The Kibitzer
by Tim Harding

New Thoughts On Power Play In The Chess Opening

Back In February 1997, I wrote Kibitzer 9 on the topic 'Power
Play In The Correspondence Chess Opening' and to my
surprise there has been revived interest in this idea lately. First
I found that this almost-forgotten article was especially
recommended at the excellent link site Chessopolis
(www.chessopolis.com). Then an energetic debate on the
correspondence chess bulletin board TCCMB (found at
www.correspondencechess.com/bbs) showed the need to revisit
the topic.

So in a moment, I will describe the genesis of this concept, give
my definition of it and some examples. 

***

First, however, I want to inform you about a different matter
entirely: Internet Chess Auctions, which are run by two
colleagues of mine here in Ireland, Jim Hayes of Kilkenny and
FIDE grandmaster Alexander Baburin. Along with about four
other Irish buyers and a chess dealer from Germany, I attended
in person the first auction which was held on a Sunday
afternoon in January at Baburin's house with Hayes acting as
auctioneer.

Their next auction is planned for some time in April and some
readers may be interested in participating as sellers, bidders or
both. You can find out more from
http://chessauction.tripod.com.

Baburin says: "Most items in January were sold... in some
cases winning bids well exceeded the reserves. For example,
we believe that the run of 'Wiener Schachzeitung' (lots No. 44
and 45) was sold for a record price. There were some curious
results too - for example lot No.60 went for more than the more
complete lot No. 61, because of the bids received."

The lots were mostly books, or bound periodicals, which were
either rare or at least hard to get. Obviously it wouldn't make
much sense to send common, low-value books to Ireland for
sale from a distant country but grouping several volumes into
lots makes them more attractive. 

Rare items are worth sending from anywhere but the presence
of some local buyers, who picked up the cheaper lots in
January, means future auctions would be a reasonable option
for readers in Britain or Ireland with modern items to sell.
Successful bidders are billed and when their money arrives, the
goods are sent out and the sellers paid.

I was pleased to pick up a bargain at the auction: the 8th and
final edition of Bilguers Handbuch des Schachspiels. This
volume of over 1032 pages cost me only 85 Euros (plus 12.5%
auctioneer's commission) as there was no other bidder! So now
when I want to know (as I sometimes do) the state of theory in
a particular opening at the resumption of chess play after World
War I, this book will tell me. Also included, bound in at the
back, was the 1921 Mieses supplement - which I already had,
so I shall put that in the next auction along with some Russian
tournament books and other items.

Auctioneer Jim Hayes explained to me that his main job was to
be fair both to the postal bidders and those present. If
somebody who had bid for a lot in advance wished to raise
their bid then they could arrange to be telephoned in the event
their initial bid was not successful and be given the opportunity
to make a higher bid; however, further bids would not be
allowed unless the opposing bidder was also 'in the room'. I
recommend that you read the rules on the auction website as
maybe they will change some procedures next time in the light
of experience. 

****

Now, let us return to my main topic, the handling of the
opening in chess. What I have to say is relevant to chess in
general, but primarily to correspondence chess because email
and postal players do not have to confine themselves to playing
opening variations that they can remember. The use of printed
reference works and databases, even computer analytical aids
(where available and not prohibited) means that a player need
not be shy of venturing into territory where memory limitations
and the ticking chess clock might scare off most over-the-board
players.

There is also the point that a much smaller percentage of
correspondence games (for various reasons) is decided by
blunders and time trouble, compared with OTB games by
players at the same level. At the highest level, the opening
phase may be your only chance to get an edge against an
opponent who is as strong and committed as you are.

Thus when I interviewed Mikhail Umansky, the 13th ICCF
world champion, for my magazine Chess Mail in 1996, he said:
"I think that in CC the outcome of the game mostly depends on
the opening."

My original article on this topic was based on a chapter I wrote
in 1995 for my book Winning At Correspondence Chess but
had to exclude because of space constraints. Then I wrote:

"The power player's game plan is to maximise the advantage of
his opening knowledge and analytical powers. With White he
goes for direct play, often following OTB grandmaster praxis.
If Black chooses an inferior line, he hopes to cash in; if Black
defends with reliable main lines the power player expects to
achieve an edge, which he will be able to convert to victory in
many cases. He provokes confrontations in the belief that most
of his opponents will be found wanting."

In recent weeks, US correspondence masters Mark Morss and
Stephen Ham have been debating this topic on TCCMB and
there has been some demand for me to clarify what I mean by
"power play". When I dreamed up this term I wasn't thinking
of ice hockey, which isn't much played in Ireland but I gather
in that sport "power play" is when one team has an offending
player sent to the 'sin-bin' for a few minutes. Consequently the
other side is able to attack with an extra man.

I don't think White's advantage over Black is quite as great as
this, even in correspondence chess, but maybe there is a very
loose parallel. So maybe "power chessplay" or "power
openings" would have been better, but the name seems to have
stuck now.

I shall try to clarify my concept of "power play" in the
following terms, which I will illustrate with a few games later:
1. Power play is a policy of, or approach to playing
(correspondence) chess, with special relation to handling the
white pieces. Such players believe that the right of the first
move, correctly handled, gives White a big advantage.

2. Following from this, the "power player" believes that the
opening phase of the game is of paramount importance
(especially in CC) as once you have got into a bad early
middle-game with Black or lost the initiative with White, you
are basically struggling to get a draw.

3. In order to maximise results with White, the "power player"
will do the following:

a) select aggressive, but sound, systems where the potential
payoff is great and the downside for White is small if the
opponent defends well; 

b) avoid "slow" or "eccentric" systems where White can only
hope for a small advantage (this is a corollary to 'a' of course);

c) play mostly main lines proven in professional OTB or CC-
grandmaster competition, but backed up with original analysis
if necessary;

d) occasionally play specific lines tailored to the opponent's
repertoire, but usually only if definite improvements are found;
normally the "power player" will play the lines believed best
irrespective of the opponent's preferences.

e) With Black, the "power player" might adopt the same
approach as with White in those games where the opponent's
opening choices made it possible to do so.

4. Generally speaking, the "power play" is interested in
maintaining an initiative leading to a successful attack or won
endgame; material gains that compromise White's initiative
will be rejected if there is a good alternative.

The opposite of a "power player" could be somebody who
avoids theoretical discussions in sharp openings, or somebody
who plays lines he has personally studied in detail with which
he believes the opponent will be less well acquainted. In
traditional postal play, where games might not be published for
many months or years after they began (or at all). Nowadays,
with email play and databases, it is harder to keep a secret for
long although it is still possible to win more than one game
with the same new idea - which is rarely if ever possible in
OTB master play now.

One contributor to TCCMB asked "By your definitions, can a
power player be a gambit player? Or conversely, can a gambit
player be a power player." I don't think so, although there is a
superficial similarity. Both players make aggressive choices but
the power player is more restrained than the gambiteer.

Obviously the risk involved in a gambit varies but in general  a
gambiteer accepts more risk. Compared with point 3a, in an
opening like the King's or Evans Gambit the penalty for error
by the opponent is high - but so is the potential downside for
White: the game may be unbalanced disadvantageously. The
"power play" likes to keep the draw in hand. On the other hand,
some old-fashioned gambit lines have been analysed out to a
draw: the "power player" would avoid these because the
opponent who does his research can find the equalising line
without being put under genuine pressure.
 A special case would be somebody like Hans Berliner who
developed his own theory to guide his choices (or rationalise
them afterwards). His ideas, as described in his book The
System, sometimes lead to White making fairly conventional
openings choices (e.g. the Exchange Variation of the Queen's
Gambit) and at other times lead to surprising but potentially
promising innovations, e.g., his recommendations against the
Benko Gambit and the Gruenfeld Defence. However, the
"system" also led him to recommend an early f2-f3 move in
some lines of the Slav Defence which don't seem to stand up in
either theory or practice, and nor does it give any clear
guidance against some other defences e.g. the Nimzoindian.

I think that a "power player" is more pragmatic than Berliner
and will choose openings which have delivered White a
consistently high percentage of wins over the years at all levels
of chess, and which still show a significant advantage to White
in most lines in the theory books. 

My concept of "power play" is neutral with regard to whether
White plays opening innovations or not. However, I think many
top players adopt a deliberately non-creative approach even if
they don't all say so. Canadian CC-GM Jonathan Berry, for
example, once said in Fernschach, that: "My theory about
novelties is that most of the ones you will meet, even at CC
grandmaster level, are not as good as the standard moves."
Simon Webb, the English CC-GM (and very strong OTB player
too in his day) is another player who doesn't believe in
departing unnecessarily from lines shown to be good by
professional players.

Where the "power player" sees current theory as correct, he
will probably continue book lines as far as his opponent is
willing and let Black make the probably fatal divergence. (See
for example the game Zagorovsky-Pereyra below.) In other
cases, usually arising from side-variations less explored by
grandmasters, theory often follows the analysis and practice of
lesser players. Here the "power player" may well say, this must
favour White whatever the book says; let's find the
improvement.

Here is such a case, played by one of the contributors to the
TCCMB debate who describes himself as a "power player".
Stephen Ham had a USCF rating of 2432 when this game was
played and his provisional ICCF rating is 2508. His opponent
was rated 2302.

Stephen Ham - Dr Howard Trimpi Scandinavian Defence
(B01) USCF corr 1996
1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 e5 5 Nf3 Bg4 6 h3 Bxf3
7 Qxf3 Bb4 8 Qxb7 Bxc3+ Ham remarks that Dr. Trimpi was
following a book by Lutes that advocated the Black position. 9
Kd1 Bxd4 10 Qxa8 Qb6 (See Diagram)

Black has compensation for the exchange according to the Ron
Harman/Shaun Taulbut book on the Scandinavian, published
by Batsford a few years ago. However, Ham finds a new move
and wins quickly: 11 a4! c6 12 Ra3 Qd8 13 Rd3 e4 14 Rd2
Qb6 15 a5 Qb4 16 Bc4! Be5 17 f4 Bc7 18 Rd4 1-0

Ham, in the TCCMB debate, warns that the "power play"
approach is best suited to players at master level who are able
to judge for themselves when book lines are likely to be
trustworthy and when (as in the above case) they are fishy.

A 'Power Chessplayer', in Ham's words, "concentrates efforts
on the openings (although certainly not exclusively) because a
mistake there is often fatal or at least creates a major defect in
the rest of the game... My opinion, for what it's worth, is that
they should not try to be 'Power Chessplayers' until they reach
approximate master status. The majority of 
CC players are probably best served by dividing their time
equally between the opening, middlegame, and ending or
perhaps even allocate more time to endgames."

I would say from this quotation and other contributions to the
debate that Stephen Ham and I are close in our views, but not
entirely. To some extent, the "power play" approach can be a
substitute for preparation. If you start a tournament with five or
maybe even seven games as White, and a few of these are
heading for well-explored main lines, the "power play" will
probably concentrate his early preparation on the OTHER
games. The ones going down main lines may not need his
attention for weeks or months, while he is able to follow the
play of leading GMs. 

Although it is also possible to adopt a "power" approach with 1
d4 (Berliner's favoured move), the grandmasters I would
identify as "power players" would generally play: (a) 1 e4
aiming for the main line Ruy Lopez (Spanish); and (b) 2 Nf3
and 3 d4 against almost all variations of the Sicilian.

Take Vladimir Zagorovsky, the fourth CC World Champion,
for example. when he won the World Championship. In his six
games with White, he scored 2-0 with the Spanish (not ducking
the Marshall Attack); against the Sicilian, he had two wins and
two draws. The draws were short: apparently he decided,
having failed to get an opening advantage in these cases, to
split the point quickly and not waste time and effort on those
games.

In the 5th World Championship, where he finished fourth,
Zagorovsky had eight games with White. He beat both the
players who tied for second, one with a Spanish and one in a
Sicilian. (What cost him a share of second was losing with
Black to England's Ken Messere, an expert with the Milner-
Barry Gambit in the French: a gambit which wasn't well
known in the USSR in those days.)

Zagorovsky's other games with White were two wins and two
draws with the Spanish; a win and a draw in Open Sicilians. If
you study these games, you won't see Zagorovsky making any
unusual choices with White until move 10 at the earliest; he
waits for his opponents to deviate from main lines and choose
inferior moves.

In the 6th CC World Championship, Horst Rittner from East
Berlin was the winner and Zagorovsky was second. Both
players were undefeated but Rittner had one more win. Rittner
had an advantage in this 16-player event: he had eight Whites
and Zagorovsky had eight Blacks. This advantage in the
pairings could have been decisive for the title! (Even more
significant was that Thiele resigned to Rittner in a tenable
position.) The game between these two, in which Zagorovsky
was White, was a 24-move draw in the French, and he drew
against the French in another game. Besides this, he had three
wins and a draw as White in the main line Spanish, and a draw
against the Sicilian.

How did Rittner get on with his eight Whites? He was more
flexible and opened 1 Nf3 in two games, apparently with the
intention of steering specific opponents into certain prepared
variations. This failed against his countryman Thiele (though,
as mentioned, Rittner won the game eventually) but worked
against Estrin who had written a book with Botvinnik on the
Gruenfeld. No doubt Rittner thought there was a good chance
Estrin would try a novelty that he might be able to refute, and
this is exactly what happened. Rittner played 1 e4 in his other
six games as White: two wins and two draws against the
Sicilian, a win against the French and a win in the Spanish
resulted.

Here is a game Rittner played in another event.

Horst Rittner - Jovan Kondali, Spanish, Siesta Variation
(C74) Purdy Memorial 1979-84

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 d6 5 c3 f5 6 exf5 Bxf5 7 0-
0 

Rittner's notes observe that "A lot of attention has been given
to the continuation 7 d4 e4 8 Ng5 d5 (8...h6 9 Qb3) 9 f3 h6!
(9...e3 10 f4) 10 fxe4 hxg5 11 exf5 Bd6! but this critical
position is good for Black, as proved in tournament practice by
Estrin." An example he gave was 12 Qf3 g4! 13 Qxg4 Nf6!
when Black has a very strong attack for his two sacrificed
pawns. So here we see a case of the "power player" refusing to
be distracted by material and insteadgoing for the move which
gives a powerful initiative.

7...Bd3 8 Re1 Be7 9 Bc2! 

White exchanges his opponent's blocking bishop and gains a
small advantage.  Rittner rejected 9 Re3 e4 10 Ne1 as he
considered 10...Bg5! (Keres) gives equal chances.

9...Bxc2 10 Qxc2 Nf6 11 d4 Qd7? 

The critical line is 11...e4 12 Ng5 d5 13 f3 and now 13...h6! 14
Nh3 0-0 15 Nd2 "with attack in the centre" according to
Rittner. This is given as += by current theory e.g. Leko-
Yusupov, Vienna 1996. Note how another "power player" has
won quickly in this line against inferior defence: 13...exf3?
(instead of 13...h6) 14 Ne6 Qd7 15 Bf4 Rc8 16 Nd2 f2+
(16...fxg2 might be better.) 17 Kxf2 Kf7 18 Ng5+ Kg8 19 Kg1
h6 20 Ngf3 Qg4 21 Be5 Qd7 22 h3 Nh7? 23 Qg6 Bg5 24
Bxg7! 1-0 Penrose-Kalish, COL8 final 1977; 

12 dxe5 dxe5 

If 12...Nxe5 13 Nxe5 dxe5 14 Nd2!.

13 Nbd2! 0-0-0 14 Nf1! Bd6 15 Bg5 (See Diagram)

15...Rdf8 

Giving freedom to the knight. Even after the relatively better
15...h6 16 Bh4 g5 Black would still not rid himself of the weak
squares in his position, said Rittner

16 b4?! 

More precise is 16 Rad1 said Rittner. After his precise opening
play, this lapse lets Black back into the game - well, almost!

16...Nd5! 17 Rad1 Nf4 18 Bxf4 exf4 19 a4 Rf5! 

Preventing b4-b5. 

20 N1d2! Qf7 21 Nc4! Rd8 22 Qe4 Be7? 

Black wastes his opportunity. 22...g5 was better although after
23 Nd4! Nxd4 24 Qxd4 the centralisation of the White pieces
means Black hasn't equalised.

23 Rb1 Rdd5 

If 23...Qd5 24 b5. Rittner now finds a combination to exploit
the lack of mobility of the pair of Black rooks.

24 Na5! Nxa5 25 bxa5 Kd7 26 c4 Rc5 27 Qxb7 Qxc4 (See
Diagram)

28 Qa8! Qf7   29 Qxa6 Rxa5 30 Rbd1+ Bd6 31 Rxd6+! cxd6
32 Qb7+ Kd8 33 Qb8+ Kd7 34 Ng5! 1-0

Black resigned for if  34...Rxg5? 35 Qb7+ or 34...Qf6 35 Qe8+
Kc7 36 Ne6+.

To return to Zagorovsky, he played 43 games with White in six
different CC World Championship Finals and his overall score
was +29 -1 =13 which I think you will agree is pretty
impressive. In the 7th World Championship he employed 1 d4
(except against his old rival Dubinin) but in all the other games
he employed 1 e4, the Spanish and main Sicilian lines like the
Richter-Rauzer.

Here is an example of Zagorovsky in action from the last
championship he played. 

Prof Vladimir Zagorovsky - Manuel Pereyra Puebla Open
Spanish (C80) 11th CC World Ch Final 1981-87

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 Nbd2 Nc5 10 c3 d4 11 Bxe6 Nxe6 12
cxd4 Ncxd4 13 a4 Bb4? (See Diagram)

It is often the case that a player tries to escape by getting out of
the book, but in well-established book lines played by
grandmasters, untried moves tend to be inferior, as Zagorovsky
now shows.
 
14 axb5 Nxf3+ 

Not 14...axb5? 15 Rxa8 Qxa8 16 Nxd4 Nxd4 17 Qg4; nor
14...Bxd2 15 Nxd4! nor 14...Nxb5?! 15 Qb3. But now White
has to avoid some traps, e.g. 15 Qxf3? 0-0 16 bxa6? Bxd2 17
Rd1 Nd4 18 Qg4 h5.
 
15 Nxf3! axb5 16 Rxa8 Qxa8 17 Ng5! Nxg5  18 Bxg5 h6 19
Bh4 

Not 19 Qg4? hxg5 20 Qxb4 Qd5 21 Qg4! 0-0 22 Qxg5 f6.

19...0-0 20 Qg4 c5

If 20...Bc5 21 Bf6 g6 then not 22 e6? Qe8! but 22 Qd7! Qb8 23
Rc1! Qb6 24 Qd2 Kh7 25 Rc3 threatening Qxh6+!.
 
21 Bf6 g6 22 Qf4! Kh7 23 Be7 Rg8 24 Qxf7+ Rg7 25 Qf6!
Qe8 26 Bd6 1-0

Black resigned in view of 26...Rf7 27 Qh4 Qe6 (27...Ba5 28
Qe4) 28 Qe4 Rd7 29 Qe3.

Of course "power play" is not everything and results with
Black count for a lot. For example, in the 14th CC World
Championship, the runner-up Ekebjaerg scored very well with
White (despite playing 1 Nc3) but he did not win the
championship because Tonu Oim did exceptionally well with
Black. A player who is getting good positions as Black gains
confidence and this helps maintain interest and motivation for
the event as a whole.

Also, it is possible for "power play" to fail as the next example
shows.

In the 43 games with White that I mentioned earlier,
Zagorovsky's only defeat was at the hands of Dr Fritz
Baumbach, one of the most important decisive results in the
11th Championship. This game was a Sicilian and in his
introduction to it (in his book "52-54-Stop: Tricks und Tips
vom Weltmeister", Dr Baumbach wrote (I translate loosely):

"A player can now and then employ his variation-knowledge
from CC in over-the-board games. Occasionally the opposite
case can arise: a continuation found in the heat of direct combat
can be used again in CC."

Prof Zagorovsky - Dr Fritz Baumbach Sicilian, Accelerated
Dragon (B35) 11th CC World Ch Final 1981-87

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 g6 5 Nc3 Bg7 6 Be3 Nf6
7 Bc4 Qa5 8 0-0 0-0 9 Nb3 Qc7 10 f4 d6 11 Be2 b6 12 g4 Bb7
13 g5 Nd7 14 Nd5 Qd8 15 Rb1 

Theory books ended here saying White stands more actively
but Black has chances to defend. (See Diagram)

15...Nc5 16 Bf3 e6 17 Nc3 Qe7 18 Qd2 Rfd8 19 Rbd1

The first new move, though Zagorovsky had to start thinking
much earlier. Instead 19 Rbe1 Rac8 20 h4 Na5 21 Nxa5 bxa5
22 Qg2 Bc6 23 Bxc5 Bxc3 24 bxc3 dxc5=  occurred in
Moeller-Baumbach, DDR Team Ch 1983. Thanks to having
played this theoretically new game recently, Baumbach was
able to play the whole game as far as move 18 practically
without expending thinking time.

19...Na5 20 Nxa5 bxa5 21 Qg2 

Too optimistic. White must neutralise the dangerous
fianchettoed Bishop by 21 Bd4 Bxd4+ 22 Qxd4 e5 23 Qd2 exf4
24 Qxf4 Ne6 (or 24...Rac8 ).

21...Rac8 22 Bd2 

22 Bd4 would still hold equality.

22...Bc6 23 Rde1? 

Leads to difficulties.  Better 23 Rfe1.

23...Qb7 24 b3 Qb6 25 Qf2 

The normal move 25 Kh1 loses a pawn to 25...Bxc3 26 Bxc3
Nxe4. 

25...d5!

This surprised Baumbach's opponent who had only expected
25...a4 26 Kh1 axb3 27 axb3 Bb7 28 Nd1 Ba6 29 Rg1. Now if 
26 e5? d4 27 Nd1 Bb5 Black wins.

26 exd5 exd5 27 Ne2 Bb5! 28 Rc1 Bxe2! 29 Bxe2 Ne4 30
Qxb6 axb6 31 Be3 d4 32 Bf2 Nc3 33 Bg4 Rc7 34 Ra1 Nd5 35
Rfd1 Rxc2! 36 f5 Nf4 37 Kf1 gxf5 38 Bxf5 (See Diagram)

At this crucial point, Baumbach took winter leave in
Czechoslovakia and studied the position deeply to find the
winning method. He saw his original idea 38...d3 could be met
by 39 Rac1 Rxa2 40 Rc4!.

38...Rb2! 39 Rdc1 d3 40 Rd1 40 Bxb6 Bd4! 0-1

Exchanging the Bishop is hopeless but if 41 Bg3 Black has the
choice between 41...Nd5 and 41...Rg2 so White resigned. 

What one can learn from this is that if you are Black against an
opponent you think may be a "power player", the best defence
is to: (a) Play a sound line that you know well; (b) Play quickly
and confidently in the hope of unsettling White; (c) If you get
an opportunity to seize the initiative, grab it!

Generally speaking, you cannot turn the tables on a GM-
strength power player with openings surprises that are not
soundly based strategically and tactically. Little-played
openings and inferior variations are usually a recipe for disaster
because any advantage Black may have gained from home
analysis is likely to be outweighed as the next game shows.

Dr Jonathan Penrose - Jindrich Zapletal Nimzowitsch
Defence (B00) CC Olympiad Final 10, board 1, 1988-93

1 e4 Nc6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 e5 4 dxe5 d4 5 Nd5 f5 6 exf6 Nxf6 7
Bg5 Be6 8 Bxf6 gxf6 9 Bc4 Bf7 10 Nf3!

Instead 10 Qf3 Ne5 11 Qxf6 (11 Nxf6+? Ke7!) 11...Nxc4 12
Qxh8 Bxd5 13 exd5 Qxd5 would be unclear according to
analysis by Alekseev, in Shakhmatny Bulletin, 1981.

In my 1981 book on the Nimzowitsch Defence, I said Black
could still have compensation. However, Penrose probably
refutes the whole line. 

10...Bg7 (See Diagram)

11 Nh4! 0-0 
I have seen a drawn game with 11...Ne5 12 Bb3 c6 13 Nf4 but I
expect Penrose would have played 13 Nf5!. 

12 Nf5 Kh8 13 0-0 Qd7 14 Qg4 Rg8 15 Bb3 Ne5 16 Qh3 Ng6
17 Rad1 c5 18 Rd3 Rgf8 19 Rg3 Rae8 20 Rg4 Qc6 21 c4!
Rg8 22 f4! Rxe4 23 Bc2 1-0

What I call "power play" is a policy which I don't recall being
explicitly admitted to by any leading player, but their play and
some quotations from them bears witness.

Finally, I should say that I came to this theory in a roundabout
way. I am not a "power player" myself and have often
wondered what I could do to improve my results with the white
pieces. In the two tournaments where I achieved my ICCF IM
norms in the mid-90s I scored: (a) CC Olympiad XII Prelims: 
+2 =2 -2 with White; +5 =0 -1 with Black. (One win was on
time in a dodgy position; the opponent was a persistent rules
violator.) (b) European Team Championship V Prelims (board
1): +0 =4 -0 with White; +1 =4 -0 with Black. (I had a probably
winning endgame with White in one game against a FIDE IM,
but offered a draw to clinch the title.)

My Olympiad scores especially show a big imbalance
compared with most players' results, I think. It seemed to me
that if I could achieve the kind of results with White that other
people do, while maintaining that kind of strike rate with
Black, that I could achieve a major performance increase.

I haven't found the formula yet but I'm still working on it!
                    
PS: The games in this article and Kibitzer 9 are available to
download from http://www.chessmail.com/freegames.html
