You cannot play postal or Email chess as if it were OTB chess. Many strong OTB players have discovered this simple fact the hard way. There are variations that may be used OTB but are dangerous to apply when your opponent has plenty of time and/or has “silicon” friends to help him/her! A couple of years ago I was playing several games at the same time in different tournaments against FIDE IM Terry Toh, from Singapore. Unfortunately, Mr. Toh silently withdrew from all these events, and he lost most of his games by forfeit. Most, but not all of them, because I claimed a rated win in one of our games. The laws of Email Chess say that, generally, if your opponent disappears without further notice from the tournament, all his games are lost, but are not counted as rated games unless you provide analysis proving a win or draw. Well, I claimed a win, but it was a most unusual situation because we were still at the 15^th move and I was a Rook and three pawns down!

As I learned later, Mr. Toh left OTB chess for a while to fulfill obligations in his Law studies. One year after our games, and having earned his Law degree, he went back to his OTB practice. Just to give the reader an example of his usual abilities in chess, I include a rather brilliant game that he won from IGM Ian Rogers, from Australia, at the Bangkok Open 2004.

Toh - Rogers [E91]

Bangkok, 2004

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 0–0 5.Nf3 d6 6.Be2 Na6 7.0–0 e5 8.Rb1!? exd4 9.Nxd4 Nc5?! (better 9...c6)  10.f3 a5 11.Be3 c6 12.Qd2 Qe7 13.Rfd1 Nfd7 14.b3 f5 15.exf5 gxf5 16.a3 Ne5 17.Nc2 Nf7 18.b4 axb4 19.axb4 Ne6 20.f4 Qf6 21.Rb3 Bd7 22.Bf3 Be8 23.h3 Qh4? (better 24...Nh8) 24.Kh2 Kh8 25.Nd4! Nxd4?! 26.Bxd4 Qh6 27.Ne2 Bd7 28.Bxg7+ Qxg7 29.Ng3! Qh6 30.Nh5 Kg8 31.Bd5!! Rfd8 32.Rg3+ Kf8 33.Bxf7 Kxf7 34.Rg7+ Kf8 35.Qxd6+ Qxd6 36.Rxd6 Ra4 37.Rf6+!, 1–0.

Now let me show you what happened in the above mentioned game that we played:

Monasterio - Toh [E04]

IECG 2003

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.Bg2 b5

This natural move, protecting the pawn, is rather rare. I’ve being playing the Catalan with White for many years and some time ago, when I prepared an answer for Black, this was also my choice. The main advocate of this Black system is Russian GM Eugenny Sveshnikov, who always chooses aggressive systems for his Black repertoire, not just drawing lines as many masters of the so called “Soviet School,” following the lead of Anatoly Karpov, are prone to do.

Experts disagree on their evaluation of this move. For example, Gulko, Kuzmin and Nesis consider it dubious, but Timman, Osnos, Fedorov and Polovdin believe it to be interesting. I consider it to be quite an interesting line for Email chess, as greed can sometimes pay more than in OTB chess. When I saw Toh playing this I was excited. Did he find some new continuation in this line?

6.a4 c6 7.axb5

White can consider 7.Ne5 here, although it usually transposes to the same positions that occur after 7.axb5. However, 7.Ne5 can also have independent value since White has the option of foregoing the capture on b5 altogether. For example, 7.Ne5 Nd5 8.0-0 (8.axb5 transposes back into our main game) 8…Bb7 (Here Black may also try to upset White’s plans by playing 8…a6, which leads to an entirely different theoretical variation that normally arises after 5…a6) 9.b3 cxb3 10.axb5 cxb5 11.Qxb3 a6 12.e4 Nf6 13.d5! with a dangerous initiative for White. Many examples of this can be found in the databases. I preferred to enter into the topical main line so I could find out what Toh’s findings might be.

7…cxb5 8.Ne5

This, as I said above, leads to the main line, but White may vary here with 8.O-O Bb7 (here Black may also try to upset White plans playing 8…a6, which leads to a different theoretical variation, namely the one beginning with 5…a6) 9.b3 cxb3 10.axb5 (also possible is 10.Qxb3 a6 11.Nc3 leading to very different positions that set new problems for both players) 10…cxb5 11.Qxb3 a6 12.e4 Nf6 13.d5! with a dangerous initiative for White, with many examples to be found in databases. I preferred to enter into the topical main line to inquiry about Toh’s findings there…

8…Nd5 9.Nc3 Bb4

Here 9…b4? is refuted by 10.Qa4+ Bd7 11.Nxd7 followed by Nxd5, and the pretentious 9..Bb7?! is countered by 10.Nxb5 Nc3 11.bxc3 Bxg2 12.Rg1 Bd5 13.Qa4. More interesting is 9…f6, which after 10.e4 Nxc3 11.Qh5+ g6 12.Nxg6 hxg6 leads to a somewhat unclear position. A more positional approach is also possible for White in this line, by means of 10.Nf3 (instead of 10.e4). This was tried in Ulibin-Kharlov, St.Petersburg1993, which ended with a win for Black, although the position remained mostly unclear and White also had his chances. Finally, a continuation that needs study (after 9…f6) is 10.Ng4!?.

10.0–0 Bxc3

Now 10…f6 is met strongly by 11.e4 Nxc3 12.Qh5+ g6 13.Nxg6 Ne2+ 14.Qxe2 hxg6 15.e5.

11.e4

This move of Boris Gulko’s creates some serious threats and forces Black to play very accurately.

11…Bxb2!

Practice has more or less established that this wild move is best in this position. Other choices are less promising:

1) 11…Bxd4 12.Qxd4! (12.exd5 is weaker, for example 12…Bxe5 13.dxe6 Qxd1 14.Rxd1 Bxe6 15.Bxa8 a6 16.Bb7 O-O 17.Bxa6 Nxa6 18.Rxa6 b4, with an unclear position in the correspondence game Frunko-Matousek, 1982, which ended in a draw in 37 moves) 12…Qb6 13.Nf3! Qxd4 14.Nxd4 Ne7 15.e5 Nd5 16.Nxb5. A rather forced line with a final position that must be evaluated as clearly better for White.

2) 11…Bb4 is much worse, for example 12.exd5 exd5 13.Nxf7! Kxf7 14.Qh5+ when White takes the d5-pawn.

3) 11…Nf4 12.Bxf4! (12.bxc3 is also interesting but more unclear after 12…Nxg2 13.Qg4 g6 14.Bh6) 12…Bxb2 (12…Bxd4 13.Nxc4! bxc4 14.e5 with initiative) 13.Rb1 Bxd4 14.Nxc4! bxc4 15.e5 with a clear advantage.

4) 11…Ne7 12.bxc3 f6? (better is 12…O-O, but after 13.Ba3 f6 14.Nxc4! bxc4 15.e5 Nbc6 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.Bxc6 Bb7 18.exf6 Rxf6 19.Qa4 White has a clear advantage. Analysis by Gulko) 13.Qh5+! g6 14.Nxg6 Nxg6 15.e5 and Black is busted, Gulko-Mikhalchishin, URSS 1981, which ended 15…Nc6 16.Bxc6+ Bd7 17.Bxa8  Qxa8 18.Bh6! Kf7 19.exf6 a5 20.Bg7 a4 21.Bxh8 Qxh8 22.d5 e5, 1-0.

5) 11…Nf6 an insufficient move that you will find deceptively successful at databases, the only reason is that Black was conducted by stronger players.

After 12.bxc3 all roads lead to a better game for White:

a) 12…Nbd7 13.Nc6 Qc7 14.d5 e5 15.Be3 a6 16.f4! O-O 17.fxe5 Nxe5 18.Nxe5 Qxe5 19.Bd4 when White’s control of the center led to an overwhelming game, which ended 19…Qg5 20.e5 Ng4 21.e6 Nh6 22.e7 Re8 23.d6 Bd7 24.Bxa8 Rxa8 25.Qf3, 1-0, Kinsman-Bryson, Edinburgh 1996.

b) 12…O-O was played in Nindl-Lautier, Lugano 1986, 13.Bg5 h6 14.Bxf6 Qxf6 15.Nxc4 with a big advantage for White: 15…Bb7 16.Nd6 Qe7 17.Nb5 e5 when Black was quite lost in the aforementioned game, though Nindl somehow ended up losing. My only explanation for White’s defeat in this game is that perhaps he paid too long a visit to the bar…in fact, Black’s position is so miserable that White could even play, instead of 13.Bg5, the forced sequence 13.Ba3 Re8 14.Nxf7 Kxf7 15.e5 Nd5 16.Qh5+ Kg8 17.Be4 g6 18.Bxg6 hxg6 19.Qxg6+ Kh8 20.Rae1 Nxc3 21.Re3 (Kinsman). But 13.Bg5 seems just a technical, completely safe win for White.

c) 12…Bb7 is the trickiest of the three alternatives, which led to a confusing position that White was unable to handle in Delchev-Mitkov, EU-ch U201990, 13.Ba3 Qc7 and although White is better, Black’s position seems to be mysteriously resilient, which doesn’t mean that White needs to loose, as he actually did.

 12.exd5

A more quiet approach is 12.Bxb2 Ne7 (12…Nf6 13.Ba3 condemns Black’s King to a central coffin) 13.d5 O-O 14.Ba3 f6! ( 14…Re8 15.dxe6!; 14…a5 16.dxe6; 14…Nd7?! 15.Nxf7! Kxf7 16.dxe6+ Kxe6 17.Qh5 g6 18.Qxh7 Ne5 19.Rad1 Nd3 20.Bh3+ and White was winning in Polovodin-Zhelnin, URSS 1983) 15.d6! Nec6 16.Nxc6 Nxc6 17.d7! b4! 18.dxc8=Q Rxc8 – analysis by the late GM Lembit Oll – the resulting position is evaluated as unclear by him: Black has three connected pawns for the piece, White has the two Bishops, Black’s e6 pawn is weak and White may have some play on the a-file. Nevertheless, I definitely prefer 12.exd5.

12…Bxa1 13.Ba3 exd5?

I was clearly disappointed when this move came through the Email, as IM Toh not only did not find anything fun in the main line, he even silently disappeared altogether from the game after this inferior move. Not that he chickened out because of the position; he abandoned all his IECG games and apparently went back to his usual OTB affairs.

What could I do? Well, I embraced the enjoyable task of proving that this position is lost for Black. Which meant I had to convince the adjudicator – a GM whose identity is unknown to the player submitting the game for adjudication – with concrete analysis.

Let me first give you the correct line for Black, which is rather forced but quite interesting:

13…a5!

This accomplishes two things, it threatens to shut out the Bishop with b4 and it allows the “a” Rook to defend along the third rank.

14.dxe6

The older 14.Qg4 seems to leads to a game with chances for both sides, for example 14…g6!? (also possible, but more dangerous for Black, is 14…b4) 15.Rxa1 Ra6 16.Qf4 f6 17.Qh6, 1/2-1/2, in Glek-Oll, Tallin 1986.

14…Bxe6 15.Bxa8 Qxd4!

15…Bxd4? looses as in Kengis-Meister, which ended 16.Nc6 Bxf2+ 17.Kxf2 Qc7 18.Bd6! Qb6+ 19.Qd4 Qxd4+ 20.Nxd4 b4 21.Ra1! Kd7 22.Bf4 Rc8 23.Bb7 Rd8 24.Rxa5 Ke8 25.Nxe6 fxe6 26.Rb5, 1-0.

But there is another alternative, namely 15…b4 a move that receives a “!” by Kengis and Dunnington, but I don’t agree and consider it insufficient after 16.Qa4+ Ke7 – given another “!” by Kengis – 17.Bxb4+ axb4 18.Qxb4+ Kf6 19.Rxa1 Qxd4 20.Re1 g6 21.Nf3 with chances to survive according to Dunnington. However, I must disagree again, because after 21…Qd3 22.Be4 Qd8 23.Qc3+ Ke7 24.Ng5 I just can’t see how Black is going to withstand White’s pressure.

16.Qxa1 Qxa1 17.Rxa1 b4 18.Bc1 O-O 19.Rxa5 Rd8! with an unclear position, because even if Black only has two pawns for the piece, they will give White enough trouble to keep him busy avoiding their advance. This is what I expected from a tactical IM like Toh…

Instead, the sideline chosen by him is clearly inferior, that is 13…exd5 14.Qh5 (my reply), which corresponds to the following diagram:

This position is the one that I sent for adjudication, claiming a win for White. I ask the compassionate reader to forgive me for the tedious lines that follow, but in order to be given my full rated point, my case had to be extensively presented.

From the above diagram Black has the following possibilities:

MAIN BRANCH

1) 14...Qc7 (or a similar Queen move, which seems the worst of the available possibilities)

2) 14...Be6

3) 14...Qf6 (the only move with practical examples in competition)

4) 14...g6 (which seems to be the strongest)

1) 14...Qc7 15.Nxf7 Be6 (the strongest of a losing bunch) 16.Re1 (one of several moves) 16...Qd7 (any other loses all the same) 17.Qf5 and Black must resign.

2) 14...Be6 15.Nxf7 With three main possibilities (in fact there are more, all amounting more or less to the same thing):

Part One/Part Two