Any writer who annotates chess games, whether his ….doc

CHESS Sat 13 December 2003 David Ellis 9276 1822 / openfile@ 1 Any writer who annotates chess games, whether his own or others, is always liable on occasions to have his analysis found tobe faulty. This fact applies not only to an amateur woodpusher like myself but even to such luminaries asa world champion like the famous Alexander Alekhine and the advent of increasingly puter chess programmes has made the annotator even more likely to have his uracies exposed. At the recent Christmas Open Gordon Dunlop presented me with 5of my columns from 2001 &2002 in which his Fritz programme had discovered mates not discovered by me or whoever else had annotated the game. In most cases the winner found a perfectly reasonable winning line which soon led toa win but nevertheless missed a mate, as in the example below (Steven Philip – Robert Galvin, Best Game 2002 WA Champ.). Play continued 1 Qb6, Qc8 2 Bxf6, Ra7 (2...gxf6, Re8!) 3 Bd4, resigns (3...Ra8 4 Re8!). From the diagram how could White have mated in3? 400 Last week space restrictions prevented my including another story about Gary Kasparov. It was a report I had been sitting on for some time relating to the premier of the film ‘ Game Over: Kasparov & the Machine ’ at the 10 th Sheffield (UK) International Documentary Film Festival on13 th October 2003, a collaboration between the BBC, UK Film Council & National Film Board of Canada