Contents of ChessBase Magazine 112

By Frederic Friedel

Your copy of ChessBase Magazine 112 comes on a CD ROM and contains a special program called the ChessBase Reader. If you do not happen to have the program ChessBase 9.0 installed on your system the Reader is the program you will want to use. You could also access the contents using Fritz, or any recent Fritz compatible program. But ChessBase 9.0 and the Reader will give you additional useful options to better access the data on the CD.

Above is the start dialog you normally get when you insert the ChessBase Magazine CD. The options are to start the CD, install the Reader on your hard disk (recommended) or to cancel. The last option is used if you do not want to use the Reader because you want to read the Magazine using ChessBase 9.0.

In ChessBase 9.0 you get a start window with the individual sections and files contained in CBM 112 as icons on a desktop. You can right-click the window with the icons and use “View – Details” (or press Ctrl-D) to get a different view of the files and folders:

This view allows you to sort the list according to title, number of games, the format and the location. Ctrl-I takes you back to the icon view, where you can also sort the files by right-clicking an empty area on the database window and using “Sort symbols”.

If you are using the ChessBase Reader this will automatically load the multimedia report from the Magazine. You can start a multimedia report with a click on the thumbnail pictures, or use the links to the various other sections of the database in the lower part of the window. You do well by keeping this window open and browsing the different sections by clicking on the pictures or the links. If you close it you can use “File – Open – Database” (or Ctrl-O) to select databases on the CD in a Windows file selector.

Multimedia report

A good way to get started with ChessBase Magazine 112 is to click on the first thumbnail, which plays the “Intro by GM Carsten Müller”. He takes you through the contents of the magazine, pointing to the highlights and to critical developments that are reflected in the material on the CD.

The next section contains five interviews, conducted by Frederic Friedel, with GM Yasser Seirawan, who was in Hamburg to define his role as a new ChessBase multimedia commentator, both on ChessBase Magazine as well as on the Playchess server.

In the second interview Yasser describes the Super-GM tournament that was played in Morelia, Mexico, and in Linares. He characterises the different players and tells us little stories about them. Not to be missed is his story about how Vassily Ivanchuk approached him at a Bermuda Party at the Chess Olympiad, very upset that Yasser had called him a “bad doodie”. We won’t reveal here what the outcome of this precarious situation was.

The third interview is on Viktor Korchnoi, for whom Yasser worked as a second. His description of how this cooperation came about is quite memorable (and also definitely not to be missed).

The fourth interview is about the Playchess lessons Yasser is planning. They will include famous players like David Bronstein. It contains another story which reveals the extraordinary personality of this chess legend, with all the narrative skill that only someone like Yasser can muster.

The final section dwells on the FIDE elections. The interview was conducted some weeks before the Chess Olympiad in Turin, where the FIDE General Assembly met to elect their president. Seirawan’s allegiances become explicitly clear in this interview (to anyone who did not know them before). He analyses the situation in world chess in powerful and eloquent language.

Here are three samples from the Seirawan interviews. The CBM 112 CD contains close to an hour of video material with Yasser Seirawan, and in much higher quality than these streaming samples here.

Intro: 51 sec

On Ivanchuk: 1 min 47 sec

On Kortchnoi: 7 min 42 sec

The final multimedia videos on ChessBase Magazine 112 are by IM Jacob Aagaard, who shows us a game from the Danish Championship; by IM Oliver Reeh, who takes a look at two tactical examples from ChessBase Magazine which he found particularly interesting; and IM Andrew Martin, who gives us an interesting supplement to his Scandinavian DVD.

Incidentally whenever you click a video a board will open and the interview will be displayed in a section of it. You can resize the window or “undock” and maximise it. This is especially useful if the player interviewed is not moving pieces around on the board. If he or she is, then you will want to see what they were talking about.

The main database CBM 112

After you have watched the multimedia interviews – or after you have watched a few, seeing that there are almost two hours of them on the CD – you will want to see the games of the main database. Double-click the “112 CBM” symbol on the ChessBase desktop to open the main database of games. You will get a small text report with links to games and themes. Ignore this for the time being and simply click on the “Games” tab at the top. That will produce a list of all the games in the main CBM 112 database.

If you scroll to the bottom of the list you will see that there are 1588 entries, of which three are text reports, which leaves us with 1585 games. Of these 363 have commentary and analysis. If you click on the “Annotator” tab you can see which experts have delivered commentary in this issue, and how many games each has analysed.

Tournaments

If you click on the “Tournaments” tab at the top of the games list you get a list of the tournaments on the CD. Now click on the “Cat” column header, and you will find that the strongest have been sorted to the top.

There are two sub-windows (or “panes”) which show you the games and the players in the currently highlighted tournament. Double-clicking a game will load it for replay; double-clicking a player will bring up his personal data – if you have a full installation of ChessBase 9.0 with the players encyclopaedia on your hard disk.

Clearly the the strongest and most exciting event in this issue was the Morelia/Linares Super-GM, which started off very badly for the FIDE world champion Veselin Topalov, who scored 2.5 out of the seven games in the first (Mexican) half of the event and was on second last place. The stars in Morelia were Peter Leko, who led in the table with 5.0/7 and a 2889 performance, Levon Aronian, who had 4.5/7 and Peter Svidler with 4.0/7. After a dismal 0/2 start Teimour Radjabov scored 3.5/7 in this half of the tournament.

The second half presented a completely different picture. Veselin Topalov scored an amazing 5.5/7, with a 2847 performance, followed by Teimour Radjabov with 4.5/7. On the negative side Peter Leko lost two games and drew the rest for a 2.5/7 score and a 2629 performance; and Peter Svidler did exactly the same with a 2625 performance. In the second half of the event Levon Aronian scored 4.0/7. In the final standings the Armenian GM had 8.5/14, half a point more than Veselin Topalov, who had gathered 8.0/14, the same as dark horse Teimour Radjabov. The performances of the three were Aronian = 2804, Topalov = 2770 and Radjabov 2786. Peter Leko was fourth with 7.5/14 and Peter Svidler sixth with 6.5/14.

How, some of you may wonder, were the three tables we have used here generated. Actually it is very easy in ChessBase 9.0. Double-clicking the tournament “Morelia/Linares 23rd” in the tournament list above gives you the full table of all 14 rounds. If you mark the games of the first half of the event in the games list on the right and then press “T” (or right-click them and select “Cross Table” from the context menu that appears) you will get a cross table just for the selected games. Obviously you can do the same for the second half to produce the illuminating tables we have provided above.

Other top tournaments on the ChessBase Magazine 112 CD:

The 7th Poikovsky Karpov category 18 Super-GM, which implemented the “Sofia rules” that forbid any draw offers except through the arbiter, who will only grant them in special cases. It was won by Alexei Shirov with 6.0/9 and a close to 2800 performance, ahead of a group of four GMs (Ponomariov, Zvjaginsev, Dreev, Bareev) with 5.0/9 each. The negative surprise was Viktor Bologan, rated 2661, who scored just 2.5/9 with a performance of 2518.

The Cuernavaca Young Masters was a category 16, and the shared winners were Ruslan Ponomariov and Francisco Vallejo with 6.5/9 points each. US champion Hikaru Nakamura was third with 6.0 points. The Ukrainian young stars Volokitin and Karjakin disappointed with 4.5 and 3.5 points, playing 40 and 112 points below their FIDE ratings.

The Moscow Aeroflot Open is another tournament with a large number of strong GMs and some very exciting encounters. Here Viktor Bologan shared first with Shakhriyar Mamedyarov, with 6.5/9 each and performances of 2755 and 2769 respectively. They were followed by Pavel Eljanov, Tigran L Petrosian, Arkadij Naditsch, Vladimir Akopian and Dmitrij Jakovenko.

The US Championship in San Diego was played in two nine-round Swiss groups, with the winners of each facing each other in a two-game rapid chess match. GM Alexander Onischuk won his group with 7.0/9 and defeated Yuri Shulman, who with 6.5/9 had tied for first with Gata Kamsky and Larry Christiansen but was better on the tiebreak system employed.

Theory

We turn to a big section of ChessBase Magazine 112: theoretical articles. To access these with the ChessBase Reader you must once again use “Open – Database” in the “File” menu. In the file selector you will see a number of subdirectories, one of which is called “Theory”. Double-click this one and you will see its contents: four articles which we will discuss briefly below. Double-clicking on any one of them will open it, revealing its contents.

If you have the introductory text open you can access each of the articles by clicking the links at the bottom of the text. The theory article (the text) is automatically displayed when you open the database. It contains links to games, lists or keys, which can be loaded by clicking on the links. There is also a “Games” tab on the top which takes you to the database that is attached to the article.

A20: English

The starting point of this investigation by GM Zoltan Ribli occurs after the moves 1.c4 e5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.0-0 Nb6 7.d3 Be7 8.Nbd2 0-0 9.a3 a5 10.b3 Be6 11.Bb2 f6 12.Qc2 Qd7

In this position, which is actually a reversed Sicilian Defense, White has two main continuations: 13.e3 and 13.Rfd1. “Of course, other moves are possible,” Ribli writes, “for example 13.Rac1, but this move is of no independent significance. There is quite an important difference between this position and the Sicilian Defence. Here White is employing a Sicilian setup with an extra tempo, so that Black does not find it so easy to (or cannot) attack on the kingside with f5 –so he must play in the center. On the other hand White has a very sound position with two bishops on the long diagonals and possibly (after due preparation) he can manage to get in the move d3-d4.”

GM Ribli ends his article with the following conclusion: “This variation, 8.Nbd2, has accumulated less theory than the main line 8.Nc3. The setup with g3-Bg2 and b3-Bb2 is somewhat reminiscent of hedgehog positions, in which the opponent also controls more space. But Black must be careful – if White can manage to play d3-d4, then it is possible, that with his two bishops on the long diagonals he is better placed. However, in general chances are about level.”

B75: Dragon Sicilian

“In the spring of 2005,” writes GM Dorian Rogozenko, “I was playing in an open tournament in Galati, Romania. There I witnessed a game, which started with the Pirc move order 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Be3 Nd7 5.Qd2 c5. White continued 6.Nf3 cxd4 7.Nxd4 Ngf6 8.f3 and the game suddenly transposed into a strange Dragon Sicilian, where Black had developed the knight on d7 instead of the usual square c6:

Looking at the board at that moment, I was trying to recall if I had ever seen anything like this in the Dragon. I could vaguely recall Kasparov,G-Georgiev,K, 1-0, in Sarajevo 2000, and a bit more clearly Botvinnik’s conclusion from his own book. Since I had never considered such a set-up in the Dragon to be serious, I felt happy for the player with the White pieces. However, in Ionica,I-Bogdan,D, 0-1, Galati 2005, White castled long and then advanced her kingside pawns (apparently a totally logical step in the Dragon). However, the battle lasted for less than 25 moves – White was completely crushed. In the post-mortem analysis several IMs failed to figure out where White went wrong and what was the cause of such a quick defeat...

In the present survey we will analyse this unusual Dragon and see what the best plans are for White and for Black. But before looking at ideas and concrete variations, I’ll say a few brief words about the history of the variation being examined. It occurred for the first time in 1945 in a game of Alexander Alekhine. However, the 4th World Champion soon implemented the plan with ...Nc6 and ...Bd7, which has nothing to do with the specifics of this line. In the beginning of the 1960s Mikhail Botvinnik used Black’s set-up in two games. Botvinnik himself considered that the entire idea of Black’s queenside development belongs to Reshevsky, who played so in 1957. After Botvinnik’s games, the present system wasn’t used by strong players for many decades and therefore theoretical sources don’t really analyse it. In fact, there is practically no theory at all.

In 2004 several British players, including the Dragon expert Ch. Ward, implemented the plan with ...a6 and ...Nbd7. But the revival happened at the end of 2005 during the World Cup in Khanty-Mansiysk, when first Khalifman and then Sakaev won two very important games with Black. After Khanty-Mansiysk, GMs J. Ehlvest, A. Fedorov and S. Kudrin started to play this system as well, the last two of them being well-known Dragon experts.”

The variation that GM Rogozenko looks at, starts with the moves 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be3 Bg7 7.f3 a6

Rogozenko: “Unlike in the traditional Dragon, here Black plans to continue with b7-b5, develop the bishop to b7 and the queen’s knight to d7. Then the second player should act according to circumstances. Usually the rook goes to c8, building up activity along the c-file (including ideas of an exchange sacrifice on c3). Generally Black’s play in this system is quite easy, since his next 3-4 moves are often the same, no matter what White’s plan may be.

The first player has a larger variety of ideas. The standard plan in the Dragon with Qd2, 0-0-0 and an eventual exchange of dark-squared bishops on h6 is strong here as well, even if there are some specific subtleties for this concrete variation. The main difference is that here Black delays castling short and thus White cannot develop a quick attack on the kingside. Another thing is that the inclusion of the moves h4/h5 almost always favours Black.

Besides castling long, White also has ideas about play on the queenside thanks to the fact that the black pawn on b5 offers White active possibilities connected with a2-a4. In that case White will castle short and simply enjoy a strategic advantage due to Black’s weak pawn structure. Notice that this plan is usually effective with the white light-squared bishop on the diagonal f1-a6. With White’s bishop on b3 the advance a2-a4 is less dangerous for Black. Needless to say, after White has castled long, the move a2-a4 loses its attractiveness. Also with the king on e1 the advance a2-a4 can have its drawbacks when White already made pawn advances on the kingside (such as g2-g4 and/or h2-h4), after which he might have problems finding a safe place for his king. However, this is a very general thought and sometimes White can wisely combine g2-g4 with a2-a4 and then castle short.

Further, we come to another important thing for the understanding of the present system: is the development Bf1-c4-b3 good for White, or is it better to keep the bishop on the diagonal a6-f1? I think that psychologically many players refrain from considering the move Bf1-c4 simply because it offers Black a tempo for the advance ...b5. Indeed, in practice the majority of strong players prefer not to spend time on Bf1-c4. Nevertheless the plan with Bf1-c4-b3 is strong. There are important factors speaking in favour of having the bishop on b3. First of all, in the Dragon the b3-square is traditionally a good attacking and defending square for the bishop. Secondly, here the control over the square d5 is especially important because Black can always increase his control in the centre by playing ...b4 and chasing the knight from c3. Usually after ...b5-b4 it is desirable for White to jump with the knight to d5. In that case it is important to have the knight supported by the bishop from b3. Finally, White’s most active plan is to play Qd2 and Bh6. A standard reaction from Black to such a plan is to take on h6 and then build his counterplay on the idea of sacrificing the exchange on c3, using the fact that White’s queen went to h6. In those structures the most important piece, which protects White’s broken queenside, becomes the bishop on b3 (neutralizing for instance the dangerous manoeuvre Nd7-b6-a4).”

Rogozenko proceeds to look at concrete variations, and at the end of his extensive analyses comes to the following general conclusion: “Most positions which arise from the set-up with ...a6 and ...b5 offer a lot of possibilities for both sides. While Black’s moves at the beginning are standard (...Nbd7, ...b5, ...Bb7), White has several plans to choose from, the strongest being connected with Bf1-c4 followed by Be3-h6. In that case Black can try the aggressive and basically unexplored 12...b4, trying to change the character of the position. The main merit of the system we have examined is that both sides must enter relatively new territory. By choosing this line with Black, one has the rare chance to enjoy playing the Dragon without learning endless theoretical variations.”

C10: French Defence 3…dxe4

The subject of this article starts after the moves 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Nxf6+ Nxf6 7.c3

GM Alexander Finkel writes: “As I mentioned in my previous survey, the relatively modest move 7.c3!? has become one of the most popular ways to meet the Rubinstein variation during the last couple of years. Despite a general impression that Black should be doing fine after 7...c5 which was covered extensively in issue 111 of ChessBase Magazine, many players prefer not to commit with an early advance of the c-pawn, opting for 7...Be7, 7...a6!?, 7...Bd6 or even 7...h6?!.

One of the greatest specialists in the French Defence in the world, Evgeny Bareev, has opted for 7...Be7 on a couple of occasions, so it most definitely means that this line is playable for Black (other moves are rather rare, so we will just refer to them very briefly)! I would say that this move is more flexible than 7...c5, but it is probably White who enjoys its flexibility more as he can test Black’s defensive set up with a variety of different plans!

The way I see it, once Black has played 7...Be7 there is no point in pushing ...c5 as quickly as possible (I mean he could have played it on the previous move if he had wanted to), so he should just finish the development of the pieces by 0-0, b6 and Bb7. In the meantime White may build up a menacing attacking line-up with Bd3, Qe2, Bg5 and 0-0-0, planning to break through on the kingside. Basically Black’s counterplay on the queenside is considerably slower, but in most cases he may use the open d-file in order to initiate a trade of the major pieces and reduce White’s attacking potential.

It seems that White should be slightly better both after the sharp 0-0-0 and the less aggressive 0-0, but I believe Black has sufficient counter-chances in both cases.”

The author’s conclusion after extensive analysis: “In spite of a number of promising options, I failed to find a line with a steady opening advantage. It seems that Black is relatively safe after 7...Be7, so the overwhelming popularity of 7...c5 is no more than a fashion. As for the concrete lines which I consider the most promising, I would point out 8.Bd3 c5 9.Ne5 as an interesting try to pose Black problems. Another line which looks rather appealing to me is a plan with 8.Be3 and queenside castling. The plans with kingside castling by White are not very dangerous for Black, but if I had to recommend one I would most definitely go for Bf4.”

Content of the attached database: 1) 64 games played in this line. Most of the games have been played during the last couple of years. On the white side you will find such strong players as Shirov, Adams, Grischuk, Volokitin, Motylev and many others who have used this variation occasionally. As usual, on the black side you will find quite a few experts in the French Defence: Bareev, Morozevich, Short, Baklan, Noguieras. 2) 21 annotated games (15 of them exclusively for this database). 3) A very deep opening key designed especially for the database to make the learning process more efficient.

C40: Elephant Gambit

In the previous issue of ChessBase Magazine the starting point of Peter Leisebein’s comments was the position after the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5 e4:

Black presses forward at once with his e-pawn and burns his bridges behind him! 4.Qe2! Nf6. White can get rid of the kamikaze pawn at once with 5.Nc3, but this runs into tactical problems. White achieves no advantage by doing so!

According to theory, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5 e4 4.Qe2 Nf6 5.d3!

The last move is almost to be seen as a refutation. But if you look at the statistics for games played during the last 12 years, you get quite a different impression! An exciting position has arisen. Black is threatening to castle quickly and to install a rook on the e-file. White on the other hand cannot bring his king to safety so quickly since the queen is blocking the bishop. On the other hand, there is the threat of dxe4 and White is two pawns up.

Black has three possible ways of developing his bishop in order to speed up the development of his kingside:

1. Develop it on e7. The disadvantage of this natural developing move is that Black now blocks his own e-file.
2. Develop it on c5. This possibility looks better, since the bishop is more active and the e-file is not blocked. In the game Buchmann,H - Leisebein,P I soon managed quite a spectacular liquidation to a draw.
3. Develop it on b4. This move is aimed at castling without wasting any time, according to F. Gutmayer’s “snappy tempo”. Tactically speaking, it is fully justified, but the procedure has positional shadow sides!

So the development of Black’s bishop appears to give an advantage to White, but there is probably a very good way to get a level game. I have been experimenting quite successfully with the move 5...Qxd5!?. In Konikowski and Gupta’s book, this move is described as doubtful. But I consider it to be the best reply for Black!

This is the last of a series of eight articles by the author on the Elephant Gambit that appeared in ChessBase Magazine. “I hope that I have managed to provide some stimulation for adventurous players who are not afraid of taking some risks,” Leisebein writes. “Some final evaluations cannot yet be made. In 1994 Konikowski and Gupta published their book and database about the Elephant Gambit. The least one can say is that a lot has happened in this opening over the last 12 years! I can but heartily recommend this opening to all those players who love fighting chess.”

History

In an article entitled “The Forgotten US Open – Seattle 1966” John Donaldson presents the results of some impressive research he has conducted. The author starts off by noting that there are five US Opens since World War for which there are no permanent record. They are 1947 Corpus Christi, 1963 Chicago, 1964 Boston, 1965 Puerto Rico and 1966 Seattle. “It would seem unlikely at this late date,” writes Donaldson, for a flood of games to suddenly appear, but that is just what happened for the Seattle US Open. Just before this year’s US Championship Peter Grey, a fellow member of the Mechanics’ Institute Chess Club in San Francisco, told me he had many score sheets from the 1966 Open thanks to the tournament director for the event, the late George Koltanowski.”

Robert Byrne and Pal Benko

Donaldson copied these score sheets and produced a report on the lost event, including 201 games of which only about a dozen have been know so far. He also provides a number of pictures of the players, and of the venue. The event was won by Robert Byrne and Pal Benko, who each scored 11:2 to tie for first. They received a cash trophy of $800 each for this achievement. In third place was Duncan Suttles, who scored 10:3 and won $300; 4th thru 8th were taken by Saidy, Bisguier, Cleghorn, Dalbergs and Gross, who scored 9.5 and got $110 apiece.

The article also contains an interview with the winner, GM Robert Byrne (conducted by Burt Hochberg). Here some excerpts:

Q: Why did you give Suttles a draw after only 13 moves? Couldn’t you have tried to win – you might have had first place all to yourself?

A: l simply didn’t think the position was worth playing for a win. In the first place, Suttles is not a weak player. In the last U.S. Championship, he came very close to beating me. In the second place, I did not stand better, and the position was drawish. An attempt to force matters might very well have backfired. A winning try just wasn’t justified.

Q: Which was your best game of the tournament?

A: My game against Lombardy. An opening novelty.

Q: A novelty? It was a Ruy Lopez, wasn’t it?

A: Yes it was. Lombardy tried the Taimanov Variation.

Byrne,Robert E - Lombardy,William James [C70], US Open Seattle (9), 22.08.1966: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 b5 5.Bb3 Na5

6.Nxe5. My idea was not really a novelty, but most theorists agree that this is not White’s strongest continuation because of 6...Nxb3 7.axb3 Qe7 or 7...Qg5 However, I had made a thorough analysis of this line some time ago and I came to the conclusion that White gets the better game with attacking chances whether Black plays , ...Qe7 or ...Qg5. The funny part of all this is that I had discussed this very variation with Lombardy some months before and I showed him my analysis. Either he didn’t agree with my conclusions or he forgot all about it.

For the record the game continued 6…Nxb3 7.axb3 Qe7 8.d4 f6 9.Nf3 Qxe4+ 10.Be3 Bb7 11.0-0 Qg4 12.d5 Ne7 13.c4 Nf5 14.Re1 Nxe3 15.Rxe3+ Kd8 16.Nc3 Bc5 17.Re4 Qh5 18.Qd3 Kc8 19.Rh4 Qf7 20.Rxh7 Rxh7 21.Qxh7 Kb8 22.Qd3 bxc4 23.bxc4 a5 24.Ne4 Bb4 25.Qd4 Qf8 26.Rc1 Ra6 27.Ne1 f5 28.Ng5 Be7 29.Qd2 Qf6 30.Ngf3 Qd6 31.Nd3 Bf6 32.Re1 Qf8 33.Nfe5 Bc8 34.Qc2 c6 35.dxc6 dxc6 36.c5 Qg8 37.Nc4 Be6 38.Nd6 Ra7 39.Ne5 Kc7 40.Qa4 Bd5 41.Nd3 Ra8 42.Qf4 Kd7 43.Ne5+ Kc7 44.Nxf5 Kb7 45.Nd6+ Ka7 46.Qa4 Qd8 1-0.

Q: How do you prepare or train for a tournament?

A: Actually, I don’t train especially for a tournament. However, it is my practice to study all important and theoretical contemporary games, and I pay particular attention to the openings. But I do this throughout the year, not only before a tournament.

Q: Which of your principal rivals, Benko, Lombardy, Bisguier, Saidy, Suttles – which of them played the best chess?

A: To judge by the score-table, Benko obviously did. But it seems he was winning games in which he had inferior positions at some point. Benko is a great fighter, but I don’t think he should have won some of the positions I saw.

Despite the great handicap of his journalistic duties, Bisguier was playing quite well. You know, right after the games are over, Bisguier’s job is to get the results of the top boards, compose a telegram, and telephone the New York Times to make the morning editions. The last hour of all his games was played under unusual pressure.

London 1927

Johannes Fischer looks back at London in the year 1927 and the first official Chess Olympiads. His article is reproduced in the print edition of this magazine.

Endgame

GM Dr Karsten Müller presents a selection of 36 instructive endgames, all taken from the main database of CBM 112. The text commentary in the games in both German and English.

Strategy

GM Peter Wells revisits the “Exchange Sacrifices” theme, providing Part 2 of an article that started in CBM 111. “In the first part of this discussion I concentrated on the opening phase and the at times quite spectacular willingness of players – especially at the very highest levels – to invest the exchange in the early struggle for the initiative. This time, I intend in the main to look beyond the opening and to extend the focus in a couple of different directions. Peter’s article is given elsewhere in this magazine.

Tactics

GM Valery Atlas has written an article entitled “A Small Anthology of Blunders”, and presents 25 tactical examples from CBM 112 in which blunders decided the outcome of the game.

ICCF Telechess

This section, provided by the International Correspondence Chess Federation, shows great dedication and diligence. There are five text reports, including information on the world championships that are currently in progress. The database contains well over 3000 games, which OTB players have learned to keep as a source of interesting and sometimes very deep ideas.