Barnet Elizabethans Chess Club

Hi all I have the following position which I think I should claim a draw on, despite Black being better. It is black to play and move: I have done quite a lot of analysis on it, and here is some of it: I think Black's best move is Bg5 1... Bg5 2. Rf3 Kf8 3. Kh1 (3. Rxf5 gxf5) 3... Rxf3 4. Qxf3 Bf4 5. Bc3 (5. Kg1 Qc5+ (5... Qf6 6. Ba3+ Kg7 7. Qd3) 6. Kh1 b5) (5. Rg4 Qb4 6. Bc3 (6. Rg2 Qe1+ 7. Rg1 Qh4) 6... Qa3 7. Qd3 (7. Rxf4 Qc1+ 8. Qf1 Qxf4 9. Qxf4 exf4 10. Kh2 Ke7 11. Bd4 b5) 7... Qc1+ (7... f5 8. Rxf4 exf4 9. Qd2 Rxh3+ 10. Kg2 Rg3+ 11. Kh1 Rxc3 12. Qxc3 Kf7 13. Qe5) 8. Rg1 Qc2 9. Qxc2 Rxh3+ 10. Kg2 Rh2+ 11. Kf3 (11. Kf1) 11... Rxc2) (5. Rg1 Ke8 6. Bc3 (6. Qg4 Kd8 7. Bc1 Bxc1 8. Rxc1 e4 9. Qg2 f5 10. Rc3 {0} g5 (10... Kc7 {0}) (10... Qf6 {0} 11. Re3 {0} g5 12. Kg1 {0} Kc7 {0} (12... g4) (12... g4)) 11. Kg1 Qe5 12. Re3 g4) 6... Qa3 7. Ra1 Kf8 8. Qg4 f5 9. Qg2 g5 10. Be1 Kf7 11. Rd1 Qd6) 5... Qa3 6. Rc2 Qc5 {0} 7. Bd2 (7. Be1 {1}) (7. Be1 Qd4 8. Bf2 Qa1+ 9. Bg1 Qb1 10. Rg2 Rh6) 7.....

So I just tuned in to see what's going on at Corus, and was somewhat surprised to see that the game Short-Cheparinov went 1. e4 c5 1-0. Yes, that's the entire game. Apparently Cheparinov refused to shake Short's hand and so, per the recent rule change , forfeited the game. At this point I've no idea how the incident played out, but I can't see it reflecting favourably on either player. Cheparinov is clearly an idiot for refusing to shake Short's hand; I'm willing to presume that Short is probably an idiot for insisting on the rule being enforced. As various people pointed out at the time , losing a game in such circumstances is really rather extraordinary. I suppose it was inevitable that, once the rule existed, two idiots would eventually get together and cause it to be applied. Shaking hands is nice, of course, but it's hard to see how this sort of thing is good for the game.

I was going to post this game yesterday - but it seemed a little perverse to write a chess blog the day after Bobby Fischer's death, and say nothing about it. Still, nothing is exactly what I do want to say about him: there's more than enough Fischer material out there already, and much of it is far better than anything I'd be likely to contribute. So I'll stay with what I know. Actually, I don't have much to say about this week's game either. I'm afraid it was all too straightforward. Mind you, last time I played this Opponent I found myself resigning after making only ten moves. (I wasn't blogging at the time, or that one might have tested my resolve to publish every game.) So I guess this effort represents some sort of improvement... White missed opportunities for advantage from the opening (in particular the computer's amusing suggestion 13. Nd5), after which the game was about equal, briefly. 16. ... b4 looks dubious; after that I probabl...

In this post I pointed out an error in van Perlo's Endgame Tactics . Shortly afterwards I sent an email to New In Chess, figuring that telling the publishers about the mistake was probably more useful than just shouting into the great void of the internet. I'm happy to say that I got a perfectly polite reply, which I see no reason not to report: "Thank you very much for your contribution. You are absolutely right, of course. It's very strange that we haven't noticed this with our checks! Unfortunately, by the time you sent us this mail, the third edition was already at the printer's. So your correction will have to wait until a possible 4th edition." Maybe one day the book will be considered an all time classic, and I'll be able to tell the grandchildren about the time I helped to fix it up... (In the unlikely event that anyone at New In Chess does feel that I've broken a confidence here, let me know and I'll happily delete this post).

A rather dull french defence game with some missed opportunities to spice things up. At least Barnet crushed Barking overall in the match though - with 4.5 - 1.5 score.

Hi all The Barnet chess congress approaches in February 2008! February 23rd and February 24th, Barnet Chess Congress There is a nice canteen area for socialising between rounds. The venue is spacious at the Queen Elizabeth Boy's School in Barnet: The details as noted on the ECF calendar website are: 23-24 Feb - 24th Barnet Congress, Queen Elizabeth's Boys' School, Queens Rd, Barnet, Herts. Malcolm Harding, 30 Grasmere Close, Brownsover, Rugby, Warks CV21 1LW (Tel: 01788 561474, Email: BarnetChess@yahoo.co.uk ) But you can get the full entry form from the following PDF document: http://www.gtryfon.demon.co.uk/bcc/About_BCC/Congress/barnet2008entry.pdf Click for PDF of entry form You can telephone your entry to Malcolm Harding on 01788 561474 or by Email to BarnetChess@yahoo.co.uk You can get some flavour of the tournament from the 2003 report . But please note entry fees have altered since that page was written, the location remains at the spacious QE School venue. This year...

We played Barking on Thursday night. Whenever we play Barking I seem to play the same opponent (not always on the same board), and I always have white. Three times we have met in the last couple of years or so, and three times we have played the same line of the Two Knights Defence. In the first game I should have won after being given a pawn, but only drew. In the second game it was my turn to give away a pawn, and though I probably ought to have held the opposite-coloured bishop endgame that followed, I failed to do so. In the third game no pawns were given away, and we played a fairly dull draw. So when I found that I had white against the same player once again, I naturally felt that it might be nice to vary the opening. But as each move came, I realized that I just don't have a backup repertoire. The thought process goes something like this: "Well, I've only ever played e4 so, of course:" 1.e4 e5 "I don't know anything at all about the King's G...

I'm currently reading (and enjoying) Van Perlo's Endgame Tactics . Recently I reached position 341 The game continuation was 1... e3 2. Rd6+ Kc3 3. Re6 Kd4 4. Rd6+ Ke5 5. Rd8 e2 6. Re8+ Kf4 7. Rf8+ Ke3 8. Re8+ Kf2 9. a7 Rh1+ 10. Kg5 Ra1 11. Rf8+ Kg3 12. Re8 Ra5+ 13. Kg6 Kf3 14. g5, at which point van Perlo says "Checks no longer help as after 14. Rf8+ Ke4 15. Re8+ the rook can be interposed". This is, of course, a disastrous suggestion: after 15. Re8+ we reach this position: when there can hardly be enough question marks for 15. ... Re5, allowing 16. a8=Q+. (Black does in fact win after 14. Rf8+ by 14. ... Kxg4, so the game at least is not spoiled.) I wonder how this error slipped through? I'm reading the book's second edition, so it has presumably survived unnoticed (by the publishers at least) for quite some time. The preface talks at length about how the positions have been computer checked; but apparently not completely thoroughly. My guess would be t...