MEMBERS' GAMES

Mike Bateman submits the following theoritically interesting game from a 1993 Major Open section.

White: Mike Bateman
Black: Andre Lorrain
A9306
French Defense/Advance/Millner-Barry Gambit C02

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3!?

(The White King Bishop is more actively posted than in the alternative 6.Be2.)

6…cxd4 7.cxd4 Bd7

Obviously not 7…Nxd4? 8.Nxd4 Qxd4 9.Bxb5+! and wins.

8.0-0!?

(The Millner-Barry Gambit.)

8…Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Qxd4 10.Qe2!?

I have had a great deal of difficulty finding any opening theory dealing with this move. No one seems to play it. Is it that bad? 10.Nc3 (considered the main line) 10…a6 11.Qe2 Rc8 (11…Ne7! Sapi & Forintos.) 12.Kh1 Bc5 13.Bg5! h6 14.Bd2 Ne7 15.f4 Nf5 16.Rf3 g6 17.a3 h5! 18.Raf1! Bf8!? 19.Be1!? Qa7 20.Rh3 d4 21.Ne4 Bg7 22.Bh4 Bc6 23.Nd6 Nd6 24.exd6 Kd7 25.f5! gxf5 26.Rxf5!! Kxd6 27.Rf7 1-0, Bateman-Kohl, ICCF corr. 1985/86. (10.Qe2 is considered doubtful according IM Minev; Harding even gives the move a "?", but correspondence players have a canny way of constantly disproving the conventional wisdom.)

10…Ne7

(10…f6!? {Keres} 11.exf6 Nxf6 12.Rd1 Qh4; or 12.Nc3 Bd6!? 13.Nb5 Qxe5, Watson.)

11.Nc3

(11.Kh1 Nc6 12.f4 Nb4 13.Bb5 0-0-0!? =/+, Watson.)

11…Nc6 12.Be3 Qxe5 13.f4 Qd6

13…Qf6 14.f5 {or 14.Rae1 Bb4 15.f5 d4 16.Ne4 Qd8 17.Bg5 Qa5.} Nd4 15.Qe1 Qe5 16.Qd2 Nf5 17.Bf5 exf5 18.Rae1 Be6 19.Kh1 Bb4 20.Bd4 Qb8 21.Bg7 Rg8 22.Be5 Qd8 23.a3 Ba5 24.b4 Bb6 25.Rf5 Qd7 26.Bf6 d4 27.Nd5 d3 28.Bg5 Bd8 29.Bxd8 Qxd8 30.Nf6 Kf8 31.Qh6 Ke7 32.Nxg8 Qxg8 33.Qf6 Kd7 34.Rd5! 1-0 Annett-Maxwell, Canada-New Zealand match 1994/95;

14.f5!?

(14.Nb5 Qb8 15.f5 e5 16.Qh5 a6 17.f6 g6 18.Bxg6 Be6! 19.Nd4 fxg6 20.f7 Kd7 21.Nxc6 gxh5 0-1, Sturm-Schmid corr. 1954/56.)

14…e5 15.Rad1 Be7

15…Qb8 16.Nxd5 Bd6 17.Qh5! Nb4 18.Nxb4 1-0, Bateman-Michaud, D9502.

(Since on 18…Bxb4 19.f6!, {threatenning 20.fxg7}19…g6 20.Bxg6! fxg6 21.f7+ Kd8 [{21…Kf8 22.Bh6+ ; 21…Ke7 22.Bg5+ Ke6 {22…Kf8 23.Qh6#} 23.Qg4#}]

22.Qb4! , threatenning mate and the Bishop, Qc8 23.Qxb4 Kc7 24.Qd6+ Kd8 25.Bg5#.)

16.Bc4 d4 17.Ne4 Qc7

17…Qb4 18.Bd2 Qb6 19.Bf7 Kd8 20.Kh1 Kc7 21.f6 gxf6 22.Nxf6 Bxf6 23.Rxf6 24.b4 Kb8 25.b5 d3 26.Qd3 Qd4 27.Qb1 Nd8 28.Bf4 Qc5 29.Rd5 Qa3 30.Be5 Ka8 31.Rf1 Nf7 32.Bh8 Be6 33.Bb2 Qb4 34.Rdd1 Qb5 35.Bd4 Qg5 36.Bf6 Qh5 37.Qd3 a6 38.a3 Rc6 39.Qg3 Rc2 40.Qg8 Rc8 41.Qg3 Bd5 42.Bd4 Ng5 43.Qe5 Bg2 44.Kg2 Qg6 45.Qd5 Ne6 46.Kh1 Rd8 47.Qf5 Rd4 48.Qg6 hxg6 49.Rd4 Nxd4 50.Rg1 b5 51.Rg6 Kb7 52.h4 Nf5 53.h5 1-0, Pinal-Sisniega, Havana 1985.

18.Bxf7+! (see diagram)Kd8

18…Kxf7 19.Qh5+ Kg8 20.f6 Bxf6 21.Nxf6 gxf6 22.Bh6 Qd6 23.Rd3! 1-0, Bateman-Hellsten K-42, 1987.

19.Bd2

(19...Qb6 20.Kh1 tranposes to Pinal-Sisniega already referenced.)

Be8 20.Be6 Bd7 21.Rc1 Re8 22.Ng5!? Bf6 23.Nf7+ Kc8 24.b4! Bxe6 25.fxe6 Rxe6 26.Ng5 Bxg5 27.Bxg5 Qd6 28.b5 a5 29.bxc6 bxc6 30.Qb5! Qc7 31.Qb3 Qd7 32.Rf8!+ Re8 33.Rf7 a4 34.Qb6! 1-0

Valer Eugen Demian of Porty Moody, BC shares a bit of his interesting personal history with us. Demian writes: "I am 33 year's old, married, with one son (9 years old). The country of my origin is Romania, where I enjoyed playing chess for 22 years. The 'chess' addiction comes from my father, and furthernore from my grandfather. Valer Vasile Demian, my father, ex -correspondence chess champion of Romania (1968) and an ICCF IM, and a member of the Romanian Olympic team, was my constant, objective and supportive coach. His chess career is inspiring and stimulating, setting high expectations for me. This is good considering that I have always been a fighter, enjoying Fischer's concept of aimimg at 1st place in any tournament, despite the opposition. My style is very different from my father's. I got from him the strategic side of the game, and the concept of fair play. My father, nor I, can stand rude people, nor playing tricks during the game. My chess experience might be useful for the positive development of postal chess in Canada."

The following is a game played in Romania before coming here. It shows the level of a Romanian Final."

White: Valer Eugen Demian
Black: R. Ioan Popescu
26th Romanian Correspondence Chess Championship Final (1992/94)
Queen's Indian Defense E16

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Bb7

( Nimzovich's 4…Ba6!?is a popular alternative in CC and a move I've played a few times with some success. 4…Bb4+ !?)

5.Bg2 Bb4+

(More common these days is 5…Be7, retaining the dark squared-Bishop which often plays a useful role in many lines in this variation. The text was introduced into chess praxis by such players as Nimzovich, Alehkine, and Capablanca. One of the obvious objectives of the move is the gain of a tempo for the development of Black's kingside)

6.Bd2

(Theory says the exchange of dark-sqaured is supposed to favor White, hence White's decision to play the text. 6.Nbd2 is the main alternative.)

6…Bxd2+

(6…Be7!? is quite fashionable these days. 6…c5!?)

7.Qxd2

(Best according to theory.)

7…0-0 8.Nc3 d6 9.Rd1 Nbd7 10.0-0 Ne4 11.Qc2 f5?!

(The position resembles a Dutch Defense like formation now.)

12.d5!

(And White has the initiative.)

12…Nxc3 13.Qxc3 e5 14.b4 Nf6?! 15.Ng5

(And Black cannot prevent the Knight from leaping to e6. Perhaps it may have been necessary to prepare Black's 14th move with 14…h6 first, but that had the unpleasent effect of weakenning Black's kingside pawns.)

15…Qe7 16.Ne6

( A Knight this far advanced is often refered to as a "bone in the throat".)

16…Rfc8

16…Rfe8?

17.f4 e4 18.Bh3 g6(see diagram)

18…c6!? 19.dxc6 Bxc6 ( (a) 19…Qxe6?? 20.cxb7+-; (b) 19…Rxc6?!) 20.Bxf5 g6 (20…Bd7 21.Nd4 Bxf5?! (a)21…Nd5? 22.Qb3+-; b)21…d5 22.Bxd7 Nxd7 (22…Qxd7 23.c5 () 23.Nf5 Qf6 24.Qxf4 Nxf6 25.Ne7+-) 22.Nxf5( ) 21.Bh3 Bd7 22.f5 gxf5 (22…Bxe6? 23.fxe6) 23.Nd4! (23.Bxf5? Bxe6 24.Bxe6+ Qxe6 25.Rxf6 Qxc4 =) 23…Qe5 (a)23…Qf7 24.Nxf5( ; b)23…Nd5 24.Qb3(; c)23…Ng4 24.Nxf5 Qf6 25.Qxf6 Nxf6 26.Ne7+ Kg7 27.Bxd7 Nxd7 28.Nxc8+-) 24.Bxf5 Bxf5 25.Rxf5(.

(insert a diagram after 18…g6)

19.g4! fxg4

19…Nxg4 20.Bxg4 fxg4 21.f5 +-.

20.f5! g5

20…gxh3 21.fxg6 Nd5 (21…hxg6 22.Rxf6 +-) 22.cxd5 Bxd5 23.Rf7 +-

21.Bg2 c6 22.dxc6 Bxc6?!

Better was 22…Rxc6.

23.Rxd6! Bd5 24.c5 bxc5 25.bxc5 h6 26.Qd4 Bxa2 27.Bxe4 Nxe4 28.Qxe4 Rab8 29.f6 Qf7 30.c6 Re8 31.Rd7 Rxe6

31….Qxe6 32.Qg6+ Kh8 33.Qg7#; 31…Bxe6 32.Rxf7 Bxf7 (32…Kxf7?? 33.Qh7+ Kf8 34.Qg7#) 33.c7 Rbc8 34.Qb7 a5 35.Rd1+-.

32.Qa4

Only move.

32…Qf8 33.f7+ Kh7 34.Qc2+ Kg7 35.c7 Rc8 36.Rd8 1-0

It looks like I have my work cut out for me since I'm playing Valer in M-96!

Tim Knechtel of Drayton, Ontario submits the following game from international play.

Tim writes: "I'm 42 years old, married with no children. My correspondence chess experience began in 1977. I've played in many tournaments, both in Canada and internationally. In 1987 I won the 1981 Nation Wide Open, which has been my best result so far. Working in a small land surveying company pays the bills".

White: Jose Prats (Spain)
Black: Tim Knechtel (Canada)
Canada vs. Spain (PCSI) Board 4 1988 - 1993
"Woozle" Defense A56

1.d4 c5 2.d5 Nf6 3.Nc3 Qa5!?

The German FIDE master, Stefan Bucker named this defense "the Woozle".

("It is Black's intention to continue with b7-b5 immediately." Bucker.)

4.Bd2 b5 5.a3 a6 6.Ne4?!

According to Stefan Bucker, White usually plays 6.e4 here and play could go like 6…Qc7 7.Bd3 e6 8.Nf3 Bb7 9.0-0 c4 10.Be2 Bc5 =.

6…Qb6 7.Nxf6+ Qxf6 8.Bc3 e5 9.g3?!

Perhaps White should have tried 9.dxe6 Qxe6 to open the dark square diagonal.

9…b4 10.axb4 cxb4 11.Bd2 Bc5 12.e3 Bb7 13.Bg2 d6 14.Ne2 Nd7 15.c3 a5 16.0-0

White should have tried 16.cxb4 Bxb4 17.Bxb4 axb4 18.Rxa8+ Bxa8 19.Qa4 Qd8 20.Qxb4 Nc5 21.0-0 0-0 22.e4 Qc7, etc.

16…0-0 17.h3 Nb6 18.g4?

18.e4 was better. Maybe 18.Bc1 was playable, but not 18.Qb3? a4 19.Qa2 b3.

18…Bxd5 19.e4 Bc4 20.b3 Bb5 21.c4 Bc6 22.Qe1 Qe7 23.Ng3 g6 24.Kh2 Bd4! 25.Rb1 Nd7 26.Bh6 Rfb8 27.Be3 Nc5!

A key move that targets both the e4 and b3 squares.

28.Bxd4 exd4 29.f4 a4

Attacking on opposite win

30.bxa4 Rxa4 31.f5 b3!(see diagram)

Black has a huge advantage now.

32.f6 Qe5

Pinning the White Knight.

33.Qd2 Rxc4 34.Rf5!

White's final trick: if 34…gxf6 35.Qg5+ Kf8 36.Qg7+ Ke8 37.Qg8+ Kd7 38.Qxf7+ Kd8 39.Qxc4 may give White some hope of holding this position.

34…Qe8 35.Rh5!

Threatenning 36.Qh6.

35…Qf8! 36.Qg5 Ne6! 37.Qh4 gxh5

Finally it's safe to take White's rook

38.Qxh5 Rc2

Threatenning 39…Rxg2+ 40.Kxg2? Nf4+!

39.Rg1 b2 0-1

Michael McArthur returns to our pages with a game from the 1991 USCF Golden Knight's Final. Ratings shown are USCF.

White: Michael McArthur (2068)
Black: J. Yun (2225)
1991 Golden Knight's Final
French Defense/Wing Gambit C00

1.e4 e6 2.a3!?

This is Paul Espinosa's novel idea. Paul is a USCF master (as well as an ICCF master).

2…d5 3.e5 c5 4.b4!?

The French Wing Gambit, which can easily transpose into the Sicilian Wing Gambit. The difference between this and the Sicilian version of the Gambit is that White waits until Black has committed himself to the "Bad Bishop" before offering the pawn. The goals in this line are threefold: first, to get a strong French center with space advantage and attacking chances on the kingside. Second, to neutralize c5, Black's main counter-thrust against that center. And third, by opening lines to give attacking chances on the queenside and prevent Black from castling there.

4…cxb4 5.axb4 Bxb4 6.c3 Be7

After this move Black will find developing his kingside difficult. It takes away e7 from his Knight, but supports f6. Another optio is 6…Bf8!

7.d4 Nc6 8.Bd3 a5

(Black's best line is 8...Bd7 9.Na3 {9.Ne2 b5} Rc8 {9...f6 gives Black an edge also}10.Ne2 a6 11.0-0 f6 12.Nf4 fxe6! 13.Qh5+ Kf8 14.Ng6+ hxg6 15.Qxh8 exd4 16.cxd4 Nxd4 and Black has an advantage.)

9.Ne2

9.Nf3 b6 10.Qe2 (stopping Ba6) f6 11.Bb5 Bd7 12.exf6 Nxf6 13.Bxc6 Bxc6 14.Ng5 (14.Qxe6? Bd7 gives Black a clear advantage) Qd7 15.Nxe6 Kf7 16.Ng5 Kg8 and although Black's pawns are a mess, he has the Bishop pair and a passed pawn. Meanwhile White is prevented from castling due to ...Bb5, so Black has the advantage.

9…b6?!

(The immediate 9...f6! gives Black the advantage.)

10.Na3 Bxa3?

This makes room for the Knight at g8, but gives White a good Bishop at a3. (Black should play: 10...Bd7 11.0-0 f6 12.Nf4 fxe5 13.Qh5+ Kf8 14.Ng6+ hxg6 15.Qxh8 exd4 and Black has an edge.)

11.Bxa3 Nge7 12.Nf4 Ba6 13.Bxa6 Rxa6 14.Nh5 Kf8 15.0-0 Kg8 16.Qg4 Ng6 17.f4 Nce7

On 17…Qh4 18.Qe2 Ra8 19.Rab1 is good.

18.Qe2!?

18.Bxe7 Qxe7 19.f5! is good for White also.

18…Ra8

18…Ra7 is perhaps better.

19.g4 Nh4 20.f5!

It's time to throw more wood on the fire!

20…exf5 21.e6! f6 22.gxf5 Nexf5 23.Qg4(see diagram) 1-0

The Bronstein-Larsen Variation of the Caro-Kann Defense (1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 (or 3.Nd2) dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6!?) is perhaps the most dynamic line in this opening system and while the ruined kingside pawn structure may become a liability for Black in the endgame it often produces opportunities for Black to generate some troublesome kingside attacks, and White has to be very vigilant not to succumb. Ratings shown are ICCF.

White: Ralph P. Marconi (2200)
Black: Carsten R. Thomsen (2385) (Denmark)
ICCF WT/M/606 1993/95
Caro-Kann Defense/Bronstein-Larsen Variation B16

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6!?

(Readers interested in a very thorough treatment of this whole line should consult The Dynamic Caro-Kann: The Bronstein/Larsen & and The Original Caro Systems by IM Jeremy Silman. Popular alternatives are 4…Nd7!? and 4.Bf5, the Classical variation.)

5.Nxf6

(White practically has no other choice but to accept Black's challenge.)

5…gxf6

(Much more common than 5…exf6 and perhaps best. Black hopes to generate attacking chances along the open g-file.)

6.Bc4

(This move used to be the move of choice, but now 6.c3 has superseded it in popularity. There are a number of other possibilities for White at move six, but these two moves are by far the most often played. 6.c3 will be examined in the next game.)

6…Bf5 7.Ne2

(7.Bf4!?)

7…e6 8.0-0 Bd6!

(Already Black is aiming at the kingside.)

9.Bf4!?

(9.Re1 Qc7! And Black is okay according the Silman. If 9.Ng3 Bg6 10.f4 {10.Re1 Qc7 11.d5?! cxd5 12.Bxd5 Nc6 with the idea of 0-0-0 and Black is better - Minev} 10…f5 = - Silman. Of course improvements may have been be found to strengthen White's game.

I decided to test the text. Challenging Black's strongly posted King Bishop makes a lot of sense.)

9…h5!?

(See what I mean - Black wastes no time in starting his attack, and better than the obvious 9…Qc7 10.Bxd6 Qxd6 11.a4 Nd7 12.a5 h5?! {12…a6!?} 13.Bd3 Bxd3 14.Qxd3 h4 15.c4 0-0-0 16.a6 b6 17.Qf3 Rdg8 18.Nc3 f5 19.b4 Rg4 20.c5 Qc7 21.cxb6 Nxb6 with the idea of 22.h3! Rg6 23.Rfc1 +/-, Sisniega-Groszpeter, New York 1988.)

10.Bd3

(To be considered was 10.Qd2. The text was played to make room for the advance of the c-pawn. I even considered 10.b4!?)

10…Bxd3

(Practically forced.)

11.Qxd3 h4 12.c4

(White has chances for an advantage with 12.Qb3 b6 13.Rad1 Bxf4 (otherwise Black's Knight and Queen are frozen) 14.Nxf4 Qd6 15.Qf3 Nd7 16.Rfe1 with an edge.)

12...Qc7

13.Bxd6 Qxd6 14.Rfd1?

(All done in preparation for the thematic d5 thrust, however White obtains a clear advantage after 14.Qb3! b6 15.Rad1 Nd7 16.d5 cxd5 17.cxd5 0-0-0 18.dxe6 Qxe6 19.Rc1+)

14…Nd7 15.Rac1 0-0-0

(Now Black is ready to swing his Queen Rook to g8 and continue with his kingside counter-attack)

16.Nc3?!

(This moves just dosen't seem right to me, but I was still in the preparation mode. Perhaps 16.d5 was called for right away.)

16…f5! 17.Qe2

(Now I felt ready for d5 and was actaully quite satisfied with my position and prospects.

However I underestimated the potential strength of Black's position.)

17…Rdg8 18.d5

(What else!?)

18…Qf4!

(Supporting the powerful plan of Ne5 followed by Ng4, which I saw and thought I could counter.)

19.Kh1!?

(At the time I thought this was my only move, and it still seems so.)

19…Ne5 20.h3

( I can't let the Knight land on g4, even a the cost of weakenning my kingside.)

20…Rxg2!!(see diagram)

(A shot out of the blue and totally unexpected, but strong.)

21.Kxg2 Rg8+ 22.Kf1

(Forced, 22.Kh1? Nc3 and wins.)

22…Rg3!

(Black has no choice now but to continue his attack.)

23.b3 Rxh3

(23…Nf3? is simply answered by 24.fxg3. Now White seems to be in serious trouble)

24.Qh5!!

(My "ace in the hole" and good enough to hold!)

24….Ng4

(On 24…Rh1+ White manages to escape, take it from me. Work it out if you don't believe me.)

25.Qh8+ Kc7 Draw agreed!

(An amazing finish, with Black poised to deliver the death blow and White seeminly without resources. But: 26.Nb5+!! and White escapes, (a) 26…Kb6?! {26…Kd7? 27.dxe6+!}27.Qd8+ Kc5 {27…Ka6?? 28.Nc7+ and wins}28.Qe7+ and good enough for the draw, however I recently discovered that 28.b4+! wins eg: 28…Kxb4 29.Rb1+

Kxc4 {29…Kc5 30.Qe7+ Kb6 31.Nc7+! and wins; or 29…Ka4 30.Nc3+! and wins.} 30.Rdc1+ Kd3 31.dxe6+ wins , so 30…Qxc1 may be forced now, but White should win as well. So it seems that Black must accept the Knight sacrifice with (b) 26…cxb5 27.cxb5+ Kb6 28.Qd8+ Kxb5 29.Qd7+ Kb6 30.Rc6+! bxc6 31.Qxc6+ Ka5 32.Qc5+ and draws. I don't think 29.a4+ is any better. Thomsen offered the draw so I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he had worked out the best line. Perhaps I should have tested him, though.

White: Ralph P. Marconi (2165) USCF
Black: David J. Trapp (2019) USCF
USCF Expert Trophy Quad 95QM6 1995/96
Caro-Kann Defense/Bronstein-Larsen Variation B16

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6 gxf6 6.c3!?

(This is move is now considered the main line and is White's most flexible reply.)

6…Bf5

(The most common.)

7.Nf3 Qc7!?

(The so-called "Bloodlust" variation" named by Silman. Black will castle long and attempt to mount an all out kingside attack.)

8.g3

(Fianchettoing the King Bishop is one of White's most reliable lines.)

8…e6 9.Bg2 Nd7

(9…Bg4!?)

10.0-0 Bg4!?

(More common is 10…0-0-0, but Black obviously had prepared this line and wanted to test my knowledge and analytical ability.)

11.Re1 h5!

(The same thematic idea we saw in the last game and it's a very effective one.)

12.Bf4

(On 12.h3? Bxf3 13.Bxf3 h4 14.Bh5 hxg3 15.Rxe6+ Kd8 16.Bxf7 gxf2+ , Silman)

12… Bd6 13.Bxd6 Qxd6 14.Qb3!?

(At this point I decided to go my own way because I didn't feel comfortable with the resulting positions in the game Seitaj-Skembris, Kavala 1985, after 14.h3?! Bxf3 15.Qxf3 h4 16.b4 hxg3 17.fxg3 Ke7! {this avoids castling into an attack with 17…0-0-0 , at the same time the Black King defends the f6 pawn allowing the Knight freedom to move. According to Silman Black is now better.} 18.Re3 Rag8 19.Rf1 Rg6 20.Kh2 Nb6 21.Rd3 Nd5 22.c4 Nxb4 23.Rb3 Rhg8 24.Qf2 {24.c5! - Skrembris.} and Black went on to win in 43. 14.Qb3 attacks the b-pawn, releases the pin on the Knight while avoiding the further weakness of the kingside with 14.h3. It also provokes Black into castling long. It seems a definite improvement to me. However, in the game Seitaj-Skembris White can improve with 17.Kg2! Be7 18.Qg4 f1/Q+ 19.Kxf1 Qh2 20.Re2 and White not only survives, but has a clear advantage.)

14…0-0-0 15.Qa4 Kb8 16.b4 Nb6

(The Knight seems misplaced here. Black could start his attack with 16…Bxf3 17.Bxf3 h4, etc.)

17.Qb3 Qd5

(Black also equalizes with 17...Nd5) 18.Nd2 Qxb3 19.Nxb3 Nd5

(The position looks about even now, but Black hasn't given up on his kingside attack just because the queens have been exchanged.)

20.Rac1 h4 21.a3 hxg3 22.hxg3 f5!?

(Black is now a bit better because of his control of the h-file and more actively placed pieces. From this point I'm in a total defensive mode.)

23.f4

(This may seem odd to some of you, but I didn't like the looks of the coming f4 by Black. True it weakens g3, but it fixes the Black's kingside pawns on the same color as his Bishop and opens f2 for the White King.)

23…Rdg8!

(Indirectly attacking the g-pawn.)

24.Kf2 Rh2

(More pressure.)

25.Rh1 R8h8 26.c4 Nf6 27.Nd2 Be2! 28.Rxh2 Rxh2 29.Rh1 Ng4 30.Kg1 Rxh1+ 31.Bxh1 Bd3 32.d5!

(Finally, I get a chance to throws some punches of my own.)

32…cxd5 33.cxd5 Ne3 34.dxe6 fxe6 35.Nb3

(If 35.Kf2 White loses a pawn after 35…Nc2 36.Nb1 Nxb4!)

35…Nc2 36.Nc5 Bc4 37.Nxb7 Nxa3 38.Nd8 Nc2 39.Nc6+ Kc7 40.Nxa7 Nxb4

Draw Agreed.

(Black offered a draw and I accepted since Black is now threatenning 41…Nd5! winning the Knight and game. If Black had not offered the draw I had planned to play 41.Ba8!, the only move, but good enough to hold, eg: if 41…Kb8 42.Nc6+! Both this game and the one before illustrate the potential for a strong kingside attack for Black in this line and White must be prepared to meet these threats.)

Gambits are a major part of a CC player's arsenal and the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit is one of the more popular.

White: Al Annett
Black: Ron A. Nelson
A-9502
Blackmar-Diemar Gambit D00

1.e4 d5

(Black invites White to enter the Center-counter Defense)

2.d4!?

(White declines and invites Black, in a rather unusual transposition, to enter the Blackmar-Diemar Gambit complex.)

2…dxe4

(Of course Black can decline the invitation and transpose to the Caro-kann 2…c6 or French with 2…e6.)

3.Nc3!?

(This is the modern approach as opposed to the older move 3.f3, Blackmar's move dating from the early 1880s. 3.Nc3 was pioneered by the German master Emil Diemar in the 1930s . After 3.f3?! ECO gives: 3…e5! 4.dxe5 Qxd1+ 5.Kxd1 Nc6 6.Bf4 Nge7 -/+ , Korn.)

3…Nf6

(Again, however, 3…e5!, the so-called Lemberger Countergambit, seems to be a stronger response as witnessed in these recent examples: 4.Qh5!? [{4.Be3 exd4 5.Qxd4 Qxd4 6.Bxd4 Nc6 7.Bb5 Bd7 8.0-0-0 =/+, Cordovil-Sardinha, Portugal 1967 Inf 4/78; 4.dxe5?! Qxd1+ 5.Nxd1 {5.Kxd1 Nc6 6.Nxe4 Bf5 7.Ng3 0-0-0+ with advantage to Black (Smith & Hall), Muller-Markwardt corr.} 5…Nc6 6.Bf4 Nge7 7.Bb5 Bd7 8.Nc3 Ng6 9.e6?! fxe6! 10.Bxc7 Nb4 11.Rc1 Bxb5 12.Nxb5 Nxa2 13.Rd1 Nb4 14.Ba5 Rc8 15.Bxb4 Bxb4+ 16.c3 Bc5 17.Ne2 0-0 18.0-0 e3 19.f3 Rfd8 20.b4 Bb6 21.Rxd8+ Rxd8 22.Re1 Rd2 23.Kf1 a6 24.Nbd4 e5 25.Nb3 Rb2 26.Nbc1 Kf7 27.g3 Ke6 28.Rd1 Ne7 29.Nd3 Rc2 30.Rb1 Rd2 31.Nb2 Bc7 32.Ke1 Nd5 33.Nd1 Rc2 34.Rb2 Rxb2 35.Nxb2 a5 and Black went on to win in 43, Schiller-Bozicevic, Sneiders Memorial Finals 1993/94.] 4…Nc6 5.Bb5 exd4 6.Qe5+ Be6 7.Bxc6+ bxc6 8.Nxe4 Qd5 9.Nf3 Qxe5 10.Nxe5 Bd5 11.f3 f6 12.Nd3 13.fxe4 Bd6 14.0-0 Ne7 15.Nf4 Kd7 16.Nh5 Rhg8 17.a4 c5 18.Bf4 Ng6 19.Bxd6 Kxd6 20.Rad1 Ne5 21.b3 Kc6 22.Nf4 Rad8 23.Nd3 Rge8 24.Rf5 Nxd3 25.cxd3 Rb8 26.Rb1 Re5 27.Rxe5 fxe5 and Black won in 36, Kaser-Bozicevic Sneiders Memorial Finals 1993/94. There are, however, stronger moves for White in this line, which promise more chances.)

4.f3 exf3 5.Qxf3!?

(Ryder's Gambit, which offers a second pawn by the first player. It was invented by Ryder in the 1890's. )

5…Qxd4!?

(Accepting the challenge. Black can decline the second pawn with 5…c6; 5…e6; or 5…g6.)

6.Be3 Qg4!? 7.Qf2! Nc6

(Black decides to develop another piece, a sound idea. On 7…Ne4 8.Nxe4 Qxe4 9.0-0-0 e5 10.Bb5+ Bd7 11.Bxd7+ Nxd7 12.Rxd7! Kxd7 13.Qxf7+ Be7 14.Nf3! Qxe3+ 15.Kb1 Qe2 16.Re1 Qxg2?! {16…Qxe1+!?} 17.Nxe5+ Kc8 18.Qe6+ Kb8 19.Nd7+ Kc8 20.Nb6 + Kb8 21.Qc8+ Rxc8 22.Nd7#.)

8.Nf3 a6?

(In my opinion way too slow. Black has a clear advantage after 8...e5!)

9.0-0-0 Bd7 10.Be2 Ne4? 11.Nxe4 Qxe4 12.Ng5! Qg6 13.Qxf7+!

(Playable because the Bishop on d7 is left hanging!)

13…Qxf7 14.Nxf7 Kxf7 15.Rxd7

(And White has emerged with a clear advantage.)

15…Rc8 16.Bf4 Ke8 17.Rhd1 e5 18.Bg3 Nd4?!

(Better were 18…h5 or 18…Be7 and Black can put up some resistance. I'm not sure if 18.Bd6 works.)

19.Bg4 h5 20.R7xd4! hxg4 21.Bxe5 Rh5 22.Re1 Be7 23.Rxg4 Rg5?

(This loses a piece, but Black's pretty much beyond repair anyway.)

24.Rxg5 1-0

(Since on 24…Bxg5 25.Bf6+! wins the Bishop.)

To make room for my article on the history of the Canadian Correspondence Chess Championship (Part I), featured elsewhere in this issue, this column is a bit shorter than usual with only ten games, but all are annotated.