[Event "Challenge from Henrik"]
[Site "SchemingMind.com"]
[Date "2013.10.11"]
[Round "-"]
[White "The Chess Machine"]
[Black "Patjanka"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D08"]
[WhiteCountry "ENG"]
[BlackCountry "DEN"]
[WhiteElo "2450"]
[WhiteRD "98"]
[BlackElo "2491"]
[BlackRD "81"]
[GameID "339986"]

1. d4
{
The Chess Machine: Hi, Henrik! Good luck, good games, and let's have some fun! Best wishes, John
}
1... d5 2. c4 e5
{
Patjanka: Like in the good old days. I'm getting quite nostalgic :)
}
3. dxe5 d4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. a3
{
The Chess Machine: Yes, Morozevich revived a neglected opening, and so now it is played at a high level. I have been "inspired" to play a QG Dec as Black in another SchemingMind game, like it was 1913!
}
5... Bg4
{
Patjanka: 'For a hundred years ago...' :) QGD with the black pieces is not especially compatible with my playing style. I prefer more 'action' like positions. My play as Black is as sharp as possible if I can get away with it, but more positional-like with the white pieces. Even that I'll never be someone like Bent Larsen I have adopted his style of playing. But of course you should play what you feel most comfortable with since your playing skills then will increase dramatically.
}
{
The Chess Machine: Hey, my S/Mind user name is "The Chess Machine", and my avatar is Capablanca! I can play a Benoni, French, QGD, etc. Much depends on who I'm playing for!?  
}
6. Nbd2
{
The Chess Machine: P,S. And, against ;o)
}
6... Qe7
{
Patjanka: We then have different approaches. Someone - I can't remember who - once said that Botvinnik was playing just as the opponent didn't exist! He's also a chess player that I admire, I think not least because I in my earlier live was working as a computer programmer :)
}
{
Patjanka: P.S. It's fully understandable that you have Capablanca as an 'avatar'. He may be the best chess player ever to exist :)
}
{
The Chess Machine: Welly well, here, as a "for example" I would probably never play an Albin Counter Gambit, in a team-match for SCCA ;o) I do tend to play the board not the man, but sometimes I'll play a certain opening (or a certain way) against a certain opponent. If not, I might as well BE a computer... <g> Your hero is bent Larsen, and mine, Capablanca. I try to play like "JR", but maybe Fischer was the greatest?
}
7. h3 Bf5
{
Patjanka: I once read Simon Webb's 'Chess For Tigers' and tried to adopt his advice of 'playing the man not the ball', but it simply didn't work out for me. My driving force is, and has always been, to find the absolutely best move in any given position. But I must admit that, not at least in OTB chess, I too often break my neck on this approach. But maybe I should reconsider, read Simon Webb again and play in a more practical way, at least in OTB chess. After all I very much like to win a game of chess!

Fischer was the greatest chess player of his time (as Capablanca was of his), and today it's Magnus Carlsen. And there's a lot of others to mention as well: Botvinnik, Tal, Larsen, Karpov, Kasparov etc. Whom the 'outmost best' is/was is really hard to decide I think :)
}
8. g4
{
The Chess Machine: One of my all-time favourite books! ;o) Yes, striving for the "correct" move every single time is what made Fischer great, imho. As you say, it is impossible to compare the players of different eras with one another!? Thinking about it, even playing CC, you often find positions where more than one move is possible, and it is impossible to say which is "correct" unless you are a computer that rates moves numerically... Or, am I wrong?
}
8... Bg6
{
Patjanka: I think you're right. Sometimes, of course there's only one move that's leading to the goal, but I think just as often different moves can lead to the same goal or result. E.g. think of transpositions in the opening phase of the game (especially English Opening ;)) where several move orders can lead to exactly the same game. By the way, a peculiar thing about chess is that if you're assuming the starting position to be draw, then you cannot win a game, your opponent has to loose it!     
}
9. Qa4
{
The Chess Machine: Even later on (say in a middle-game) you can decide to play a positional move, or play for tactics, depending on a number of factors... Both ways could be equally correct imho. Also, you might decide to play a different opening system, based on whether the opponent is a lot stronger than you, or maybe a lot weaker! There is lots of room for variety in chess, from Tal to Botvinnik ;o) Tartakower said that the winner of a chess game is the one who makes the next-to-last mistake <g> White should hold a slight advantage, like having the serve in tennis, but it's soon lost!   
}
9... O-O-O
{
Patjanka: Truly there's a lot of ways to carry out a game of chess. But seen from a strictly mathematical point of view these different ways have in fact to do with the way the human mind is working and have very little to do with the inner nature of chess it selfe. I I'm very aware of that this point of view is very theoretical and of no use in practical chess. It's strictly for computer programmers and so on. 

Yes, I remember the quotation of Tartakower which stands trustworthy even today when a computer program fairly easy can beat up the World Champion. Change of time but not of geniuses...!
}
10. b4
{
The Chess Machine: Yes, if you feed the same position to 2 or 3 different programs, you can often get 2 or 3 quite different answers both in numerical evaluation and sometimes in choice of move! It all depends on how it is programmed! 
}
10... Kb8 11. Bb2
{
The Chess Machine: So, as you said, the essence of chess cannot be reduced to mere mathematics!
}
11... h5
{
Patjanka: For human beings chess is indeed a battle, not at least of psychologi :)
}
{
The Chess Machine: And once again, I fear I have lost the psyschological battle to you, as well as the opening battle ;o)
}
12. g5 Qe6
{
Patjanka: Oh, I don't no... It's a very hard position to analyse. And don't let me get to you. After all it's just little me ;)
}
13. Bg2
{
The Chess Machine: I find that, despite having the very best and up-to-date theory currently available, I'm still out of the book already, and unsure what to do next...
}
13... Nge7
{
Patjanka: And I just found out - it has to do with me mixing up variations - that 11...h5 is also a novelty! So, nothing's wrong with your literature, in this particular case anyway. I must admit that I'm very lucky to be still standing...!
}
{
The Chess Machine: It shows how much respect I have for you as a player, just how seriously I took 11...h5 TN ;o)I am impressed with Luc Henris' new book on the Albin CG! 
}
14. b5 Nxe5
{
Patjanka: That's very kind of you, but I think you should try to crush me anyway! Another thing is that you've inspired me to reading chess books again (I've a lot that I never even looked at) and I've almost forgotten the feel and look of an ordinary chess board. I'll seriously consider purchasing the work you mention of Luc Henris' ;)
}
15. Nxd4
{
The Chess Machine: Okay, 11...h5 might not catch on as a TN, but being the first to face it (and against a player as resourceful as you are!) was not much fun, I can tell you! What inspired me to start buying books again was that recently a friend of mine asked me to work out for him an easy-to-play , solid opening repertoire for OTB games. I recommended the King's Indian Attack as white, and the Slav and Caro-Kann (ie c6+d5 as black against anything) Then, he wanted to borrow my books!? Anyway, I was embarrassed to realise my KIA, Caro-Kann and Slav books are all 20 years old, so I've decided to update my library! My home is full of full-size chess sets. I keep the interesting positions on a few, all the time, hoping for inspiration as I look them over when I pass by! ;o)   
}
15... Nd3+
{
Patjanka: I also have a lot of old books. Some of them goes back to around 1977-80, when i debuted as player in a chess club. They, of course, are worthless as chess books, but i keep them for nostalgic reasons. John, you are a chess player en truest sense of the word! How many chess sets did you say you owne!? ;)
}
16. Kf1
{
The Chess Machine: Erm, well, there are five full-size sets in the living-room, two in the bedroom, and a few more in boxes and cupboards, collected over the years!
They are made from various materials but all are original Staunton design (chess is complicated enough without having to work out which pieces are which!) I have just started to fill my fourth bookcase with chess books. I have been accused of being just a bit one-dimensional in my hobbies!?
}
16... Qb6
{
Patjanka: All right! I only have four sets in my possession, including the one I bought a couple of days ago. I saw a piece set the other day at Chess & Bridge in London. Very beautiful and unusual, and so was the price! £2,495,-. I very much like them, but my wallet don't ;) I'm glad so say I have more than chess as a hobby, but still chess is, after all, the main thing in my life. (Did I remember to mention my wife...!?) :D
}
{
The Chess Machine: "My ex-wife and I were like opposite coloured bishops", said Boris Spassky.
We could be twins <g> I spent half of my first week's wage, while I was still at home on a massive alabaster chess set. That was the most I ever paid for one, my ex-wife saw to it!? Of course, I also like football, but as I get older, I am less willing to devote two whole hours away from CC!
}
17. exd3 Rxd4
{
Patjanka: Lol :D I didn't know that Spassky-quotation... I'm also quite familiar using wages, but in my case it's on photo equipment! I've been an eager 'amateur' photographer since I was 16. (Actually I prefer to call my selfe for an 'art' photographer, since I'm much better to do this than to play chess!). I could have said it my selfe: As the years goes by I've also been more and more determined to do something extrovert, rather than sit by passively and glance at the TV showing some no-matter broadcast. But, regarding football I make an exception! 
}
{
The Chess Machine: I have not owned or watched a TV for 7 years now; I (sometimes) listen to football on the radio, but only as a "background" noise, while I look at my CC games ;o) I was a big Man Utd. fan (since about 1968) but now, this season, I suddenly find I don't care anymore what happens... I often joke how sad it is, that the only thing I excel at is correspondence chess ;o)
}
18. Bxd4 Qxd4
{
Patjanka: I remember that I once told you that you shouldn't play 'to much', but I can see now that this remark clearly was a complete waist of time! ;)
}
19. Nb3 Qf4
{
The Chess Machine: I was listening, honestly! ;o) So, now I am playing fewer games, but thinking about them more deeply! <g> Today, my total doubled from 6 to just 12 games!  
}
20. Kg1 Nc8
{
Patjanka: I think that's the right decision. I remember my selfe once playing over 30 games at a time, and I was really near gone totally gaga over it...
}
21. Qa5
{
The Chess Machine: Twenty years ago (before computers, and e-mail) I played 40-50 games per year. Every day, I received from 6-8 postcards! It taught me a bad habit, of sending moves next-day, without a deep-enough analysis :o/ Otherwise, I would have "drowned" in a few days and NEVER caught up with my moves!? I still have that feeling of panic, when it is me to move in more than a couple of games, even if I have few games, like now! So I play too fast!
What made me reduce my games to six, was that I'd lost a couple of games recently (unusual, for me) and so my ICCF rating had fallen, quite a bit! The six that started today are non-rated (ICCF) so I am very tempted to play the Albin as Black and a King's Gambit as White, but as I am playing for a Scheming Mind team maybe I had better play it slow, and cautiously!   
}
21... Qxg5
{
Patjanka: I can understand the high level of stress you have been feeling during this period, and it almost sounds to me that you have had some kind of "traumatic" experience, since you still are in a hurry when there's really no need to. The Italians have an expression, "affrettati lentamente" which means, as you probably might know, "hurry slowly". I always keep that in mind when I tend to get stressed :) So you want to be a gambit player! I tried it out for some 25 years ago, but, except for the Albin, I had never much success with it and dropped it again (I'm talking OTB chess here). But I wish you good luck with the "experiment" :)
}
22. Re1
{
The Chess Machine: It isn't just CC, I am rubbish at any form of multitasking <g> Typical man? I have one gambit (declined) in my new event already : 1.d4 c4 2.c4! e6 3.Nc3 ;o) I have the new monster 680-page book on the King's Gambit by John Shaw. Unfortunately he says in the introduction that he does not think the KG is "up to it" at a high level of CC but in unrated games, as this event is, what have I to lose? 
}
{
The Chess Machine: P.S. I can't type AND think <g> Meant 1.d4 d5 2.c4 etc ;o)
}
22... Be7
{
Patjanka: Well, I donøt know if I'll call QG a 'real' gambit, since it's impossible for Black to keep hold of the extra pawn after e.g. 2...dxc4. But maybe this is a matter of taste - I'm no "comma-collector" ;) Did you say 680 pages!? What a monster! I once tried  KG in an ICCF tournament and I got seriously beaten up in most cases! - "Nothing to lose", but I think you're brave man anyway :)
}
{
The Chess Machine: No, the QGD is not a "real" gambit. The reference was "tongue-in-cheek", hence the ;o) symbol <g> Maybe the brave thing about playing the Queens Gambit with White, is that it allows 2...e5! with an Albin CG!? (another little joke!?) Luc Henris' book has 600+ pages, good value for money! I decided that as I am playing for S/M and not just representing myself, I should play solid, therefore 3x 1.d4 as white but I can feel a KG coming! I don't think the opening is busted, as Fischer once claimed, and in fact (with best play) white is not worse!
}
23. d4 Qf4
{
Patjanka: Speaking about "value for money" I've just bought a book for 1 pence pr. page, namely TMB of the Worlds Greatest Chess Games. It will take me a year to play through all the games! I still think you're very brave to try out the KG, but with your "bible" in hand maybe you have a fair chance to do well off ;)
}
24. Re3
{
The Chess Machine: That particular book is worth every penny, imho. I bought mine in 2004, for £10!? I don't think I will EVER play through ALL the games <g> but I think that a study of such games is the best way to improve our chess abilities. Yesterday the new book on Nimzowitsch arrived; I have still not made up my mind yet whether or not it is worth "Book of the Year"! It sounds like we should play a pair of KG games one day soon? ;o) I see you are playing a tournament with 2 of my team-mates, Jorge and Enrique!
}
24... Bh4
{
Patjanka: That's also my impression. I've played through a couple of games already, and beside the games are spectacular in themselves, also the commentary seems more than competent. It's my determined goal to do the book from start to finish! Of course we could play a couple of KG games. Feel free to challenge me at any time in the greatest opening of all times :) Yes, I play Jorge and Enrique and I'm trying out the English which I usually plays in OTB (but not in CC - maybe to "quiet").
}
{
The Chess Machine: Yes, I think the earlier games in the TMB book should be part of the chess "education" of every serious player! It seems I'm still unable to challenge you, but any time you are ready to challenge me we can start a pair of KG games (one white & black) - I only have 9 games at the moment! Actually, I think I should play 1.c4 more often at CC - quiet, positional chess is effective anti-PC weaponry!
}
25. Qe1 Rd8
{
Patjanka: I hadn't corrected my challenge preferences properly, sorry about that, but please feel free to challenge me now :) The problem about 1.c4 is that black can choose more than one "solid" piece setup that's really hard to shoot down in CC. But in an OTB game thursday evening I succeeded precisely with 1.c4, so... ;) Use of PC engines is of course not allowed at the S/M (but some may use them anyway), but at the ICCF there's no rules against them, which I find very strange!? 
}
{
The Chess Machine: Welly well, I proceed to the player profile page for "Patjanka", and the challenge option is "greyed-out", even now? :o/ I once annotated a CC game, from the British Championship, which I won. The comment I made was that in certain openings (eg English Opening and King's Indian Attack) at move 30 you wonder why a draw hasn't been agreed. By move 40, you wonder why Black has not resigned earlier!? Both the openings are "slow-burners" imho. I think ICCF are simply being practical; you can not enforce a ban on chess-engine use (how could it be proved, anyway?) even if S/M says it is "illegal" on their site. We both know certain players "cheat" here, but there's nothing to be done about that, except beat a man AND his PC!? 
}
26. c5
{
The Chess Machine: P.S. I only won that game, not the Championship! ;o)
}
26... Bc2
{
Patjanka: I have once again altered my challenge preferences and I think that it might work now - sorry for the inconvenience :) - You're probably right about that. I only won i 30 moves or so yesterday because my opponent made a major blunder (I had the somehow better position anyway) that costed him a pawn and virtually his position. - The reason that I wants chess engines to be forbidden at ICCF is of moral and psychological reasons. For most people it must leave you with a bad taste in your mouth winning a tournament by cheating. - To bad that you didn't win the Championship, but some sunny day it might work out. Sigbert Tarrash once said: "It's better to be lucky than to be good!" ;)
}
{
The Chess Machine: All I can think of to suggest to you now is, that you look at the "chess" tab (next to "challenges") and save any changes? Of course, we can all understand that using a chess-engine to choose a move is "cheating" your opponent. In a current Scheming Mind division one match, my SCCA team-mate and his opponent finished an intensely complicated 33-move draw, in just eight days! The other player appears to have no CC history before 2011! What to think? What can you do about it? I played "master-strength" CC in British Championships, over 20 years ago. My conscience is clear. I came 2nd, and 3rd, mainly mid-table. Now the machines are too strong, for me to do much more than survive! :o( My viewpoint is that, chess-engines can make strong players stronger but cannot help weak players get strong! If an engine plays better chess than my opponent I feel sorry for him ;o) And, as JR Capablanca said "the good player is always lucky"! Why worry? 
}
27. Rf3 Qg5
{
Patjanka: OK thanks, I'll try that. - Maybe you're right, I shouldn't worry to much. I often am using a chess engine (Stockfish) when I post mortem analyse my OTB games, but not always. If I think I had played a good game I'll rather not have my pleasure spoiled of some machine! I've also tried to analyse some CC games when finished, and it's really not good at that, at least not when you're playing high-end CC.
}
{
Patjanka: PS: I've just altered my challenge preferences again, and if it doesn't work now I really don't know nothing!
}
28. Qe3
{
The Chess Machine: I set my challenge preferences for, up to 4 games. It is the only thing I can think of now! Challenge box is still greyed-out for some reason... One player I admire is Olli Ylonen. His ICCF rating is 2449, and he has the IM title, possibly SIM also now. Yet on S/M his rating is 1826! This guy obviously plays by whichever set of rules each CC body involved uses! I am a bit suspicious of players who have high SM but low ICCF grades :o/
I met one player back in 1992, in my very first CC event. Despite having very different circumstances (he was wealthy, I am not) we developed this close friendship, and mutual respect as chess players. He played so many games it made your head spin, always same-day reply (by post) winning the majority of his games. But ten years later he gave up CC complaining that computers were ruining it! My only question would be: How did he know? I did not even own a PC until 2003. With hindsight I suspect that having money, he was able to give himself a sizable advantage for years, buying "help" nobody else could yet afford. When PCs and chess-engines came down in price, everyone else caught up... And yet he was the loudest "PC-users are cheats" complainer of them all!? And yes, only at the "budget-end" of CC are engines useful and neither of us needs to avail ourselves of them!
}
{
Patjanka: I'll write S/M and ask what I/we do wrong - I'll be back! :)
}
28... Qxe3
{
Patjanka: I've written to S/M, but haven't got any answer yet... Quite a story you got there. In Denmark we have a saying: "Thief thinks that everybody steals!" Maybe your story an example of this. - I expect you to win both our upcoming KG games since you are the newly updated expert! :) A long time ago I played the KG my selfe regularly, but it was at the beginning of my chess career. I learned a lot of variations by heart but didn't understand much, I think. And therefore, except for a few lines, I can't remember  anything about it. I don't mind, it'll be fun anyway :)
}
{
The Chess Machine: I do like it, when I don't have to think about a move! I look forward to our KG games, although having the most recent "Bible" is no guarantee of success; I seem to have the bad habit of finding all of the "holes" in published analysis, for my games!
}
29. Rxe3
{
Patjanka: I've heard from Austin and it seems to be me who'd been (is it "been" or "bin"?) a little bit silly. You should be able to challenge me now! - I'll be back... :-P 
}
29... b6
{
Patjanka: I don't think there's such things as guarantees in chess! And exactly this I find is a great deal of the charme of the game. - Larsen once said: "The books are full of mistakes!", and I think both you and I can give him full credits for this statement ;)
}
{
The Chess Machine: I am sure that you have not been silly (but, your "challenge" box is STILL out of bounds to me, for some reason) :o/ I can challenge others, but not you! Yes, I have spent a lot of time and effort proving GM Larsen to be correct, about opening books!?
}
30. Bf3 Ne7
{
Patjanka: OK, I've contacted Austin again ;) A huge computer database like the one I've been using for many years now, isn't perfect at all either. E.g. it's containing a lot of games played by less skilled players, but they still are counting in the statistics overview!
}
{
The Chess Machine: Welly well, you know what they say: "To err is human, but to really mess it up, you need a computer"! Actually, I can mess it up without one. I am trying to play two games at once, and I just wrote down moves from the other game, onto my copy of THIS game ;o) Tippex City! At least, I know that I'm not a complete idiot as some of the parts are missing ;o)  
}
31. Rc3 Bf5
{
Patjanka: Lol :) I know what you mean. Two times at the S/M I'd analyzed a wrong position and both times it costed me a piece. I really don't know how I managed to do so... ;)
}
{
The Chess Machine: In one ICCF game for S/M, I assumed my opponent had recaptured a piece in the "obvious" way (when he had retaken with another piece) and then unfortunately my reply to the move I thought he had made was totally lost for me! I guess we're only human :o( 
}
32. Kh2 Nd5
{
Patjanka: According to Larsen 95% of all chess games are won because the opponent made a tactical blunder. And that sounds indeed very human to me! :)
}
{
The Chess Machine: Yeah, but after you change over to CC, hopefully you make 95% less blunders! ;o)
}
33. Bxd5 Rxd5 34. Re1 Be6
{
Patjanka: Oh yes! :)
}
{
The Chess Machine: Which could be why it is getting so hard to win a game of CC nowadays ;o)
}
35. Re4 Bf6
{
Patjanka: That's right. You have to create a winning position out of a long term strategy, when it's not so obvious what really went wrong for your opponent.
}
{
The Chess Machine: I've a couple of anti-PC strategies: 1) play very closed openings eg the French 2) build up an attack very s-l-o-w-l-y 3) create positions with a number of candidate moves, all very similar (numerically) for the PC 4) (as you say) a longer-term planning than an engine can "see", but by far my favourite is 5) produce positions SO tactical the chess-engine can not calculate everything to a conclusion (eg the French Winawer poisoned pawn variation) Humans aren't beaten yet! 
}
36. h4 Kc8
{
Patjanka: I totally agree with you, except maybe for the fact that I don't especially like to play closed positions (e.g. KI), and since I don't like them very much I therefore play them rather purely when they somehow should appear anyway. - The human mind has no limits of fantasy, and compared to that a computer seems to be rather limited in its 'thoughts' ;)
}
{
The Chess Machine: "Computers are incredibly fast, accurate and stupid; humans are incredibly slow, inaccurate and brilliant; together they are powerful beyond imagination" (Anon.)
}
37. f4 Bd7
{
Patjanka: I couldn't had said it better myself! ;) 
}
{
The Chess Machine: I can see a positional draw looming... no doubt you saw it a long time before I did <g> I see we are both playing in Jorge's event. How about a game less? 
}
38. c6=
{
Patjanka: Sure! And your right, it's getting more and more drawish. Thanks for an interesting game where I down the line felt that I really had to defend my selfe! :)
}
1/2-1/2

