Review
of
First Anglo-Pacific
Invitational Chess Championship
by ICCM Erik Osbun
Review by Volker Jeschonnek
(posted 19-Oct-2003)
When
this book arrived in the mail I liked it right away. It is a pink
6"x 9" paperback of 192 pages. What first caught my eye was the
nice layout, the many diagrams, and that Osbun annotated many
games in much detail. The book has survived reading it from cover
to cover, entering many notes, and several long trips. Apparently
it can take some abuse.
The publisher is Caissa
Editions (P.O. Box 151, Yorklyn, DE 19736, USA), ISBN 0-939433-64-8.
The book can be ordered with the publisher. The price is $21 +
shipping ($3.00 within the United States).
The book contains 135
games from the First Anglo-Pacific Chess Championship, an invitational
postal tournament that started in 1985. Only a few of these games
were known before. International CC Master Erik Osbun annotated
the vast majority of games. They are recorded in figurine algebraic
notation.
The book also contains:
- a preface by Erik
Osbun
- (one page)
- an article "1st
Anglo-Pacific Invitational" by Maurice Carter (one and a half
pages)
- a profile of tournament
winner Roger Chapman (half a page)
- a tournament table
(one page)
- notes on how the
book was produced by James Carter (one page)
- several indexes
at the end (four and a half pages).
The font size in these
six items is rather small. Hence they contain more information
than one might expect.
International Arbiter
Maurice Carter was the tournament secretary and his son James
did the technical computer work for this book.
It is my assumption
that people will be curious about this book for very different
reasons. That is why I decided on three different angles, which
are treated individually. The conclusions are somewhat different
as well. My hope is that the readers will not waste their time
with discussions that are meaningless to them. The three angles
mentioned above are:
1) The book as a historical
record. 2) The book as training tool (for players aiming at strong
expert or master strength). 3) The book as a collection of games
or as a gift.
Still, it is possible
to read the three sections in a row.
1
The Book as a Historical Record
I am not an expert
on this topic but a few things come to mind. The questions I asked
were: Is the tournament of historical significance? Does the book
contain all the essential information? Is the information easily
accessible?
The answer to the first
question is easy. Yes, the First Anglo-Pacific Invitational Chess
Championship is an important tournament.
Tournament Secretary
Maurice Carter tells us in his quite detailed overview that the
tournament was "the first major event of the newly formed Anglo-Pacific
Tournament Bureau." We also learn that the original concept of
the event conflicted with ICCF rules. These difficulties were
solved by (formally) making it an invitational tournament. Still,
the winner received a spot in a World Championship ¾ Final.
The names I recognized
were Max Salm (Australia), David Eisen (USA), and Walter Muir
(USA). Salm and Muir held the ICCM title at the time (Eisen obtained
his IM-title in 1998). There was one more titled participant among
the field, ICCM Steven Tennant (USA).
Overall there were
17 players - four from Australia (Salm, Keast, Harrison, Henri),
four from the USA (Van Dyck, Eisen, Muir, Tennant), two from Canada
(Pare, Jurgens), two from Hong Kong (Domenden, Schepel), two from
Japan (Mori, Majima), two from New Zealand (Chapman, Van Dijk),
and one from Singapore (Glaser).
Regarding the second
question: Does the book contain all the essential information?
In my opinion Carter's
article covers all necessary information regarding the tournament
as such. For example, he mentions that Schepel withdrew after
a few months of play and he discusses why Tennant was disqualified
later. These unfortunate events produced many game fragments but
this cannot be held against the book as a documentation of history.
One could ask for more general information: biographies and photos
of participants, for example. This would have added more color
but I think the bases are covered.
What about the games?
I mentioned that the book contains 135 games. It was a 17-player
round robin tournament hence there should be 136 games. Checking
the player index confirmed that the encounter between Majima and
Tennant is missing. Osbun and Carter don't mention this.
In several cases Osbun's
notes are based on / include those of the players. That is certainly
a big plus for the historian.
Regarding the third
question: Is the information easily accessible?
The layout of the book
is very good. Hence it is easy to replay games (either those with
or without annotations). The number of typographical errors is
low. I noticed just a few in the annotations.
The games are arranged
by openings. More convenient (from our current perspective) might
have been an alphabetical order according to who was White. The
book contains an index that lets one look up game numbers for
a certain player. Finding the common number for two players gives
the number of their direct encounter. By no means luxury but it
works. This index does not indicate whether a player had the white
or black pieces.
My summary and assessment
(as a historical record): The book offers few luxuries but has
all the necessary ingredients. It is a good and solid record of
this tournament. Recommended.
2
The Book as Training Tool
Well-annotated games
are a very good learning tool. One can work with the bare game
score first and compare annotations afterwards. One can let the
annotator guide one through the game and see if there is anything
that appears unclear or even wrong. Yasser Seirawan said in an
interview that he was not too fond of studying. However, if a
strong player's claim contradicted his own intuition he felt challenged
to find out the truth. One can learn a lot this way.
I mentioned already
that International CC Master Erik Osbun annotated many games in
much detail. The annotations are in English and there is a lot
of text in the book. Chess Informant symbols such as "+-" (White
is winning) occur but they are rare exceptions.
It turns out that Osbun
is an excellent teacher. His annotations are clear and meaningful.
At times one would appreciate more detail but after some analysis
or consulting additional sources one realizes that he got to the
heart of the matter. There is no bias toward tactical or positional
play: he criticizes miscalculations as much as dim knights on
the rim. Players who are on the jump to strong expert or master
strength (or more) will find some of the material very helpful.
By the way, Osbun's annotations are very entertaining at times.
For example, we hear about big bad bulls in china shops and men
in white coats.
Osbun often cites games
that the players could have known. This is helpful and fair. When
I checked whether he deliberately did this with all games I found
exceptions. Some games were played as "late" as the early 1990s.
Unfortunately, we are not given an explanation. Possibly Osbun
reworked some annotations for another publication and used this
material in the book.
As an aside, older
material is often still relevant. Variations are often abandoned
after a crushing defeat at the top level. However, the reason
for that is sometimes more of a psychological or practical kind.
In several cases there are improvements for the loser (and some
are not very hard to find). The loser often abandons the line
anyway because of the bitter memories or because the loss attracted
a lot of attention (opponents received a hint on how to play the
position). If alternatives are available players sometimes feel
it is more practical to move on. So one should keep in mind that
some refutations are just "refutations."
I counted nine games
that take up three or more pages in the book. Several games are
discussed on two pages or more.
The first thing in
the book that challenged me was a comment that Osbun made in Game
5 (Glaser-Van Dijk). Regarding the position below he wrote that
Black had a straightforward way to achieve equality. Could it
really be that easy?
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5 8.dxe5 Be6 9.c3
Be7 10.Be3
10…0-0
Here Osbun writes:
"Black accepts the traditional treatment of this old variation.
The new challenge to the worth of the development 10.Be3 is 10…Nc5
11.Bc2 Nd7!?, which forces White to consider now the most effective
method of abandoning his e-pawn [as 12.Bf4? g5! 13.Bg3 (13.Be3
Ndxe5 14.Nxe5 Nxe5 15.Bd4 f6 16.Nd2 Bd6 17.Re1 0-0 18.h4 c5 19.Bxe5
fxe5 20.Qh5 e4-+ is Sokolov - Kaidanov, Vilnius, 1984) h5 14.h3
g4 strongly favors Black.]"
Afterwards Osbun discusses
12.Re1 and 12.Nd4 (he cites Tal -Timman, 3rd match game, 1985)
and concludes that Black was fine.
The paragraph above
can be seen as a sample of Osbun's writing style (although the
-+ is not typical).
My motivation to "lock
horns" with Osbun was that Vytas Palciauskas played 10.Be3 against
Heinrich Burger in the Hans-Werner von Massow Memorial. As in
the game Burger shunned 10…Nc5 11.Bc2 Nd7. I suspected that there
was something good for White in this line.
Current opening theory
suggests 12.Re1 for White but supports Osbun's view that Black
equalizes. Two hours of my own analysis did not uncover anything
clear-cut for White. So regarding the original question it is
advantage Osbun. Of course, I learned a lot.
I should probably say
that the resulting positions are not easy and that the game Osbun
cites regarding 12.Re1 does not constitute best play for Black.
Easy for me to say since this is covered in detail in the popular
opening manual "Modern Chess Openings" (14. edition) and other
sources. So there is no point in making many waves here.
Since I discuss opening
theory I would like to point out an inconsistency in the order
of games. The games are ordered according to openings. The Open
Games come first and within that group we have a natural and intuitive
suborder. Half-Open Games are next etc. That's fine with me as
I have arranged my opening books in roughly the same manner. However,
games that are identical for many moves do not necessarily come
back to back. Possibly they were rearranged to avoid layout problems.
Osbun gives references within games to other games but I haven't
checked whether these cover all cases.
In the book there are
some games with theoretical relevance. However, I will mention
only one in order not to steal the book's thunder. I omitted almost
all of Osbun's annotations in this case.
White: Philip Jurgens
Black: S. James Henri
1. APICC, 1985
Sicilian Defense, Alapin Variation [B22]
Notes by Volker Jeschonnek
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Nf6 4.e5 Nd5 5.d4 cxd4 6.Bc4 Nb6 7.Bb3
d6 8.exd6 Qxd6 9.0-0 Be6 10.Na3 Bxb3
New theory books recommend
the brave 10...dxc3. The text move is something for those who
prefer to keep things simple.
11.Qxb3 Qd5 12.Nb5
Rc8 13.Nbxd4
More natural appears
13.Nfxd4 but since Black captures the knight it doesn't make any
difference.
13...Nxd4 14.Nxd4
e6 15.Rd1 Bc5 16.Qb5+ Qd7 17.Qe2 Qe7
The Small Encyclopedia
of Chess Openings (2nd edition) has 17...0-0 18.Nb3 Bd6 drawn,
Charbonneau-Lesiege, Canada 1999. This might actually be the way
to play the black position. 19.Bf4 doesn't win anything because
Black has 19...Nd5 (20.Bxd6 Qxd6 21.c4?! Qa6) and also 19... e5
deserves consideration.
18.Nb3 0-0 19.Nxc5
Qxc5 20.Be3 Qc6 21.Bd4 Nd5
"A new, but rather
obvious improvement upon 21... f6?! ... " (Osbun). Indeed, after
... f6 White exchanges the minor pieces and will try to exploit
Black's weaknesses.
22.Qg4
On 22.Bxa7 b6 gives
White a headache.
22...f6
Forced since 22...g6
weakens the dark squares too much.
23.c4
23.Bxa7! is possible
and forces at least accurate defense from Black. The point of
White's play is that the bishop can be freed. 23...b6 What else?
24.c4! Nc7 The game suggests that Black would have defended this
way. [24...Nb4 leads to enormous complications in which Black
might well hold his own.] 25.c5! [25.b4 Ra8!; 25.Qd4 Na8! 26.Qd6
Rfe8 might just have been what Black hoped for.] 25...Qxc5 [25...bxc5
26.Rac1 with a plus for White since 26...Na6 allows 27.b4!] 26.Rac1
with a plus for White, I believe. 26...Qb5 (Not 26...Qa5?? 27.Rd7+-)
27.a4 (27.Bb8!?) 27...Qxb2 (27...Qa6 28.Bb8!) 28.Rb1 Qc2 29.Bxb6
with a thematic position.
23...Nc7
23...Nb4 is now dubious
because of 24.Bc3. However, 23...Ne7 is worth some thought.
24.b3
24.Bxa7! b6 25.c5
transposes to the main line in the note to move 23.
24...a6 25.Bb2
e5 26.Rd7 Ne6 27.Rad1 Rfd8 28.R7d5 Qe8 29.Rxd8 Rxd8 30.Rxd8 Drawn.
"Gentlemen, is this
a perfect game?" (Osbun).
I think White should
have captured the a7-pawn either on move 23 or 24.
My summary and assessment
(as training tool): Players who seek to improve will appreciate
Osbun's teaching skills and very good annotations. Many games
are good training material. Players of expert strength or somewhat
below might get the most benefit from this book but there is certainly
something in the book for stronger and weaker players, too. It
is not a free ride, of course. For example, opening theory is
not up to date. But those who read carefully and do work on their
own will learn something. So you can have your "own IM" at a bargain
price. Recommended.
3
The Book as a Collection of Games or as a Gift
Above I discussed the
book from two rather specialized perspectives. Usually the historian
will take the games as they are and the student will just pick
suitable annotated games. And I agree that these approaches are
perfectly okay.
But what about giving
the book to a chess player whom one doesn't know very well? What
will be the reaction? This section deals with the result of looking
at the good games and the not-so-good games in this book and what
picture they paint. Of course, the result will depend to a certain
degree on personal preferences.
The good: Several great
and exciting games were played in the tournament and two examples
can be found at the end of the article. In the previous section
I already mentioned theoretically important games. So, serious
players will find plenty of worthy material in the book. I am
impressed.
The not-so-good: The
book is not a self-explaining and universal gift. Of course, few
books are. If you give it to someone it might be wise to explain
your choice. In other words, despite the good reputation of CC
and some rave reviews of this book (deserved, I might add) it
is not really of the same type as Tim Harding's "64 Great Chess
Games."
To me, the biggest
problem of the book as a gift (!) is that it might fail the recipient's
expectations. Yes, it is a great book. On the other hand, correspondence
chess as such does not come across the way I hoped it would. Writing
these lines I am aware of my own disappointment. Of course, nobody
promised me a "feel-good" book.
Obvious problems -
mentioned by Osbun in his preface - are many game fragments caused
by the withdrawal of one player and the disqualification of another
(for a few more details see 1 above). A disqualification is always
unpleasant but the withdrawal was, too. The latter incident occurred
only a few months after the event had started. Tournament Secretary
Maurice Carter reports that the player withdrew "after losing
a short game to Muir." Actually, the short game lasted only eight
moves. The loser hung a rook.
Closer inspection reveals
more unpleasantness: One player forfeited three games on time
where he held an advantage. Three games were drawn in positions
in which one side should have played on. In one instance we get
an explanation: A dispute about time arose between the players.
The TS ruled in White's favor but Black appealed. The appeal was
dismissed after 15 months (!). Black, who probably had enough,
offered a draw. White's comment was, "Here Black, for reasons
best known to himself, offered a draw. White faced with twin threats
… was in no position to decline. Acrimonious, unsatisfactory,
and drawn."
The number of blunders
and strange occurrences in the tournament is probably tolerable.
Osbun assigned double question marks ("??") to moves in twenty
games. Two games contained a move that was called a blunder in
the annotations (but received only one question mark). Since two
players account for nine of the above occurrences I feel that
this is acceptable. Actually I have never believed in the "no
blunders in CC" statement except at the highest levels.
It looks like Tim Harding
gave a very accurate description of the participants in his review
in "Chess Mail" 6/2003. He wrote that the tournament "had a wide
range of players … , involving strong masters (including Max Salm
and Walter Muir) plus a few relatively inexperienced players."
I might add that some of the blunders were bad. There might be
"explanations" like clerical errors, analyzing the wrong position,
etc. I assumed that these would be very rare exceptions at this
level. Not so.
The strange occurrences
are the following two incidents:
- Osbun found that
in the game between the winner and the runner up an illegal
move was played (illegal castling). Neither player seemed to
notice.
- A game that was
important for the top positions was adjudicated. Both players
claimed a win. White submitted supporting analysis. Black provided
only a positional assessment. The adjudicators found that the
position was probably a draw but this finding was actually irrelevant.
White's first move in analysis was a blunder and hence the adjudicators
had to award Black the win.
Above I omitted the
players' names because it is not my intention to pick on anyone.
Overall, we see a good number of high-class postal games - ambitious
chess, fighting chess. Roger Chapman, the winner, showed great
preparation and bravery as Black in the French Defense. We see
David Eisen push as White in the Sicilian. Other players seemed
not to find their rhythm or to somehow hold back in the tournament.
I won't speculate why. Some games seem to go downhill too fast.
Some games are quite weak.
But enough of the
critical stuff! Let's see some good games: my pick of the coolest
move of the tournament and a good technical win:
White: Tadahiko
Mori
Black: Roger Chapman
1. APICC, 1985
French Defense [C19]
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Ne7 7.a4 Nbc6
8.Nf3 Qa5 9.Bd2 Bd7 10.Be2 f6 11.Rb1 Qc7 12.Bf4 Ng6 13.Bg3 fxe5
14.0-0 cxd4 15.cxd4 0-0 16.Bb5 Rac8 17.Re1 a6 18.Bd3 Nf4 19.Bxf4
Rxf4 20.g3
20...Rxf3 21.Qxf3
Nxd4 22.Qe3 Rf8 23.f4 Bxa4 24.c3 Nc2 25.Qxe5 Qc5+ 26.Kh1 Nxe1
27.Rxb7
And here comes my
favorite move in the tournament:
27...Qg1+ 28.Kxg1
Nf3+ 29.Kg2 Nxe5 30.fxe5 d4 31.Rc7 dxc3 32.Rxc3 Bb5 33.Bxb5 axb5
34.Rb3 Rb8 35.Rb4 Kf7 36.Kf3 Ke8 37.Ke3 Ke7 38.Rg4 g6 39.Rh4 h5
40.Rb4 g5 41.h4 Kf7 42.g4 hxg4 43.hxg5 g3 44.Rg4 Kg6 45.Rxg3 b4
46.Rg2 b3 47.Rb2 Kxg5 48.Kd4 Kf4 49.Rf2+ Kg3 50.Rb2 Kf3 51.Kc5
Ke3 52.Kd6 Ke4 53.Rb1 b2 54.Kc7 Rb4 55.Kd6 Kf5 56.Kc5 Rb8 57.Kd4
Kf4 58.Rf1+ Kg3 59.Rb1 Kf2 60.Kc5 Ke3 61.Kd6 Rb6+ 62.Kc5 Rb3 63.Kd6
Ke4 64.Re1+ Kd4 65.Rd1+ Kc4 0-1
White: Max Salm
Black: David Eisen
1. APICC, 1985
Sicilian Defense [B33]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Nd5
Nxd5 8.exd5 Nb8 9.a4 Be7 10.Be2 0-0 11.0-0 f5 12.f4 a6 13.Na3
exf4 14.Bxf4 Nd7 15.Nc4 Nb6 16.a5 Nxc4 17.Bxc4
17...Qc7 18.Qd3
Bf6 19.c3 Bd7 20.Bb3 Rae8 21.Qc4 Qxc4 22.Bxc4 Be5 23.Bd3 Bxf4
24.Rxf4 Re3 25.Rd1 Rf6 26.Rb4 Bc8 27.Rb6 f4 28.Kf2 Bg4 29.Rd2
Re7 30.Be2 Bc8 31.c4 Rc7 32.b4 Kf8 33.c5
33...Ke7 34.h3
Kd8 35.Bf3 g6 36.c6 h5 37.Rb2 bxc6 38.dxc6 Ra7 39.Rc2 Rff7 40.Bd5
Rfe7 41.h4 Re3 42.Rb7 1-0
A fine positional
squeeze.
My summary and assessment
(as a collection of games or a gift): The book contains great
annotations and many valuable games. In this regard it is a treasure
chest. Unfortunately, some games are quite weak. Outside circumstances
and certain occurrences might affect readers with strong opinions
on CC or with a "weak stomach." They will certainly recognize
the good in the book but they might also experience a certain
disappointment at another level. Some readers will weigh the good
against the bad. For many this will be easy and they will enjoy
the book. For others this will be tough and they will learn something
about life. Recommended (with a cautioning).
Keeping the above
in mind I wish to congratulate Erik Osbun on committing himself
to this task. Others might have feared that certain shortcomings
of the material would reflect unfavorably on them. I would not
blame them. This risk was real and accepting this risk shows heart.
Moreover, Osbun's efforts make a big difference. He succeeded
in putting the games into perspective and making clear what is
good about them.
© 2003 Volker
Jeschonnek, All Rights Reserved.
|