Chess Cafe.The Kibitzer 1-223

2911 Pages·2015·72.93 MB·English

by  Tim Harding

From the Archives
From the Archives...
Since it came online over eight years ago, ChessCafe.com has presented
literally thousands of articles, reviews, columns and the like for the enjoyment
of its worldwide readership. The good news is that almost all of this high
quality material remains available in the Archives. The bad news is that this
great collection of chess literature is now so large and extensive – and growing
each week – that it is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate it effectively.
We decided that the occasional selection from the archives posted publicly
online might be a welcomed addition to the regular fare.
From the Watch for an item to be posted online at least once each week, usually on
Thursday or Friday. We will update the ChessCafe home page whenever there
Archives has been a "new" item posted here. We hope you enjoy From the Archives...
Hosted by
The Kibitzer by Tim Harding
Mark Donlan

Frankenstein and Dracula at the Chessboard
Not long after Christmas, I first got online and discovered the chess
newsgroups. One of the earliest postings I read was in a thread about the Vienna
Game where somebody raised the question: “what was the Frankenstein-
Dracula Variation and how did it get its name?” I am to blame for inventing the
name and since the variation is good coffee-house chess, what better starting
point for my new column at ChessCafe?
The variation arises after 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Bc4 (or the way I used to play it,
2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Nc3) and soon gets very blood-thirsty: 3...Nxe4!? 4 Qh5
(threatening mate in one move) 4...Nd6 (defending f7) 5 Bb3 (Black gets a
respite for one move.) 5...Nc6 (Not forced, but necessary if Black wants to keep
his extra pawn.) 6 Nb5! (threatening mate in two) 6...g6 7 Qf3 f5 (Probably
better than 7...f6) 8 Qd5 (continuing the crude threats to f7) 8...Qe7 (best) 9

Nxc7+ Kd8 10 Nxa8.
file:///C|/cafe/fromarchive/fromarchive.htm (1 of 4) [9/2/2004 7:24:05 PM]
From the Archives
Black has, temporarily, sacrificed a whole
rook but of the course the white knight is
unlikely ever to emerge from a8, except
sometimes to exchange itself for a black
pawn on b6. So, in effect, the Frankenstein-
Dracula Variation is an exchange sacrifice
by Black, about which it is hard to come to
definite conclusions. After the normal
10...b6 White has tried a host of moves: 11
Nf3, 11 d4, 11 d3, 11 Nxb6, 11 Qf3.
In the first chess book I wrote, Bishop’s
Opening (published by The Chess Player of Nottingham, England in 1973), I
discussed this variation and said (on page 45) that: ‘One thing is certain: after
5...N-B3 sharp and often hair-raising play is inevitable; in this chapter a game
between Dracula and the Frankenstein Monster would not seem out of place.’
The colourful name seemed to catch on, and when I returned to analysing this
line again in my 1976 book on the Vienna Opening (also published by Chess
Player), the relevant chapter was called Frankenstein-Dracula Variation and
began with the sentence: “If the Frankenstein Monster and Count Dracula were
to sit down to a game of chess, what would happen?” Later B.H.Wood had
published in his magazine Chess [December 1978, pp.82-85] a fanciful story in
which I indeed imagined such an encounter, written in the form of an excerpt
from Jonathan Harker’s diary that Bram Stoker supposedly cut from the
published version of his novel Dracula.
My article included four games with the variation, purportedly played at the
Borgo Pass Open in Transylvania. In case you are wondering who won: the
Frankenstein-Dracula game followed Hansen-Nunn, student Olympiad 1974: 1
e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nxe4 4 Qh5 Nd6 5 Bb3 Nc6 6 Nb5 g6 7 Qf3 f5 8 Qd5
Qe7 9 Nxc7+ Kd8 10 Nxa8 b6 11 d3 Bb7 12 h4 f4 13 Qf3 Bh6 14 Qg4? e4! 15
Bxf4 exd3+ 16 Kf1 Bxf4 17 Qxf4 Rf8 18 Qg3 Ne4!
19 Qc7+ Ke8 20 Nh3 Nxf2 21 Nxf2 Qe2+
22 Kg1 Qxf2+ 23 Kh2 Qxh4+ 24 Kg1 Qd4+
25 Kh2 Ne5 26 Rhf1 Ng4+ 27 Kg3 [If 27
Kh1 Bxg2+! 28 Kxg2 Ne3+ and mates.]
27...Qe3+ 28 Kxg4 h5+ 29 Kh4 g5+ 30
Kxh5 Rh8+ 31 Kg6 Be4+ 32 Rf5 Bxf5+ 33
Kxf5 Rf8+ 34 Kg6 Qe4+ 35 Kg7 Qe7+ 36
Kg6 Qf6+ 37 Kh5 Qh8+.
I now quote from my story in Chess: “At
this point, where the Count had forced mate
in his grasp, something happened which
even now I do not understand ... Was it the tiny crucifix around the neck of the
white king which only now did Dracula in horror espy?
Was it the morning’s first ray of sunshine gleaming in through the shutters? ...”
file:///C|/cafe/fromarchive/fromarchive.htm (2 of 4) [9/2/2004 7:24:05 PM]
From the Archives
Dracula then flees in the shape of a bat; the Frankenstein Monster plays 38 Kg4
and duly wins on time in an utterly lost position. At the time I wrote that article,
many people thought that Nunn had put the variation out of business, but it has
enjoyed a revival in correspondence tournaments in recent years. Instead of 14
Qg4?, White can play 14 Bd2 (My old recommendation 14 Ne2 leads only to
equality.) 14...e4 (or 14...Nd4 15 Qg4 transposing to Nielsen-Altshuler, below)
15 dxe4 Nd4 (or 15...Nxe4 16 0-0-0 Rf8 17 Bd5) 16 Qd3 with some advantage
to White according to Russian analysts Tseitlin and Glazkov in their 1995
Batsford book The Complete Vienna.
This is not primarily a theoretical article, but I may return to look at the
variation in detail in a subsequent column. I would be interested in hearing of
readers’ experiences with the variation or any light they can throw on the
historical points discussed below.
What was the origin of this variation? Despite its hectic plunge into early
complications, this is no 19th century romantic gambit. White’s approach of
provoking sacrifices which he then hopes to refute by a combination of alert
defence and well-timed counterattack is based ultimately on the belief that he
can exploit the insecure position of the black king in the centre rather than on
any intention to win on material. This approach to the opening, linked to
specific middlegame tactical problems, is far more complex than that of the
gambiteer and is a typical late 20th century strategy. Most of the games in my
database are postal games and some Soviet over-the-board games from post-
1950 and the earliest example I have found of 6 Nb5 (a move mentioned by von
Bardeleben) is the game Mieses-Burn, Paris 1900, in which Black played
7...Nf5 instead of 7...f5. Then 7...f6 was seen in Viachirev-Rozenkrantz, St
Petersburg 1909 and another Viachirev game went 7...f5 8 Qd5 Qf6.
Unfortunately, I currently do not have access to some of the most important
source material I used in researching the Bishop’s Opening and Vienna Game
in the 1970s – the chess collection bequeathed by historian H.J.R.Murray to
Oxford University’s Bodleian Library, notably the Schlechter edition of
Bilguer’s Handbuch des Schachspiels, the precursor of ECO. However, I do
have Mieses’ 1921 supplement in which on pages 30-31 (without citing any
game references) he gives this line: 6 Nb5 g6 7 Qf3 f5! 8 Qd5 Qe7 9 Nxc7+
Kd8 10 Nxa8 b6 11 Qf3 Bb7 12 Nxb6 axb6 13 d3 Nd4 14 Qh3 f4! with
advantage to Black. In a note, he says 11 Qf3 is ‘probably best. Unfavourable
for White is 11 Nf3 Bb7 and Black has a strong attack. The whole variation is
not recommended for White.’ Of course, Mieses fails to pinpoint White’s best
approach and it is only with the development of the 11 d3 line that the first
player began to score successes in the variation. On the rare occasions the
Frankenstein-Dracula appeared in master play, it was often mishandled by
White so this has been a good case where amateurs and minor masters have
done most to develop the theory.
The earliest game I have found with 8...Qe7 leading to Black’s rook sacrifice is
Weaver Adams v Lyman, Boston 1946; Adams indeed played 11 d3 Bb7 12 h4
(12...f4 13 Nd5 Nd4 14 Qh3?! Bh6 and Black eventually won) so he may be the
file:///C|/cafe/fromarchive/fromarchive.htm (3 of 4) [9/2/2004 7:24:05 PM]
From the Archives
one who deserves credit for pioneering this plan. It appears to have been
developed independently by American players like Adams and Santasiere and
by several obscure Russian players before it was used to good effect in the
1960s by the Danish correspondence master Julius Nielsen, notably in his win
against R.Altshuler in the final of the 5th Correspondence World
Championship:
1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Bc4 Nxe4 4 Qh5 Nd6 5 Bb3 Nc6 6 Nb5 g6 7 Qf3 f5 8 Qd5
Qe7 9 Nxc7+ Kd8 10 Nxa8 b6 11 d3 Bb7 12 h4 f4 13 Qf3 Nd4
(Generally more popular than 13...Bh6 as
played by Nunn in the game above) 14 Qg4
Bh6 15 Nh3 N6f5 16 Ng5 Bxg5 17 hxg5 f3
18 g3 e4 19 Be3 Nxe3 20 fxe3 f2+ 21 Kf1
Nf3 22 Qf4 d6 23 Qf6 Nd2+ 24 Ke2 Qxf6
25 gxf6 Nxb3 26 axb3 exd3+ 27 cxd3 Bxh1
28 Rxh1 Kd7 29 g4 h5 30 gxh5 gxh5 31 e4
Rxa8 32 Rxh5 Ke6 33 Rf5 Kf7 34 Rxf2 Rh8
35 b4 Rh5 36 Ke3 Rb5 37 Kd4 1-0.
In recent years, Black has tended to develop
his bishop on g7 rather than h6. To
conclude, here is a recent example, from the 1994 British Postal Teams
Championship, J.J.Carleton-J.A.Tait: 1 Nc3 Nf6 2 e4 e5 3 Bc4 Nxe4 4 Qh5
Nd6 5 Bb3 Nc6 6 Nb5 g6 7 Qf3 f5 8 Qd5 Qe7 9 Nxc7+ Kd8 10 Nxa8 b6 11 d3
Bb7 12 h4 f4 13 Qf3 Nd4 14 Qg4 Bg7 15 Bd2 Bxa8 16 Nh3 (Formerly 16 0-0-
0, 16 h5 and 16 c3 had been tried here ) 16...N6f5 17 Ng5 h5 18 Qh3 Rf8 19 c3
Nxh4 20 Qxh4 Nxb3 21 axb3 Bf6 22 Rxa7 Bxg2 23 Qh2 1-0.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Bulletin Board] [Columnists]
[Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us]
Copyright 2004 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

"The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.
file:///C|/cafe/fromarchive/fromarchive.htm (4 of 4) [9/2/2004 7:24:05 PM]
From the Archives
From the Archives...
Since it came online many years ago, ChessCafe.com has presented literally
thousands of articles, reviews, columns and the like for the enjoyment of its
worldwide readership. The good news is that almost all of this high quality
material remains available in the Archives. The bad news is that this great
collection of chess literature is now so large and extensive – and growing each
week – that it is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate it effectively. We
decided that the occasional selection from the archives posted publicly online
might be a welcomed addition to the regular fare.
Watch for an item to be posted online periodically throughout each month. We
From the
will update the ChessCafe home page whenever there has been a “new” item
posted here. We hope you enjoy From the Archives...
Archives
Hosted by The Kibitzer by Tim Harding
Mark Donlan

Noteboom or Abrahams: Whose Variation is it Anyway?
How to name variations – after their true originator or after the person who
introduced them to master practice or the place where it was first played or on
some other principle? This has become a live issue with the renewed popularity
of a double-edged Queen’s Gambit variation. The following grandmaster game
attracted a lot of attention in chess magazines earlier this summer. The sharp
variation introduced by Black’s fourth move was for many years considered to
be inferior and rarely appeared in master practice, but suddenly it has become
all the rage. Yet what should the variation be called?
Boris Gelfand-Jeroen Piket

Verenigde Spaarbank tournament, Amsterdam 1996
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.a4 Bb4 6.e3 b5 7.Bd2 a5 (Black
establishes a potentially dangerous queenside majority, obliging White to find
some concrete means of justifying his pawn sacrifice.) 8.axb5 Bxc3 9.Bxc3
cxb5 10.b3 Bb7
file:///C|/cafe/fromarchive/fromarchive.htm (1 of 5) [1/18/2006 2:16:02 PM]
From the Archives
11.d5 (First analysed by Argentinean master
in the 1950s, this move was, until recently,
regularly given a question mark, but perhaps
it is not so bad after all?) 11...Nf6 12.bxc4
b4 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Qa4+ Nd7 15.Nd4 e5
16.Nb3 Ke7 17.Be2 Rhc8!? 18.Rd1 (Not in
my 1981 book; 18.Bg4 Qd6 19.Nxa5 Rxa5
20.Qxa5 Ra8 21.Qxa8 Bxa8 22.Rxa8 Qg6
was unclear in Shulman-V.I.Ivanov,
Moscow 1995.) 18...Nc5 (After 18...Qd6
Gelfand proposes 19.f4!? as critical and
analyzes the drawish 19 0-0 in New In
Chess.) 19.Nxc5 Rxc5 20.0-0 Ra6?! (Huzman’s 20...Kf8 is probably the
critical move according to Gelfand.) 21.Qc2 a4 22.f4 b3 23.Qe4! Kd6 24.Qxh7
e4 25.Qxe4 a3 26.Qd3 b2 27.Qb3! Bc8 28.Qb8+ Kd7 29.Bg4+ Kd8 30.d6 a2
31.d7 1-0
The Dutch-published New In Chess magazine referred to Black’s opening as the
Noteboom Variation when publishing notes by Gelfand (NIC 3/1996 pp29-31).
I would have expected British Chess Magazine (6/1996) to uphold the name of
the variation’s English co-originator by referring to the Abrahams Variation,
but they too called it the Noteboom. Gelfand referred to 4...dxc4 as “the
variation of Daniel Noteboom, named after the talented Dutch player of the
early part of this century, who, sadly, died very young.” Noteboom’s dates were
26/2/1910-12/1/1932. His outstanding performance came at the 1930 Hamburg
Olympiad where he scored 11½/15, and at Hastings 1931-32 he took third prize.
The Dutch have been much more assiduous at remembering their lost genius
than the British have been at giving credit to one of the game’s more colourful
characters. Gerald Abrahams, author of such books as The Chess Mind and
Technique in Chess, lived from 15/4/1907 to 15/3/1980; he was a master-
strength amateur player whom I remember seeing at several tournaments in the
1960s when I started playing actively. Since Abrahams was the first-born by
several years and has a game with the variation on record from 1925 (when
Noteboom was only 15) the Englishman’s claim to priority is undoubtedly
correct. On the other hand, the Dutch would probably claim that Noteboom
discovered the line independently (this is not disputed), was the first to
introduce it into master play and that had he lived he would probably have been
a much stronger player than Abrahams, a rival to Euwe perhaps.
I turned to my 1981 Batsford book Queen’s Gambit Declined: Semi-Slav to see
what my research in those days had uncovered. I wrote then of 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6
3 Nc3 c6 4 Nf3 dxc4!?:
Most books call this the Noteboom Variation, after a little-known pre-
war Dutch player, but this is a misattribution. Credit for it belongs to
the late Liverpool barrister Gerald Abrahams who employed it to defeat
grandmaster Ragozin in the USSR-Britain radio match of 1946, 21 years
after Abrahams had first devised and played it in his days as a student at
file:///C|/cafe/fromarchive/fromarchive.htm (2 of 5) [1/18/2006 2:16:02 PM]
From the Archives
Oxford University.
Viacheslav Ragozin-Gerald Abrahams
USSR-Britain Radio Match 1946
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.e4 b5 6.Be2 Nd7? (6...Bb4!? was a later
Abrahams suggestion.; 6...Bb7 7.0-0 Nf6 Alatortsev-Kotov, 16 USSR Ch 1948)
7.0-0 Bb7 8.d5! Nc5 9.dxc6 Bxc6 10.Nd4 Qd7 11.Nxc6 Qxc6 12.a4 Rd8
13.axb5 Qb7 14.Qc2 Nb3 15.Ra6±
But Black won: 15...Nf6 16.Be3 Bc5
17.Bxc5 Nxc5 18.Rc6 Nb3 19.Bxc4 Nd4
20.Qa4 0-0 21.Ra6 Qb8 22.f4 g5 23.e5
Nh5 24.g3 Kh8 25.Qd1 Ng7 26.Qg4 gxf4
27.Qxf4 Ndf5 28.Ne2 Nh5 29.Qe4 Rg8
30.Bd3 Rg5 31.Rc6 Rd5 32.Rfc1 Kg7
33.b6 axb6 34.Rc7 b5 35.R1c6 Qd8
36.Rc8 Qa5 37.Nf4 Nxf4 38.Qxf4 Qe1+
39.Bf1 Qe3+ 40.Qxe3 Nxe3 41.Rd6 Rgxe5
42.Rxd5 Rxd5 43.Rc3 Nxf1 44.Kxf1 Rd1+
45.Ke2 Rh1 46.Ke3 Rxh2 47.b3 Rh5
48.Rc7 Rg5 49.Kf4 Rd5 50.Ke4 h5 51.b4
Rg5 52.Kd4 Rg4+ 0-1
This was not a great game, but it was a fine achievement for a British amateur
to turn the tables on a leading Russian grandmaster who a few years later
became the second World Correspondence Champion. Abrahams later played
“his” variation against Gligoric (Hastings 1951/2) but lost.
Ragozin’s treatment of the opening is fairly unusual, but perhaps quite good.
Most games nowadays go: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.a4 Bb4 6.e3
b5 7.Bd2 a5 (This is really the characteristic move of the variation; there were
some early anticipations in which it was not played, e.g. Schlechter-Maróczy,
Vienna 1902, which went 5 e4 b5 6 a4 Bb4 7 Bd2 Nf6 8 Qc2 a6.) 8.axb5 Bxc3
9.Bxc3 cxb5 10.b3 Bb7 and now the main alternative to Gelfand’s 11 d5 is 11
bxc4.
This position arose in the earliest known
Abrahams/Noteboom Variation game,
Allcock-Abrahams, London University-
Oxford University 1925, which continued
11...b4 12 Bd2? Nf6 13 Bd3 Ne4!? (Simply
13...Nbd7 14 0-0 0-0 is good as in Plater-
Trifunovic, Hilversum 1947, and a couple of
recent games.) 14.Qc2 f5 15.Ne5 0-0 16.f3?
Qh4+ and Black won quickly.
Of course it is quite possible that Noteboom
never saw Abrahams’ game, unless he
file:///C|/cafe/fromarchive/fromarchive.htm (3 of 5) [1/18/2006 2:16:02 PM]
From the Archives
studied English chess publications. He was probably seeking to improve on
such games as Marshall-Rubinstein, Bad Kissingen 1928 (5 e3 b5 6 a4 Qb6?)
and Rokhlin-Ilin Genevsky, USSR 1926 (5 e4 b5 6 a4 b4?!) or was quite
possibly unaware of those games too.
Voisin (France)-Daniel Noteboom
Hamburg Olympiad 1930
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.e3 b5 6.a4 Bb4 7.Bd2 a5 8.axb5 Bxc3
9.Bxc3 cxb5 10.b3 Bb7 11.bxc4 b4 12.Bd2 Nf6 13.Ne5 Nbd7 14.Qa4 0-0
15.Nc6 Bxc6 16.Qxc6 e5! 17.Be2 Re8 18.Bf3 Rc8 19.Qa6 exd4 20.Rxa5
(20.Qxa5? dxe3!)
20...Nc5! 21.Qb5 Nb3! 22.Ra2 Rb8 23.Qf5
dxe3 24.Bxe3 Nd4 25.Qb1 b3 26.Rd2 Qa5
27.Bd5 (27.0-0 Nxf3+ 28.gxf3 Rxe3!)
27...Nc2+ 28.Ke2 Qc3-+ 29.Rhd1 Nxd5
30.cxd5 Qc4+ 31.Rd3 Rbd8 32.Kd2 Rxd5
33.Rxd5 Qxd5+ 34.Kc1 Qc6 35.Kb2 Qf6+
36.Kxb3 Nxe3 0-1
Instead of 12 Bd2, until recently the best
line for White was reckoned to be 12 Bb2,
but master games in the early 1990s
appeared to show that Black had sufficient
resources after all: 12...Nf6 13.Bd3 Nbd7 14.0-0 Qc7 15.Qc2 (15.Re1 e5!)
15...0-0 16.e4 e5 17.c5 (Or 17 Rfe1 Rfe8 Neverok-Kramnik, USSR Ch 1991)
17...exd4 (17...Rfe8 is also playable) 18.Bxd4 h6 19.Rfc1 Bc6 20.e5 Nd5
21.Bc4 Rfe8 22.Qe4 Qb7 23.Qg4 Re6 with counterplay (Jasnikowski-
Shcherbakov, Katowice 1992).
The question of who should be given the credit remains unclear. Before you can
say who introduced the variation into master practice, you have to decide what
move (or group of linked moves) constitutes the variation, because clearly
4...dxc4 followed rapidly by one or more poor or inconsistent moves does not
make a true anticipation of the variation. After all, Nimzovitch was not the first
person to play 3...Bb4 after 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 and there are several other
such cases. It is also a little unfair to disqualify Abrahams on the grounds that
his game with Allcock does not count as introducing the variation into master
practice, his victory over Ragozin being 16 years too late, when he was after all
analysing and playing the line in the intervening years.
In practical terms, however, I think that the Dutch have been allowed to win
this argument by default!
As a postscript, I found the following game by Alekhine in one of the databases
at the Pitt.edu ftp site. Does anybody know the source of it or who was Black?
Alekhine-Amateur
file:///C|/cafe/fromarchive/fromarchive.htm (4 of 5) [1/18/2006 2:16:02 PM]
From the Archives
Paris 1928
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.a4 Nd7? 6.e4 Bb4 7.Bxc4 Qa5 8.Bd2
e5 9.0-0 exd4 10.Nxd4 Qc5 11.Bxf7+ Kxf7 12.Qb3+ Ke8 13.Ne6 Qe5 14.Bf4
Nc5 15.Qxb4 Qxe6 16.Qxc5 Ne7 17.Rfe1 Ng6 18.Nd5 b6 19.Qc3 Kf7 20.Nc7
Qg4 21.Bg3 Rb8 22.h3 Qd7 23.Rad1 Qe7 24.Bd6 Qf6 25.e5 Qf5 26.e6+ Bxe6
27.Nxe6 1-0

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]
[Endgame Study] [Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe] [Contact Us]
Copyright 2006 CyberCafes, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

"The Chess Cafe®" is a registered trademark of Russell Enterprises, Inc.
file:///C|/cafe/fromarchive/fromarchive.htm (5 of 5) [1/18/2006 2:16:02 PM]
From the Archives
From the Archives...
Since it came online many years ago, ChessCafe.com has presented literally
thousands of articles, reviews, columns and the like for the enjoyment of its
worldwide readership. The good news is that almost all of this high quality
material remains available in the Archives. The bad news is that this great
collection of chess literature is now so large and extensive – and growing each
week – that it is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate it effectively. We
decided that the occasional selection from the archives posted publicly online
might be a welcomed addition to the regular fare.
Watch for an item to be posted online periodically throughout each month. We
From the
will update the ChessCafe home page whenever there has been a “new” item
posted here. We hope you enjoy From the Archives...
Archives
Hosted by The Kibitzer by Tim Harding
Mark Donlan

The Two Worlds of Correspondence Chess
The growth of the Internet has benefited chess and chess players in numerous
ways: newsgroups, information sites on the Web like the ChessCafe and The
Week In Chess, databases of chess games and servers where real-time chess can
be played against distant opponents. Perhaps the greatest benefit, however, is
the opportunity to play correspondence games by e-mail.
At present there are two worlds of correspondence chess: firstly, the traditional
“postal” system with its established network of national and international
competitions, titles and ratings and secondly the new but burgeoning e-mail
chess community. There is only a small overlap between these two worlds at

present, but the links are constantly being strengthened.
Undoubtedly one of the reasons for the huge popularity that playing e-mail
chess has already attained is that it puts you in direct contact with real human
beings elsewhere on the planet as an antidote to endless interaction with
computer programs!
Correspondence chess (usually called “CC”) has a history going back more than
150 years, with moves normally sent by postcard or letter and sometimes by
file:///C|/cafe/fromarchive/fromarchive.htm (1 of 6) [3/29/2006 12:36:10 PM]