Update on CC Events I'm Playing

Starting with ICCF, in WS/O/109 things have not changed much. I'm still in third place with 2.5 points, one point behind the leader Florian Pötz who has 3.5 points, one of them taken from me. My games with Mrs. Kaspschak and Marcin Deren have not changed appreciably, although there was a brief flurry of moves as Deren narrowly beat the second time control.

WS/O/109						TD Millstone, Michael
Rated						1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Score	SB	R	Place
1	AUT	10588		Pötz, Florian	1800P		½	1	.	.	1	1	3.5	5	2	1
2	CZE	130711		Kýhos, Alois	1701	½		½	.	.	1	1D	3	4	2	2
3	USA	514360		Owens, Steve	1800P	0	½		.	.	1	1D	2.5	2.5	2	3
4	GER	85582		Kaspschak, Mrs. Karola	1800P	.	.	.		.	.	1D	1	0	5	4
5	POL	421419		Deren, Marcin	2019F	.	.	.	.		.	1D	1	0	5	4
6	USA	514348		Thomas, Gerald K	1800P	0	0	0	.	.		1	1	0	2	6
7	ITA	241236		Barzaghi, Andy	1800P	0	0D	0D	0D	0D	0		0	0	0	7

X^D = result by default
X^F = FIDE Elo
X^P = provisional


In WS/O/120, there are four results to report. I have wins against Bret Lynn and Metin Ciklabakkal and draws against Jan Gantar and Jim E. Ramsden. Currently I am atop the points with three points, however, that is a function of my having more games completed than the others. Four more games must be completed before the finished games may be published.

WS/O/120						TD Marconi, Ralph P.
Rated						1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Score	SB	R	Place
1	USA	514360		Owens, Steve	1800P		½	½	.	.	1	1	3	1.5	2	1
2	SLO	480238		Gantar, Jan	1800P	½		.	.	.	.	1	1.5	1.5	4	2
3	AUS	30119		Ramsden, Jim E.	1852	½	.		.	.	1	.	1.5	1.5	4	2
4	NOR	360548		Stenseth, Bjørn Gunnar	1800P	.	.	.		.	.	.	0	0	6	4
5	ESP	160980		Sánchez Carmona, Gerardo	1800P	.	.	.	.		.	.	0	0	6	4
6	USA	514396		Lynn, Bret	1800P	0	.	0	.	.		.	0	0	4	6
7	TUR	490209		Ciklabakkal, Metin	1800P	0	0	.	.	.	.		0	0	4	6

X^P = provisional


Over at ICC I have another win to report in 2007Quad03 as Brian-E resigned FortyShorty - Brian-E just after my last update. I'm in the process of looking the game over and may post it when I am done. It opened as a Reti and I was able to win a pawn at about move 25. We moved into a Rook+Bishop Rook+Knight endgame with White still a pawn up which eventually proved Black unable to stop the Pawn from Queening.

2007Quad.03
FortyShorty 1941 X X 1 1 1 1 4
QwikE 1892 0 X X 0 0.5 1 0.5 2
shijith 1763 0 0 0.5 1 X X 1 0 2.5
Brian-E 1723 0 0.5 0 1 0 X X 1.5


I began a new event, USCF/WS/07WM27, Thursday in the Walter E. Muir E-Quads at the USCF, which as has been discussed here before, and is played on the ICCF server.

USCF/WS/07WM27						TD Dunne, Alex
Unrated						1	1	2	2	3	3	4	4	Score	SB	R	Place
1	USA	514360		Owens, Steve				.	.	.	.	.	.	0	0	6	1
2	USA	514440		Beeman, Brett		.	.			.	.	.	.	0	0	6	1
3	USA	514306		Evans, William		.	.	.	.			.	.	0	0	6	1
4	USA	514319		Kohler, Dennis		.	.	.	.	.	.			0	0	6	1

Web Server Correspondence Chess Growth Outpacing ALL Others, Will The USCF See Opportunity?

On Thursday at the ICCF Forums Pedro Hegoburu wrote:

What do players demand?
In different amounts, they demand all three options (Postal, E-mail, Web Server - sdo).

However, a quick look at numbers shows the levels of demand in the three available methods.

During 2006, the Direct Entry office processed 389 entries.
6 were for postal events (1.54%).
41 were for e-mail events (10.54%).
342 were for webserver events (87.92%).

During 2007 (up to May), the DE office has processed 248 entries.
5 were for postal events (2.02%).
31 were for e-mail events (12.5%).
212 were for webserver events (85.48%).

This is pretty significant in showing how Web Server correspondence chess is preferred.

Now let's look at what Mike Nolan posted over at the USCF Forums back on June 19, 2007:

Assuming my data is complete, comparing the 2005-06 FY to the 2006-07 FY:

Collins Class registrations are up from 109 to 214

Golden Knights registrations are up from 170 to 277

Electronic Knights registrations are up from 122 to 154

Walter Muir E-Quads are up from 42 to 150

The Walter Muir E-Quads represent the only USCF correspondence events available on web server (using the ICCF server). The Muirs tripled in activity while the other events lagged far behind in growth. It should be noted that before 2007, USCF correspondence chess was hampered by serious reporting problems. However, the closest competitor in growth was the Collins Class events which almost doubled. Assuming consistent growth, the Muirs will soon out pace all other correspondence activities very soon.

The USCF has an opportunity, an opportunity that has an expiration date, to be the American organization for correspondence chess. History suggests that the USCF will let this opportunity slip by. It is time for something different. I think this board is different from those past and I hope action is forthcoming.

The USCF should immediately:
- Respond to the crisis facing American representation in ICCF in co-ordination with the CCLA, should that organization be willing able to participate, and Ruth Ann Fay to make sure the USCF and America are represented at ICCF Congress this Fall by a person who will take over the responsibilities borne by Ruth Ann Fay and Max Zavanelli;
- Make most, if not all, correspondence events available for play via web server;
- Return correspondence chess to the magazine, or at least Chess Life Online, as a monthly feature or column.

Vladimir Simagin, Correspondence IM, born Moscow June 21, 1919, died Kislovodsk September 25, 1968

Photo from http://www.bidmonfa.com/

From Wikipedia:

Vladimir Pavlovich Simagin was a much-admired Soviet player and teacher. He was a late bloomer by chess standards, although much of this can be put down to the timing of World War II, which stopped most chess competition in the Soviet Union for several years. He became an International Master in 1950, and earned the Grandmaster title in 1962. He also earned the International Master title in Correspondence Chess in 1965, and was Soviet correspondence champion in 1964.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Simagin

Here is a very nice Sicilian against a former World Correspondence Champion.




[Event "corr"]
[Site "corr"]
[Date "1968.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Horst Rittner"]
[Black "Vladimir Simagin"]
[ECO "B88"]
[PlyCount "76"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Bc4 e6 7.O-O
Be7 8.Be3 O-O 9.Bb3 Na5 10.f4 Bd7 11.Qf3 Rc8 12.g4 Nc4 13.g5
Ne8 14.Bxc4 Rxc4 15.h4 g6 16.f5 gxf5 17.exf5 e5 18.Nd5 exd4
19.Qe4 dxe3 20.Qxc4 Bxg5 21.Qg4 Bc6 22.Nxe3 Nf6 23.Qxg5+ Kh8
24.Kh2 Rg8 25.Qh6 d5 26.Rad1 d4 27.Rf4 Qd6 28.Rd2 Qe5 29.Nc4
Ng4+ 30.Kh3 Qe1 31.Rxg4 Qh1+ 32.Kg3 Qg1+ 33.Kf4 Rxg4+ 34.Ke5
Re4+ 35.Kd6 Qg3+ 36.Kc5 Re5+ 37.Nxe5 Qxe5+ 38.Kc4 Qd5+ 0-1

Chessgames.com states:

Vladimir Pavlovich Simagin was born on the 21st of June 1919 in Moscow, Russia (formerly USSR). He was awarded the IM title in 1950, the GM title in 1962 and the IMC title in 1965. USSR Correspondence Champion in 1964 he was also Moscow Champion in 1947 (after a play-off), 1956 (jointly) and 1959. His best international results were at Sarajevo 1963 2nd= and Sochi 1967 1st=. He made a number of contributions to the Neo-Grunfeld Defense (D70) and Sicilian (B20) Defences some of which are named after him. Whilst playing in a tournament at Kislovodsk in 1968 he suffered a fatal heart attack.
http://www.chessgames.com/player/vladimir_simagin.html

Hat Tip: Nothingandall

More Info About ICCF-US (Zone 3) | Funds Available

A week or so before the Franklin Campbell warning about the coming correspondence chess crisis, USCF Executive Board member Don Schultz wrote the following BINFO:

BINFO 200701362
Date 2007-06-12
From Chessdon
Status Standard Release
Release Date 2007-06-20
Subject Fide Delegates Metting Turkey NOT

Bill Kelleher has confirmed to me that there will be no FIDE Delegates meeting in Turkey in Nov 2007.

Therefore, the $4,000 allocated for FIDE Delegate and Zonal President in the 2007-08 budget can be reduced to zero.

Don Schultz

The assets are available. Now to see if USCF governance steps up and does the right thing...

USA Headed for Correspondence Chess Disaster?

Franklin Campbell of The Campbell Report posted the following to the USCF Forums (the discussion may be followed here):

Post:54930 Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:57 pm Post subject: Coming potential disaster for correspondence chess players

We are facing a potential (probably) disaster for International correspondence chess players in the USA. For some years Max Zavanelli and Ruth Ann Fay have carried USA International cc interests more or less separate from the domestic organizations. Now that APCT is gone the national organizations that on paper represent the USA players are limited to USCF and CCLA. Neither of these organizations have taken an active role in many years, leaving it all to the two individuals already mentioned, who did all the work, paid all the fees, traveled to the annual ICCF Congress to represent the USA players, selected teams for International team events and nominated players to the prestigious Invitational events. As with FIDE, ICCF members are national federations, not individual players, so to be represented we must have a national organization.

Max Zavanelli has resigned and Ruth Ann Fay is retiring following this year's ICCF Congress in Spain (October 2007). Ruth Ann has tried hard to find replacement individuals or a team of individuals to take over the responsibilities. She has even announced her willingness to train the new person/people. However, it is very difficult to get individuals willing to make the sort of commitment they made over the years.

In my opinion, individuals representing us to ICCF is not a good idea. There is no guarantee of continuity, as there would be with a committed organization. The current situation is that USCF no longer even has much of a cc presence in the magazine (Dunne's regular column was cancelled). CCLA seems to have no interest is assuming a leadership role. So the cc players who wish to play Internationally are soon to be left out in the cold.

I suggest that the USCF Correspondence Chess Committee should get involved to find a solution to this problem. The expenses of an International program would not be great. We need representation at the annual ICCF Congress. But look at what will soon be left undone without finding a solution:

1. No International cc teams. Our 17th Olympiad team is about to win a place in the finals, but without a national federation we cannot have a final team. See: [url]http://jfcampbell.us/oly17/[/url]

2. No one to represent and apply for players earning International titles.

3. No one to submit nominations to nations organizing prestigious International events. This provides many players with a chance to play the top players and earn top titles.

4. No input to the annual Congress where rules are set.

5. Loss of the main method for USA players to enter ICCF events.

Are we going to see USA players join the Canadian national federation or other countries in order to enter events? USA individuals have performed many important duties within ICCF. Not that long ago we held four of the nine positions on the ICCF Executive Board. We have many strong players and important administrators. But we don't have an organization.

Is the USCF cc committee still active, and if so how do I contact the chairman? I use to be on this committee but I don't even know if I'm still considered a member, having totally lost touch with the group.

Should USCF take the leading role in representing USA cc players in the International arena? We can't count on individual "angels" to save us ... we need an organization (I assume USCF or CCLA) to recognize their responsibility to the players.

Respectfully,
J. Franklin Campbell
ICCF International Arbiter
Champions League Webmaster
_________________
J. Franklin Campbell
Mason, Michigan
Webmaster Chess Journalists of America
http://www.chessjournalism.org
Personal home page:
http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/



When I did not see any indication from USCF governance about this note, I emailed the Executive Board, Executive Director, USCF Correspondence Committee Chair, and the candidates in the current election for the Executive Board the following along with the text of Mr. Campbell's post:

Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 06:13:56 -0500
From: Steve Owens in TN
Subject: Correspondence Chess, Serious Problem?
Gentlemen and Ladies,

Mr. Frank Campbell wrote an alarming post in the Forums regarding USA
players' representation in ICCF. This deserves immediate attention from
USCF governance. Please advise us regarding any actions the USCF is
taking to make sure USA correspondence players are not abandoned.

Please also BINFO this.




Shortly after, I received this email from President Bill Goichberg:

From: Chessoffice@xxx
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:13:54 EDT
Subject: Re: Correspondence Chess, Serious Problem?


Thanks, Steve. I have copied this mail to binfo and correspondence committee
chair Harold Stenzel, and the subject will be considered by the board.

Is there any reason why USCF should not represent correspondence players as
it does OTB players? We have always been able to find volunteers to represent
us in FIDE and should be able to do the same for ICCF. The only negative I
can see is the cost of having these volunteers attend ICCF meetings; we need to
better understand this cost in order to consider whether USCF can be
responsible for all or part of it.

The fact that Chess Life no longer has a regular correspondence column does
not represent a lack of interest by the EB or Delegates in correspondence
chess, but rather an unwillingness to micromanage the editor, who has replaced the
regular column with correspondence feature articles. My personal opinion is
that having a regular correspondence column in order to promote membership
represents basic general policy, is not micromanagement, and would be desirable in
addition to the occasional correspondence feature articles. If such a column
included a game, that part of the column would be of interest to many readers
who do not play correspondence chess.

After many years of decline, entries in USCF correspondence events have shown
a strong increase during the past two years or so, and the assumption that
this old traditional form of chess will die out with the rise of the internet is
not justified as most correspondence play now uses the internet. We should
give serious consideration to better appealing to correspondence players as a
method of promoting USCF membership.

Bill Goichberg



Later this morning I received a Carbon Copy email from Correspondence Committee Chair Harold Stenzel:

Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:13:14 -0500
From: captnhal
Subject: Re: Correspondence Chess, Serious Problem?

May I suggest that mention of this be made by Alex Dunne in Chess Life or some other Chess Life location. I would also suggest that a detailed list of responsibilities be included. We would certainly want to do a little screening to make sure the replacement will be reliable. I know that this is not a USCF position, and I think Max should also have some input into who replaces him and hopefully some time training his replacement. I don't have nearly enough time to take on this responsibility.

Harold Stenzel
Correspondence Chess Committee chair




In response to Chairman Stenzel's email I offered the following information and opinion:

Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:44:23 -0500
From: Steve Owens in TN
Subject: Re: Correspondence Chess, Serious Problem?

Gentlemen and Ladies,

For those who wonder if correspondence chess is alive and if serving
those who play CC is within the mission of the USCF, please look at all
the turn based chess servers on the web used by American players as well
as International players.

Turn based play is correspondence chess. The ICCF and ICC are two
organizations that have recognized the impact of turn based
correspondence play on the chess community and they have jumped on it in
a big way. The USCF is already involved to the extent that it holds the
Walter E. Muir E-Quads on the ICCF server (directed by FM Dunne).

I agree that Postal chess is on the way out, but only because it is so
easy to play correspondence chess by email or web server. These are
growing by leaps and bounds. For the USCF to ignore this growing area
at this time would be a crime morally in terms of serving the members of
the American chess community and in terms of opportunity lost for
growing the USCF financially and in membership.

Regarding the leadership and individual tasks that would be required
when the USCF takes up responsibility for their CC players, I would ask
the Board members and interested parties to look at the web page and the
description provided by Ruth Ann Fay:

"Content edited for clarity:
"The money issue is different in the US than in most other places. The 2
remaining domestic clubs out of the 5 original clubs, do not contribute
financial support to ICCF-US other than help with getting our messages
out to their members. ICCF-US only runs 1 domestic event, the USCCC.
That event is its only good "fund raiser." Other funds come from the
markup on ICCF events. This amount has been reduced by pressure from
ICCF, players who don't understand the financial structure, and using
Enhanced Direct Entry to save on my time.

"The only EB members who receive any financial support for travel are
those that are not NF delegates. The support is based on whether the
Congress is in your country or not, and on your continent or another
continent.

"I think it is necessary to go to Congress in order to understand and
explain to the NF's players, the rules changes, the upcoming
tournaments, and to form relationships with the other delegates and
officers.

"Anyone interested in applying for my position should read this post.

http://www.iccfus.com/NAPZsecretary_search.htm

"The applicant, IMHO, should be an active CC player and a member of both
CCLA and USCF. The sooner I can start training someone and turning over
materials, the better. I would hope the person could accompany me to my
last Congress in Spain in October.

( from: http://tinyurl.com/2ufmzj )"



"26 August 2006: ICCF-US Secretary

"Max Zavanelli has been ICCF-US Secretary since 1987, and I have been
helping him for the last 9 of those 19 years. Due to business and
personal reasons, we are now ready to retire from these duties. Our hope
would be that we could provide a seamless transfer of duties to the next
ICCF-US Secretary. Any player interested in this position should send
their questions to Ruth Ann Fay and their resume to their domestic chess
club with a copy to Ruth Ann Fay at zprchess@aol.com.

"The position requires these minimum duties and skills:
Email skills - I have over 5000 emails sorted and "filed" in about 125
folders. OK, I admit, if I had time, a lot could be deleted. I receive
10-50 emails a day, depending on what is happening at the time.

"Processing entries: Players, some through the ICCF Webserver, send
emails regarding tournament entry. I reply with payment procedures. I
then receive PayPal payments or checks. Probably 90% of correspondence
is by email, but there are still some players who write and send checks.

"Answer other inquiries: I have set up generic responses to cut and
paste into the replies or to print out for postal inquiries. Post has
greatly diminished over the years, most of what I receive now is from
prisoners.

"Organize USCCC, historically a bi-annual event. We switched to
alternating post and server events.

"Form USA teams for the ICCF Olympiads and other zonal team events.
Jason Bokar as Deputy Zonal Director has been helping with this.

"Organize country matches. I haven't had the time for this job. It could
be moved to an assistant. It's great for the player looking for fun
rather than titles.

"Host Invitationals and team matches for NAPZ and PATT: The best way to
get our players into a tournament with title norms is to organize them.
I haven't had enough time to do this well.

"Find players for Invitational matches. One needs to know the top
players and to keep track to some extent of their game load. When we
receive an Invitation from another country, we sometimes have very
little time to provide a player. These are for players looking for title
norms.

"Keep Website updated, I haven't been good at this...

"Publish "Top 50" list twice a year.

"Ability to use DOS databases. Both the ICCF Eloquery database and the
USA Database are DOS programs. For the USA database, we use Alpha 4. It
is time to
move the USA players up to either a newer version or another program,
but this would be very time consuming.

"Note that with every inquiry and entry, I check the player's contact
information. For entries, I verify the ICCF number and rating. I must
make certain that the players enter the correct level of event. The
players frequently click on "Open Class" through server entry system
when they belong in a Higher or Master Class section.

"Keep track qualifications: ICCF now has a Qualifications report, but it
is not updated often enough. I need to be able to tell players what
their result in a certain tournament qualifies them for.

"Fairly award the USA federation nominations to the ICCF World
Championship Cycle.

"Apply for ICCF Titles: The federation must make formal application for
titles once the players have earned the correct number of norms. I
maintain a log of players who only have 1 norm and try to get them into
tournaments in which they can earn the remaining norm(s).

"Forward announcements and updated Order Forms to the Webmaster for
Posting. For example, World Cups and Champions League start in
alternating years.

"Recruit, advise, and otherwise help Td's.

"Sale of postcards and scoresheets. I plan to stop this activity once
the remaining stock is sold. Most players have moved to the server
environment and do not require postcards and scoresheets.

"Pay ICCF annual dues - only after verifying that we are paying on the
correct number of players and entries. The financial object on the
above duties has been to mark up tournament entries enough to cover the
headcount portion of the ICCF dues. We do not charge separate, annual
player dues as all players should be paying USA club dues.

"NAPZ Director: The USA has about 75% of the players in the North
America/Pacific Zone. This has traditionally been the ICCF-US delegate.
This position is a seat on the ICCF Executive Board. This position can
only be done properly by attending ICCF Congresses and being active on
ICCF Committees. This is the only way to represent and protect USA
interests and to keep our players informed of ICCF changes and events.
We have been on Statutes, Appeals, and Rules Committees, for example.
This could be handled by a second person. This is obviously the
expensive portion of the job. The person has to be willing to make his
vacation into a working vacation. Most Congresses have been in Europe,
but we have also been to Argentina and India and hosted here in Daytona
Beach in 2000. The Congresses are usually in the fall.

"I cannot properly allocate the time I spend on these duties. I spend
3-4 hours most days, but to do everything, I could easily spend more.

Ruth Ann Fay
NAPZ Director
ICCF-US Assistant Secretary"

from http://www.iccfus.com/NAPZsecretary_search.htm "




A couple Executive Board candidates have expressed opinions on the matter in the USCF Forum thread.

From Joe Lux:

Post:55188 Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:40 am

I was emailed about this, this morning.

I played CC once in the eighties. It did give me the opportunity to play my most creative game, but it wasn't appropriate to my lifestyle at the time, and I dropped it.

I have regularly enjoyed Alex Dunne's column in CL, and miss it. Many of the top players I had known originally as OTB players.

CC was always fragmented organizationally. While I cannot say that CC is a growing part of modern chess, USCF has never had a controlling market of members, as it does with OTB chess.

Taking up the reigns of international cc for America can increase adult USCF membership. If the major expense to USCF is sending a representative once a year to Europe, and some minor expense during the year, at, let's say $4,000 to $5,000 per year, it has the potential, I would guesstamate, of a few thousand more adult members. That would be cost effective, if so.

The post would have to be filled by someone established in the cc community who understands its problems and is willing to be trained and advised by Ruth and hopefully Max.

Just one perspective.

Chessically yours, Joe Lux

From Stephen L. Jones:

Post:55243 Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 1:54 pm

I suppose I should weigh in on this issue, being the only candidate who is an active correspondence player. As I have already stated in one of my candidate statements, I twice won the US Correspondence Championship (9th and 11th). I played on the US e-mail Olympic team which finished third in the Olympiad, and I am now playing on the US team in the finals of the current e-mail Olympiad. I am a SIM (senior international master) and am short only one norm of being a ICCF grandmaster.

It seems to me that there is no question but that the USCF must step up to the plate. Correspondence chess has always been a part of the USCF Fortunately, until now people like Max and Ruth have worked tirelessly – and probably thanklessly – to promote the US and its players in ICCF chess. And, I believe, when Max went to the ICCF meetings overseas, he did so on his own nickel. They have both assisted me personally and I want to thank both of them for that.

In my opinion the USCF must to go forward with international correspondence chess. I think the critical issue now is not what to do or who shall our next representative be, but rather who wants to work tirelessly and thanklessly for American correspondence chess? Alex, Franklin, and Howard are obvious choices, but do they want to take on the task?

I suggest we contact and solicit potentially interested persons for the position – Alex, Franklin, Howard, and anyone else with comparable interest and expertise.

With the selection of a representative, the ultimate details can be worked out. But our participation in the ICCF is an activity which, in my opinion, we cannot afford to drop.

As an aside, the ICCF has an excellent server for e-mail chess. The USCF should examine that possibility as well.

Stephen Jones



I also should note that our friend Anthony (Irishspy) initiated the thread at the ICCF Forums back in the middle of May and is the same thread where Ruth Ann Fay's comments originated.

ICC correspondence 2007Quad.03 FortyShorty Brian-E 1-0

[Event "ICC correspondence 2007Quad.03.05"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2007.02.22"]
[Round "-"]
[White "FortyShorty"]
[Black "Brian-E"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ICCResult "Black resigns"]
[Opening "Réti opening"]
[ECO "A05"]
[NIC "QP.11"]
[Time "09:38:27"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 c5 3. Bg2 Nc6 4. O-O g6 5. d4 cxd4 6. Nxd4 Bg7 7. c4 Qb6 8.
Nb3 O-O 9. Nc3 d6 10. Bg5 Be6 11. Nd5 Bxd5 12. cxd5 Ne5 13. Be3 Qd8

Up to here it has been a Reti variation with which I am familiar. 13...Qd8 seems a bit passive to me but may not be worse than the usual Qa6 or Qb5.

14. Rc1 Neg4 15. Bd4 Ne8 16. e4 Bxd4 17. Nxd4 Qb6

Black is offering an exchange of both the posted Knights and the Queenside pawns. I don't know if Black calculated out that far, but after the Queens take the Knights, both Queens will invade the enemy pawn structures. However, I don't think the White Queen can be driven from the center of the seventh rank without losing material whereas the Black Queen can be harassed from the Queen side of the second. This is made possible by the fact that Black's retreated Knight interferes with the communication of his Rook's. I calculated that I could win the e pawn and be able to effect an even trade of the a and b pawns. This will leave Black's d pawn backward and a target with White a pawn up.

18. Qxg4 Qxd4 19. Qd7 Qxb2 20. Rb1 Qxa2 21. Qxb7 Ng7 22. Qxe7 Qa6 23. Ra1 Qb6 24. Rfb1 Qd8 25. Rxa7 Qxe7 26.
Rxe7 Rab8 27. Rxb8 Rxb8

Now I just have to convert the extra pawn into a Queen or other advantage. Common theory states that a Knight is more valuable than a Bishop in this type of pawn position. However, I think I have the Knight's best squares covered and the central push of my pawns will necessitate the Knight focusing attention there and negating any value. This is a Rook's position and I think White's Rook is twice as active as Black's.

28. f4 Kf8 29. Rd7 Rb6 30. Bf3 h5 31. Ra7 Rb2 32. h4
Ke8 33. Kf1 Kf8 34. Rd7 Ne8 35. e5 Rb1+ 36. Kf2 Rb2+ 37. Be2 Rb6 38. Bd3
Rb2+ 39. Ke3 Rg2

Going after the King side pawns fails. The Rook is now trapped there and can't help the fight to keep the d pawn from Queening.

40. exd6 Rxg3+ 41. Kd4 Nxd6 42. Rxd6 Ke7 43. Ra6 Rh3 44.
d6+ {Black resigns} 1-0

Update on CC Events I'm Playing

At ICCF, WS/O/109 continues slowly. I have two games left to complete.

In Owens - Kaspschak, Mrs. Kaspschak played a Slav in response to my QG and at move thirteen is a piece down. Needless to say, I am confident of obtaining a full point in this game.

Owens - Marcin has less than twenty moves in a Queen's Indian Defense.

WS/O/109						TD Millstone, Michael
Rated						1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Score	SB	R	Place
1	AUT	10588		Pötz, Florian	1800P		½	1	.	.	1	1	3.5	5	2	1
2	CZE	130711		Kýhos, Alois	1701	½		½	.	.	1	1D	3	4	2	2
3	USA	514360		Owens, Steve	1800P	0	½		.	.	1	1D	2.5	2.5	2	3
4	GER	85582		Kaspschak, Mrs. Karola	1800P	.	.	.		.	.	1D	1	0	5	4
5	POL	421419		Deren, Marcin	2019F	.	.	.	.		.	1D	1	0	5	4
6	USA	514348		Thomas, Gerald K	1800P	0	0	0	.	.		1	1	0	2	6
7	ITA	241236		Barzaghi, Andy	1800P	0	0D	0D	0D	0D	0		0	0	0	7

X^D = result by default
X^F = FIDE Elo
X^P = provisional
Latest results from 5/12/2007 are displayed in red.


Get PGN


Also at ICCF in WS/O/120, there are no games completed. I have decided advantages in two games and the others are at least even.

As White:

In Owens - Stenseth, we are in the late stages of the middle game of a QGD: Charousek (3...Be7).

Owens - Lynn is another Reti that transposed to a Sicilian with a Maroczy Bind. I am confident of a plus score in this game that is about to enter the end game.

Owens - Ramsden is a Reti still in the middle game and being contested.

As Black:

Ciklabakkal - Owens is exiting the middle game in an off beat Caro Kann Two Knights where I think I have a very real advantage.

Gantar - Owens is a Classical Spassky variation of the Caro Kann and is in the middle game with no decided advantage for either side.

Sanchez Carmona - Owens is a Caro Kann Gurgindze variation where I tried a new (to me) idea. It is still in the late opening.

WS/O/120						TD Marconi, Ralph P.
Rated						1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Score	SB	R	Place
1	TUR	490209		Ciklabakkal, Metin	1800P		.	.	.	.	.	.	0	0	6	1
2	USA	514360		Owens, Steve	1800P	.		.	.	.	.	.	0	0	6	1
3	USA	514396		Lynn, Bret	1800P	.	.		.	.	.	.	0	0	6	1
4	SLO	480238		Gantar, Jan	1800P	.	.	.		.	.	.	0	0	6	1
5	AUS	30119		Ramsden, Jim E.	1852	.	.	.	.		.	.	0	0	6	1
6	ESP	160980		Sánchez Carmona, Gerardo	1800P	.	.	.	.	.		.	0	0	6	1
7	NOR	360548		Stenseth, Bjørn Gunnar	1800P	.	.	.	.	.	.		0	0	6	1

X^P = provisional

Get PGN

Over at ICC I have submitted entries for several events including a Swiss and a Seven Player Round Robin.

In the 2007 Quad 03 I have won three games and am confident of wins in at least two others and no worse than a draw in the last game. I should be able to finish first in this event.

2007Quad.03

FortyShorty 1941 X X 1 1 1 3
QwikE 1892 0 X X 0 0.5 1 0.5 2
shijith 1763 0 0 0.5 1 X X 1 0 2.5
Brian-E 1723 0.5 0 1 0 X X 1.5

Silly Thursday

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.

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

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.

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.