I started playing chess at 17 years old in 1959 and played my first cc event in 1964. My success in chess has been limited, but I enjoy the game. I've always taken pride in doing many things in chess, not just playing. So I've designed my own chess forms, worked out a careful cc methodology to avoid errors, written chess articles and columns, taken chess photographs, edited team newsletters, drawn chess cartoons, created several chess web sites and serve as an ICCF tournament director. I served for about a year as the ICCF Press Officer, but didn't find that very satisfying. All these different things allow me to enjoy chess to the fullest.

My most recent projects are creating two archives at the ICCF-U.S. web site for crosstables and games. We must preserve our chess heritage!

Cuomo,Jim - Campbell, J. Franklin [C27]
64N125 Golden Knights, 1964
1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Qh5 Nd6 5.Bb3 Nc6 6.d4 g6 7.Qg4 Nxd4 8.Nd5 Bg7 9.Bg5 f6 10.Bh4 Nxb3 11.axb3 Nf5 12.Nf3 c6 13.Nc3 d5 14.0-0 Ne3 0-1

That was in the 1964 Golden Knights tournament conducted by Al Horowitz's Chess Review magazine in the USA. Now this same tournament is conducted by the USCF. I learned a valuable lesson in that first event. I scored 5.5/6 in the first round, 4.5/6 in the second, and I was feeling invincible with no losses. Then I hit the real competition in the final round and scored a single draw in six games.

I have scored a lot of wins over the years by playing solid chess and not making the standard mechanical problems of cc. Here is a list of the steps in my postal chess methodology:

1. On arrival, the date of arrival is written on the front of the card.
2. I file the card in the pocket of my Post-A-Log postal recorder.
3. I record the move in my notebook and make the move in my Post-A-Log.
   At this time I compare the previous moves written on the card to those in my game score to insure my opponent recorded them properly.
4. I analyze the position on a separate board. The Post-A-Log binder contains the actual game positions of all my games and is not used for analysis (this would certainly lead to errors). I use the Post-A-Log diagram to reset the position for more analysis, thus insuring that I'm analyzing the correct position.
5. After deciding on my move, I write it down in my book with the date it will go in the mail, make the move in my Post-A-Log recorder, and write out my postcard. I remove my opponents card from my Post-A-Log binder and file it.
6. I double-check that my postcard is correct.
7. Mail the card.

On a regular basis, I check my Post-A-Log binder to see if there are any unanswered cards. I also scan my score sheet binder from time to time to see if I'm on the move in any games and to check for games requiring repeats.

Of course, I've made appropriate changes for email, but till I did my games were error-prone. For me it is essential to have a methodology that I follow religiously on absolutely every move. Formerly, this netted a lot of points for me, as many of my opponents made the common errors in notation and analyzing wrong positions. Now, with the wide use of computers to generate notation and blunder check and with the use of database software (I use ChessBase) to store current positions and display the absolutely correct position for analysis every time, I no longer pick up any free points.

Well, of course it's more fun to win a game by outplaying your opponent. Chess has great attractions due to the beauty of play, and it's wonderfully fun to be clever and creative. Chess tournaments test our competitive abilities, though, and good chess play is only one element that leads to success. When playing in tournament games my focus is on winning the game, or sometimes it changes to drawing a difficult game. I would rather win by beautiful play, but any win is a worthy goal, whether it's by superior chess play, better research into openings, avoiding errors, or any legal and fair form of competition. I have written on the subject of chess being a competition as well as a beautiful game (see "The Two Faces of Correspondence Chess" at http://jfcampbell.us/CampbellReport/articles/art002.htm). Some people are ready to criticize opponents who, for instance, refuse to allow their opponent to correct a notation error. I disagree. Competitive cc is a sport which requires a combination of chess skill and other skills and traits, such as accurate bookkeeping, patience and consistency. We can look to other sports, such as basketball, for examples of needing to combine basic game skills with knowledge of the rules and making practical decisions in the attempt to win. I don't do anything to attempt to trick my opponent into a "non-chess" error, but I attempt to outplay him in this area, as I do with the position on the board.

When I play a friendly game of chess, I have no objection to my "opponent" taking back a bad move. We may continue playing after the flag falls on the clock. I've played unofficial cc games where I encouraged my opponent to replace a faulty move so we could continue enjoying the contest and testing the opening under consideration. In tournament cc I would not do this, though. I have written letters more than once when journalists praised the "good sportsmanship" of a player who allowed a take-back in a tournament game. This implies "bad sportsmanship" for the player who refuses, and then the player who made the mistake (say a notation error) becomes the good guy and the fellow who made no mistake is considered the bad guy, a grossly unfair characterization. I have no objection to a player allowing take-backs (as long as he isn't a team-mate), but such an approach should be considered the player's personal preference, not as an example of good sportsmanship.

In the end I prefer winning by playing superior moves. I even enjoy games my opponent wins by superior chess. Chess is a great game. It also demands careful attention to many so-called non-chess skills.

I can't really recommend my "method" of analyzing, based of my recent poor results. I store all my games in ChessBase. When a new move arrives, normally by email now, I update the game in ChessBase. I keep a comment in my game score "(Last Move.)" which I attach to the last move actually made. This makes it easy to move the pieces around and then return to the current position. Since I started playing cc I've made it a practice to always analyze from the White side. This retains a kind of consistency. I suppose it could lead to a little confusion when I try to use my openings in OTB play, but I haven't had any problems. I rarely play OTB anyway, but I do sometimes play rapid chess on ICC.

During the opening phase I constantly search my databases for moves made in master practice. I find in practice that my dependence on databases doesn't really work very well. I constantly find myself in positions that may be roughly equal but where my opponent has better long-range plans. I need to stop putting so much time into my web site work, tournament directing, writing and spending time on TCCMB and instead put some time into developing a quality opening repertoire and honing my chess skills.

I'm rather a fish out of water when it comes to politics. I have no interest in politics itself, but I am very interested in advancing what I believe are good ideas, and I sometimes write the political leaders promoting my ideas. For instance, ICCF President Alan Borwell has received many of my unsolicited letters giving him the "benefit" of my advice. Others have also heard from me, and I occasionally post my ideas on TCCMB. Politics itself is outside my reality, though.

I have on occasion tried to act as a peacemaker between rival politicians, where I thought their public argument was bad for cc. Unfortunately, that is usually like throwing yourself between two locomotives trying to keep them from colliding. I can report no success in such foolish efforts on my part.

I supported your "open letter" in October 2002 (see http://jfcampbell.us/CampbellReport/articles/a021025.htm) encouraging more cooperation among different cc groups. CC organizations should put the well being of the players and of the sport in general above their own special interests.

Man, you have asked a difficult question there! I admit that my support for cooperation is a rather superficial thing without much substance. I just have the sense of some antagonism between groups occasionally and I regret any such unfriendly attitudes. Some kind of "official" recognition of each other would be nice, such as providing links to each others' web sites. It's already clear to me that many players play in events of multiple organizations. I've been almost entirely involved with ICCF events in my international competition so my experience is limited. I can try to list a few specific ideas, though.

1. Each web site should provide links to the other organizations' web sites.
2. ICCF is well established as representing domestic organizations and providing championship competition (World Championships, Olympiads) and international titles, such as IM and GM ... this should remain so and not be challenged by any other international organization.
3. Free email organizations provide a valuable service and a chance to try cc by email without expense. They offer some interesting competitions and other valuable services, such as training in how to participate in email games. ICCF should officially recognize the proven organizations and feel free to recommend good programs to their players.
4. Friendly matches should be arranged between major international organizations.
5. Specific events by IECC and IECG should provide qualifiers to top ICCF championship events, such as the world championship semi-finals, candidates and world championship finals. This is sort of a reciprocation of my point 2. above. If ICCF is recognized as the only organization to offer legitimate title events, then it should offer qualified players from other groups appropriate entrance into the championship events.
6. Perhaps there are suitable events in IECC and IECG which could accept specific ICCF qualifiers ... I don't know. Events in these organizations which require specific ratings should accept the other organizations' ratings. Perhaps a conversion formula would be needed in this case.
7. Should we be working towards a unified rating system? That's a tough one. I don't know. Maybe not.
8. Each organization should recognize the champions of the other, perhaps with a combined on-line listing. Perhaps some major events in IECC and IECG could offer sanctioned ICCF title norms.
9. Some kind of coordination between organizations should exist as far as announced events go.
10. There should be some method of certifying commercial servers as appropriate for running official games, say ICCF might certify the Chessfriends Chess Server as a legitimate method of conducting ICCF games (just as email servers are used to conduct games by email). This would require some sort of TD access to admin services and some way to compensate the commercial server.
11. Commercial servers, under specific circumstances, should be able to conduct ICCF-rated events with title norms. ICCF should be compensated.
12. Each of these organizations should pay me one cent for every rated game. I will just have to ask everyone to accept this idea on faith, but it really is a terrific idea! :)>

I don't know how realistic my ideas above may be, but I'm sure others could come up with their own lists. I believe the different organizations should retain their own identities. Different groups will take different attitudes towards trying new things. Different individual organizers will come up with their own unique and great ideas. Players in multiple organizations may treat games in one group as "serious" and games in another group as "fun" (no worries about rating loss) or "experimental" (try new openings or styles of play, again without concern about rating loss). Is a player being well served by having these different opportunities? Of course! This should make all organizations happy. No one organization can offer everything to players.

Of course, friendly competition can bring about fresh ideas and a motivation to improve. For instance, IECG providing competition on a commercial server may spur the other groups to provide even more attractive server chess opportunities.

I must admit that my detailed suggestions above came about only after you asked me the question. I couldn't embarrass myself by not giving a thoughtful reply to your difficult query. Perhaps this is a good way to get things done ... to get people thinking about how to solve problems and make improvements. Ask the difficult questions!

I don't see how it would be possible for ICCF to become a no-fee organization. It would take a major influx of money from an unknown source. ICCF incurs substantial costs. Web site, travel expenses, prize funds, medals and certificates ... undoubtedly there are a lot of costs I'm not aware of.

I remember 10th World Champion Victor Palciauskas receiving his trophy at the ICCF Congress in Daytona Beach in 2000. It is a beautiful silver plate with the crosstable of the World Championship Final engraved on it. For a photo, see http://www.iccfus.com/congress.htm. This is a suitable trophy and not a cheap one. I have been shown some of the medals and certificates given to players on achieving IM, SIM and GM titles. These are very nice and again must cost some money. For photos of these awards see my interview of GM Dr. Ian Brooks at http://jfcampbell.us/CampbellReport/interviews/n030310.htm. The annual ICCF Congress is an important part of the ICCF culture. It gives both the officers and the many national delegates a chance to get together to discuss important topics and also to bond with one another. I don't think we can underestimate the significance of the social aspect of such meetings. Many of these people work together for many years, and it is so nice to connect a face with the name and to really get to know your comrades in this work. Hey, I actually learned that I like these people who may have given me a bit of a hard time in our electronic and postal communications! The host country for these meetings usually pays the expenses, but some of the travel expenses for officers is covered by ICCF. It is considered very important to have the top officials at the meeting. Also, travel expenses for one delegate from smaller member countries is covered to allow such individuals to attend. Sponsors, like New in Chess, provide some specific prize funds, but ICCF provides some expense money for many events. On a few occasions I've received expense money to reimburse my mailing costs as a tournament director.

There is a place for the free organizations and a place for the fee organizations. I think it would be a mistake for ICCF to try to take on the functions of IECC. IECC performs its functions well, and ICCF performs its well. There is a nice division of labor here. This is where cooperation among the different organizations comes into its own.

BTW, I'm unaware of the chess merchandise sales you referred to in your question. ICCF did market its own book recently, ICCF Gold. I would recommend that every cc enthusiast get a copy. It is a superb history of international cc and contains a wealth of valuable and interesting information. ICCF-U.S., the USA member of ICCF (only country federations are members of ICCF, not individual players) does sell a few items, such as Tim Harding's MegaCorr CD, in order to subsidize its activities, but basically I know of few sales activities. Incidentally, I've encouraged ICCF to sell a few items to increase the enthusiasm of players towards ICCF. For instance, if I could get a nice pennant with the ICCF logo, it would definitely be on my wall right now. A glimpse of this flag can be seen on the wall in the background of this photo: http://jfcampbell.us/CampbellReport/congress/congress0039.JPG. Oh, that's me on the left playing the 10th World Champion. That was a real thrill.

I've used this term to explain my new projects at the ICCF-U.S. web site http://www.iccfus.com to collect information about events from our past. Namely, crosstables and games are being archived there. The latest batch of crosstables I posted are from the 1st USA CC Championship (1st USCCC) preliminary round. It's quite fun to see those familiar names, some of strong players who were early in their careers and didn't do so well, others who have been gone for a while. I've discovered that these interesting events haven't been well documented in our literature, or the literature is obscure. These events are an important part of our chess history (heritage) and should be documented. It should be easy to find this information. Same with the games. It's a shame that we can't go to a database and view the games of these past events. So much has been lost. If we don't make an effort to save these games they'll be lost forever.

Of course, there is some question about the value of me working hundreds of hours to collect this information and put in the effort required to insure accuracy (often published material turns out to be faulty). Are there enough potential users of this information to make huge expenditure of time worthwhile? I don't know. I just feel it is something that should be done, so instead of reading opening books or studying annotated games, I do this historical research to document these past events, some rather obscure. I feel "compelled" go do it. Also, as webmaster of the ICCF-U.S. web site I feel this is something that I should make available on the web site.

I guess it's just part of my love of the game. It fits into my vision of chess ... experience it in a variety of ways, not just by playing. Those people who never write an article, do a little research, design their own chess form, or set up a chess web site aren't enjoying the full range of the chess experience. BTW, my wife was originally attracted to me when I showed her my chess forms!

My intention is to document those events in the USA and NAPZ zone conducted under the authority of ICCF. I will limit myself to information specifically related to these events, such as tournament director and perhaps some photocopies of related papers (assignment sheets, cover letters). I'm not a complete masochist, so I'll limit the scope of this project. I would like to add some photographs and perhaps a few interviews, though. Simple crosstables of 1's and 0's are a bit sterile.

I'll leave it to APCT, CCLA, IECG and IECC to provide their own histories. Perhaps someone should write a book covering the whole world of correspondence chess, but that's not something I'm prepared to tackle.

Nobody could tackle such a thing by themselves most likely. It would probably involve a collaborative effort by many people but you have proposed a most interesting idea.

Can you tell us a bit about The Campbell Report?

This has perhaps been my most ambitious project, but it started very modestly. I had been writing my chess column "The Campbell Report" for the APCT News Bulletin for some years, so I had some content ready-made for the Internet. I was struggling trying to get job interviews. I was a stay-at-home dad for some years and found that potential employers appeared to have the attitude, "we give you credit for taking care of your family, but no interview today." Having been a systems engineer and a software engineer I found that my job skills had gotten outdated. I decided to learn some new skills, so I got a free web page at Angelfire and a book on HTML and went to work. Fortunately, I found a small privately owned business where the owners DID give me credit for being a good family man, and they gave me a chance based on the work I had done on my web site. On that basis, The Campbell Report proved a great success.

I guess John Knudsen had already established the TCCMB Message Board because I recall announcing my new site there. Suddenly people were posting, "Don't go to The Campbell Report. It is just a porn site"! Man, what a jolt! I investigated and discovered there was indeed a porn site called "Anglefire" (two letters transposed). If you just transposed those two letters in my URL you wound up at a porn site! Well, that was pretty unsatisfactory. Fortunately, shortly after that John Knudsen invited me to share his cc domain, which has evolved into the fabulous CC.COM domain.

My intention with The Campbell Report web site was (besides gaining valuable experience working with HTML) to provide my APCT chess columns on-line along with some other articles. I encouraged others to contribute articles. I even ran a contest for a good signoff for correspondence with the winner announced in my Jan/Feb 1997 print column (see http://jfcampbell.us/CampbellReport/apctcol/c9701.htm). The winning entry "On the Square" is now used as the title of my collection of on-line articles. I've been lucky to attract some first-class writers, such as John Knudsen (who contributed the first article), my long-time friend Roy DeVault (you should read his "How My Wife Almost Wrote a Chess Book" at http://jfcampbell.us/CampbellReport/articles/a980723.htm), Robert Rizzo, Christian Sender, and well known chess historians John S. Hilbert and Neil Brennen (Hilbert later published a book of his collected writings, including ten articles first published at my site). Of course, the infamous Steve Ryan has also contributed a couple articles! It grew with time so that now I have an extensive set of annotated chess links, news items, chess cartoons, reviews, ICCF Congress reports, and other features. My most active feature is a set of on-line crosstables. A number of tournament directors send me game reports and I update the crosstables. It is a matter of pride with me that I update the crosstables almost instantly, so the players know the current standings in their events. I am webmaster of numerous sites (APCT, CJA, ICCF-U.S., ICCF Congresses, and other non-chess personal sites), but The Campbell Report remains my flagship web site.

John Knudsen pointed out to me that a web site provides what all chess writers want ... readers! Of course he's right. It is a great pleasure to publish my writing on the world wide web. I also enjoy providing a venue for other writers who may not have such easy access to a large audience. And, as you know, I enjoy providing a viewpoint that may not jibe with the majority. I've interviewed people like ChessChick (a chess player with a feminist viewpoint) and Reimund Lutzenberger (the much-criticized owner of the ChessFriends chess server). I published "Steve Ryan's Open Letter to CC Organizations", "USCF Abandons Prison Inmates" (they later reversed this policy), "Numeric or alphanumeric - The final verdict" by Wim van Vugt (a critical discussion of ICCF's official notation), and a review of which I'm particularly proud "Chess Pride Magazine edited by Eric C. Johnson", a magazine devoted to celebrating the achievements of Gay chess players.

I suppose I do. It's difficult not to let your personal viewpoints show through. I TRY to present balanced coverage. I particularly don't like it when I see one viewpoint being pushed, and sometimes I probably go to the other extreme to attempt to balance things. For instance, in the discussion of ICCF's use of Numeric Notation as the default, I felt there wasn't enough attention being given to the merits of a better notation, so I started advocating the use of Alphanumeric notation. When Reimund Lutzenberger and his chess server ChessFriends (CFC) was being heavily criticized I posted criticisms of the unfair comments about them (on TCCMB). I even invited Lutzenberger to participate in an interview for my web site, which allowed for a more positive coverage (though I did, naturally, ask him some tough questions). I'm probably considered by some people as "pro-CFC" or even "anti-ICCF" because of my stand. I am critical of USCF's lack of support for cc in the USA, which is clear in some of my writings. I support Tim Harding and his publication Chess Mail, when some criticize him for his "involvement" with CFC. I believe cc organizations should put the player first and support cc in a way that benefits the players of the world. This means I sometimes criticize elements of competition between organizations. Both my published commentary and my personal correspondence has landed me in hot water with some people. I've been placed on a list of people "not to receive cooperation" and almost lost my columnist job over being too forthright in my evaluation of situations. The most hateful letter I've ever received was from a former editor of Chess Life based on a brochure I was distributing listing cc resources for USA competitors (my criticism of USCF was considered inappropriate).

It's easy enough to recognize some bias and "personal agendas" in publications. Sometimes it's self-serving, such as Chess Life omitting any reports on problems with USCF being widely discussed in the community. Have you ever read the column "200 Words" by Lev Khariton on the Pakistan Chess Player web site (http://www.pakchess.com/)? He has some interesting things to say and I read all his columns, but he is clearly biased, for instance against Garry Kasparov. I've come to the conclusion that it is a mark of achievement to be criticized by Khariton, and I'm proud that I came under his disapproval once with my posting on the FIDE world championship mess (I wasn't sufficiently critical of Kasparov, apparently). The very definition of having an agenda in chess reporting is the web site Ajedrez Democratico (http://ajedrez_democratico.tripod.com/), the "Official Page of the World Players' Council". GM Valery Salov is the President of the Players' Council, but it's not clear to me that he represents the players. He primarily posts articles critical of Israel and supportive of the Palestinians. I agree with much of what he says, but he is totally unbalanced in his reporting. Also, I found out the hard way that politics and chess don't mix all that well when I displayed my opposition to war in Iraq on my chess site. Within two days I removed all my political views from the site.

Well, it is certainly unwise to predict that e-mail chess will be replaced completely. It is such a nice, clean way to communicate. However, I must say that I am impressed by the promise of server chess. I think what we have seen so far is just the tip of the iceberg. I should caution readers that my opinions are based almost entirely on theory, since I only used a server once to play a single game, and it wasn't a very advanced system. However, I did serve a stint on the ICCF Chess Server Commission. Taking my job seriously, I sat down at the drawing board and put together a design for my concept of what a server should provide. After this "serious think" I came to the conclusion that server chess offers some fantastic advantages. I might add that I've worked professionally on web site development, primarily as a systems programmer, so I understand what can be done using servers.

We are going to see server chess become more and more convenient, not only for the chess player but also for the administrator and tournament director. There will no longer be any question about when a move is "sent", the TD will have instant access to all the game details, players will see crosstables without any delays (generated automatically by the server without the need for human intervention), all sorts of bookkeeping will be done automatically (such as reports to the rating commissioner, calculation of title norms, generation of PGN databases, notifications of time limit oversteps to the TD/players, archiving of games, and all sorts of things we may not think of for a while). As a person who manually updates HTML crosstable pages with game results I can say I am going to appreciate the automatic feature.

My short answer is "Yes". My longer answer is that in the short run some people may not prefer server chess or not have proper computer access. It's very possible that chess servers will one day provide quite a bit of functionality via email and so avoid many of the objections. We can only guess at some of the other ways to communicate moves ... via a cell phone is an obvious idea. The Women's World Vice-Champion (isn't that a great title?) Alexandra Kosteniuk just played a OTB simul via cell phone. Our world of communications is changing fast with more and more advanced methods of communication becoming available to us. There's no reason to believe that chess players won't be taking advantage of this situation.

I believe professional chess servers will lead the way and introduce many great features. I was most impressed by Mr. Lutzenberger when I interviewed him for my web site. He is very forward-thinking and has a great vision for the future of server chess. He and other well financed innovators will surely show the great potential of server chess and either provide services to cc organizations or inspire them to create their own servers. I think we have an exciting future before us. I am personally excited about the promise of the chess server and will stop playing by email ASAP.

You've referred to one of the difficult questions facing cc today. I've tried to maintain some optimism about the future of cc, but there is no doubt that strong computer engines present a major challenge. I believe there is room in cc for a variety of competitions, both those allowing the use of chess engines and those that don't. However, as the strength of the engines increase, the role played by the human player will diminish. There is still plenty of room for the human at the moment, but time will change that. Some top players have pointed out that when both players use computers that the stronger player still wins. If (or when) the computers become much stronger then perhaps the influence of the stronger player's skill will become very small.

Actually, it can be quite fun using a chess engine. However, I would like to see competitions without chess engine use become (remain?) the norm, just as in OTB competitions. In OTB there have been some exhibition matches called "Advanced Chess" where the players augment their play using computers to generate analysis and to search databases. This is very entertaining and interesting, but this sort of competition is rare. OTB in general does not allow the use of computers during competition.

I understand that IECC forbids the use of chess engines in competition. I'm glad that is true. ICCF takes the view that it is impossible to enforce a rule against use of chess engines, so the rules do not forbid it. I've been told that it would undermine the rules of play to have a rule that could not be fully enforced. Some find this argument quite compelling. I expect some further action concerning the use of chess engines to be taken at the upcoming ICCF Congress, hopefully something positive. I know there are other cc organizations that forbid the use of computers. Both APCT and CCLA, domestic USA cc organizations I've played most of my games with, take this approach. But is ICCF correct? ... if it cannot be effective monitored, is a rule against computer engine use counterproductive? Should we simply throw up our hands and say cc competitors will cheat if they feel they cannot be caught?

I admit that I am naive. I feel my opponents will play by the rules. But am I wrong? If we cannot find a way to play on the basis of everyone following the rules then I fear the doomsayers may prove to be correct. CC may die as a real competition.

I want to be clear ... I see nothing incorrect with using computer engines where the rules allow it. I feel that the ethics of play must be based on the rules of play. Expecting players to abide with our personal "unwritten rules" is just plain wrong. As I said above, though, allowing use of computer engines becomes more problematic as time passes and engines become more powerful. We need to find an effective way of prohibiting the use of chess engines if we are to insure the health of our competition for the future. I don't feel we can forbid the use of chess engines for research, so perhaps eventually people will have their opening repertoire's so refined by using engines for research and planning that competition will become a demonstration of a sort that isn't what we think of as competition.

What is the solution? How can we insure people will play by the rules? I have a few (naive, no doubt) suggestions. While it is awfully easy for people to bend the rules slightly in the heat of battle, perhaps the following approach would help:

1. Ask the players directly to pledge to follow the rules, and specifically list those rules that cannot easily be enforced.
2. With each new assignment, emphasize that each player has pledged to follow the rules, once again listing those rules (like no computer engine use).
3. Keep these unenforceable rules out in front of the players eyes in club publications and on web sites.

Will this work? If a player is continually confronted with reminders that he is breaking the rules by using computer engines, will this solve the problem? I believe many people may be reluctant to violate a rule under these circumstances. It's one thing to sort of let things slide, and quite another to outright lie. Well, I did warn you that I am a bit naive. We need to try something to keep our sport alive and vital, though. I think if we do nothing, then we'll see cc as a competitive sport slowly wither away. We've already seen a lot of active players drop out because of computers.

I suppose there may be some advantage to playing Fischer Random chess against a computer, in order to eliminate the opening book. However, the player also will be at a disadvantage since opening experience will count for less. I've read comments by masters claiming that the computer will actually benefit more instead of less by playing a chess variant. I have no specific knowledge or experience to enable me to comment intelligently on this.

At the moment I'm playing cc in ICCF competitions, where I assume all my opponents are using computers (it's totally legal). Will I give up cc? It is always possible, since I have a variety of other interests, and my current slump encourages ideas of quitting, but actually I don't think I'll quit. It's been a long time since I've prepared my openings seriously, and I'm mostly losing because of my inferior positions out of the opening. It seems that my opponents don't allow me to get back into the games so easily, as I once did. Simply choosing opening moves after scanning my databases seems to have worked out very poorly. I think my switch to email has also encouraged some bad habits. I did better in my old postal events. I could also add that the percentage of chess time I spend on playing is much smaller than before. With my web site work, chess journalism and TD work taking up more and more of my time my chess analysis and study time has become minimal. I sometimes think of cutting back on things like my work with the Chess Journalists of America (CJA), maintaining on-line crosstables and so forth in order to devote more time to improving my play. I can't remember the last time I studied an annotated game.

It's possible that everyone will give up cc if something isn't done about computer use in cc. For now there is still opportunities to beat the computers. Many people talk about the difficulty in computers improving their play much at the longer cc time limits, but I have my doubts. I expect to see major advances in computer playing strength, including at cc time limits, when we'll either find a way to make the honor system work or else the competition will be to see who can make their computer perform the best. Of course, this will be of great interest to a small percentage of cc competitors, but for the rest of us I am not encouraged.

I don't really have a favorite, but I enjoy playing white against the King's Indian and Nimzo-Indian. I've played the French as black quite a bit, mostly because I don't like any other defense vs. 1.e4. The Caro-Kann does strike me as a very sound opening with clear objectives so I go through periods of playing it.

I'm still hoping to one day find my favorite openings because, with quality opponents, if you play the opening poorly you'll probably suffer for 40 moves and then lose. Under the influence of Berliner's book on winning the 5th World Championship I played the Alekhine's Defense in my early days, but I don't think I'd have the nerve to play it today.

I did catch sight of Mars recently, but not on that particular night. I even missed that comet that crashed into Jupiter, a really singular event. However, looking at something just so I can say "I saw it" doesn't really appeal to me. I mean, seeing Mars the night I did was really no different than seeing it on that one particular night. In the 1-1/2 years I was at the Yale Observatory, I only looked through a telescope once that I can recall.

I can't actually produce a game with notes for you on demand, but I can point readers to a couple of my better efforts. One was my win over Keith Rodriguez in the 14th USCCC. The crosstable is at: http://jfcampbell.us/CampbellReport/usccc04.htm

Amazingly, Keith told me this was his first loss in ICCF play. In this game I played over my head, worked really hard, and got a rare win over a top player. Keith is the perfect gentleman, I must add, and he sportingly agreed to co-author an article with me, where we both provided our independent annotations. The article is at my web site: http://jfcampbell.us/CampbellReport/articles/a981113.htm

A second game with dual notes is against Stephen F. Collins, a BDG played in an APCT team competition. Here my opponent and I agreed early in the game to produce a dual-annotated game. I recommend this to others. I think it made the game special for both of us, and we had a fabulous and tense game. http://jfcampbell.us/CampbellReport/articles/a980521.htm