Why do we blunder?

Why do we blunder at chess? "Because we can" is one possible answer. "No idea" is probably just as good. But my favourite reason is the streakers defence. "It was a good idea at the time."
Here is a game from a Correspondence event I am currently directing. The reason I picked this game is that it is played between two reasonably strong players, and as a CC game, you would think the chances of an outright mistake are quite low. But on move 25 Black spots what looks like a good move, only to have it all go wrong two moves later. 27.Qd3 looked pretty obvious, so I'm not sure what Black was thinking. Maybe he saw a defence which had a flaw in it, or just decided that winning the exchange was good enough. It turns out it wasn't.

Jones,,Kenneth - Zhakarov,Oleg [C92]
Australian Candidate Masters, 2018

The injustice of it all

While wearing my ICCF Tournament Directors hat, I discovered something I had not previously been aware of. There are some Queen endings where two connected passed pawns aren't enough to win. This was drawn to my attention when a game in an event I was directing was drawn after one of the players made a tablebase claim (In Correspondence Chess a player can claim a draw or win if the position is assessed as such in a 6 piece or less tablebase). While the claim was perfectly valid I did feel a little sorry for the other player involved.
Even without the advantage of modern technology, the game may well have been drawn anyway, as it turns out there have been some precedents.  In 1985 Boris Spassky was defending exactly the same position against Zoltan Ribli and successfully held. Here is the game in question, with Black having a completely drawn potion by move 82.


Ribli,Zoltan (2605) - Spassky,Boris V (2590) [A30]
Candidates Tournament Montpellier (4), 1985

You would think this shouldn't happen

I'm currently deeply engrossed in 18 correspondence games, ranging from a few local events, some interstate teams tournaments, and a few international friendlies. I'm never the best at time management in CC, as I tend to put of my decisions while making that "one last check". It's now come back to bite me as I realise I have 8 games where I'm down to my last 24 hours, and another 3 where I have one extra day. Fortunately the time resets to the start  of the day every time you move, but I suspect I'm going to be in CC time trouble for quite a while yet!

Winning (and losing) quickly at CC

It is still possible to win (or lose) quickly at correspondence chess. While there is a belief that *all* CC is played with computers, this belief is misplaced in most instances. Having said that, the quality of CC has increased because of computers, or more correctly, computer databases.
These days most players have access to reasonably similar collections of games, meaning that opening choices should be a little sounder. Also, keeping track of your analysis is a lot easier, as you can just enter, save and review variations, before choosing your move.
Nonetheless, even with these advantages, quick losses still occur. The most common cause of the quick loss is CC is the dreaded loss on time. This sometimes occurs when a player 'silently withdraws' from an event, but simply losing track of a game and forgetting to move is another cause (and one of which I have been guilty).
The second cause is the bane of online players everywhere, the mis-click. And while online CC has a 'enter and confirm' system, I have still seen plenty of games decided this way.
And the third is the good old 'miscalculation'. Often our biggest mistakes happen when we think we've found the best move, only to find we've missed something along the way. This happens quite a lot in non-engine assisted CC, especially when one player fails to look that one move further.
The featured game for this article comes from the 2016 Australian Interstate Teams. I'm pretty sure that this falls under section 2(the 'mis-click'), as White's 12th move is difficult to explain otherwise. After that, all Black needed to do was head for the kingside and mate the undefended king.


Hughes,David (1752) - Gray,Garvin (1993)
AUS/2016/IT (AUS) ICCF, 30.06.2016

Between the server and the board

These day I play a lot of server chess over at www.iccf.com This is the home of the International Correspondence Chess Federation, with correspondence being almost exclusively being carried out on their chess server.
When I first started playing CC it was still played by post, with moves (and scoresheets) going by mail. I took a break from it for a while, and only got back into it when the internet had really taken off.
Even then my return tournaments were played by mail, but in this case, email. Server based chess was only just starting to become popular (and technically feasible) so my early events involved remembering to send moves. There were some issues with this system (lost emails, stuff going into the wrong folders etc), and it wasn't until server based chess came along that they were resolved.
I did take part in the first Australian Email Championship and I think I finished mid field. There were a few long games, but also a couple of quick ones, like the following. My opponent captured on h2 and offered a draw (which was unavoidable anyway) but the line after Kh1 is slightly more interesting.


Thew,Brian - Press,Shaun [C80]
CCLA Australian Email Championship, 11.2000

A real squeaker

Australia has just finished a CC match against Wales, and the winning margin could not have been any smaller. The match was played over 34 boards, and Australia eked out a 34.5-33.5 win. Wales was stronger on the top 13 boards (+8=18-0) but it was the lower boards that made the difference. While my own effort was poor (losing both of my games), a number of 2-0 match results edged Australia in front.
Here is one of the wins for Australia, where  Steve McNamara launches a nice kingside attack with 12.e5. Black tries to keep his king safe, but a marauding queen is too much and the point goes to the Australians.

McNamara,Steve (1843) - Meara,Paul (1708)
AUS-WLS 2015 ICCF, 01.10.2015

I do win the occasional CC game

Despite my somewhat poor results in correspondence chess (19/57) I have yet to throw in the towel. I normally have around 10 to 12 games going at any one time, with a mixture of tournament games and international/domestic matches.
When I started out I spent a lot of time analysing my games (like a good CC player) but in recent years it is a cursory glance, some unstructured analysis, and then an agonising choice about which is the least worst move to play. As a result I play less like a CC player, and more like a OTB player who has forgotten what he had planned to play next. Nonetheless I do occasionally manage to play the right moves, which is somewhat satisfying.
An recent example comes from the Australian Interstate teams event, where I was up against Graeme Deacon from NSW. Normally the choice of the Petroff's indicates a drawish game was likely, but the opening went down a side street, which gave chances both sides. The pawn on e5 turned out to be a thorn in Blacks position, and once it was joined by the f pawn, I had enough of an advantage to force an early resignation.

Press,Shaun - Deacon,Graeme [C43]
CCLA Interstate, 04.08.2016

The very big match

It has taken over 18 months, but the Russia v Australia/New Zealand match has come to an end. The mammoth correspondence chess match was played over 120 boards, with 2 games per board. The final score was a pretty big victory to Russia, 190.5-48.5 (with 1 game annulled).
You can see the crosstable at https://www.iccf.com/event?id=48494  and play through the games. The list of Aus/NZ players contains a mixture of strong CC players plus some well known OTB players. My own contribution was sadly two decisive losses, but Ryan Lane, Daniel Friere, Barry Mulligan, Marc Vliestra, Stephen Ferris, Ben McGinnes, Peter Maylott and Kevin Brown  did win their individual matches.
The event was organised by Brian Jones on behalf of the CCLA, and is one of the many International friendlies that the CCLA takes part in. Not all matches are this large of course, but if you are interested in taking part, new ones start reasonably frequently. Just visit www.ccla.net.au for further information.

Even in death

I have just completed my Tournament Directors exam for the ICCF, and thankfully I passed. The one question I did get wrong is one that is almost unique to Correspondence Chess, although OTB Arbiters might be interested in what it says.
It concerns the occasional occurrence of a player dying during an event, and how to handle uncompleted games. Opponents can either just claim a draw (the default case) or claim a win, submitting analysis to support this claim. The specific question was what score can a player receive if they follow this path. My answer of 'win or draw only' was actually incorrect due to one specific section.
A deceased player is considered to also be claiming a draw but without supporting analysis (obviously). If it turns out that the position is a 6 piece table base win for the deceased player, then the rules state that they are awarded the win. So even in death it is possible to score that one last victory!

Fast CC

It seems that Correspondence Chess is no longer safe from the demands of this modern, fast paced society. As an experiment, the CCLA is trialling 'Fast' CC events, to see whether this fits the gap between traditional CC and on line turn based games. Of course 'Fast' is still not fast by real time standards, but the time control of 100 moves in 60 days, followed by 100 moves in 10 days is still pretty quick. The idea is to both give players enough time to make it through most of the game at a sensible pace, while not leaving the final stage to drag out over a period of months.
The first event is underway, and it looks like the players are getting into the swing of things. There are few games where both players still have their 60 days on the clock (due to the fact that moves that take less than a day are essentially free), and a couple of games that have ended surprisingly quickly.
In the game below both players rattled off their moves quite quickly, but while White was hunting the rook on a8, it was Black who crashed through on the kingside.


Anderson,Len (1212) - Ward,Bill (1585) [A10]
23.01.2016

Lost on move 6!

Another salutary lesson about the perils of non-engine Correspondence Chess.
As one of my reasons for playing CC is to work on my openings, I am using the Leningrad Dutch against 1.d4 in a number of games. Clearly my opponent was up for some fun, as on move 4 he threw his h pawn up the board. Now this is certainly dangerous for Black, but most of my references seemed to indicate that it isn't impossible to meet (otherwise huge chunks of the Dutch would be out of commission). I also checked the line in HugeBase and found there was one line that looked good for Black.
So on move 6 I played the recommended e6, which had been used by Movsziszian among others, and seemed to be OK for Black. In fact I only lasted another 8 moves, as the roof fell in after 12.Be7+ and 13.O-O-O
After I resigned the game I fired up Stockfish, only to discover that 6. ... e6 was in fact a blunder and White is winning from this point onwards. While I thought I was OK up until move 11 (Be7+ was the first new move in the database), my opponent saw a lot further than me.
Of course one take away from this game is that this might be a useful variation to try if you have the White pieces against the Leningrad Dutch, as the trap takes a little while to spring, and there may be plenty of Black players waiting to fall into it.


Gibbons,Andrew - Press,Shaun [A85]
Aus v Wales, 13.10.2015

The ups and downs of turn based chess

Apart from my ICCF based chess, I also play some turned based chess on chess.com This differs from usual CC in that each move has a fixed time limit (usually 3 to 5 days per move). So you cannot build up time by moving quickly, as the clock simply restarts with every move.
To be honest I don't mind this format, as it means I have to look at my game on a regular basis. On the ICCF server I often fall into the trap of briefly looking at a game, then coming back to it over a week, before realising I have to play 5 moves in 2 days. On the other hand it seems a little easier for me to play a 'casual' move in the turn based format, as the following game demonstrates.
At various points I thought I had found a winning line, only to realise it didn't quite work. And when I did find a winning line I immediately undid my good work by castling, allowing my opponent to recover some material. Fortunately I was able to reach a winning ending, but even then it took a large amount of work (and a few inaccurate moves by me) before the game was put to bed.


Messi000 (1958) - shaunpress (2273)
Let's Play! Chess.com, 09.05.2015

Player or players wanted

The Correspondence Chess League of Australia is looking for a female player to represent the country at the 10th Ladies Olympiad, which starts on 1 September 2015. Unlike the OTB Olympiad, this Olympiad will not cost you anything except time, as all the games are played over the internet.
Australia currently has 3 players for the team, but needs a board 4 player to take part. There is no requirement to have played Correspondence Chess before, although experience at online chess is helpful.
If you fit the bill, and wish to represent Australia at the international level, feel free to get in touch with me as soon as possible. The deadline for submitting a complete team is pretty close, and so speed is of the essence.

Finished my first event

Apart from being an International Arbiter, I have started directing some tournaments for the ICCF (International Correspondence Chess Federation). The roles has a slightly different title (Tournament Director) but the responsibilities are generally the same. Nonetheless it is a little easier to be a TD than an IA, as my role is a lot more hands off. With most CC played on servers these days, there are no worries about illegal moves, forgetting to press the clock, or players disturbing their opponents.
Mostly it is dealing with queries about opponents who have 'gone silent', claims for wins on time, and draw claims. Otherwise the process (including result collection) is mainly automated.
Happily I have had very few issues so far, and just this evening, completed my first tournament. It was a round robin for the North America/Pacific Zone (NZPF) and was won by Daniel Fisher (USA). I am pleased to say there were no dramas with this tournament and it was quite exciting, with the top four all within a point of each other. I'm pleased it was a pretty easy introduction to CC arbiting, and I hope to direct many more events in the future.


Fisher,Daniel E - Rogers,Dustin
NAPZ/WS/O/52 ICCF, 23.01.2015

A sad(ish) day for the Traxler

There was a time when the Traxler was almost unbeatable. Sure you might struggle with it against a GM, but 3.Bc4 was rarely part of the GM repertoire (no doubt due to fear) this was never likely to happen.
Then along came computers and the Internet, which ruined the fun. Now almost everyone with an engine or a browser could found out what the best lines against the Traxler were, and like a snake in the grass, wait until the right moment to strike.
It can be a particularly disappointing experience in CC, especially if your opponent takes on f7 with the bishop (rather than the knight). After that it is usually just grind, grind, grind a pawn up before you resign on move 42 (rather than mate your opponent on move 17).  The following game is a kind of exception to that script, with my opponent at least hitting back with an attack of his own. I was a little surprised he gave me the piece on g3, but it turns out he was still better as I was a move or two slower than he was. The final moves were quite nice, with the rook sac on c7 finishing me off.


Putukhov,Viktor - Press,Shaun [C57]
AUS v Russia, 12.11.2014

OTB v CC

I've mentioned in the past that one of the advantages of playing Correspondence Chess (CC) is it is far easier to represent your country than in over the board (OTB) chess. One of the reasons for this is that international friendlies are a regular part of the CC scene. Such matches are often played over numerous boards, with 60 board matches not uncommon.
One opponent that has consistently posed problems for Australia in recent years is Germany. In a previous friendly we were comprehensively walloped, but Australia bravely fronted up again for the return match. We are still behind in the new match, but at least we aren't losing by quite as much.
To bolster our ranks we even brought in some help from the OTB world,  with GM David Smerdon joining the team. I'm not sure how much CC David has played in the past, but in the following game he showed he could hold his own against one of Germany's top players.
BTW, if you want to see the current standings from this event, and play through the games, just click on this link.


Fischer,Wolfgang (2495) - Smerdon,David
GER-AUS/NZ 2015 ICCF, 08.02.2015

Quick CC Wins

Conventional wisdom is that quick Correspondence Chess (CC) wins are a thing of the past ("it's all computers innit"). However not everyone uses computers to play CC, and unlike OTB chess, other kinds of accidents are possible. I have had games end abruptly due to misentered moves  (an opponent once left a queen en-pris) and there was the famous "conditional" game which went 1.e4 b6 plus the reply "On any white move 2. ... Bb7". White sent 2.Ba6 Bb7 3.Bxb7 by the next post.
Looking back through my own CC games the shortest proper win I've had (as opposed to opponents just not moving early in the game) has been 9 moves. And even then, the first 4 moves were supplied by the organisers,  as it was a Traxler Thematic with the game starting on White's 5th move. Fans of the Traxler may find it slightly underwhelming, as I was following theory up until move 8, when my opponents TN on move 9 simply allowed a mate in 1.

Xorb - Press,Shaun [C57]
Traxler Thematic, 07.2008

Bicycle Events

For some, the prevalence of computers is the scourge of Correspondence Chess. A large number of OTB (over the board) players cite it as a reason that they do not play CC, reasoning that they can just as easily play against a computer at home. Even arguments that not all players use chess engines in CC are often met with sceptical looks. Curiously there is a smaller group of OTB players who do not play CCLA events (which prohibits engines in postal events) on the grounds that it is unfair to hold them to a rule that they are sure their opponents will ignore.
However there is a series of CCLA events which does attempt to address this issue. The CCLA Bicycle events (because no engines are used!) have been running for the last 2 years, organised by Brian Jones. They now start monthly, and are restricted to players rated under 2000. The reason for the rating restriction is both to keep the events accessible to the majority of players, and to stress that the competitions are not for sheep stations.
Generally the events have worked well (apart from the ongoing issue of 'silent' withdrawers) and I have noticed a number of familiar OTB names popping up. Of course CC can be time consuming but I find 1 event at a time (6 games) is manageable.
If you are interested in playing in such an event, just visit the CCLA webpage, and contact Brian Jones via the 'Contact Form' menu option.

2014 ICCF Congress - Wrap

Having attended the start of the 2014 ICCF Congress, I made the trip back to Sydney to attend the closing banquet. A quick discussion with various ICCF delegates indicates that International Correspondence Chess is doing OK, and the ICCF is doing quite well as an organisation. The congress itself was both constructive and without rancor, although the fact it was a non election year may have helped.
At the closing dinner there were a few speeches, but what really pleased me were the number of delegates who congratulated the CCLA on how we organised the congress. Thanks for this must mainly go to Brian Jones, and the extended Jones family, for putting in an enormous amount of work.
Apart from the congress there were some chess activities as well. IM Gary Lane won the traditional blitz event with 8/9, while the ICCF team defeated a Western Sydney team 6.5-2.5 in an over the board match.

2014 ICCF Congress

The 2014 ICCF Congress started today, at the Parramatta Park Royal in Sydney. The congress started with a meeting f the ICCF Executive Board today, while the actual Congress starts tomorrow. The delegates, who had traveled from Europe, North America, Africa and India, were welcomed with a small function at the tournament venue. The formal welcome will be at the opening dinner tomorrow.
In terms of the business of the congress, it is mainly to do with what can be described as 'technical issues'. Unlike a FIDE Congress, the deliberative body is both small enough, and more engaged, so as to allow discussion of changes to things like Laws, Title Regulations, and Tournament rules on the floor of the congress. Probably the big issue, at least in terms of the ICCF Laws of Chess, is how closely they need to match the FIDE Laws of Chess. Clearly there are some differences (eg touch move!) but there is a recognition that the second C in CC does stand for Chess, as defined by FIDE.
I will be present at the congress tomorrow,  although I have to miss the following days.But unlike the FIDE congress I am pretty confident that the important work will be done pretty quickly and most of the contentious issues will be out of the way early.