After a long hiatus, the Newsletter is back! We are open to suggestions as to content. To start off, we have given the majority of the focus to games played by members. Ken Goebel has input these into his chess-playing software for analysis, and we will include the players' comments (if any) along with the computer's analysis. This is the reason we have requested that scoresheets be turned in: we get content for our newsletters, and you get free analysis of your games! It's a win-win situation!

Ideas for future columns in our newsletter include: "Meet the Players" (mini-interviews with members of the club); "Novice Corner" (an instructional column). If you have any other ideas about things you would like to see in your newsletter (or if you have anything you'd like to contribute) please contact Ken or me.

Tournament one is already two-thirds over! So far, the team scores have been very close, with Larry's team holding a slight lead. Due to one player backing out at the last minute, the teams had to be regrouped, and the pairings redone. This caused a lot of confusion. Due in part to this confusion, some of the games in round 3 were not played, and therefore round 3 will not be counted for team points (though it will count for indivdual game points and rating points).

We currently have three sections running in our new Fall 2001 correspondence tournament. Each section has 4-6 players. The tournament is quite cosmopolitan, with players from Germany, England, Mexico, and of course, the U.S.A. We also have an expert-rated Canadian waiting in the wings for a few more players to start another tournament: so if you'd like to try correspondence chess, let me know.

We will try to publish all of the OTB league games that are turned in without the "Do not publish" box checked. Some of these games may only be interesting to the original players of the game, while others will be of general interest to all. But we won't make such distinctions. Nor will we publish the names or ratings of the players; every game is potentially interesting, not just those of the top-level players.

Ken's chess-playing software includes "Rebel Tiger" and "Rebel Century". The analysis of the Tiger gives a score for the move made, where a positive number is good for the player making the move, and a negative number is bad for the player making the move. On this scale, 1 is equivalent to a Pawn. The Tiger than gives the depth it analyzed to (in "half-moves"), and then gives its opinion of what would've been a better move, followed by the best moves by both sides from that point on.

The Century software is similar to the Tiger, but also gives a score for its recommended move. The Century software will be used exclusively in the future.

Comments by the players will be prefixed by W: or B: to indicate the White or Black player's comments, or ED: if someone else comments on the game.

{Supplemental Analysis by Rebel Tiger (2695)}

{ Score: 0.44 depth: 13 c4 e6 Nc3 dxc4 h3 Bxf3 exf3 Nc6 Be3 Na5 d5 exd5 Nxd5 Nf6 Nf4 }

{ Score: 0.66 depth: 14 Nc3 Bg6 e4 dxe4 Ne5 Nd7 O-O e6 Nxe4 a6 Qe2 Nxe5 dxe5 Bb4 Bf4 }

{ Score: -0.64 depth: 14 Bxf3 Nxf3 c6 Bf4 e6 Qd3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 O-O-O Nd7 e3 a6 g5 Ne7 Qb3 }

{ Score: 0.56 depth: 14 c4 e6 cxd5 Qxd5 O-O Nd7 Ne5 Qb5 Qb3 Qxb3 Nxb3 Nxe5 dxe5 c6 Bf4 }

{ Score: 0.54 depth: 14 e4 c6 exd5 cxd5 c4 Nc6 cxd5 exd5 Qa4 Qd6 Qb5 O-O-O Nxc6 Qxc6 Qxc6+ bxc6 O-O }

{ Score: -0.12 depth: 12 Nf6 c3 a6 h4 Bd6 Ng5 O-O h5 Be4 Nxe4 Nxe4 h6 Qf6 Bxe4 dxe4 hxg7 Kxg7 }

{ Score: 1.30 depth: 15 Ng5 Bg6 h4 Nd7 h5 Nxe5 dxe5 Be4 Nxe4 dxe4 Qxd8+ Rxd8 Bxe4 c6 Bg5 Bb4+ Kf1 }

{ Score: 0.06 depth: 12 f6 Nd3 Bd6 c3 c6 Bf4 Bxd3 Bxd6 Bxe2 Qxe2 Qxd6 O-O-O Nd7 }

{ Score: 0.10 depth: 14 Nd3 a5 Bf4 b5 Qd1 a4 Nd2 Bxg2 Rxg2 g5 Bg3 a3 bxa3 Bxa3 e4 Ne7 }

{ Score: -3.18 depth: 14 Nd2 Bxg2 Rxg2 Nh6 e4 O-O Qb5 a6 Qd3 Nf7 f4 e5 dxe5 fxe5 exd5 exf4 }

{ Score: 3.44 depth: 15 a6 Qb3 b5 Nh4 f5 Bxe4 fxe4 Ng2 Bd6 Bf4 Nge7 e3 e5 Bg3 exd4 Bxd6 Qxd6 cxd4 }

{ Score: -3.22 depth: 15 Nd2 a6 Qb3 Bxg2 Rxg2 Bd6 e4 Nge7 exd5 exd5 Nf3 O-O Qc2 Ng6 Qf5 Qe8+ Be3 }

{ Score: 3.68 depth: 13 a6 Qa4 b5 Qb3 Qc7 a3 fxg5 Bxg5 Nf6 Qd1 Bf5 b4 Ne4 Bxe7 Nxe7 }

{ Score: -3.64 depth: 13 Nd2 a6 Qb3 Bxg2 Rxg2 f5 e3 Na5 Qd1 g6 c4 b6 cxd5 exd5 Qe2 }

{ Score: 4.08 depth: 14 Nxf6 Bg5 a6 Qb3 Qc7 Bxf6 gxf6 Kd2 Na5 Qd1 Nc4+ Kc1 Qg7 Bf1 Qh6+ e3 b5 }

{ Score: -3.08 depth: 15 Nd2 f5 Nxe4 fxe4 Bh1 Qh4 Bg5 Qxh3 O-O-O Bh2 Rg2 Qf5 Rxh2 Qxg5+ Kb1 }

{ Score: 4.48 depth: 14 a6 Qa4 b5 cxb5 axb5 Qd1 Nb4 Kf1 Nc2 Rb1 Qb6 Ng5 Qxd4 Qxd4 Bxg2+ Rxg2 Nxd4 Nxh7 }

{ Score: -3.90 depth: 13 Bd2 b6 Qa4 b5 Qd1 Nf5 e3 Rg8 Qe2 b4 Bf1 Rg6 Bg2 }

{ Score: 4.68 depth: 14 Qd7 Bd2 Rg8 O-O-O Nxd4 Nxd4 Bxg2 Nxe6 Bh2 Qxd7+ Kxd7 Bf4 Bxg1 Bxb8 Bxf2 }

{ Score: -4.86 depth: 15 O-O-O b6 }

{ Score: 9.74 depth: 16 Bxf3 Kf1 Bh5 e4 dxe4 Bxe4 Rxg1+ Kxg1 Qxd4 Re1 Bg6 Qe2 Ne5 Kg2 Bxe4+ Qxe4 Qxb2 Qxh7 Qxa2 }

{ Score: -7.42 depth: 14 O-O-O Rxh6 Nd2 Bf5 f4 Kd7 Nb1 Rh4 }

{ Score: -8.48 depth: 16 Bg3 Bh5 }

{ Score: Mate in 1 depth: 4 Ba5+ b4 Bxb4# }

{ Score: -11.36 depth: 15 Rxg6 Qa5+ Kd1 Nxg6 Qe1 Qxe1+ Kxe1 Bc7 a3 h5 Ke2 h4 Rg1 Kf7 f4 }

{ Score: -16.88 depth: 13 Kd2 }

{ Score: -Mate in 9 depth: 11 Kc2 Rxg2 Kb1 Rxf2 Qxf2 Qxf2 a3 Nd4 Ra2 Qf1+ Kb2 Qe2+ Ka1 Qd1+ Kb2 Qc2+ Ka1 Nxb3# }

{ Score: Mate in 7 depth: 11 Qb2+ Kd1 Qxa1+ Kd2 Qb2+ Kd1 Nd4 f3 Rxg2 }

{ Score: -24.26 depth: 13 Kd2 Rxg2 Rd1 Nd4 Qd3 Rxf2+ Kc1 Ne2+ Kb2 Nxf4+ Qd2 Qd4+ Kc2 Rxd2+ Rxd2 Qxc5+ Kb1 Qe3 Rc2 Nxh3 }

{ Score: 31.58 depth: 13 Rxg2}

{ Score: -16.92 depth: 15 Qe2 Qxg2 Kc1 Qh2 Kb2 }

{ Score: Mate in 9 depth: 10 Qc3+ Kd1 Qxa1+ Kc2 Nd4+ Kd3 Qxf1+ Kxd4 Nc6+ Kc3

Qc1+ Kd3 Nb4+ Ke2 Qc2+ Ke1 Nd3+ Kf1 Qd1#}*

{Supplemental analysis by Rebel Tiger (2695)}

1.e4 c6 2.Nc3 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Bb5+ Bd7 5.Bxd7+ Qxd7 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.d4 f6 8.O-O e5?

{B: e6 would've been much better I think. White can pile up on e5 with more pieces than White.

Score: -0.36 depth: 14 e6 Bf4 Kf7 Re1 Bb4 Qd3 Nge7 Re2 Ng6 Bg3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 Qb5 Rhb8 }

{ Score: -1.98 depth: 13 fxe5 Nxe5 Nxe5 Re1 O-O-O Rxe5 Bd6 Rxd5 Nf6 Rd3 Qc7 h3 Bb4 Rxd8+ Rxd8 }

{B: The sad outcome of 8. ... e5. Black can't protect both Pawns. I thought about 11. Qf5, Nxd5 12. Rd8 but worried about 12. ... Nc7+

Score: 3.68 depth: 13 Qh5+ Kd8 Qxe5 Nf6 Bg5 Qd6 Qxd5 Qxd5 Nxd5 Be7 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nxf6 gxf6 Rfe1 }

{B: I decided to kiss the e-Pawn goodbye in exchange for pressure down the d- file.

Score: -2.00 depth: 13 Bd6 Bf4 Ne7 Bxe5 O-O Nxd5 Nf5 Qg4 Bxe5 Rxe5 Rae8 Rae1 Rxe5 Rxe5 }

{ Score: 2.16 depth: 14 Bg5 Re8 Nxd5 h6 Be3 Kb8 Re2 Nf6 Rd2 Qg4 c3 Qxd1+ Raxd1 Ne4 Rd3 Bd6 }

{ Score: -1.68 depth: 14 Bd6 Rxd5 Nf6 Rd3 Qc7 Kh1 Be5 Be3 Bxc3 bxc3 h5 Qf3 Ng4 Bf4 Rxd3 cxd3 Qxc3 }

{B: I think Rd5 or Nd5 would've been better for White. Now, I thought of b6 to protect the a-Pawn with the Queen, but I didn't like exposing my King.

Score: 2.58 depth: 16 Rd5 Bd6 Bf4 dxc3 Rxd6 cxb2 Rb1 Qe7 Rxd8+ Qxd8 Qe1 Qe7 Qa5 b6 Qd5 Qb7 Qf5+Qd7 Qf8+ Qd8 }

{ Score: -2.28 depth: 14 a6 a4 Qf7 Qg4+ Rd7 Nxd4 Nf6 Qh3 Bd6 Re6 Bc5 Nb3 Bb4 Be3 Rf8 }

{B: I had expected this. The threat is now Rd5+ winning the Queen. }

{ Score: 9.70 depth: 15 Rd5 Bc5 Rxd7 Rxd7 Nc7+ Rxc7 Bxc7 Nf6 Qd3 Rc8 Be5 h6 Qg6 Nd7 Qxg7 Nxe5 Qxe5 }

{ Score: -2.40 depth: 12 Nf6 Rf5 Rc8 Qxd4 Qxd4 Nxd4 Bc5 Ne6 Bb6 c3 Ne4 Be5 Rhe8 }

{B: Daring me to take the Knight, but bad things would follow: 16... Qxd4 17. Qxd4, Rxd4 18. Re8+, Ka7 19. Rxf8 or 19. Be3 winning the exchange after Bc5.

Score: 4.62 depth: 15 Rd5 Qxd5 Nc7+ Ka7 Nxd5 Rxd5 Be5 Nf6 Qc4 Rxe5 Qxd4+ Rc5 b4 b6 bxc5 Bxc5 Qe5 }

{ Score: -2.20 depth: 15 Nf6 c3 Bd6 Rf5 Bxf4 Rxf4 Rhf8 Qf3 Qf7 }

{B: Now Rxd4 loses a piece after Rxf7, Rxd3, Rxf8+, Ka7, cxd3. Instead, I thought long and hard about Qg6. White can't try Rd5 in hopes of Qxd3, Rxd8+ because White simply plays Rxd5 instead of Qxd3. However, I felt it was high time to get my pieces out of the corner.

Score: 3.44 depth: 14 Qf3 Ne7 Ne6 Rc8 Qe4 Ng6 Ra5 Ka7 Rf5 Qd7 Rd5 Qc6 Be3+ Kb8 Rad1 Qxc2 }

{B: I almost played Qg6 instead}

{B: Qxb3 was tempting, but could be answered by Nxb3.

Score: 2.48 depth: 12 c3 g6 Ra5 Bg7 Be5 Rhg8 Qf3 Rd5 Nb3 Rgd8 Bd4 Rxa5 Nxa5 }

{ Score: -2.14 depth: 15 Qxb3 Nxb3 Bd6 Bxd6 Rxd6 Re5 Rhd8 Rae1 Rd1 a4 Kb8 Re7 Rxe1+ Rxe1 Rc8 Re2 Rc4 a5 Rf4 }

{ Score: 6.65 depth: 13 Qb6 Rxd4 Qxd4 Be7 Be3 Kb8 Re5 Qf7 Re1 Kc8 Qc3+ Kd7 Rd1+ Bd6 Bc5 Ne8 Rxe8 Kxe8 Rxd6 }

{ Score: -2.66 depth: 15 Bb4 Nf7 Rf8 Qxb4 Rxf7 Re1 g5 Qc4 Ne4 Rxe4 gxf4 Re8+ Ka7 Qd4+ b6 }

{ Score: -2.84 depth: 14 Qc6 Rd1 Be7 c3 Ne4 Qd5 Qxd5 Rxd5 Nf6 Rd4 g6 Be5 Rc8 Rf4 Rc6}

{ Score: 5.70 depth: 14 Qe3+ b6 Qe2 b5 Rd1 Qg4 Nxb5+ axb5 Qxe7+ Ka8 Rd6 Qxf4 Ra6+ Kb8 Qa7+ Kc8 Qc5+ Qc7 Ra8+ Kd7 }

{ Score: -4.27 depth: 14 Kc8 Bf4 Qd4 Bg3 Bd8 Qe6+ Qd7 Qe5 Qd5 Qb8+ Kd7 Nc7 Qc6 Re1 Qxc2 Qxb7 }

{ Score: 15.44 depth: 15 Qb6 }

{ Score: -4.70 depth: 14 Qc6 Qa3+ Kb8 Nd7+ Kc7 Qxe7 Qxd7 Qe5+ Qd6 Qg5 Kc6 Qxg7 Rg8 Qf7 Rf8 Qb3 Nd5 }

{B: Threatening mate in two after Qd1.

Score: -5.06 depth: 13 Kb8 Qa3 b5 Re1 Re8 Be3 Re4 Qc5 Ka8 c3 Ng4 Qa3+ Ra4 Qf8+ Kb7 }

{ Score: 5.22 depth: 13 Re1 Qd5 c4 Qc6 Qa7+ Kc7 Qa5+ Kc8 Bb6 Re8 Rd1 Nd7 Qa8+ Nb8 Qa7 Qxc4 }

{B: White needed to eliminate Black's mate threat by playing Kf1 or h3, and then play Bb6 prior to this move. }

{ Score: 4.58 depth: 12 Re1 Re8 Bf8 Rxe1+ Qxe1 g6 Qc3+ Qc6 Qd2 Ne4 Qd3 Kc7 Bh6 }

{B: Drawn by repetition. }1/2-1/2

{Supplemental analysis by Rebel Century (2640)}

31. f4 Ke6 32. f5+ Kd7 33. Kf2 Bd8 34. a4 Bc7 35. g4 Ne7 36. g5 d5 37. exd5 Nxd5

39. Kf3?

{ score: 0.41. CENTURY depth: 13.00 score: 1.42 if Ne3 Nc8 c4 Nd6 Nd5 Bd8 f6 gxf6 Nxf6 Bxf6 }

39... Nxf5 40. Ke4 Ke6 41. Be1 Nd6+ 42. Nxd6 Bxd6 43. c4 Bc7 44. Bc3 Bd8 45. h4?

{ score: 0.54. CENTURY depth: 16.00 score: 1.23 if Bxe5 Bxg5 Bxg7 Kd6 Bc3 }

{ score -1.64. CENTURY depth: 16.00 score: -0.82 if Bd8 Bd2 Bc7 h5 g6 d4 gxh5 d5

Kd6 Kf5 h4 }

{zugzwang! Score: 1.94)

{ score: -11.36. CENTURY depth: 17.00 score: -1.96 if Bb6 Bb8 Bd8

d4 Bb6 d5 Kd7 d6 Ke6 Bc7 Ba7 }

{ score: -17.80. CENTURY depth: 18.00 score: -12.89 if Bf6

Bxf6 Kxf6 Kd5 Kf7 Kxc5 Kg8 Kh7 }

{ h7 Bf6 Bxf6 Kxf6 h8=Q+ Kf7 etc. }