READERS WRITE

I compose this message, after talking to you, today afternoon. Please accept my condolence on the passing away of your mother. The book which I mentioned today was, How to Calculate Chess Tactics, by Valery Beim, Gambit Books, 2006, tranlsated into English by Steve Giddins. A good book... But, I have not read Kotov's How to Think Like a Grandmaster, which Beim refers to, and so I do not know, really how good Beim is.

By the way, it was as recently as last year that I discovered that there is a separate Notation-System for Correspondence Chess. I still do not know how to record moves in that Notation.

Any ideas on how to locate a second-hand inexpensive copy of the Best Games of C.H.O'D Alexander, edited by Golombek and Hartston, Oxford University Press, 1976? The late Alexander used to be my Favourite. Have you seen his win against Botvinnik, in the second round of the Anglo-USSR Radio Match, 1946, or, his win against David Bronstein, the 1951 Hastings Christmas Tournament?

Ajoy Chaudhuri
ajoy.chaudhuri at yahoo.co.in
Trivandrum

Perhaps one of our readers (like Mr. M.B.Mulla may have a copy that they are prepared to sell. Among the previous generation of British players/writers, my favourite used to be Leonard Barden.

In the numerical notation the squares are referenced without alphabets. Thus a1 becomes 11, h8 becomes 88. To write a move we name the starting and destination squares. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 becomes (1)5154 5755 (2)7163 2836. Some of us have played games in this notation against European players in the Friendly Internationals and ICCF Email Tournaments. The idea is to avoid the confusion of abbreviation for pieces in different European languages (e.g. S=Knight in German). With the advent of the webserver and its drag-and-drop feature, numerical notation has receded into the background.

In the February 2007 bulletin, article ‘Attack by King Move!’ (p. 30) you have put a query for readers regarding the game Breyer-Esser (Budapest,1917)

Move 14.Kf1!!

Does Black have any satisfactory defence in the present position?

My answer is probably yes, 14...Nbd7!! which leads to a Black win or draw with best play by White.

The main line would be 15.Qg4 Kg7 16.Rh7+ Kxh7 17.Qh5+ Kg8 18.Bxg6 fxg6 19.Qxg6+ Kh8

Here White is better advised to take a perpetual check with 20.Qh6+ Kg8 21.Qg6+ etc.

If White seeks more, disaster is in store. e.g. 20.Qh6+ Kg_ 21.g6?

Mirroring the position in the text game.
Now Black responds with 21...Rxf4+! Exposing the weakness of 14.Kf1.
If 22.Ke2? Rh4!
Or 22.Bxf4 Nf8 23.g7 Nh7 24.Ke2 Bg5! with a win for Black.
Of course, to find a move like 14...Nbd7!! in a difficult position is a different board game altogether!

Anil Anand
anilanand_2940 at yahoo.com

The following email exchange took place between Shams Khan, Anil Anand and the Bulletin Editor:

Anil Anand: The death of Bobby Fischer on 18th January is a big blow for the chess-loving people of the world.
Shams Khan: The death news of Fischer was shocking. All the 3 chess genii of America have suffered the same fate.
Anil Anand: I'm not sure who the 3 chess geniuses you have in mind. My guess is Morphy, Pillsbury and Fischer, though I'm sure many would find a fourth favourite!
A.Chatterjee: By fate are you referring to a troubled life, early death, insufficient recognition, or something else? In addition to the 3 genii, Morphy, Pillsbury and Fischer, I was thinking of Samuel Reshevsky also.
Shams Khan: In my opinion Reshevesky was not as unlucky as this trio was.
Anil Anand: Reshevsky was not native US but Polish by birth. In terms of mental eccentricities, Morphy, Fischer and Rubinstein were more similar. Strangely, Rubenstein too was Polish! I wonder why we don't have great Polish players any more?
A.Chatterjee: Though Reshevsky was Polish by birth he is considered to be American. In fact, Bobby Fischer was not the first American World Chess Champion. Wilhelm Steinitz, the first official Word Chess Champion can be considered Austrian-American. In 1883 Steinitz became resident in USA and the WC match in which he beat Zukertot was held in USA in 1886. Notably, Steinitz spent the last part of his life in mental institutions. He died penniless on 12 August 1900.
Shams Khan: To my knowledge Steintz was never considered or declared an American. Marshall also played a game with him in a simultaneous display. Reuben Fine will be remembered by his ‘Classic’ books i.e. Basic Chess Endings and Ideas Behind the Chess Openings.
Anil Anand: Reshevsky was for long a contender for the world title since 1948 and was a strong rival to both Reuben Fine (I totally forgot about him!) and Fischer at the US championships. Fine declined to participate in the 1948 world championships held under FIDE, so Reshevsky was included. In fact, Fischer himself ranked Reshevsky among the best 10 in the world from 1946 till 1956, until he arrived on the chess screen! But, Reshevsky was no Fischer to surmount the pressure mounted by the mighty USSR! Bronstein was once warned at an Interzonal to beat him or else... somehow Bronstein managed to do so in brilliant style. By the way, I didn't know about Stenitz' association with US.

The Editor adds:
Wilhelm Steinitz was Austrian-American (b.Prague, Bohemia, now the Czech Republic). In 1862 Steinitz decided to settle in England where all the best players of Europe were at the time. Shortly after the London International Tournament in 1883, Steinitz left England to live in the USA. The first official World Championship match (Steinitz - Zukertot) began on Monday 11th January 1886 in the United States. Steinitz won. At that point he was resident in USA.

Steinitz was the first chess player to gain money from his tournament and match victories but he did not make enough to retire comfortably. He was compelled to continue playing chess long after he had crossed his prime. He finally had a mental breakdown and spent the last part of his life in mental institutions. He died penniless on 12 August 1900.

Dear Editor,

In ICCF 'players lists' it is showing that I lost India-Sweden match, which I never ever played. Was that match just a friendly one or will it affect my ICCF Rating?

I have stood second in the 10th AfroAsian, Prelim Group B. Thank you for promoting my long lost interest in chess. I revived my interest about three years ago, after a long absence from CC.

I will like to see SMS chess started. I do not like to play e-mail tourneys because of 'missing e-mails' and also because it takes a bit longer for e-mails to open and send, I hate sending reminders and claims even in postal tourneys, but I like to play web-chess.

I feel AICCF should give certificates to winners of tournaments, and for increase in ratings, etc. This would encourage players.

Pervez Mandviwala
Mandvi

Welcome back to CC and kudos for your excellent performance in the 10th AfroAsian, Prelim Group B. Regarding the India-Sweden Match you seem to have forgotten that you had entered it. It started on 15th April 2003. Unfortunately there was no response to the emails sent to you by your opponent Martin Alvebring and to the several reminders sent by the team captain (myself)! So it was scored 2-0 in favour of your opponent. The final results were published in the AICCF Bulletin of August 2006 which was also available at the AICCF website. You seem to be unaware that Friendly Internationals are rated. See the Member Services page (p. 5).

The effect on your rating would already have taken place in 2006!

I am glad to see your interest in SMS chess. We should be starting it soon.

Dear Editor,

Many thanks for printing my article in August 2007 issue. You are right that tactical prowess can be improved by solving 3 movers. Actually the 3 mover is somewhat like an Achilles heel ... an unknown vulnerable spot. So I think the effort required in finding the vulnerable spot improves one’s tactical as well as positional prowess.

Of course, this is certainly not the only way to improve at OTB Chess, but I believe that solving 3 movers can be a useful supplement to other exercises undertaken in this regard.

I am in disagreement with Mr. Dhanish when he claims that “It’s impossible to say whether a good OTB player can become a good CC player”. It all depends on the criterion of good. If anyone with 2400+ is "good", as I have convincingly shown in the article any "good" player can become a "good" player at CC also, but very few "good" OTB players have the requisite patience to "Try their hand" at correspondence play, one strong reason being that the "success" achieved at OTB play (2400+) doesn’t immediately reflect in CC. It’s also worthwhile to note that the "very few" good OTB players who do play corr. chess invariably excel at it.

D M Modak
deoduttamodak at rediffmail.com