by Steve Dudley

Chess in the Permian Basin area of West Texas has certainly had its ups and downs over the years. While we have never had, and cannot be said now to have, a large chess playing population, we are currently more active and more connected to one another than ever. The Midland club holds its event-laden weekly meetings every Monday at the Barnes and Nobles and the West Texas Chess League team tournaments. The Permian Basin Chess Club had its regular weekly meetings at U.T.P.B. every Thursday night, and monthly rated open tournaments, and monthly Scholastic tournaments at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church.

The idea had been put forward (and periodically resurfaces) to combine the two clubs, more people, more options, more fun. The problem, Cats and Dogs. Not really cat and dogs, cat people and dog people. We have heard the truism all our lives, there are two kinds of people in the world, cat people and dog people. This theorem is not limited to the idea that there are people who prefer cats over dogs, it proposes that the preference (dogs or cats) is indicative of deeper and broader character issues within the chooser. Furthermore, as our society is presented with choices to fulfill our needs, we as a people are dividing ourselves along bipolar axes, Dog/Cats, Boxers/Briefs, Rich/Poor, White/Black, Republican/Democrat, ad nauseum.

Is this really the way people are, the way the world is? No. In truth there are people who like cats AND dogs, and those who like neither. But the engine that drives this perception is two fold. ONE, we are all limited in resources by reality itself, and therefor we make our choices. TWO, we (most of us) agonize, even after having made the choice, as to whether it was the right choice. And whether your one of those who vouches safe his choice by aligning with consensus, or by standing proudly apart, you probably really, really resent those who made the other choice. Their very existence, which proclaims your wrongness, is a constant irritant.

Enter the chess players. And the choice... To Hoopla, or not To Hoopla.

The Stalagmiteers

From the Dictionary;

Stalagmite (stah-lag-mit) -noun

A conical mineral deposit, usually calcite or aragonite, built up on the floor of a cavern, formed from the dripping of mineral-rich water.

Stalagmiteers (stah-lag-mit-eers') -noun

A human possessing the traits of a Stalagmite

The game of chess is at least 14 centuries old. With all that baggage it should come as no surprise that the game attracts Anachronists. Even in the general public's mind the very word "Chess" draws images of things past; watchbobs, spats, horse drawn carriages, smoking jackets, parlours, the trappings of genteel times. The ancient detritus of chess drips through the cavern of history, collecting over time to create the Stalagmiteer, forever implacable and unmoving in the Temple of Caissa .

The Stalagmiteer views chess as a holy of holies to be preserved and endlessly contemplated. Mere stodginess won't cover it, its Chess Zen, for if a Rook falls over while castling, and no one is there to hear it, does it indeed make a sound?

The Stalagmiteer club is a shrine of chess purity, challenges are made, boards are laid, pieces are set in place, then the clock are started, and eventually runs out, it matters not, the glorious Game goes on, with even a nap, and perhaps a bit of genteel snoring.

As you might imagine, this genuflexion to the Great Game does not fulfil the needs of all chess players, and so....

The Hooplarians

hoopla [hoop-lah] -noun Informal.

1. bustling excitement or activity; commotion; hullabaloo; to-do.
2. sensational publicity; ballyhoo.
3. speech or writing intended to mislead or to obscure an issue.

1. A person with a intense need for hoopla.
2. a Frenchman

Whatever the human endeavor, a certain portion of those participating will need not just to be doing the thing, but be seen to do it, be recognized formally as doing it. If the purpose of said endeavor is judged to be enjoyment, the hooplarian will also need to proclaim his enjoyment, and, receive sufficient feedback from others to actually know that he is, in fact, enjoying himself.

In the chess world this manifests itself with some level of pageantry. This, as in all things, becomes a matter of degree. At what point does the pageantry overwhelm the initial purpose, perhaps even leading to (unwanted, unintended) humor.

In the case of playing chess, the nature of the game (two individuals contesting, mostly, unobserved ) presents great challenges to the Hooplarian, not the least of which is that most casual observers will not understand what they're seeing, even when they are looking at it. This, I think, exacerbates the Hooplarian's dilemma, creating even greater hysteria, and again, unintended and unwanted humor. Keep in mind that (on earth) there are no angels and devils, we all have a little of the Hooplarian in us.

Charlie Vetter, the Midland Chess Club's Grand Poobah is an unabashed Hooplarian. He wants everyone to have a good time. As anyone who's ever visited on Monday night knows he's very much a "structured event" kind of guy. "Structured event", you say? Well, your in Barnes & Noble, it's 7:53......

Charlie: "Is it time to get something started?"

[silence]

Charlie: "Let's get something started. Hmmm....What to do?"

Scott: "with what we have, we can do a round robin"

Charlie: "Mmmmmm.......... Na, that's not fun enough"

Charlie: "OK...

[groans]

Charlie: "... everyone take off your underwear and throw them in this box."

[louder groans]

Charlie: "... it'll be fun. This will be the OFFICIAL Midland County Chess Club underwear championship"

Paul: "I'm not even wearing underwear"

Charlie: "Why would you not be wearing underwear..."

Paul (sarcastically): "Geeze Ma, I forgot...."

Charlie: "Alright, make it your socks. Ok everybody, it's gunna work like this, you reach in the box and pull out a pair, if it's your own - you have to put it back, pick another, then it's teams, boxers vs briefs"

Willie: "We don't have an equal number of Boxers and Briefs"

[Charlie and Willie peruse the underwear box]

Charlie: "Briefs with holes, and Paul's socks count as Boxers."

Steve (Stalagmiteer & Germaphobe): "Couldn't we have done this with little pieces of paper"

Charlie (big smile): "NO, because we're going to play wearing the underwear we picked OVER OUR HEADS!"

[yet more groans]

Charlie (still smiling): "OK....."

Joel: "Murlph garliph plaqu....."

Charlie: "talk through one one of the leg holes, Joel"

Joel: "What's the time control?"

Charlie: "Oh, that's the fun part...."

[silence (and fear)]

Charlie: "....everyone has 40 minutes total to use on all his games, but...

[more groans]

Charlie: "...you divide your rating, by the waist size of the underwear your wearing on your head, divide that number by Pi, rounded to the third decimal place, and subtract that time in minutes from your time in each round"

[a long silence]

Steve: "Wait a minute, I only have two and a half minutes left"

Charlie (big smile): "See, it's fun already!"

Tom: "Somehow, I can't stop thinking 'E Coli'"

Charlie: "Hey, where did Steve go....."

So in the end, what does it all mean? Well, as in most things you need to somewhat unfocus, loose the minutia and ask yourself "are we having fun?" If the answer is no, make a change, if the answer is yes, carry on. Personally, I'll also welcome that third club when someone starts it up.

by Sam Lander Capocyan

1. This was against the the tournament leader,
2. I was playing against an opening I have not encountered before,
3. I had preparation against this opening but I did not stick to my plan,
4. This gives me a reason to believe that I am a legitimate class B player, and lastly but not the least, I think there are few tactics and strategies to learn from this game from both sides of the board and the way I handled the endgame.

White - Sanchez, Jesus (1756)
Black - Capocyan,Sam Lander (1647)
2010 SOUTH HOUSTON OPEN
2/14/2010
[A00]

1.b4 Nf6 2.Bb2 e6 my plan is to force him to move a3 or c3 3.a3 as I was expecting. 3...d5 this was not part of my opening preparation, but still, I have the time to move a5 later on which was my main plan.

[Here is my preparation 3...a5 4.b5 d5 5.e3 Bd6 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Be2 Nbd7 8.d4 c5 9.bxc6 (9.dxc5 Nxc5 10.0-0 b6 11.Qd4 Bb7) 9...bxc6 10.Nbd2 Rb8 believe it or not, with the help of computer (Rybka) and my dad, I prepared this variation up to here. Black has a good game with this position.]

4.e3 c6 this is really just my own idea. When I am playing black, I like closed position whereas with white, I like open and aggressive play. Again, I did not go with my preparation which is to move a5! [4...a5 5.b5 Bd6 6.Nf3 0-0 7.Be2 Nbd7 8.d4 c5 which lead to a position similar to my preparation.] 5.Nf3 Be7 6.Be2 0-0 [Here, I could have played 6...a5 again which will lead to a similar position on my opening preparation.]

7.0-0 Nbd7 8.c4 b6?! dubious?! My only reason for this is my plan to push my c-pawn to c5. [Better is 8...dxc4! 9.Bxc4 b5 10.Be2 a5 11.bxa5 Bb7 12.Qc2 Qxa5] 9.Nc3 he just gave in to my plan for 9. ..c5. [Better for him is 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.Nc3], [10.cxd5 exd5 11.bxc5 would have given me isolated pawn.]

10...Bb7 11.cxd5 exd5 12.d3 Rc8 13.a4 c4 [Perhaps 13...Bd6 is better.] 14.dxc4 dxc4 15.Qc2 Qc7 16.Rfd1 Ng4?! This move is "I do not know what I am thinking here." I feel white is better and I am now regretting I did not stick to my opening plan. [16...Rfd8 makes more sense, but I did not see this during the game.] 17.g3?! [Better is 17.Nd5! Bxd5 18.Rxd5 Ngf6 19.Bxf6 Nxf6 and white has a slight positional advantage.] 17...Nge5 18.Nxe5 Nxe5 19.Nd5 Bxd5 20.Rxd5 c3 [20...Bf6! is better.] 21.Ba3? [21.Qxc3! Qxc3 22.Bxc3 Rxc3 23.Rxe5 Bf6 24.Rd5 Rc2 25.Bd1+- and white is simply better!]

21...Bxa3 22.Rxa3 g6 23.f4 Nd7 24.Bg4?? as they say, when your opponent makes a bad move, it is usually followed by another bad move if you keep finding the right move yourself. 24...Nf6! 25.Bxc8 [25.Rd3 is also bad for white.] 25...Nxd5 26.Bh3 Qc5! I am proud of this move! I spent about 5 minutes on this. One year ago, I probably would take e3-pawn with my Knight. [NOT 26...Nxe3? because of 27.Rxc3! Qe7 28.Qe2 Re8 29.Kf2 Nd5 30.Qxe7 Rxe7 31.Rc6 which most likely lead to a draw.]

27.Ra1 Qxe3+ [Stronger move is 27...Nxe3 but even if I did not do this, I was still winning.] 28.Qf2 [28.Kh1 can prolong the game 28...Nxf4 29.gxf4 Qxh3 but black is still better] 28...c2 29.Qxe3 Nxe3 30.Kf2 Rd8! 31.Kxe3 I was willing to give my Knight. I calculated this including his Bishop hanging at h3. 31...Rd1 32.Rc1 Rxc1 33.Kd2 this is probably what he was thinking, but I calculated beyond this point! 33...Rh1! 34.Kxc2 Rxh2+ his Bishop and his King are forked! 35.Kb3 Rxh3 White is totally lost. 36.Kb4 Rxg3 37.a5 Rg4 38.axb6 axb6 39.Kc4 Rxf4+ 40.Kd5 Rf6 0-1

Sam Lander Capocyan

by Brian Farrell

The current form of chess has been around for 500 years and still nobody can agree on what value to assign the pieces. I have been doing research on this subject and have probably looked at 30 different value charts by the greatest minds and players in the history of chess. Everybody has their own ideas on this subject, and there is no real consensus. Out of all the charts I've looked at I liked this one the most. If it's good enough for Bobby Fischer then it's good enough for me. Bobby gives the values as follows:

1 pawn = 1
1 Knight = 3
1 Bishop = 3 1/4
1 Rook = 5
1 Queen = 9

If you add all those together, 8 for pawns, 6 for Knights, 6 1/2 for Bishops, 10 for Rooks, and 9 for the Queen you come up with 39 1/2 for each player. The thing that makes chess so difficult and so much fun is the exchanging of all these pieces in different ways while trying to tip the balance of power your way,or in other words by winning a material advantage.

Generally speaking the more mobility a piece has the higher its value. The one thing missing here is the King, and to be honest with you until just recently I've never even heard of anyone assigning a value to the King ( because it can't be traded off ), but it surely has value as a combatant. In the opening and the middlegame the King's goal is to just stay out of trouble, but in the endgame the King gets to play. To win, or draw you need every piece working as a team and that includes the King. The King often becomes an attacking piece in the endgame because most of the other pieces are gone. The problems with the King are that it's slow and vulnerable to check. What makes this game fun if you really think about it is the fact that at the end of the game it often comes down to a King and pawn endgame where the pieces move at pretty much the same speed. It's a complicated race to the finish where mistakes are fatal. Several charts I've read give the King a value of 4 because of it's attacking and defending skills. It's said to be better at attacking than a bishop and better at defending than a Knight. But I say it would have no chance against 4 pawns. Other charts have it rated lower. I give the King a rating of 3.

These values are guidelines we use to help us in making decisions when exchanging material. The truth of the matter is the chart is a good guide but there is a whole lot more to it than that. You got all that, good. Cause now it' really starts to get complicated. Chess slowly reveals her secrets to those who study her long enough. The true value of a piece depends on a lot of different things:

1. Where it's located on the board.
2. It's mobility.
3. What pieces it's teamed up with.
4. What pieces are opposing it.
5. The specific's of the game.
6. Duplication of square control.

Rook pawn 1/2
Knight pawn 1 1/4
Bishop pawn 1 1/2
Central pawn 2

There are many different ideas on pawns as well. The central pawns are worth more early in the game than the outside pawns. This changes however late in the game. The value's of the outside pawns become higher than that of the central pawns in the endgame. Isolating, doubling and tripling pawns only make them weaker. Passed pawns and far advanced pawns gain value as they threaten to get to there queening square.

The Knights:

• lose much of their strength on the edge of the board
• are worth more, and often preferred in closed positions
• are worth more when advanced into enemy territory
• are worth more at the start of the game because of their immediate influence in the center
• are sometimes better than Bishops in the endgame when the pawns are all on one side of the board
• are inferior to Bishops in the endgame when the pawns are on both sides of the board
• tend get weaker late in the game.

The Bishops:

• are favored over Knights in open positions
• get stronger the more the material gets traded off because the position opens up
• having the Bishop pair is said to be worth another 1/2 point in value
• endgames with Bishops of opposite colors tend to be draws because they can never be traded off that are trapped by their own pawns are weak and considered to be bad Bishops
• what makes the Bishop pair so powerful and desirable is simple the fact they can control all the squares on the board without any duplication what so ever.

The Rooks:

• are weak at the start of the game because they are trapped behind their own own pawns and are stuck in the corner
• need to be activated and placed on open files and ranks
• should be doubled up to maximize there power
• are strong pieces in the middle game
• are great attackers and clumsy defenders
• should attack advancing pawns from the rear
• often take over the endgame.

The Queen:

• should not be put into action too early
• works her magic in the middlegame
• works best when kept centralized
• works well with Bishops.

Some thoughts: Bishops work great as a team. Having the Bishop pair is said to be worth an additional 1/2 point because they are so strong together I also believe the Rook pair should be thought of in a similar manner.

Some experts go a lot further into piece values than what we just touched on by giving each individual piece a separate value, for example the King's side Knight would be worth more than the Queen side Knight. Also pieces that don't work in harmony and block each others way are not reaching their full potential.

Checkmate!
Brian Farrell

P.S."Modern chess is too much concerned with things like pawn structures.Forget it, checkmate ends the game." Nigel Short

By Brian Farrell

• Chess is the forever changing puzzle.
• Chess is complexity on an unimaginable scale.
• Chess is truly magnificent and oh so mysterious.
• Chess is the woman you could never figure out, and It has been said that chess is the touchstone of intellect.

What separates players who have the same general abilities, equal in knowledge, and experience? It's the will to win.   You can learn a lot about a man by the way he plays chess.   Chess is not only a contest of intelligence, but a test of nerves, guts, and will power.   When the hard times come and they will, a refuse to lose attitude can help you through the darkness.   An unbreakable spirit, a never say die attitude, sheer determination and a belief in yourself that you will find away to win is the one thing that cannot be measured.   It's passion for the game, that burning desire to win that keeps us focused and concentrating on strategies and tactics, searching for an edge, and a way to win.   The will to win is making your own luck by being opportunistic even when things are not so good.   Watch out, just because you out weigh a kid by 150 pounds doesn't mean he's scared of you at the chess board.   The guy who doesn't know he's beaten is the one who is dangerous to play.   Set goals for yourself, and most importantly if you ever do reach them don't forget to reset them.

Bobby Fischer was famous for his iron will in addition to his incredible chess abilities.   He lived and breathed chess his whole life with one goal in mind, to become World Champion.   Once he achieved his goal his life fell apart.   He forgot to reset his goals to something else.

I've heard the same story of an astronaut who spent his entire life training so he could fly to the moon.   Once he accomplished this goal he had lost all his motivation and his life turned bad.   What could he possibly do to top that? Nothing, but he forgot change his goals to something different and move on.

Chess is pro-wrestling for the mind.   It's a lot of fun to play but at some point your gonna get bounced off the ropes and slammed to the mat by some big, hairy, 800 lb. gorilla and you better be able to pick yourself up and get back in the game.   Studying makes us smart, practicing keeps us sharp, but it's our will power that makes us strong.

P.S.   It's the horsey-shape piece that moves in an L shape. It's what makes chess complicated, and why stupid people can't play chess.   Go play Checkers! Knights are the first piece you look at.   They elevate the game.   No chess master wants to lose her Knights.   -Courtney Love

That quote just cracks me up.   Ha Ha Ha
Checkmate!
Brian Farrell

By Brian Farrell

Everybody wants a title by their name to show everyone else just how important they really are.   If you've ever gone in to the bosses office and asked for a raise chances are pretty fair that he couldn't give one right now, but since you've been such a devoted employee he will give you a new title, the title you deserve.   So instead of being just another average grunt worker down at the shop making little widgets and barely scraping by paycheck to paycheck, you are now SOMEBODY.   From now on you will be known as the Super Duper Midget Widget Quality Inspector Technician.   Your new title involves a little more work and responsibility but now the mere mention of your title commands respect! You showed him who is really running this show, and heck you didn't really need that extra money anyway.  

Chess has its share of titles.   Having a high rating does not automatically give you a title.   Continually beating up on a field of weaker players may get your rating up but it won't qualify you for a title.   You are expected to perform well at the level of the title your after against players of comparable strength to earn norms.   You will get your title once you've earned enough norms to qualify.   Here are a list of titles that can be acquired from The World Chess Federation which is also know as FIDE.   Titles by FIDE are awarded for life.  

GM

International Grandmaster, requirements include a rating of at least 2500 to be considered.   As of December 2008 there were 1192 Grandmasters which make up the top 0.   02 percent of all chess players.  

IM

International Master, requirements include a rating of at least 2400 to be considered.   The number of IM's as of December 2008 was 2916.  

FM

FIDE Master, requirements include at least a rating of 2300 to be considered.  

WGM

Woman Grandmaster, requirements include a rating of 2300 to be considered.   There are approximately 200 women Grandmasters.  

WIM

Woman International Master, requirements include rating of 2200 to be considered.  

WFM

Women's FIDE Master, requirements include a rating of 2100 to be considered.  

It takes minimum USCF rating of 1999 to get FIDE rated.   If your rated lower than this they don't even know your alive.   Well let's not talk about my problems here.   The United States Chess Federation or USCF also has lifetime achievement titles.  

This information is according to the USCF rule book.  

Rating Level	Title
2900	5 -Star Master
2800	4 -Star Master
2700	3 -Star Master
2600	2 -Star Master
2500	Star Master
2400	Senior Life Master
2300	Advanced Life Master
2200	Life Master
2100	Advanced Expert
2000	Certified Expert
1900	Advanced Class A
1800	Certified Class A
1700	Advanced Class B
1600	Certified Class B
1500	Advanced Class C
1400	Certified Class C
1300	Advanced Class D
1200	Certified Class D
1100	Advanced Class E
1000	Certified Class E

There are also rating classes for the purpose of general classification and that are often used for the awarding of prizes in tournaments.  

Players are grouped by ratings like so:

Senior Master

2400 and above

Master

2200 - 2399

Expert

2000 - 2199

Class A

1800 - 1999

Class B

1600- 1799

Class C

1400 - 1599

Class D

1200 - 1399

Class E

under 1200

A beginner with a USCF rating of 1100 is considered a sharp cookie.   What is the purpose of these ratings anyway? The ratings are a measure of ones playing strength and are used in tournaments for pairing purposes.   Your rating is kind of like your batting average.   There are regular time control, quick chess, blitz, and correspondence ratings.   These ratings are by no means a guarantee to the outcome of a game, but they do give some indication as to the probable outcome of that game (the expected result).  

Here is a probability chart:

Rating Difference	Scoring probability of player with the higher rating
0 Points	50% - an even chance
50 Points	57%
100 Points	64%
150 Points	70%
200 Points	76%
250 Points	81%
300 Points	85%
350 Points	88%
400 Points	91%
450 Points	93%
500 Points	95%
550 Points	96%
600 Points	97%
675 Points	98% - Wins 98 out of a100 times
800 Points	99% - He could only lose if he quit breathing and fell over dead.

The highest rating ever achieved since they started keeping track of ratings back in the early 1970's belongs to Garry Kasparov with a all time high of 2849 from July 2000 to January 2001.   Some say Bobby Fischer was actually stronger at his peak but there is no true way to compare players from different eras due to a number of issues such rating inflation, or no ratings at all.   So we will just have to keep arguing about it forever.  

So remember if you can't get a raise or even get paid for what you are doing then at least get a title and some snappy initials to put by your name, then have some business cards printed up.   It's the latest craze, everybody's doing it.  

Checkmate,
Brian Farrell
VP of the Permian Basin Chess Club

P.S.   "So I was having dinner with Garry Kasparov - Problem was, we had a checkered tablecloth and it took him two hours to pass the salt!"

By Brian Farrell

I have hit the chess playing wall, and its a big one too.It's the mother of all chess playing walls.It's on the same monstrous scale as The Great Wall Of China or something like it.Being a 1700 level chess player, armed only with a chess set, a can-do attitude and 16 years of experience you would think that I could push myself through hard work and study back up to 1800.Back in the day (14 years ago) when I was fairly new to tournament chess and rated in the 1600's my personal goal was to reach 1700 within a year.Much to my surprise I easily hit 1700 and then went passed it to the 1800's.

It seem so easy at the time.Well then I entered a tournament and lost a few points.No worry I'll get those back.Then next time, I lost some more points.Then I started to slide.I stopped sliding and leveled off around 1700.I had hit "The Wall".The wall is an invisible barrier ( one of personal limitations ) that you can be sure is very real.Now I've tried climbing the wall, but I can't seem to find a ladder high enough.I've tried to break it down but the wall seems to be impassable, impregnable, impermeable, impossible, indestructible, indomitable, and invincible not to mention big, mean, nasty, and oh yeah it's ugly too.I have played in a lot of events over the years and my rating has fluctuated mostly in a 100 point range, bouncing around in the 1700's ever since.I was recently one game away from getting back to 1800 and lost it, and then I had another set back.

As a kid at the age of 6, my training consisted of my brother showing me how the pieces move..After my 20 minute training session we put the chess set in the box and slid it back under the bed where it stayed undisturbed for years.After that I was on my own.Next I started playing chess with friends when I was about 23, I then read a few books on the subject.I am a self taught chess player from the School of Hard Knocks.It's a very tough school without any teachers where you learn what doesn't work and try not to repeat it to often.

I have studied chess for years on my own.I've read a lot of books, and watched a lot of videos and would like to think I'm a better player than I was back then, but that doesn't seem to be the case when I look at my ratings results which I feel are accurate.The numbers don't lie.Hiring a coach would not be a bad idea, something that I may get around to as soon as I can afford it.I am really not that far from reaching my goal of getting back to 1800 but through my eyes it seems like I'm trying to jump the Grand Canyon on a bicycle.I hold steadfast to my dreams and personal goals and I will make it happen someday.Some of you guys know what my goals are and have been real supportive of me and I am appreciative of that.Now having said that I know when we are playing you are trying to crush the very life out of me, that's understood.

If I ever reached the 1800's again I could not maintain it for very long by being an active player.The only way I could keep that rating is not to play anymore ( The Bobby Fischer method ) and that would be absolutely crazy to give up the game I love so much, so I would be satisfied just reach that level again knowing that I achieved my personal best.I have known a lot of chess players over the years and the story of hitting the wall is similar to all who play this game for very long.We all have different abilities but at some point no matter what you do you reach your plateau.Your understanding, underlying strategies, and habits take you so far and you don't know how to break through this wall and get better.Well then what's the solution you ask.There is no solution, but there is an answer.Why did you start playing this game to start with? We play to have fun, and make friends.

Update: Do you believe in miracles? 13 Years and 41 over the board tournaments later, and a week after writing the above article "Hitting The Wall" the stars aligned in my favor and I got my Class A (1800) rating back.This defies all known logic.I recently practiced very hard for The National Open in Las Vegas hoping to do well and win my points back there.It didn't happen.I over practiced and didn't play well.For this last tournament I purposely tried not to practice before hand and just clear my head and things worked out a lot better for me.Never give up on your dreams.Keep trying and good things will happen for you.

Checkmate, Brian Farrell

P.S. - A cowboy walks into a bar and orders a drink.Someone suddenly screams "He's taking your horse!".The cowboy get's up shoots a guy then runs out to see that his horse was fine.He comes back in, orders another drink, a voice says "He's taking your horse!".The cowboy get's up, shoots another guy, runs out but there was no one near his horse and he comes back in.The bartender says "Move the darn horse away from the queen already before this guy shoots us all!"

http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2002/12/27/the_pariah_chess_club

By Brian Farrell

White having the first move gets the game started on his terms. You have the advantage of starting play in familiar territory and having some say about the direction the game is headed. In tournament play everyone wants their due amount of turns playing as White, I know I want mine. Is it really that big of a deal though? Read on and then decide for your self.

Statistics compiled by ChessGames.com of the 441,854 games in their data base showed that White won 36.78%, Black won 26.64%, and 36.58% were drawn. The scoring percentage is calculated by taking the winning percentage of White 36.78% and half of the drawing percentage which would be 18.39% and adding those together. White's overall scoring percentage comes to 55.07% and Black's 44.93%. A difference of 10%. The percentages are very similar when computers play each other. Jeff Sonas a chess statistician (http://db.chessmetrics.com/ ) has concluded that White's advantage is equivalent to 35 Elo rating points in standard play.

White's edge is smaller in quick games and also in slower games. This is a just a number this mathematician came up with but it sounds pretty accurate to me. This raises the question what if Black wastes a move (tempi) in the opening and is now 2 moves (tempos) behind, is this equivalent to being out rated by 70 Elo rating points? Now if White having the first move makes a small mistake in the opening then Black can easily equalize. If Black makes a mistake (and there are probably no small ones) then he can be in a whole lot of trouble. With correct play White should maintain some edge into the endgame. As we know all openings are not created equal.

For some fascinating and eye opening reading on this subject go to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/adam.bozon/stats.htm. This site gives you the true story on your favorite openings as White and as Black in percentages of winning, losing, and drawing. It is no coincidence that the strongest players play only the strongest openings. The majority of chess players don't really know this information so they can't make an informed decision about what they should play. Believe it or not 1.e4 does not have as high of an overall success rate as 1.c4, 1.d4, 1.g3, or 1.Nf3 mainly because of the Sicilian Defense. The Sicilian Defense creates unbalanced and complicated positions where White's initiative often disappears. Against 1.d4, Nimzo Indian players enjoy a high success rate. If you like pain, or just want to go home early then try the Bird's Opening ( losing with 1.f4 ).

To summarize playing White is an advantage, and it can be compared to having the serve in tennis a game, but you will get your share of playing Black so it all equals out in the end. Play only the strongest openings to maximize your chances with the White and Black pieces.

Checkmate Brian Farrell

P.S.Old chess players never die they just keep on thinking, and thinking.

by Brian Farrell

Now I know what your saying.Brian I always thought you were crazy, now I'm sure of it.Get out of town.Your pulling my leg.You can't be serious, your just kidding me right? Right, I am just kidding you.I might of lied to you a little bit there.Sorry I got your hopes up, but it is simply an impossibility, and if it were somehow possible (AND IT'S NOT) it would be beyond the scope of this article.19 years ago, I played the right move in the game of love and won my Queen.As we all know the Queen is beautiful and holds a lot of power.As it is in life, chess isn't as lively or near as much fun with out her.At the end of the game if you've lost your Queen then your always trying to get another one.Pawn Promotion - Now I wonder who thought this rule up? Do you want a Knight? ...No.Do you want a Bishop? ...No I don't.Do you want a Queen?...I do.Once you say I do and tie the knot then all seems right in the world again.When they asked a young women what her favorite sport was she said tennis, because every game begins with love.A love letter from a chess player to his girlfriend: "You are my white pawn on d8".If you need help with your love life go to eharmony.com., I can't help you here.What I can do is share some famous chess quotes with you.Here they are.

"How could I lose to such an idiot?" - One of my opponents.

"The hardest chess position to win is stalemate" - Bill Wall

"Forcing an opponent to resign is the best way to win." - Unknown

"Pawn endings are to chess what putting is to golf." - Cecil Purdy

"Nobody ever won a game of chess by resigning" - Tartakower

"You may have learned to play chess in prison, but I learned it in the Psych Ward" I not sure who said this.Maybe it was you?

"I failed to make the chess team because of my height" - Woody Allen

"When you absolutely don't know what to do any more, it's time to panic." - Van der Wiel

"If there's no pawn: there's no Queen" - Unknown

"The combination player thinks forward; he starts from a given position, and tries the forceful moves in his mind" - Emaunal Lasker

"Maybe my opponent won't see it" -Steve Dudley

"I gave up a piece for this position" - Bill Brooks

"Patzer sees check, Patzer makes check" Bobby Fischer

Once I got a draw playing a local guy rated 2150 and he said."I'm not coming back again until I'm a Grandmaster" I never saw him again.

"Chess is everything, art, science, and sport" - Anatoly Karpov

When asked how many moves he saw ahead, Capablanca replied: "Just one, the best one"

"The Tactician knows what to do when there is something to do: whereas the strategian knows what to do when there is nothing to do." - Gerald Abrahams

Play the opening like a book, the middlegame like a magician, and the endgame like a machine." - Spielmann

"When you see a good move, look for a better one" - Emmanuel Lasker

"Openings teach you openings, but endgames teach you chess." Capablanca

"Never lose a pawn and never lose a game" - Unknown

"Checkmate" - Brian Farrell

"The most powerful weapon in chess is to have the next move." - David Bronstein

"In a gambit you give up a pawn for the sake of getting a lost game" - Samuel Boden

"How did both your Bishops get on the same color square?" -Unknown

I once had a cowgirl tell me that if you always treat your woman like a thoroughbred then she never be a nag.So here is what I recommend.Do one romantic thing a week.That doesn't sound like much does it.A week can go by very fast my friend, so you will have to work at it.Buy her flowers, write her a note, take her to the movies just never lose that feeling, you know the one, the feeling that you had when you first met.Play chess when you can but don't leave your Queen hanging.

Checkmate Brian Farrell

by Brian Farrell

Next time you have a night off watch a chess movie.Here are a few ideas.

1. Searching for Bobby Fischer Rated PG, Released 1993 Based on the life of child genius Josh Waitzkin played by Max Pomeranc.The title of this movie really should be Searching for the Next Bobby Fischer.At age 7 Josh learns how to play chess by watching people play in the park.Soon it becomes clear that he is very talented.His first teacher is a chess hustler from the park named Vinnie.His dad then wants a better teacher for his son and hires a professional chess coach played by Ben Kingsley.This story was written by Fred Waitzin, Josh's Father and it is is a great movie! I would highly recommend it to anyone.I give it a rating of 3 1/2 out of four stars.
2. Knights of The South Bronx Rated PG, Released 2006 Ted Danson stars as a recently laid off executive who takes a job as a 4th grade school teacher in the Bronx to help pay the bills.He's not making much money but he's doing what he loves most.Life in the Bronx is rough and Ted has a hard time connecting with the his class until he introduces them to chess.He teaches them about chess and some of life's lessons along the way.I enjoyed this movie and my eyes teared up a couple of times.If you like kids, and you like chess you'll like this movie.Release your inner Ninja's - You'll have to watch this movie to find out what I'm talking about.I give it a rating of 2 1/2 out of four stars.
3. Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine Rated PG, Released 2003 This is a documentary film about the Rematch of Kasparov versus Deep Blue ( the computer from IBM ).Man versus machine, an experiment in intelligence to see how far computers have advanced.In the first match in 1996 they played 6 games.Kasparov won the match with 3 wins, 2 draws, 1 loss.Final score Kasparov 4 to 2.The match was media sensation.The rematch took place 1 year later.A computer had never beaten the world champion in a match before.Could it this time? To be fair this was anything but an ordinary computer.The IBM team had Kasparov's previous games to analyze and put in to the data base, a huge advantage.This was also a 6 game match.Kasparov won the first game as white in a King's Indian Attack.He got a pawn across and promoted it for a queen and went on to win nicely.Game 2 the computer played white, and Kasparov's position got cramped.Late in the game Kasparov tried to sacrifice a pawn but the computer would not take it.Instead blocking up the position and leaving it's King open to a perpetual check which Kasparov missed.He resigned the game.In the press conference Kasparov said that the computer made a human move not a computer move.This is where the controversy started.Games 3, 4 , 5 were draws.Game 6, the final game, Kasparov was pretty well mentally exhausted.Deep Bue was playing white, Kasparov was black( playing a Caro-Kann).On the eight move Deep Blue sacrificed a Knight ripping open Kasparov's King side.The rest is hard to tell.Deep Blue won the game and the match.Deep Blue won with 2 wins, 3 draws, 1 loss.The directors of this movie STRONGLY insinuate that Karpov (Kasparov's longtime rival) conspired with IBM in secret and against the rules.They want you to believe that it was a Deep Blue/Karpov versus Kasparov match.Yeah right, give me a break.One thing is clear.Kasparov has class, Karpov has class.The directors of this bad movie don't have any.The one good thing in this movie was that it showed a lot of historical chess match footage, mostly Kasparov versus Karpov.Don't waste your time on this movie.I give it a rating of 1out of four stars.
4. From Russia with Love Rated PG Released 1963 This was the second James Bond film made.A chess grandmaster works for Specter an evil organization as a planner for their criminal schemes.Nothing can go wrong because he has considered every possible variation in his plan.Staring Sean Connery as 007.It starts with a great scene of a big chess match played in a grand venue.The game being played in this movie is a actually a game taken from an old Spassky versus Bronstien match..This is old school James Bond and it is a cool movie.I give it a rating of 3 out of 4 stars.

Chess Basics

by Brian Farrell

We have new players coming to our chess meetings and they ask questions in an effort to improve their game.Some without much experience, and they are unsure of how to proceed with game planning.There are three phases to a typical chess game.

The Opening - The first ten moves or so.You move one, two, maybe even three pawns, get your pieces out to good squares, fighting for the center, and castling.You are preparing for the battle to come which is the Middlegame.

The Middlegame - This is all out warfare where you try to checkmate your opponent, or more often try to get a material advantage so you can force checkmate, or gain a positional advantage that you can take into the endgame and force a win.You will need a balance of attack and defense.

The Endgame - This phase of the game generally is said to have started when the queens and most (but not all) of the pieces have been traded off.The Kings come out of hiding and get into the battle.Knowing exactly when to bring out the King separates the men from the boys.

There also three other very important factors that come into play.

1. Time - The speed at which you get your pieces into play.I can not stress to you how important this can be to the outcome of the game.
2. Space - The more space you control the easier it is to maneuver your pieces.If you have more space, then you want to avoid exchanging pieces and freeing up your opponents position.If you have a cramped position then you should look for ways to trade off your pieces to give yourself a better game.
3. Superior Force - This can mean an overall stronger force, or a force that is concentrated and stronger in one area of of the board, and hopefully pointed at your opponents King.

There is a set of guidelines that can make your chess playing better in a hurry if you adhere to them.These guidelines are known as the General Principles of Chess.We will go over 11 of them although there are plenty more.The opening ( it depends on which opening) consists of moving one, two, or three pawns, and developing your pieces quickly too good squares, and in most cases castling (generally to the King's side because it's quicker).

• #1 White has the first move (the initiative) and should fight for control of the center from the very start.Black is a move behind from the start and has to fight back for control of the center or his position will get cramped and it will be hard for him to get his pieces developed to attack, or even to defend against an attack.*Rapid development is your best friend.
• #2 Try to avoid moving any piece or pawn twice in the opening unless you have a very good reason for doing so (for example being attacked).*Move only the pawns necessary to develop your pieces in the opening.Attacking prematurely against some one good will get you wiped off the board before you ever get started.
• #3 Develop Knights before Bishops.The Knight can be developed the quickest of any piece since you do not have to move a pawn in order to get into play.Moving out your King's side Knight before your King's side Bishop is almost always a good idea.* Moving out the Knight first is quicker and immediately grabs control over a central square.
• #4 In the Opening block any checks against your King with developing moves if you can.
• #5 Castle early.Get your King to safety, and away from the center of the board where it is cannon fodder.Once you have castled keep a good pawn structure in front of your King.*Don't castle if it will bring your King into greater danger.You will want to castle most of the time, but not always.
• #6 Don't move your Queen out to early.This is something that can be very tempting because it has so much power.It is very dangerous to do this, and you could lose it.Pieces of lesser value can attack it easily causing you to have to continually move it out of danger, and causing you to lose a lot of time (moves).Losing these moves will cause you to fall behind in development.
• #7 Avoid exchanges which which develop another piece for your opponent.
• #8 When making a capture with your pawns, if faced with a choice, capture toward the center if the position permits.This will result in a overall stronger position.This is one of the first strategies I ever learned in chess and it is one of the best.It is simple and easy to remember.
• #9 Activate the power of your Rooks.Rooks need open Files and Ranks to be effective.Put your Rooks on open Files and double them if possible.
• #10 The King is a major force in the Endgame and should be activated as soon as it is safe to do so.
• #11 If you go into the Endgame a Rook up, you shouldn't have any problems.

There is much more to it than just these 11 Principles, but this will get you started down the right road.There are Chess Masters and then there are the rest of us, the students of the game.This is one crazy fun game to play, and that's what keeps us coming back for more.

Checkmate,
Brian Farrell

Game Evaluation

by Charlie Vetter

This article can be found on the Games Page, where you can play through the game as you read the annotations.

Director's Niche

The oath of Italian Boyscouts (if there are any). In Texan it means "fix'in to get ready".

Just a small note, I think it would be a good idea from a functional point of view if we got in the habit of bringing our personal chess equipment (those of us who have it) to our events. We have club equipment, but the day will come when something out of the ordinary will happen; illness, flat tires, dead batteries, alarm clocks that used to work, etc, and the club equipment will not make it. For tournaments this would mean that all that's necessary is a first round pairing, and for club meetings, just start playing. Think of the club equipment as an extension of our own personal stuff. Just get in the habit of throwing it in the trunk as you leave, whether you end up using it or not.

Director's Niche

The club is growing (and the club in Midland as well). We have a venue for our regular tournaments at St.Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church. For casual play and public exposure we have the Student Union at U.T.P.B.

There are many reasons to expand the club, but in my view the first reason is to establish a lasting chess presence in West Texas. Odessa and Midland have populations of about 100,000 each, and yet we who play chess here have known and played the same 2 dozen or so people over the last quarter of a century.

I strongly believe that one of the reasons local chess clubs have struggled is that they are hard to find. While you can, and we have, played in any out-of-the-way place with just tables and chairs and lighting, it does you little good if no one knows you are there, or you're not there the next time someone looks.Another problem is character. Another problem, while chess players have an almost universal reputation as being smart (this is bull, its like saying everyone who owns tennis shoes is fast), but lets be truthful amongst ourselves about the most common character trait of chess players EVERYWHERE, antisocial tendencies. The potential chess club member struggles mightily to find a club, only to show up and be (or at least feel) ignored. The same contemplative inner focus that aids us as chess players, fails us as club MEMBERS.

Another reason that chess clubs struggle is diversity. Not diversity in the touchy-feely politically correct sense, but in the diversity of choices that comes from interaction within a larger group of people. Oh yes, the lack of that other type of diversity greatly affects our game, the female half of humanity, for instance, is largely disinterested.But that's fodder for another rant. No, chess players are no more of one mind than any other subset of humanity. Some want to play fast, some slow, some are willing/able to play for 2 days straight, while many struggle to play at all. And everyone wants to play "up", which is hard if your already near the top (and I'll bet not even one of you is crying).

All of these these problems and many more are alleviated, at least in part by establishing and maintaining a larger club. We do that by staying active, involved, visible and friendly. With more people involved, the greater the chance to find someone (several someones) of a like mind.

Be patient, participate, contribute what you can, and someday there will be enough going on that all of us can readily find just exactly what he wants.

Director's Niche

Several people have expressed to me their desire to get in more rated games. To that end I have posted to the U.S.C.F.forums, to get advice on getting more rated play in around all our schedules. My original thought was to hold a one round "tournament", pairing to be agreed on, Game/90, one dollar entry fee, no prizes. But I was not sure about ratings between disparately rated players and USCF rules.

The advice I have gotten back (please check it out) is that some clubs hold such tournaments over a larger block of time (like a month) and then turn in the results as one tournament. As the same people would not always show up, there would likely be a large number of byes.

For us, would that mean picking a fixed day (or night) of the week? Would we need to nail down one playing site? We would, I think, want to play different people over time. We could draw lots to pair. I think we need to stick with the notification system. For the coming night someone would coordinate, via email or phone, and players would "sign up", we could post to web site. That way, no one would show up and not be able to play. And I should stress that this would be played under tournament conditions. We would need to pick a quiet place, maybe the church or UTPB, and bring our own equipment.

Any interest, any ideas?

Update: (input from Owen)
It may be possible for us to use the education rooms of St.Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church for this on Friday nights.

3 rounds (3 fridays in the same month, NOT including the friday before the monthly saturday),

time control: game/90-delay/5

sign-up via email , and posting of players online.

start time:?, Give me some feed back (what's too early, what's too late)

Contact me.

I grew up in New York City and neither of my parents know the moves of chess.They did know to take me to Disneyland when I was about six years old back in 1965 or so. While there, we visited an uncle who taught me chess.

I took to the game, and as a kid I played chess with the other kids between baseball games and swims in Tommy's pool.I was better than the other kids and when my high school had a chess tournament, I won it, and when my college student union had a chess tournament I won it too.I figured there were better people than me somewhere in the world, but I'd never meet them.

After college I moved by myself out west in 1981.A single teacher by myself, at some point I noticed in the Midland Reporter Telegram that there was a Midland Chess Club.I wanted to go, but didn't for a couple of years.What was the hesitation?

The club met in the county jail !

I wanted to play, but I really didn't want to be part of some prison program so I wavered week after week. Finally, it was summer.I was bored, and I gave it a try.

Turns out it wasn't a prison program.Judge Pine was a friend of the club, and he let the group play in his courtroom.We had to get buzzed in and wear a name badge, and we played on the witness stands and the lawyers' tables.

That's when I discovered that there were after all chess players better than me and I did get to meet them.I lost every game that first night, and for about three months after that first night.I quickly realized that there's a big difference between a chess player and a chess player. I found out that the chess club was made up of a core of players who were friends for years and the chess club had been meeting for decades every Tuesday night through lean and fat chess years.

The leader of the group was Bob Montgomery.A wonderful man, Bob just loved to play. For a few years in the 90's, Bob was listed in chess life as playing the most rated games of anyone in the US each year.When I look at my tournament history on USchess.org, there are tournaments where I went 3-1-1, and Bob went 5-9.Between rounds or after games, he would grab people and ask if they'd play another game in 30.In his later years, Bob had MS, and as his health deteriorated, he still played his tournaments in his wheelchair with shaky hands.His wife once gave him a surprise birthday party.She rented a gym in Lubbock and secretly invited the area chess people. We had a two day all-night chess affair complete with trampolines and sleeping bags.A wonderful memory.Bob died close to 10 years ago.

An elderly gentleman who played with a white shirt and vest was Bill Knight.He played the Dragon Sicilian, and he always won my queen and he would laugh and laugh when he did it. We once had a tournament where you played one opponent a week and the two of you were responsible for setting up the place and time of the match.One week it was Bill's turn to play Dr Willie Callo.They set the game for his office.As Willie explained it, "I sacrificed my knight, and Bill had a heart attack." Not that there's a good place to have a heart attack, but if you must have one, playing chess against a doctor in his office across the street from the hospital is as good a place as any. Willie gave Bill a shot and took him to the emergency room.Unfortunately, Bill was to have other heart attacks, and died from one of them.

Fred McGary was Midland's traffic engineer and took ribbing for it.He and his wonderful wife were always first to invite young single me to their home for Thanksgiving and Easter.One Christmas they gave me a fancy bible loaded with footnotes and historical data with my name on it.It's been almost 30 years, but I still use that bible in the adult Sunday School classes I teach.

The times they are a changing, for back then the highest rated player of the group was a young Paul Newbury.

I've met some of my very best friends at the Midland Chess Club.

Willie, Steve Dudley, Keith Hall, and Bill Brooks were all regulars at the club for many years.

In October 1984 I played my first tournament.It was a two day affair hosted by the Odessa Chess club in a hotel on 2nd street.The Odessa club was playing at UTPB once a week, but folded in the mid-eighties soon after I started playing.I lost my first game to Gary Marble, but finished a respectable 2-2-1 and won the best unrated prize which was a free USCF membership for a year.That was about 200 tournaments ago, and my first published rating was 1401.

Over the years the Midland Chess Club has played at many locations, and has been kicked out of all of them, normally with a nice note saying how happy they were to have us, but regrettably ....

From the jail we went to the VFW Hall where we played for many years.The famous Callo- Diaz Open was held there which drew nationally known grandmasters.I remember Willie having to forfeit a game in the middle when a woman had the nerve to give birth right in the middle of his Botvinik attack.

For a few years we played at a weird little building owned by the Parks Department of Midland in the parking lot of the old Angels Stadium, There was a tournament one winter held there.An ice storm hit and the place was freezing and there was no heat.I remember coats shoved into holes in windows and putting the oven on for some heat.For some reason I remember the El Paso guys huddling over their boards with heavy coats and frozen breath.We were kicked out of that place to make room for the Ham Radio Club. They didn't want to have other people there since they were leaving their equipment around.Why the Ham Radio geeks outranked us chess nuts we never found out.

The Parks Department did make a gymnasium they ran across the street from the Red Cross in Midland.We played there a few weeks, but if you read the history of the greatest players in chess history, you'll often read about their struggles dealing with basketballs knocking their pieces off the board, so we were on the move again.

I was a teacher during this period and we had an active chess youth program going.The best place we played was at the Midland High Youth Center.The kids could play chess, and then ping pong or whatever.We even published our results in the newspaper each week like the bridge club does.It was during this period that we hosted the state junior championships at the Holiday Inn on Wall Street.

We played at the Midland College Student Center for a while until we were kicked out of there.The Dean said the custodians were giving him reports that we were wild, running around and tearing things off the walls.All you could do was laugh and look for another free place to play.

For a while we played at a baseball card shop.Then we found the Rehab Hospital where we stayed for a long time until we were again asked to leave.But we were used to that.

Our last place was Barnes and Nobles, but we were a fading lot.The kids were gone since I had long left teaching.Bob and Bill had died, the club was sometimes 2-3 people so we died with a whimper.

At its best, the Midland Chess Club from 1985-95 was a marauding horde.We met almost every Saturday morning in the Sam's Parking lot at about 5 am.Everyone would plow into Bill's van and we'd be off to El Paso or Lubbock or Levelland or Abilene or San Angelo or Amarillo even Big Lake for a tournament.Many tournaments were two day affairs in those days and we had a ball.

Somehow I missed some of the best memories.I didn't go to El Paso the time the group went to Juarez for lunch and Willie got so nervous coming back that he forgot how to speak English and got pulled out by the immigration police returning to the US.Jim Edmunds was best at telling that story, though Willie tells it well too.For Willie's best story, ask him about the monkey on the airplane though.

I also missed our first team event when a Midland team went to Hobbs to thrash those New Mexico hicks.

I was there the night we ran out of gas returning from Lubbock or Levelland.Since I was young? unmarried? I was deemed expendable and I hitchhiked into Midland, got some gas and drove it back out to the group who had two hours to find out that the best post-tournament analysis was done on the side of the road with car headlights.My memory said this was Steve's car?

With my kid going to Trinity and not liking sports, I started a chess team at the school last year.This got me thinking to get the chess club extant again.

Paul, Willie, Mike Dixon and myself decided to give it a try.Mike got us a playing site at Midland College and we had our organizational meeting at my house.Days before the meeting Steve Horn e-mailed me that there was a doctor getting a club going in Odessa too.Owen was invited to the meeting and explained how the Odessa club had been alive again for a few months already.

So, now we have two clubs in the Basin again.Hopefully we can make some new friends as dear as the old ones we lost, and have some more adventures around the chess board for the next decade or two.

Back in the Olden Days (when everyone walked 10 miles in the snow to get to school) there was a system known as pre-registering for a chess tournament. Why?

People joined the USCF by (snail) mail, or at their clubs or tournaments. But that just meant that someone else did the work for you.

So there you are, directing a tournament, its like 8:50 in the morning on a Saturday, play starts at 9:00, and people are stumbling in at the last minute. You have to collect entry fees, and almost everyone brings a large bill and needs change. You have to look up their ID and ratings. Rating Supplements were printed in paper books and delivered by sled dogs (or the US mail) to the clubs. If someone had not played in a while, you would have to look in the back issues to find them. And then someone brand new comes in (at 8:58) and you have to explain it all, collect dues and fees and fill out forms. Waaaaaaaaaay too much.

So you offer the "carrot" (your begging them to come, there is no "stick"), pre-register, send me your info and your entry fee and you'll get a discount on the entry fee. They save some money, you save some time.

Fast forward out of the Pleistocene, we now have instant communication, internet, cellphones, toll-free numbers. Almost anyone can join the USCF now, yes, right now, this minute. There is no need for an intermediary. Rating suppliments are digital databases (downloadable right now) that include everyone who is or has ever been a member. Type in a name, click, done.

And so, Pre-tournament Notification.

Not really Pre-registration, as no money changes hands, and no definite commitment on the players part. If you think you might like to play at the tournament, send us and email with your name and USCF ID#. We will go online and verify that you are a paid up member and what you current rating is. If there is a problem with either one of these, we will get back with you (BEFORE the tournament). If you show up, and pay your entry fee within 15 min of starting time for round one, you're in, otherwise, we are sorry you didn't make it, no harm - no foul, hope see you next time.

In practice, if you have been to one of our non-scholastic tournaments before and your USCF membership has not expired, you can just show up, because you will be in the latest database. If you have never been to any of our tournaments before, and you just show up, you will only be allowed to play if you are in the latest database, as a current USCF member.

For scholastic tournaments we always need notification so as to plan for numbers of players, tables, trophies etc.

Director's Niche

  Quite some number of years ago, the State I was living in (at the time) passed a seat belt law.   I had a seat belt, but like most people (at the time) I didn't use.   Why? Because I didn't use it, or more exactly, HAD NOT used it.   Now, suddenly it was THE LAW, and people were going to get ticketed for not wearing seat belts.   Well, my own personal safety is one thing, but this was money, and I'm cheap.   Starting then I forced myself to put the belt on every time I got into the car.   I was, just a few weeks later, driving down the highway and I was feeling ill at ease.   It bugged for a while, until I finally realized what it was, I was not wearing the belt.   I was already used to wearing it, and even after forgetting it, just felt wrong.   Training complete.

I thought of this while watching some of the newer (and not) chess players in action, especially in time trouble.   Move a piece, this hand, the other hand, hit the clock, this hand, the other hand, both hands.   And, of course, there is a rule:

16C1: Using the clock.
Each player must operate the clock with the same hand that moves the pieces.

At first blush this may seem like another of those "over thought" rules.   But it's really very straight forward, and very easy to see when you watch a two handed blitz player in action.   Sooner or later the clock will be hit BEFORE the move is made.   Two hands, two different events.   Rule 16C1 prevents this and returns it (properly) to a sequence.   First pick up the piece, then place and release the piece, then push the clock, same hand.   The rule is in place so that when followed no claim can be made against the sequence of events, otherwise it would be obvious to one and all.

So, the best thing is to do what chess players have done for years.   Pick a hand, and use THAT hand exclusively.   Move, release, push clock, write to scoresheet.   The upside to this for you (the player) is, besides not cheating and staying inside the rules, that after the GOOD habit is worked-in you won't be THINKING about it anymore.   No mad dashes and changed minds about "which hand", more brain matter left for the moves themselves.

We held our regular monthly tournament for November (the PBCC Power Struggle).   Nine players competed, including one Junior. During the tournament some Juniors, and their parents, showed up (most left without playing).   Clearly some were expecting a scholastic event.   The PBCC is very sorry for any misunderstanding about this months event. In our listing (web site and email) we always list Scholastic Events separately.   There might be confusion if two events are held at once, as there often are.

Also, please know that ANY USCF MEMBER, of whatever age, is welcome at the regular tournaments.   It is common practice among Tournament Directors to relax custom and even the letter of some rules in scholastic settings.   In a non-scholastic tournament, Juniors would be expected to comport themselves (behave) more nearly like adults.   But they are welcome, and encouraged, to play in the regular tournaments.   Parents should evaluate their own child's desire to play and their level of maturity.

Having said that, most Juniors will feel a bit overwhelmed playing against more experienced adults, but playing tougher opponents is the number one factor in developing greater skills.   I think part of the problem is that most Juniors only participate in the official tournaments.   Imagine if you participated in any other activity in that manner, you run Track, but only by showing up on the days of the Meet and running.   Make sense?

The only other available forum (that I know of) at present is to come to our club meetings.   You can play there , against many of the same people, in a relaxed environment, free of charge.   The PBCC does not babysit, minors should be accompanied by a guardian.

Dr.Capocyan and I would welcome any questions, comments, and especially ideas you might have about furthering Scholastic Chess.

Thank You,

Steve Dudley

Director's Niche

In the last article I talked about why scorekeeping is necessary.   The need for this hit me as I came to the 1st PERMIAN BASIN CHESS CLUB OPEN & SCHOLASTIC CHAMPIONSHIPS held at the Permian Mall in 10/25/08.   Most of the scholastic section was totally surprised by the idea they would have to keep score.I had not directed a chess tournament in about a dozen years, and things change over time.   In the little experience I have with scholastic chess, there were coaches who taught the students the basics, like scorekeeping.

In researching the situation online, I have found that while the official rule for scholastic chess is the same (scorekeeping required), in practice, many Directors turn a blind eye to the rule.   Even the people who make the rules, The United States Chess Federation, don't want to discourage young players at the start of a lifelong chess adventure.   I would like to split the difference.

Algebraic chess notation is the current standard for chess around the world.   Like most things in chess it evolved over time in tournaments and matches to it's it's present state.   When I was introduced to chess, back when the earth was young, and the crust was not yet fully formed, the system of recording moves was descriptive chess notation.   I had to learn the new notation because chess books were being written with it.   Well, as with any language, it (as it is spoken/written) becomes abbreviated over time.   Why write down e2-e4 when only one pawn can get to e4? Except that when your new to chess you don't instinctively know this, you have to figure it out every time.

So, splitting the difference (between keeping a perfect scoresheet with Algebraic chess notation and no scoresheet at all).

Coordinate Notation.
If you are new to chess tournament play or just new to scorekeeping, you are almost certainly going to sit at a white vinyl board with green and white squares.   That board probably has coordinates on it, a row of LETTERS on one side(A-H) and a row of numbers on one perpendicular side (1-8).   Each square on the board has it own coordinate.   You follow the letter row first, then find which number row (called a rank) intersects at that square.   The White king starts out the game on "e1", the black king on "e8".   Each time either player makes a move, a piece is taken FROM one square TO another.   It may or may not include a capture of an opposing piece, but it is still FROM and TO.

You start your game, you have white, you play your queen pawn out 2 spaces, FROM d2 TO d4.   You push your clock.

FROM DASH TO

You write "d2-d4".

Your opponent (black) moves his king knight pawn 2 spaces, FROM g7 TO g5.

You write "g7-g5"

Then you resist the urge to laugh, because your winning already.

Simple as that, no worries about which piece, which letter, is it a capture, just FROM DASH TO.   In the future, if you stick with chess (and we hope you do), you will want to learn the proper Algebraic notation.   All the governing bodies of chess use it, books, computers, and players use it too.   It's the lanuage of chess.   Another up side to starting with coordinate notation is that is is not an impediment, but a starting point to Algebraic "real" notation.

Director's Niche

When your new to tournament chess there's a lot to take in. Rules for playing, rules for behavior, all the do's and dont's. Some rules are obvious, others seem like crossing "i"s and dotting "t"s, who thinks all this stuff up anyway. And all this might be going on while your getting a smack-down at the board. I want to focus on score keeping in this article.

Score keeping is a pain, for everyone, but especially for new players. But, score keeping has several fundamental uses that make it necessary.

First the rule;

15A.Manner of keeping score. In the course of play each player is required to record the game (both the player's and the opponent's moves), move after move, as clearly and legibly as possible, on the scoresheet prescribed for the competition.Algebraic notation is standard, but descriptive or computer notation is permitted.The player must first make the move, and then record it on the scoresheet.

If you have the latest rule book, this posting will look a little different. Since they published the printed United States Chess Federation's Official Rules of Chess, Fifth Edition in 2003, there have been some rules changes, including one here in 15A. You were permitted to write you move and then make your move the piece and push the clock OR move - push - then write. Now, to align the USCF rules more with FIDE rules, only the latter system (move - push - write) is permissible. The whys and wherefores in this kind of minutia will no doubt be cussed and discussed throughout US chessdom, but let's cut to the chase, IT'S A RULE, deal with it.

Purpose for scorekeeping #1; "What in the heck is happening here"

In most sports (yes, chess is a mental sport) a judge or referee, and often the public, see exactly whats happening, because they are there to watch. You only need a referee because someone (supposedly) impartial needs to make the call in a dispute.

A chess tournament is a room with pairs of individuals each playing their own (rather long) game. Most often, no one is there as a spectator, and it would be very impractical to have a referee for every board. So how are disputes between players handled? A (disputed) claim is made to the Tournament Director(s). If it were not "disputed" you would not need a TD. Tournament Directors are usually a combination of Referee and Organizer.

While disputes sometimes do revolve around things like "my opponents cologne is gaging me", most are about the play at the board. To make a proper judgment about what happened at the board, you NEED a score sheet.

If there is no scoresheet, the relief you seek is going to be very limited, mostly because the situation is now a "he said - she said" and the TD cannot take sides.

If there is only your opponents scoresheet, and it backs up his version of the story, you are probably out of options. And note that is does not matter that you KNOW that is scoresheet is wrong, there is no (or an improper) scoresheet backing you up.

Purpose for scorekeeping #2; "What in the heck happened there"

The number one way to improve your game skills is to analyze your own games after you play. To improve YOUR play, you have to learn from your own mistakes (not make them again). While I'm sure someone out there can remember all the moves they played, the rest of us need a record of the moves, a scoresheet.

Those who have been introduced to chess via the Internet are used to having there moves recorded by their software or the server they are playing on, so recording moves by hand may be a shock.

But it is necessary.

Top