However, is it “fair play” for one player to analyze a complex tactical position with no aids while his opponent makes use of a Pentium IV with a gig of Ram? No matter what we believe in terms of ethics and values, we cannot go against factual reality, and factual reality tells us that every serious competitor in the chess world is using engines one way or the other.

To ascertain the verity of what I am saying you can perform a very simple test, check the tactics of GM correspondence games from, let’s say, 1950 to 1985. After that, do the same with games from 1995 to 2005, and you tell me what you find. Do you believe that those past Masters were inferior to today’s contemporaries in terms of tactical ingenuity? Hardly so. Engines are making the difference.

Don’t get me wrong, you cannot become a strong GM or even a strong IM in correspondence chess solely by the use of engines. In fact, a close study of the strongest correspondence chess Masters’ games will show that not even one of them relies on engines for general planning – you just cannot do that and stay alive in high level correspondence chess, at least, not yet…There are still some deep problems and controversy in the area of Artificial Intelligence research.

We tend to overvalue engines, and we must not forget that – at least still today – engines do not play chess, but calculate moves, which is quite a different matter altogether. I believe most of us lesser mortals have now and then made the mistake of trusting engines too much. There are several reasons for committing that crime. Sometimes you are playing thirty games simultaneously (yours truly has been guilty of this kind of moronic indulgence in excess), you are in a hurry or you are tired or just bored of playing chess, and then you trust your engine’s opinion just one time too many…and disaster comes. I have been in such a predicament two or three times, and invariably I have completely destroyed both the game’s intrincsic beauty and my winning chances.

As far as I can see, the strongest correspondence chess masters use engines only to check the tactics in the position. And my humble advice to you is to do just the same. You must play your own game, you must think for yourself, and you must avoid the costly mistake of being lazy – if you don’t, you will pay dearly for making that mistake: you won’t improve your understanding of chess, and you will also get some nasty “goose-eggs” (i.e., losses) at the tournament score table. Devise your own plans, strategies, and moves. After that, if you consider it appropriate at the given time, let engines check the tactics in the position to avoid some awful oversight.

One OTB player that is famous for his intense use of engines during preparation/analysis is Garry Kasparov, but he did not became the extraordinary player that he is because of engines; engines came later, just as an aid to his already outstanding chess understanding.

It would be rather pointless to offer self-righteous advice suggesting that engines not be used at all, for the simple reason that it is too unrealistic – nobody can trust the ethics of an opponent who is playing out of your sight on the other end of the globe, and nobody         could successfully give the odds of playing with no computer aids against a player who is actually using the latest version of Fritz, Junior, Shredder, etc.

Today I will show you a game where I exploit one of the computer’s biggest weaknesses – the so called “horizon effect.” Engines calculate, mostly, by brute force. If they do not “see” a clear enough situation, they will not calculate the move at all. There are some exceptions. Junior, for example, is an engine that is able, now and then, to produce some “human-flavored” combination. But even Junior cannot “see” nor “guess” what is happening in a position similar to which I am going to show today.

This game was played at the VII IECG World Cup. I was in a rather creative mood, which was entertaining, but did not protect me from neither loosing nor drawing against lower ranked players that were just not allowing me to impose my higher rating on them! Actually, it wasn’t an easy ride for anyone. The highest ranked player in this round-robin tournament was none other than Stephen Kerr, the second ranked player in the world (he still holds that place today). Stephen is one of the most positionally sound and safe players in the international circuit, and I was lucky to achieve a very difficult draw with Black in a very tricky English, Botvinnik variation, a game that I plan to show some day. But just take a look at this other game that he played in this tournament against Mr. Tom Collins Jr., from the United States. You will not fail to distinguish the rating difference.

Collins,T (1389) - Kerr,S (2553) [D00]
CP.2001.Q.00001 IECG, 01.10.2002

1.d4 d5 2.Bg5 c6 3.Nf3 h6 4.Bh4 Qb6 5.b3 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bd3 Bxd3 8.Qxd3 Be7 9.Bxe7 Nxe7 10.0-0 Nd7 11.c4 0-0 12.Nc3 Qa6 13.Rfc1 Rfd8 14.Qf1 dxc4 15.Ne4 Rac8 16.Rxc4 b5 17.Rc2 Qa3 18.Qc1 Qxc1+ 19.Raxc1 a5 20.Kf1 Ra8 21.a3 f6 22.Ke2 Nb6 23.Nc5 Kf7 24.Nd2 g5 25.h3 Nbd5 26.Ke1 Ng6 27.Ra1 Nde7 28.Nb7 Rd5 29.Nf3 f5 30.g4 Kf6 31.Rac1 Kf7 32.Nc5 e5 33.gxf5 Nxf5 34.Kf1 Nfh4 35.Nxe5+ Nxe5 36.dxe5 Rxe5 37.Nb7 b4 38.axb4 axb4 39.Rxc6 Re6 40.Rc7+ Kg6 41.Nc5 Rb6 42.Nd3 Kh5 43.R1c5 Ra1+ 44.Ke2 Ra2+ 45.Rc2 Ra3 46.Rb2 Ra1 47.Rc5 Ng6 48.f4 Rg1 49.f5 Nh4 50.Rbc2 Rg3 51.f6 Rxf6 52.Nf4+ Rxf4 53.exf4 Rxb3 54.R2c4 Rxh3 55.Rxb4 Rh2+ 56.Kd3 Ng2 57.Re4 Rh3+ 58.Kd4 Rf3 59.fxg5 hxg5 60.Ree5 Rf4+ 61.Kd3 Rg4 62.Kd2 Nf4 63.Rb5, 1/2-1/2.

Stephen was rather concerned during this game, and with good reason, as in a personal email he confided to me that he believes he must have been lost at some point. I won my game against Collins, but only after he went from a rather tenable Rook  to a quite lost pawn ending, having improved on a Holmov game in the opening and early middlegame! Therefore, you cannot expect to find anybody’s weak sister today!

As I told you, I was in a creative mood, as you can see from this game where I use both thematic and original sacrifices to keep the struggle  going in an attempt to avoid a draw. Still, my lower rated opponent coolly held  his own.

Villiere,C  - Monasterio,M  [C06]

CP.2001.Q.00001 IECG, 01.10.2002

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ne2 Qb6 8.Nf3 cxd4 9.cxd4 f6 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.0–0 Bd6 12.Nc3 0–0 13.Be3 Bd7 14.a3 g6 15.Qc2 Kg7 16.h3 Nh5 17.Ne2 Rxf3 18.gxf3 Qd8 19.Kg2 Qh4 20.Rh1 Rf8 21.Qd2 Bf4 22.Bb5 Ne5 23.Bxd7 Qg5+ 24.Ng3 Nxf3 25.h4 Qg4 26.Bxe6 Qxe6 27.Nxh5+ gxh5 28.Qd3 Qg4+ 29.Kf1 Nh2+ 30.Rxh2 Bxh2 31.Rc1 Kh8 32.Rc3 Qxh4 33.Qb5 Qg4 34.Ke1 Qg2 35.Kd1 Qe4 36.Qxb7 Bg3 37.Kc1 Bf4 38.Qxa7 Bxe3+, 1/2-1/2. A game that perhaps IM (and French Defense guru) John Watson may enjoy up to some point.

And to further confirm my assertion about the tough life in today’s Ponderosa, I want to share with you a miniature. Do you believe that you cannot lose in 18 moves at correspondence chess? Well, good for you and God bless you, unfortunately, yours truly cannot say the same.

Monasterio,M - Helbig,A  [B12]

CP.2001.Q.00001, 2002

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Nc3 e6 5.g4 Bg6 6.Nge2 c5 7.h4 h5 8.Nf4 Bh7 9.Nxh5 Nc6 10.Bb5 Nge7 11.Bh6 cxd4 12.Qxd4 Rg8 13.0–0–0 a6 14.Bxc6+ Nxc6 15.Qf4 Qa5 16.Rh3 Nb4 17.Rf3 Bg6 18.a3 Rc8, 0–1. And this one will most certainly delight IM Jeremy Silman, who is a big fan of the Caro-Kann!

You will not find me playing on in this sort of position. Andreas Helbig told me after the game that it was mainly an analysis from Peter Heine Nielsen, in a Swedish magazine, a fact that did not blemish his fine performance and highlighted my ignorance.

At the end, after all, the two highest rated players – Kerr and I – were the only two qualifiers.

After these preliminary ravings, we are now ready to go to our main game.

Not long ago, I discovered that this game of mine has appeared in the excellent magazine and yearly survey Inforchess, a Spanish digital publication. The game was commented on by IECG first Grand Master Jorge Rodriguez. He selected the game because he considered it “imaginative,” which made me naively happy!

Monasterio,M - Oestergaard,A [C45]

IECG VII Cup - 1/4F, Sección 001 corr, 2002

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Nxc6 Qf6 6.Qd2 Qxc6

GM Jorge Rodriguez attached a “?!” to this move, and I believe he was too benevolent by not given it a direct “?”.

Many correspondence players have a strange adherence to the bizarre. You will find them engaging in Blackmar-Diemers, Elephant Gambits, Wincklemann’ Frenchs, and some other underworld beauties. Another example appeared last month in Jeremy Silman’s mail bag (SPLAT THE LAT), and features once more the weird but resilient Latvian Gambit. Well, perhaps the Latvian is not objectively as “resilient” as their advocates are! Don’t you think that if these lines were really sound, most of the world’s greatest players would be playing them? And no, it is not “just a matter of fashion.”

I have played some Scotchs, and I used to like this opening, but I must admit that lately Black is performing very nicely against it in several lines. My lastest example was a dismaying game where I had to fight for a draw against a very fine player against whom, nevertheless, I have a plus score of 2 wins, 4 draws, 0 losses. Two of the draws were with the Scotch, and in the last one I had to use some extra resources, because my position was really ugly:

Monasterio, M - Marcotulli, G

IECG, WC-2005-T-00006

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Bc5 5.Nxc6 Qf6 6.Qd2 dxc6 7.Nc3 Bd4 8.Bd3 Ne7 9.O-O Ng6 10.Ne2 Bb6 11.Nf4 Bd7 12.Nxg6 hxg6 13.Qg5 Be6 14.Qxf6 gxf6 15.Rd1 O-O-O 16.Bf4 g5 17.Bg3 Bd4 18.c3 Be5 (Black has a very nice position, and White has no plan at all.) 19.Bc2 Rd6 20.a3 a5 21.Rxd6 cxd6  22.Rf1 Bc4 23.Rd1 Kd7 24.f3 b5 25.Kf2 Ke7 26.a4 Rb8 27.b3 Be6 28.axb5 cxb5 29.Bxe5 fxe5 30.Ke3 b4 31.c4 a4 32.bxa4 Bxc4 33.Bd3 d5 34.exd5 Bxd5 35.a5 b3 36.a6 b2 37.Rb1 Rb4 38.a7 Rb3  39.Ke2 Ra3, 1/2-1/2.

Having at your disposal these kind of lines, why chose 6…Qxc6?! Correct, of course, is 6...dxc6 as in the game above and after 7.Nc3, for example,  7…Bd4 8.Bd3 Ne7 9.0–0 Ng6 10.Ne2 Bb6 11.Ng3 Ne5 12.Be2 0–0 13.Qc3 Re8 14.Be3 Ng4 15.Qxf6 Nxf6 16.Bxb6 axb6 17.f3 h5 18.Rfd1 h4 19.Nf1 b5 20.a3 Nd7 21.Ne3 Nc5 22.c4 bxc4 23.Bxc4 g6 24.Rac1 Be6 25.Kf2 Kf8 26.b4 Bxc4 27.Nxc4 Ne6 28.Na5 c5 29.Nxb7 cxb4 30.axb4 Ra2+ 31.Ke3 Rxg2 32.Nc5 Rxh2 33.Nxe6+ Rxe6 34.Rxc7 Rb2 35.Rdd7 Rb3+ 36.Kf4 Rf6+ 37.Kg5 Kg7 38.f4 h3 39.Kg4 h2 40.Rd1 Rxb4 41.Re7 Rd6 42.Rh1 Rd2 43.e5 Kf8 44.Ra7 Rb3 45.Ra8+ Kg7 46.Ra7 Rg2+ 47.Kh4 Rg1 48.Rxh2 Rb8, 0–1, Rublevsky-Akopian, Dagomys 2004.

Black may also play after 7.Nc3 Ne7 8.Qf4 and now, as GM J.Rodriguez pointed out, 8…Be6 is fashionable: 9.Qxf6 gxf6 10.Na4 (10.Bh6 Bd4 11.Na4 a5 12.Bd2 Rg8 13.Bc3 O-O-O, Arizmendi-Korneev, Linares 2003) 10...Bb4+ 11.Bd2 (11.c3?! Bd6) 11...Bxd2+ 12.Kxd2 0–0–0+ 13.Bd3 b6 14.Rae1 c5, Rublevsky - Aleksandrov, Poikovsky 2004.

7.Bd3 Nf6

Also unappealing is 7...Ne7 8.0–0 0–0 9.b4!

8.0–0 d6?!

Better is 8...0–0 9.b4! Bd4 (9...Be7 10.c4 Nxe4? 11.Bxe4 Qxe4 12.Re1 Qh4 13.g3 Qf6 14.Bb2 was winning for White in Szieberth,A-Koerholz,L Budapest 1995) 10.c3 Bb6 11.c4 Bd4 12.Nc3 and now:

A)    12...Bxc3?! 13.Qxc3 Nxe4 14.Qc2.

B)     12...b5!? 13.Nd5 Nxd5 (13...Qd6!?) 14.exd5 Qf6 15.Rb1 bxc4 16.Bxc4, 1-0 in 39, Fernandez-Gallego, Linares 1993.

C)    12...a5 13.Bb2 Re8 (13...axb4 14.Nd5 Qc5 15.e5!) 14.b5 Qd6 15.Rad1 Qe5 16.h3, 1-0 in 59, Smagin -Hjartarson, Alemania 1991.

9.b4! Bb6 10.a4

Threatening both 11.Bb5 and 11.a5.

10...a6 11.Bb2 Qd7

If 11...Be6?, as in Ivanvco - Kupka, Bratislava 1959, White has 12.Bb5! forcing 12...axb5 13.axb5 Rxa1 14.bxc6 with a clear edge.

12.h3!?

GM J.Rodriguez attached the “!?” sign to this move, without adding anything else. According to the course of the game, it could have been “?!”, because it must be admitted that if White needs to attack on the kingside, this h3 move could prove disadvantageous, as we do not know if that place is going to be needed for a Rook or the Queen. But the fact is that Black has misplaced his pieces, and I did not want him to transport his Queen to the kingside via g4. The game continuation proved my intuition right, and h3 was the correct move.

12…Qe7 13.a5 Ba7 14.e5!

Simple and strong.

14...dxe5  15.Bxe5 Be6

If 15...0–0 16.Re1.

16.Nc3 c6

Perhaps hoping to put a piece on d5. If instead 16...0–0 17.Qf4 ±.

POSITION AFTER 16...c6

Do you remember that night at the Opera?

No engine, at least no engine available at that time, could figure out White’s best move. For a human player, it is rather easy. You have only to remember that glorious game played by Morphy at the Paris Opera house.

17.b5!

Here, GM J.Rodriguez writes: “The imaginative ‘puntano’ – originally from the Province of San Luis – player puts an end to Black’s illusion. This powerful move demonstrates that everything was not OK in Black’s position.”

I have only one chord of dissidence here with my most venerable colleague, I am not “puntano,” as I am originally from Buenos Aires, not San Luis! Therefore I am as “porteño” – originally from Buenos Aires – as Tango is!

 CRUSHING BLACK’S ILLUSIONS

17...axb5?!

 
A move that immediately “told” me that my opponent had no understanding of what was really going on, and that he was going to accept the sacrificed Knight, otherwise he should have played 17…cxb5 18.Nxb5 Bb8 19.Bxb8 Rxb8 20.Nd4 0–0 21.Rfe1 Rbd8 22.Nxe6 fxe6

White is better, but Black is still fighting.

This would have been the logical outcome of the skirmish initiated by 17.b5, and the only way to avoid the horrible fate that awaits Black in the actual game line. White has pressure against the isolated e-pawn, good play on the semi-open b-file, the superior minor piece, and better coordination, all which amounts to a nice, comfortable advantage, but a fight still remains ahead.

18.Nxb5 cxb5

18...Bb8 now is not as appealing as before, as after 19.Bxb8 Rxb8 20.Nd4, White’s advantage is much greater than the one he would have if Black have taken the b5-pawn with the c-pawn. Nevertheless, it was still a big improvement over the actual game.

19.Bxb5+ Nd7

The engines available at the time this game was played – Fritz 6 and Junior 6 – had not the slightest clue about what was going on, and both of them gave Black a winning advantage here. Things have changed, though, as today Junior 9 or Shredder 9 get it right after some minutes of calculation.

If 19...Bd7?? 20.Bxf6 is winning for White.

20.Bd6 Qf6 21.a6!

“With a general opening of lines and awful piece coordination for Black.” – GM J.Rodriguez.

21...Bxf2+

“Trying to exchange Queens and speculating with White’s unprotected Rook at a1. Insufficient is 21...b6 22.Bxd7+ Bxd7 23.Qd5 Rd8 24.Bb4 Be6 25.Qc6+ Rd7 26.Rad1 Bd5 27.Qxd5! Rxd5 28.Rxd5 and the threat of Re1+ will force Black to return his Queen. Also 21…bxa6 22.Rxa6, threatening 23.Bxd7+ Bxd7 24.Qb4 with ideas of 25.Qe4 or 25.Qb7 winning, 22…Qd8 23.Rfa1 – GM J.Rodriguez.

22.Rxf2!!

The two exclamation points are from the kind GM Rodriguez, who, by the way, is also from Argentina, but we have never met.

22...Qxa1+ 23.Rf1 Qb2

As Rodriguez correctly points out, Black cannot defend with 23...Qa2 because then comes the forced sequence 24.axb7 Qa7+ (if 24...Rd8? then 25.Qg5 mating) 25.Kh2 Qxb7 26.Qg5 f6 27.Qxg7 0–0–0 28.Rb1 Rhg8 29.Ba6! and it’s all over.

24.axb7 Rd8

If 24...Rb8 25.Bxd7+ Bxd7 26.Re1+! Be6 27.Bxb8 Qxb7 28.Bd6 Qb6+ 29.Kh1 and Black is lost as he cannot cope with all White’s threats beginning with 30.Ra1.

25.Bb4!

THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

Threatening 26.Bxd7+!.

25...f6 26.Qd6 Kf7 27.Qe7+ Kg6 28.Bd3+ Kh5 29.Qxg7, 1–0.

CURTAINS

After 29.Qxg7 Qd4+ 30.Rf2! it’s game over.