Category Archives: Annotated Games

Rook Endings (4)

Two more practical examples of rook and pawn against rook from games played at Richmond Junior Club.

In this position the good news for Black is that his king is in front of the pawn and the white king is subject to mating threats on the side of the board. The bad news is that his rook is badly placed, and that it’s White’s move. (If it was Black to move he could win by moving his rook in a westerly direction.)

His plan should be to get his rook round the back to threaten mate, while White will need to counter this by moving his rook away to check the black king from the other side.

White now has two moves to draw: Ra6 and Rb6. He needs to meet mate threats with horizontal checks, and has to be as far away as possible from the enemy monarch.

But instead he played 55. Re6, presumably with the idea of keeping the black king on the f-file. Now any westerly rook move is winning for Black. He chose 55… Re1, having observed correctly that the pawn ending would be winning. White went back behind the pawn: 56. Rf6, and now, out of Black’s 17 legal moves, 11 are winning and 4 are drawing. The quickest winning moves are Re7 and Re8, both mating in 21 moves according to the tablebases. He actually chose one of the drawing moves: 56… Re2, missing the winning plan of threatening mate on the h-file. Now White again has time to draw by moving his rook over to the far side of the board (note that this is one of many positions in these endings where you want your rook on the side rather than behind the passed pawn). This time, Ra6, Rb6 and Rc6 all draw, but in principle he should move as far away as possible. Instead, stuck with the mistaken idea that rooks always belong behind passed pawns, he played 57. Kh3.

Now Black has four winning moves: Re8, Re7, Re5 and Re3 (but Re4 is only a draw). Still not thinking about potential checks on the h-file he chose perhaps the least obvious of these, 57… Re3. White played 58. Kh2 when Black has a choice of 14 moves, of which 8 win and 5 draw. As you would expect by now, the quickest wins are Re8 and Re7. Instead he went for one of the drawing options: 58… Ke2.

Now White has 16 possible moves, but only one of them draws: Kg3, hitting the f-pawn. After his actual choice, 59. Kg1, though, Black can again win by moving his rook in a northerly direction, again planning a check from behind. Instead he gave up and pushed the pawn: 59… f2+. White was happy to capture the pawn: 60. Rxf2+, and a draw was agreed.

If you’re down to the last few minutes on the clock, or, as is likely these days, playing on an increment, it’s all too easy to think inflexibly, as both players did in this example. Black seemed to be thinking purely about how to push his f-pawn, while White was just trying to prevent this. Neither player was thinking about how to check the enemy king.

Our final example starts off by being about getting your king in front of the pawn, but when Balck fails to do this it’s just about calculation. Will White calculate accurately? We’ll see.

Black has to make his 52nd move. He has 15 moves to choose from, three of which lose his rook, although one of them, Rg2, still draws (rook against pawn is another interesting subject). There are 10 winning moves and two other moves that draw: Rg4 and the move he chose, 52… f3.

Now it seems very natural and obvious to push your pawn, and you’ve probably been taught that passed pawns should be pushed, but when you possess the only remaining pawn on the board you often want your king in front of the pawn. This is the case here.

White found the only move to draw: 53. Kd4, correctly rushing back with his king. His rook is well placed on the h-file here, preventing the black king from travelling to g2 via h3. Black pushed the pawn again: 53… f2, for the moment preventing the white king’s approach. White again found the only drawing move: 54. Rf7. (Rg7+ would have led to king and queen against king and rook, which would have been another story entirely.) Black naturally replied by defending the pawn with 54… Rg2.

On his 55th move White has no less than 21 choices (the maximum number of 8 king moves and 13 rook moves, one short of the maximum, for those of you who care about this sort of thing). Nine of them draw and the other twelve lose. The most obvious draw is the simple Ke3 just winning the pawn and demonstrating to black that he pushed his pawn too quickly. However he was seduced by the skewer 55. Rg7+, no doubt playing too fast to notice that after he won the rook Black would promote.

Now Black has six king moves, but the only one to win is Kf6, when he’ll reach the tricky ending king and queen against king and rook. It’s mate in 28 according to the tablebases, but would he have been able to win? We’ll never know because instead he played 55… Kh4.

White’s now drawing again if he finds 56. Rf7, getting back behind the passed pawn and preparing to meet 56… Kg3 with 57. Ke3, when Black can make no progress. His actual choice of 56. Rh7+ was too slow, though, because now after 56… Kg3, which Black played, his king will have time to reach g1 via h2. The game continued 57. Rg7+ Kh2 58. Rh2+ Kg1 and Black won by promoting his pawn.

Richard James

I Had a Tiger by the Tail, Conclusion

In a previous article located here, I mentioned my games at Stan’s NetChess where I have a record of 70-12-6. The last two of those wins are posted below.

I am in an event that is called “Greatest Philosophers of the Western World Tourney”. I no longer remember if a player needs to outscore his or her opponent by four wins or if the first player with four wins in the match, wins each match. Either way, I am still waiting for two other matches to finish before I can begin the final round of this event. That round will determine the overall winner of this event. So far, I have lost only one game in this event! If you see my analysis of Round 3 of this match below, you will see that I got away with some opening blunders in that turn-based chess game.

In the final game of this match, my opponent played out a clearly lost endgame. I have yet to figure out why some people will play out hopelessly lost endgames in anything that resembles a correspondence chess game! I am not likely to make a blunder under those playing conditions!

And this is Round 4, the final round of this match.

Mike Serovey

Amateur Versus Master: Game Seventeen

Double Dutch Defense

My opponent in this correspondence chess game lives in the Netherlands (Holland) and I played the Dutch Defense against him. That is like playing the French Defense against someone who lives in France.

Although I dropped a pawn on move number 20, the game was fairly even. Both sides defended well and the endgame ended up being fairly closed. I considered opening up the position in the endgame so that my bishop pair could become more powerful, but I decided against this because I was still down a pawn and keeping the position closed made drawing much easier.

This draw kept me tied for first place in this section.

Mike Serovey

Another French Defense Bites the Dust

My opponent in this correspondence chess game was an unrated player who was given a provisional rating of 1800 for pairing purposes. At the time that I am writing this, Mike O’Mahoney has lost to me and one other opponent.

This win put me in temporary first place in this section and a subsequent draw with the other player who defeated Mike has kept me in a tie for first place in this section.

Some of you may remember a cartoon character called Huckleberry Hound. He used to sing My Darling Clementine quite often while walking around. The chorus is as follows:

Oh my darling, Oh my darling,
Oh my darling Clementine,
You are lost and gone forever,
Dreadful sorry Clementine.

I changed the chorus to the following:

Oh ma honey, Oh ma honey,
Oh ma honey chess player Mike,
You are lost and gone forever,
Dreadful sorry chess player Mike.

You tried to beat me, You tried to beat me,
You tried to beat me in a game of chess,
But you are lost and gone forever,
Dreadful sorry chess player Mike.

My opponent (Black) started making minor positional and developmental errors early in this correspondence chess game and was losing rather quickly. Thus, I cannot pick only one move as being the losing move.

Mike Serovey

Rook Endings (1)

My friend Chris Kreuzer, a former pupil at Richmond Junior Club and now a colleague at Richmond & Twickenham Chess Club when he’s not playing for the English Deaf Chess team, sent me a game resulting in an exciting and error-strewn rook ending. His opponent in this Thames Valley League game was talented Richmond Junior Alfie Onslow, whose game against me from earlier in the season featured here a few months ago.

Chris is a strong player whose results seem to me to be affected by his addiction to time trouble. This game was played with a time limit of 75 minutes per player for the game. There are no increments in ThamesValleyLeagueLand where, in the impoverished suburbs of West London (irony alert), most clubs can’t afford to buy digital clocks. When the rook ending was reached Chris was down to about 3 minutes on the clock to Alfie’s 12 minutes. Chris had won a pawn in the middle game but gave up material in the quest for activity and was now a pawn behind.

We’ll join the game here, where White’s just captured a pawn on c5.

Black has to choose his 45th move. In fact there are two possible moves here, as someone pointed out after the game the possibility of 45… Kd7 46. Bxe7 Kxc8 47. Bxf6, which will lead to a draw. With not much time on the clock it’s understandable that Chris missed this, instead playing the obvious bishop exchange. So…

45… Bxc5
46. Rxc5

White’s a pawn ahead in this ending, but Black’s king is centralised and he’s about to put his rook behind the passed c-pawn. My pupils know about KUFTE (King Up For The Ending, for which thanks to the late and much missed Mike Fox) and RBBPP (Rooks Belong Behind Passed Pawns).

46… Rc1

On general principles this can’t be wrong and indeed it’s fine for a draw, as are various other moves such as f5 and Kd6.

47. Rc6+ Kf5
48. c5 Rc2
49. f3 Rc4
50. Rc8 Kf4
51. c6 f5
52. c7

Perfectly reasonable play by both sides so far. Charlie White has now reached the seventh rank so Black has to be careful to shelter his king from checks.

52… Rc2

Still fine for a draw, and perhaps not expecting the white king to march bravely up the h-file. Another way to share the point was 52… Rc1 53. g4 Kxf3 54. gxf5 e4 55. f6 when Black has to find 55… Rc2+ 56. Kh3 Rc6 in order to prevent the f-pawn’s advance and draw the game.

53. Kh3 Rc4
54. Kh4 Rc1
55. Kh5

White’s king is becoming dangerous and now Black has only one route to equality. He has to remain active and play 55… Rc2 56. g4 fxg4 (again the only move to draw). Now White has two tries: 57. Rf8+ Kg3 58. c8Q Rxc8 59. Rxc8 Kxf3, which is a draw; or 57. fxg4 Rh2+ (only move again) 58. Kg6 Kxg4 (the final only move), which is also a draw.

55… Rc6

Natural enough in time trouble, I suppose, as Chris wants to prevent Alfie’s king advancing, but unfortunately it loses.

56. g4

The winning move. White’s threatening both g5 and gxf5, when a recapture will be met by Rf8+. Perhaps Black should try 56… fxg4 when the immediate 57. Rf8+ is only a draw but the simple recapture 57. fxg4 is winning.

56… Kxf3

57. gxf5

Now it’s White’s turn to go wrong. This recapture should only draw but instead 57. g5 e4 58. g6 e3 59. g7 e2 60. Re8 and White wins the promotion race. Note that his king is supporting the g-pawn but is too far away to support the f-pawn.

57… e4
58. Kg5

Or 58. f6 Rxf6 59. Re8 Rc3 60. c8Q Rxc8 61. Rxc8 e3 with a draw.

58… e3
59. f6 Rc4

Running out of time, Black makes what looks like a fairly random move instead of pushing his pawn.

After 59… e2 60. f7 (60. Re8 is a safer draw) 60… e1Q 61. f8Q+ Kg2 White has no more checks and, although he has an extra pawn his rook is out of play and his king is in trouble. My computer tells me he has only one way to draw, the far from obvious (at least to me) 62. Qg8. (In real life, though, with his flag hanging, Black would take a perpetual rather than looking for a mating sequence.) Black’s other drawing move is 59… Rc5+ 60. Kg6 Rc7 61. Kg7 e2 with similar play to the line above.

60. f7

And, unfortunately for Chris, it’s all over.

1-0

What lessons can we learn from this?

1. Endings can often be tactical: you have to be good at accurate long-range calculation to play this sort of position well. (Of course the paradox is that positional players are likely to reach more endings than tacticians.)

2. Activity is important in rook endings.

3. Pushing passed pawns is important in endings.

4. If you’re playing any fairly fast time limit, especially without increments, if you get significantly behind on the clock in an otherwise level ending you’re probably going to lose, either by running out of time or by having to rush your moves and consequently making mistakes

Richard James

How Modern is Alekhine’s Defense?

This correspondence chess game was over before this section officially began. ICCF will post the pairings for server-based correspondence chess games two or three weeks before the sections officially begin. This correspondence chess game is one of several that I have completed at ICCF before the sections that those correspondence chess games were in officially started.

This win put me in temporary first place in this section and a later draw has kept me there so far.

My lower-rated opponent decided to gamble with a chess opening that is risky in Over the Board (OTB) chess and ill advised against a higher rated player in a correspondence chess game. After some research online I determined that the best way for White to play against Alekhine’s Defense is to go into either the Modern variation or the Exchange variation. I believe that this correspondence chess game went into the Modern variation.

I considered a sacrifice line that is in my analysis and decided against playing that in a correspondence chess game. However, I may play that in an OTB game against a lower rated opponent.

Mike Serovey

Stephen MacDonald-Ross

I was saddened the other day to receive an email informing me that one of my regular Thames Valley League opponents, Stephen MacDonald-Ross, had died at the age of 70.

Stephen was the younger brother of the better-known (but, in recent years, much less active) Michael MacDonald-Ross. Like many chess players, he came across as very quiet, but was always a pleasant and friendly opponent. He was usually graded a few points below me, but my impression, judging from our games, was that he was much stronger than his grade. His openings were well prepared and he seemed to excel at positional and endgame play, but was hampered by a tendency to mishandle the clock and run short of time.

I was never able to beat him in five encounters, managing only three draws.

The first time we met was in a London weekend congress in 1974. I had White and the game was a fairly short draw. It was not until 1992 that we met again, in a London League match between Richmond and Wimbledon.

Our remaining four games were all in league matches and in each case Stephen was white. We met three times in the 1990s, the first occasion being a 1992 London League match between Richmond and Wimbledon.

1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. e4 e5 5. Be3 Nc6 6. Nge2 exd4 7. Nxd4 Nge7 8. Be2 O-O 9. O-O f5 10. Qd2 Nxd4 11. Bxd4 Nc6 12. Bxg7 Kxg7 13. f4 fxe4 14. Nxe4 Bf5 15. Qc3+ Kg8 16. Bf3 Qe7 17. Ng5 Qf6 18. Qxf6 Rxf6 19. Rae1 h6 20. Ne4 Rff8 21. Nc3 Bd3 (I have to be careful here as my position is slightly loose. This is not good, giving White time to double rooks on the e-file. 21… a6, to prevent a possible Nb5, should have been preferred.) 22. Bd5+ Kg7 23. Rf3 Bf5 24. Rfe3 Nd4 (A blunder, probably in time trouble, losing at once.) 25. Re7+ Kf6 26. Rxc7 Rac8 27. Rxb7 a5 28. g4 Bd3 29. Ne4+ Bxe4 30. Rxe4 Nf3+ 31. Kf2 1-0

It’s not very often that I get outplayed positionally but that’s what happened in our next game, from a 1995 Thames Valley League match between Wimbledon A and Richmond Juniors A.

1. d4 f5 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 e6 4. Nf3 d5 5. O-O c6 6. c4 Bd6 7. b3 Qe7 8. Bb2 O-O 9. Qc1 Bd7 10. Ba3 Be8 11. Bxd6 Qxd6 12. Nbd2 Nbd7 13. Qb2 Bh5 14. Rfe1 Ne4 15. Rad1 h6 16. Ne5 Nxe5 17. dxe5 Qc5 18. Nxe4 fxe4 19. Qd4 Qxd4 20. Rxd4 Rf5 (Black should be fine here despite the typical Stonewall bad bishop because of the potential weakness of the e5 pawn. The right way to go here is 20… g5, to prevent, rather than encourage, White’s reply. My move is not very intelligent, just provoking White into playing good moves. Now Stephen outplays me in impressive style.) 21. f4 exf3 22. exf3 Rff8 23. Bh3 Rae8 24. cxd5 cxd5 25. f4 Bf3 26. Ra4 a6 27. Rb4 Re7 28. Rb6 Rfe8 29. Kf2 Be4 30. Ke3 Kf7 31. Rc1 g5 32. fxg5 hxg5 33. Bg4 Rh8 34. h3 Bf5 35. Rf1 d4+ 36. Kd2 Ke8 37. Bxf5 exf5 38. Rxf5 Rxh3 39. Rxg5 Rh2+ 40. Kd3 Rxa2 41. e6 Kd8 42. Rc5 Rc7 43. Rd6+ Ke7 44. Rxc7+ Kxd6 45. e7 1-0

Looking at these two games now, it’s clear that I lost them both by making a threat (21… Bd3, 20… Rf5) which was met with a gain of tempo when I should have preferred a defensive move instead. Perhaps there’s a lesson to be learnt there.

We met again in another Wimbledon A v Richmond Juniors A match in 1998. Again it was a Dutch Stonewall, but this time I chose a different plan, delaying castling. After mutual inaccuracies in what was probably mutual time trouble I missed a winning tactic.

1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 d5 5. Nf3 c6 6. O-O Bd6 7. b3 Qe7 8. Bb2 b6 9. Qc1 Bb7 10. Ba3 Bxa3 11. Nxa3 Nbd7 12. Qb2 O-O 13. b4 Rab8 14. cxd5 exd5 15. Rfe1 a5 16. b5 c5 17. dxc5 bxc5 18. Nc2 a4 19. Qa3 Nb6 20. Ne3 g6 21. Nd4 Rfe8 22. Nc6 Bxc6 23. bxc6 Rbc8 24. Rac1 Rxc6 25. Nc4 Nxc4 26. Rxc4 Re6 27. Rc2 Qa7 28. e3 c4 29. Rd1 Re5 (Missing my chance as the time control at move 30 approaches: 29… Rxe3 is winning.) 30. Qd6 Qe7 31. Bxd5+ Nxd5 32. Rxd5 Qxd6 1/2-1/2 (White now stands better in this double rook ending. I don’t remember whether we agreed a draw here or whether the position went for adjudication. Unlike our previous game, neither of us wanted to play on.

Our last encounter was in 2013, in a match between Richmond B and Wimbledon B. Like our first game, it was a short draw.

Although never a demonstrative presence at matches, Stephen will be much missed in London chess circles, most of all by his friends and colleagues at Wimbledon Chess Club, to whom I extend my sympathy.

Richard James

Was the Third Time a Charm?

Martti Mujunen is an ICCF expert who lives in Finland. This correspondence chess game is my third consecutive draw with Martti and the second time that I have played the Sicilian Defense against him. The first time that I played the Sicilian Defense against Martti I played the Four Knights variation. This time I played the Taimanov variation.

I won another game in this section prior to this draw. That win put me in temporary first place in this section and this draw kept me there.

ICCF rules allow the use of chess engines as well as chess databases. White took me out of my database of chess games with his eighteenth move. After that, I was double checking my analysis with chess engines.

Like my previous draws with Martti, this correspondence chess game ended before this section officially started.

Mike Serovey

He Who Hesitates

“He who hesitates is lost”, according to the old proverb, dating from long before the days of gender-neutral language.

In chess this is often true, but more often, at least in my games, those who hesitate are drawn. At my level this happens over and over again. You have a good position. You know what you ‘should’ play, but you get nervous, you start thinking ‘what if it doesn’t work’, the clock’s ticking away and you have to make a decision. You chicken out and play something which looks vaguely safe instead. I’m sure there are many of us who would get better results if only we had the courage of our convictions.

Witness the following game, in which I had the black pieces against an opponent of similar strength to myself, who I knew from previous encounters was an uncompromising player who would guarantee me an interesting game. He insisted, as was his right, on the ‘slow’ option: we had to play 35 moves in 75 minutes, with time called after 2½ hours. The league rules stipulate that, if the game is unfinished, the player whose turn it is to move can adjourn and continue at the opposing team’s venue or propose an adjudication. The other player can then agree to an adjudication or insist on an adjournment, travelling to his or her opponent’s club. (You may well think it extraordinary that here in 2016 we’re still playing chess in this way with such Byzantine rules, but that’s the Thames Valley League for you.)

1. d4 Nf6
2. Nf3

This gives me a problem as I prefer to fianchetto my king’s bishop in systems when White refrains from c4. The problem is that I have rarely played the King’s Indian Defence with black, and, although I used to play the Grünfeld regularly, gave it up more than 40 years ago. I rather suspect theory has moved on since then.

2… g6

Hoping he won’t play 3. c4, but…

3. c4 Bg7
4. Nc3

So I have to decide: King’s Indian, Grünfeld or perhaps c5 with some sort of Benoni. Mentally tossing a coin, I choose the first option.

4… O-O
5. e4 d6
6. Be2 e5
7. O-O

He goes for the main line. I’m not up to date with current theory after Nc6 so I select a less common variation which, to the best of my knowledge, is playable, and hope he doesn’t know any more about it than I do.

7… exd4
8. Nxd4 Re8
9. f3 c6

Nc6 is also popular here. Now White’s usual choice is Kh1, to move off the open diagonal.

10. Nc2 Be6

A natural developing move but Na6 is more often played and scores better.

11. Be3 d5

Going for the thematic pawn break, but I suspect White stands better in the resulting position.

12. cxd5 cxd5
13. e5 Nfd7
14. f4 Nb6

This position has occurred several times in practice. Black could also play Nc6 here, as 15. Nxd5 is hit by Ndxe5 when Black stands better.

15. Nd4 Nc6
16. Ncb5

Still fine for White, although Black won both games reaching this position on my database.

16… Bf8
17. b3

The first hesitation, perhaps, although it’s natural to prevent the black knight landing on c4. The engines all prefer Nxe6 followed by Rc1. It looks rather unnatural to me to trade off a strong knight for a bad bishop, but I’m not going to argue with them.

17… Nxd4
18. Nxd4 Rc8
19. Qd2

Another hesitation. White plays a natural ‘improving’ move rather than going for the pawn break with f5, which would have given him a strong position.

19… Nd7
20. Kh1

And again. He might have preferred 20. Bd3, taking control of the e4 square and preparing to meet 20… Nc5 with 21. f5.

20… Nc5
21. Bf3 Qd7
22. h3

Yet, again White hesitates and has now lost his advantage. Here the engines want to play Nxe6 followed by either Rac1 or g4. White must play actively to prevent Black putting a knight on e4.

22… h5

Now it’s my turn to hesitate. I wanted to prevent g4 and was worried, without any good reason, about the e-pawn being weak after a trade on e4. Instead 22… Ne4 23. Bxe4 dxe4 is equal, with a possible perpetual after Bxh3 if White tries something active.

23. Rad1 b6

Again – Ne4 is about equal.

24. Bf2

Again – f5 is good for White.

24… Rc7

Again chickening out of Ne4. I’m sure we both knew the right moves to play but wimped out of playing them at every opportunity.

25. Rfe1 Rec8
26. Rc1

Natural, I suppose, but setting up various tactical possibilities for Black on the c-file. The engines now recommend 26… Ne4, when Black will have enough compensation if White snatches the pawn, or 26… Nd3, but instead I wimp out again and move my knight to an unfavourable square on the edge of the board.

26… Na6
27. Rxc7 Rxc7

Giving White a tactical opportunity. Instead Nxc7 is correct.

28. Rc1

Missing 28. Nxe6 (it’s easy to miss tactics starting with a seemingly antipositional move) when 28… fxe6 is not possible because of 29. Qd3, hitting both a6 and g6.

28… Bc5
29. Rd1

As we approach the time control White allows a tactic which I manage to spot.

29… Bxh3
30. Nb5

Not the best reply. One improvement is 30. Be2 (hitting the loose knight on a6) 30… Bg4 31. Bxa6 Bxd4 32. Qxd4 Bxd1 when Black has an active rook and a pawn against White’s two bishops. The engines claim equality. Needless to say I hadn’t seen any of this at all, but in a complex position with neither player having too much time left inaccuracies are inevitable.

30… Qxb5
31. gxh3 Bxf2
32. Qxf2 Nb4

32… Qd7, to prevent f5, with a slight advantage to Black.

33. Be2

33. f5 gives White enough counterplay for equality.

33… Qc5
34. Qg3

A mistake as we approach the time control…

34… Kh7

And the final hesitation, playing a ‘safe’ move rather than 34… Qc2 with Rc3 to follow and the black major pieces infiltrate.

35. f5

On the last move before the time control White finally manages to play the thematic pawn break which he might have played on move 19, or on various other occasions thereafter.

35… Qc3

The best reply. Time was called and, as it was my opponent’s move he had the choice of adjourning and playing on at my club or proposing an adjudication. By now the other games had finished and my team had secured enough points to win the match so there was nothing except honour at stake. He proposed an adjudication, and, having better things to do with my life than spend a couple of days analysing the position and another evening travelling to his club to play it out, accepted his proposal. (I’d probably have asked him to seal a move and played on if the match had depended on it.)

I consulted the engines when I returned home and decided that after what appeared to be best play for both sides: 36. Bf3 Nd3 37. e6 Ne5 38. fxg6+ fxg6 39. Rxd5 Rc5 40. Rxc5 Qxc5 I was going to win the e-pawn and reach an ending with an extra pawn, but, with the queens still on the board it was unlikely to be enough to convince the adjudicator to give me a win. So I emailed my opponent and proposed a draw, which was accepted. Of course if I’d asked him to seal he might not have found the correct move. With more courage and determination I might have won the game. But with more courage and determination, and by playing f5 at the appropriate moment, my opponent might also have won the game, so I guess a draw was the fair result.

Richard James

Kids and Chess, Part Six

This Was a Blunder-fully Short Chess Game!

This is my final win against Benson Walent, so this will be the last time that I pick on him. This seems to be my second shortest chess game against a beginner and my sloppiest one that I have examined so far! I blundered on move number five and Benson started to punish my error. Then, I continued to make more bad moves! However, Benson let me off the hook by making a few bad moves himself and a couple of outright blunders that were worse than mine! In a matter of just seven moves I went from losing to winning.

One thing that has plagued me, as well as inexperienced players, is failing to win a won game. In this chess game, it was my opponent who failed to win a won chess game.

Mike Serovey