27MAR2001
White - Robert Fineberg
Black - Novag Solo [Level 8]
Opening - Alekhine's Defense
1 P-K4, N-KB3
2 P-K5, N-Q4
3 B-B4, P-K3? [out of the book]
4 BxN, PxB [doubled Pawns?]
5 P-Q4, N-B3
6 N-KB3, P-B3
6 N-KB3, P-B3? [denuded King]
7 N-B3, PxP? [fatal for the King]
8 KNxP, B-N5? [opens King to attack]
9 NxN, BxN
10 PxB, PxN
11 Q-R5 ch, P-N3 [the game's lost]
12 Q-K5 ch, Q-K2
13 QxQ ch, KxQ
14 BxN5 ch, K-K [black Bishop's out of play]
15 O-O, P-Q3
16 Kr-K ch, K-B
17 B-R6 ch, K-B2
18 R-K2, R-Q
19 QR-K, R-Q2
20 B-N5, B-N2
21 R-Q7 ch, RxR
22 RxR ch, K-N
23 B-R6, R-QB
24 R-N7 ch, K-R
25 R-K7, P-R4
26 B-B4, B-R3 [threat is BxP, PxB, RxB]
27 B-N5, B-B5
28 B-B6 ch, K-N
29 R-N7 ch, K-B
30 RxRP, K-K?
31 R-R8 ch, K-Q2
32 RxR, KxR [white's pawns whelm]
33 P-QR3, K-Q2
34 P-B4, B-K7
35 K-B2, B-Q8
36 P-KR4, BxP
37 P-N4, B-Q8
38 K-N3, P-R5
39 P-B5, PxP
40 PxP, P-B4 and the game's lost.

Readers of the Kasparov chess site voted
on the greatest player of the 20th Century;
it turns out to be Garry Kasparov by an
overwhelming number [43%], followed by
Robert Fischer [35%], Jose Capablanca
[9%], Alexander Alekhine [6%], Antaoly
Karpov [3%], Mikhail Botvinnk and Mikhail
Tal [2%], and Emanuel Lasker [<1%].
The answer to who will be remembered
as the greatest player of 2001-2015 was
Garry Kasparaov [41%], followed by
Vladimir Kramnik [22%], Aleander Grischuk
[14%], and Viswanathan Anand [9%].
The greatest player of the 19th Century
was overwhelmingly Paul Morphy [62%],
followed by Wilhelm Steinitz [20%] and
Francois Philidor [5%].

26MAR2001
White - Robert Fineberg
Black - Novag Solo [Level 8]
Opening - Center Counter Gambit
1 P-K4, P-Q4
2 PxP, QxP
3 N-QB3, Q-K4ch [Q-Q4 here]
4 Q-K2, N-B3
5 QxQ, NxQ
6 P-Q4, N-QB3
7 B-QN5, B-B4
8 P-Q5, P-QR3
9 BxN ch, PxP
10 PxP, O-O-O
11 N-B3, P-K3
12 O-O, BxP
13 B-B4, R-Q6?
14 QR-B and Black's game is done.

25MAR2001
White - Robert Fineberg
Black - Novag Solo [Level 5]
Opening - QP Counter Gambit
1. P-K4, P-K4
2. N-KB3, P-Q4 [not seen much]
3. PxP, QxP
4. N-B3, Q-B4
5. P-Q4, PxP
6. QxP, N-QB3
7. QxQ, BxQ
8. B-QN5, B-B4
9. BxN!, PxB [weakened Bishop Pawns]
10. B-B4, 0-0-0?
11. N-K5, BxP?
12. 0-0, B-Q6?
13. KR-B, B-B7? [lost game from here]]
14. RxRch, KxR
15. NxBP(7)ch, K-K
16. NxR, K-Q2
17. N-B7, N-B3
18. N-K5ch, K-Q3
19. R-K, K-B4
20. B-N3, N-K5 [no chances after this move]
21 NxN, BxN
22. RxB, KxR
23. NxP and White wins an easy end game.
Black plays an opening with the Queen out early and
then allows Bishop Pawns to be weakened by not
blocking 8. B-QN5; this is followed by 13. ---, B-B7 losing
first the exchange and then a piece outright that
White can give back at his leisure for a winning end game.
This is not a very good example by the computer at one
of its highest levels.

Answer all threats. If possible the answer should improve
your position. Sometimes the threat can be ignored if
there's sharp counterplay that mitigates it. However, as
a rule of thumb, at least carefully look at the threat before
deciding on a counter threat. If I were to catagorize all
the ways I've lost games, this sits at the top; i.e., ignoring
a threat that was game threatening in the short run, or
placed me in such a bad light over the long haul, it was as
good as a game threatening move! Georg Kleininger in
"Deutsche Schachpartien" wrote that "Dazzling combinations
are for the few--shifting wood is for the many."

Sometimes we give meaningless checks because they
feel good. It's best not to check unless it fits into the
tactics that are manifest. One exception may be speed
chess or time trouble when checks can unbalance your
opponent. John van der Wiel wrote: "When you absolutely
don't know what to do anymore, it's time to panic." Maybe
we can alter that to "..it's time to give check!"

The single biggest error in chess play for most of
us patzers [amateurs who love the game but may
never rise to greatness], is not looking at the
threat from an opponent's move! Sometimes it's
just a lack of discipline--most of the time it's an oversight
because we don't want to "see" threats that have to be
answered delaying our own brillant attack. The best advice
is to sit on your hands when it's time to move so that
there's no opportunity to act prematurely.

One of the more interesting philosophical arguments
in chess is around playing the board versus playing
the opponent. What this means is that by playing
the game move by move, irrespective of the other
player, leads to the best moves possible. However,
sometimes knowing your opponent's weaknesses
enables less than optimum moves that befuddle and
bedazzle. This is known as playing the man [sexism
excepted], and can sometimes generate a heady
victory where none would exist if only analyzing the
moves alone.

Chess play must be aggressive. Playing for a draw; i.e.,
taking no chances will lead to more losses than wins.
Chess, like life, must be played moving forward. Marking
time merely allows your opponent to set up winning
moves. This, however, does not mean taking un-
necessary chances. It's a perilous balance between
attacking and defending.

Every chess move should have a purpose since White and Black
take turns. However, many times moves are made without a
real purpose; i.e., no strategy involved [long term plan], and
no tactics [immediate gains or losses]. This leads to the idea
that solid chess play involves attention more than concentration,
mindfulness not abstraction.

Creation of en passant web site.