon lop it off.
32. Nb5 Kf8 33. c3 Rb8
White chose not to isolate his passed pawn with a Knight capture on d6.
34. Nc7 Red8 35. Rxc4 Rxb3 36. Nd5 Nxd5
Perhaps 36. Rd4 would have been better with wholesale exchanges at d6. At this point I knew I had the draw in hand.
37. exd5 Rxb2 38. Rxf4 Re2 39. c4 Rd7
40. Rc6 Ke7 41. Rf2 Re1+ 42. Kh2 h5 43. g4 1/2-1/2
He offered a draw and I accepted. Black may actually have a small advantage in this position. I could not find that it led to a victory unless White made a blunder, even with the possibility of gaining a passed pawn on the King side.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
ICCF WS/O/109 game: Owens - Thomas
[Event "WS/O/109"]
[Site "ICCF"]
[Date "2007.3.3"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Owens, Steve"]
[Black "Thomas, Gerald K"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White ELO "1800P"]
[Black ELO "1800P"]
[Opening "Sicilian Kalashnikov, via Benoni Defense"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nf3 d6 4. Nc3 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nc6 6. e4 e5
I decided to go with a Maroczy Bind as it had been used on me in my attempts to learn the Sicilian in several variations. When I started the event I was experimenting with the Kalashnikov. I was pleased to see Black's e5 as that put us in a variation very favorable to White.
7. Nc2 Be7 8. Be2
Be6 9. O-O O-O 10. Be3 Qd7 11. f3 Rfc8 12. Nd5 Bxd5 13. cxd5 Na5
I know this Knight move is thematic for this position, but I can't help but note that my Bishops rule the Queen side. If he wants to play there, it is HIS funeral. I'm very happy to oblige. At this point I also noted that I thought his occupation of the c file was an illusion. I think my minor pieces and Queen blunt any action he may wish to undertake here. In fact, this is the first time, in one of my own games, I have seen a file controlled with no rook being present for the controlling side.
14. b3 b6
White's fourteenth is designed to deny the Knight any play on the c file. Black's response lets White's light Bishop play havoc.
15. Ba6 Nb7 16. Nb4 Rc7 17. Qe2 Nc5
While White has a definite plus here, Black can hold with perfect defense. Bet you never heard THAT before. In this case, it is true and demonstrable. After 18. Bb5 Qd8 19. Nc6 Qf8 Black has the possibilities of Ncd7-b8, and the exchange of pieces to help his cramped position and double his Rooks.
18. Bb5 Qc8
Black's eighteenth was not the defense desired. Black's Rooks must now fall.
19. Bc6 Rb8 20. Bxc5 1-0
Black Resigns. The c file will be exploited by White's Rooks after the Exchange and Black's weak light squares will suffer further invasion by the light Bishop and Queen. Black may have some hope with a Knight demonstration to h5 and f4 with the dark Bishop trying to influence things at g5. The weakness at c4 should trump that with the loss of the Exchange.
ICCF WS/O/109 game: Barzaghi - Owens
[Event "WS/O/109"]
[Site "ICCF"]
[Date "2007.3.3"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Barzaghi, Andy"]
[Black "Owens, Steve"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Opening "Nimzovich-Larsen attack: classical variation"]
[WhiteElo "1800P"]
[BlackElo "1800P"]
1. b3 d5
Since White came out with a Nimzovich-Larsen, I thought he must be well versed in the opening.
2. Bb2 Nf6 3. Bxf6 exf6
White's third move is a mystery to me.
4. e4 dxe4
I respect a good Gambit! But...
5. Nc3 f5 6. f3 exf3 7. Nxf3 Be6
For his efforts White is down a pawn and has erased his dark Bishop from the board. I don't see any compensation.
8.Bb5+ Nd7 9. O-O Qe7 10. Nd4 g6 11. Qf3 c6 12. Ba4 Bg7
White's twelfth move, Ba4 seems dubious to me. Black can't collect the light Bishop without incurring some pawn problems on the Queen side, but it seems to me that the light Bishop is out of the game now.
13. h3 Bxd4+
There is no explanation here. White simply drops the Knight and leaves his light Bishop en prise with no compensation.
14. Kh2 Qd6+
15. g3 O-O-O 16. Rad1 h5 17. Qf4 Qxf4 0-1
White abandoned the game at this point. The cross table indicates he defaulted the other games in this event as well. I think we may conclude that White's efforts display how not to play Correspondence Chess, during the game and otherwise.
Friday, May 25, 2007
I'm Back. I Hope!
Boy, does time fly when your aren't having fun...
As I wrote in my last entry, I have been appointed to the USCF Forums Oversight Committee.
It ain't been fun.
As a result, I have had very little time to blog or do other interesting things. As the USCF Executive Board election season is winding down I'm hoping the action on the Forums will also ease up.
On the ICCF front, they have a new forum. I've looked it over a time or two but I haven't had time to do much else.
In WS/O/109 I have a plus result over Andy Barzaghi (ITA). Barzaghi found himself several pieces down on the White side of a Larsen's Attack and abandoned the game. My last two remaining games are proceeding very slowly. As White against Mrs. Kaspschak (GER) I am a piece up in a Slav Defence and as White against Marcin Deren (POL) I am playing the opening stages of a Catalan. I stand at two wins, one loss, and one draw in this event. As soon as there are ten results in the event I will post the completed games. Hopefully, I will have adequate time for some decent analysis (which is why I am playing correspondence, after all).
WS/O/120 is still too new for any results and most games are just now exiting the opening. I have played the Caro Kann in all games as Black, and even ventured a CK Gurgenidze in one. As White I have (mis)played a Reti, a QGD, and another Reti/English.
On ICC 2007Quad.03 I have a result to report. I have a win as White against QwikE in a Catalan where Black made some unfortunate moves in the opening and could not recover.
Black was ok until 11...Bb7. That move allows me to block in his Light Bishop with the eventual 13.c5. Another misfortune was 16...Kg7 when 17.Qd2 hands me Black's dark King side squares. After 18.Qh6 the game is over. Black resigns after White's 25.Ngf7.
I have two games still going with Brian-E and my game as Black versus Qwik-E that are being hotly contested. This makes my score in this Quad three wins against no losses or draws with three games to go.
As I wrote in my last entry, I have been appointed to the USCF Forums Oversight Committee.
It ain't been fun.
As a result, I have had very little time to blog or do other interesting things. As the USCF Executive Board election season is winding down I'm hoping the action on the Forums will also ease up.
On the ICCF front, they have a new forum. I've looked it over a time or two but I haven't had time to do much else.
In WS/O/109 I have a plus result over Andy Barzaghi (ITA). Barzaghi found himself several pieces down on the White side of a Larsen's Attack and abandoned the game. My last two remaining games are proceeding very slowly. As White against Mrs. Kaspschak (GER) I am a piece up in a Slav Defence and as White against Marcin Deren (POL) I am playing the opening stages of a Catalan. I stand at two wins, one loss, and one draw in this event. As soon as there are ten results in the event I will post the completed games. Hopefully, I will have adequate time for some decent analysis (which is why I am playing correspondence, after all).
WS/O/120 is still too new for any results and most games are just now exiting the opening. I have played the Caro Kann in all games as Black, and even ventured a CK Gurgenidze in one. As White I have (mis)played a Reti, a QGD, and another Reti/English.
On ICC 2007Quad.03 I have a result to report. I have a win as White against QwikE in a Catalan where Black made some unfortunate moves in the opening and could not recover.
Black was ok until 11...Bb7. That move allows me to block in his Light Bishop with the eventual 13.c5. Another misfortune was 16...Kg7 when 17.Qd2 hands me Black's dark King side squares. After 18.Qh6 the game is over. Black resigns after White's 25.Ngf7.
I have two games still going with Brian-E and my game as Black versus Qwik-E that are being hotly contested. This makes my score in this Quad three wins against no losses or draws with three games to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)