Blitz Chess and Chess Clubs!

Running Chess Tournaments
1

Since the federation has gone and changed the rating rules for blitz chess to be rated. The question of the rules, when the 5th edition was designed on the subject on blitz chess, done for the federation itself, as the federation will only have a small amount of blitz tournaments, like at the U.S. Open. The 4th edition, had blitz rules and the federation new they were not rated, the federation let the chess clubs do as they pleased, most of the blitz tournaments are going to be run at the club level, and they are all in house. Before the federation changed the rules for blitz to be rated, most chess clubs, or some state associations, formed their own rules.

The problem for a director, knowing the rules of the federation, knowing the rules of the chess club, then take care of the conflict between the rules. Some clubs you can touch a piece, move something else, not final till the clocked is pressed. Others, make a illegal move then press the clock, then you have lost the game. Some clubs, add two minutes to the players clock, if they make a illegal move, in my twenty-fours years going to different chess clubs, have not discovered one.

Most blitz tournaments are at the local chess clubs, every meeting is a blitz tournament or whatever. The standard format is a round robin with a small fee. Now the federation having rated blitz tournaments, gives problems for clubs and directors. For the club blitz tournament player, who you give your money, they might not even be members of the federation.

The clubs and directors, that have blitz tournaments, are doing it to bring in a few dollars every week. If the clubs can get new sets and clocks, or whatever they want, or pay for the rent of the room.

If the clubs convert over for rated tournaments, some clubs that have blitz tournaments are not always affiliated with the USCF, the blitz chess club member must be current members (if not will have to drop out of the tournaments) of the USCF. With the rating fee, will have to increase the entry fee (change the entry fee some members will drop out of the tournaments) to cover the rating cost. Need one certified tournament director each week for the blitz tournament. Need a large pool of tournament directors, as someone wants a vacation or gets sick, or just cannot go every week to the chess club. The club blitz tournament player that are members of the USCF, some do not want a quick rating. For most clubs, will not have a pool of players that can support a rated blitz tournament, they can support non-rated blitz tournaments.

For a tournament director, with a blitz tournament that is rated. With people from different chess clubs, with different rules, with some state affiliates having different blitz rules (state blitz championship), for one blitz championship to some blitz tournament that is supported by the state affiliate. You will have different people come to the tournament, with different rules and norms of blitz.

Myself would love to have a blitz tournament, as being a double round robin makes it so simple. The different rules, will cause problems, if I go to a blitz tournament and someone has a two second delay, I will not be happy about that. As I have a chronos clock, do not mind if the tournament director tells me since I have time delay must use it. For my tournaments, if the owner of the clock has time delay and does not want to use it fine with me.

The federation is pushing blitz tournaments, the question is, will the chess clubs want it. As a tournament director needs a affilate, will the chess clubs go along with rules they do not like, we will see.

Earnest
Douglas Mark Forsythe, local td

2

Our club (rccc.us) used to hold G/5 WBCA-rated Blitz tournaments on a semi-regular basis. We also hold USCF Quick-rated tournaments on occasion, which are always G/15. Now that the WBCA is no more, we don’t plan to hold any rated Blitz tournaments in the foreseeable future. If we do hold any Blitz tournaments, they’ll be unrated, and we’ll probably use a modified version of the last set of WBCA rules, taking any relevant USCF rule changes into consideration.

I always thought that a range of G/10 through G/29 was a bit broad, but still reasonable, as a separate rating class (Quick). However, to incorporate time controls of under G/10 (typically, G/5) within the Quick category is a bad move, in my opinion. There’s a big difference between a G/5 control and a G/15 control, just as there’s a big difference between G/2 and G/5. The natures of Lightning/Bullet, Blitz, and Quick games are too different to be measured by the same rating, assuming we want our ratings to tell us anything. I think the USCF should’ve created a third category for Blitz, or just left things as they were (Quick = G/10-G/29).

3

There really shouldn’t be all that much of a controversy around blitz chess and its rules. In the older versions of the rulebook, the blitz chess rules were ignored at best, laughed at at worst. They were basically just sudden death rules with a couple changes slapped on just the the USCF rulebook would have something to say about blitz. I think the best thing the old rulebook used to say was that the WBCA ran and organized most of the larger blitz tournaments in the country.

WBCA blitz chess rules are far and away superior on every level to what was in the old rulebook and the new rulebook. They were designed by a paner of serious blitz playing Grandmasters and implemented exactly and only for blitz chess. It was not a silly attempt to apply sudden death rules inappropriately onto blitz chess. These rules took the history and traditions of blitz chess into account and what was produced was a workable set of rules for blitz.

The current USCF rules for blitz are not workable as they were designed for quick chess. When the new rulebook was in development I wish I had paid more attention to the blitz rules but I ignored them not knowing that the WBCA was going to fold. Had I known that I would have been lobbying and working to have the WBCA or a slightly modified and updated version of the WBCA rules become the USCF blitz chess rules.

Blitz is a different game than quick and sudden death. The strategies are often different and related to the clock as much as the board. One classic strategy in a close game is to allow you opponent to win a pawn or a piece and then watch them spend time trying to win and lose on time. The clock is FAR more important in blitz than in quick or any other kind of chess as in Blitz it is as important as the game itself. Manage either the clock or the board inadequately in Blitz and you will lose. In most cases.

The USCF Sudden death rules were implemented for faster time controls but never went less than 10 minutes and were usually 15-20. Adding 2 minutes for an illegal move in quick can be annoying but since it only increase the game a maximum of 20% and less at longer controls the penalty didn’t always effect the result. In Blitz, a 2 minute time penalty for an illegal move increases the total time by 40% which is huge. Even a 1 minute penalty at a 20% increase is the largest increase in quick. These increases in Blitz almost always affect the result of the game. The WBCA way to handle an illegal move is that it loses, if claimed correctly. Plain and simple, no questions. As a director I’ve ran blitz tournaments under both systems and found the time penalties to be absurd, adding multiple complaints to the tournament and making the player experience frustration. In WBCA, game over, start next game or match.

With sudden death rules, insufficient losing chances claims were originally designed to help the trend which saw players losing and drawing games that were won or drawn because of only the faster time controls. The ISL claim allowed someone completely and totally drawn or up ooverwhelling material to save the draw. This is completely inappropriate in blitz. WBCA ISL claims were very limited and never related to having more material. The old blitz tradition of having that last pawn on the board against queens and kings is important as is is potential mating material and the winning side must take time to remove these pawns in order to ensure a draw if the flag falls. Except for a few basic positions as elucidated in the WBCA rules, ISL claims are less important and seen far less in blitz tournaments. Managing the clock is given more importance.

One poster here mentioned that the common blitz mode is a double round robin which I am assuming was just a clerical error. The most common blitz tournament format is a double round swiss tournament where you play white and black in a 2-game match against your opponents. The USCF cannot accept tournaments in double round format so the use of a pairing program like Swiss Sys is handy because it has a feature which allows conversion of double round tournaments into single round tournaments. This year’s Foxwoods Open blitz that I ran was a 5 round double and when converted was a ten round single that the USCF can deal with.

I have been running WBCA blitz tournaments at Arlington Chess Club in Virginia since 1992 - hundreds of tournaments, along with the US Open, World Open (past 6 years), Foxwoods (all 5 years), Millennium Chess Festival (all 4 years), Eastern Open (past 8 years) and others. With this I am just saying that I have a long hstory directing blitz at both the local and national level. I find WBCA rules to be smoother for Blitz and it upholds the win or lose nature of blitz compared to the USCF rules which seem to create conflicts on the floor, require more directors to manage and generally do not run as well.

The USCF rating blitz tournaments will generate more blitz and it is my hope that it eventually has its own rating system. It is much different than quick chess and should be rated differently. Rating blitz will create more rating fees for the USCF since the games played are more and this will raise the entry fees a little. Sobeit.

Personally, I will not run a blitz tournament using USCF rules. Only WBCA rules make sense. The only thing that needs to change for WBCA rules is the bias against digital clocks that came from how awful they were back in the 80’s and early 90’s. That is not the case anymore and digital clocks should be equal with analog clocks but not preferred. Not preferred because delay does not belong in blitz because it is blitz, meant to be played fast fast fast, blitkreig not blitz with delay.

thanks for listening.
Michael Atkins

4

As a player of Blitz tournaments, I prefer the idea that the game is still a competition between two players, with the objective being to win “over-the-board”. In ALL chess games, in my opinion as a player and a director, the clock is merely an ancillary part of the game. It’s purpose being to guarantee that a game will be concluded in the given amount of time, taking into account the time delay features. It’s purpose should never be a primary tool for determining who is the stronger player. I take no real satisfaction in flagging my opponent when I am losing over-the-board.

Personally, I like the idea of a time delay in Blitz, as you might expect, because I “do” believe that the object of the game is to win over the board. A player should never lose a game on time if the opponent can’t win over the board. Positions which offer a player little chance to outplay his/her opponent should end in a draw. When the game becomes just a game of quick reflexes, the game is no longer fun. It’s simply a crapshoot.

-Terry

5

I think you are missing some of the point behind “BLITZ” chess. It is called BLITZ because time is a crucial element, much more so than regular and/or quick chess. This form of chess is different than any other and is designed for very rapid play, which maximizes both playing strategy (winning on the board) and managing the clock. Winning on time is and always has been a crucial winning method in blitz. There are players who are MUCH better or much higher rated in BLITZ than in slower forms of chess because their style is more tactical and they move faster. A player who is an attacking tactician. whose ideas often do not win in slow chess, can win in BLITZ because the ideas might be really good and are only refuted after LOTS of thought in slow chess. Sacrificing a piece in BLITZ is often a strategy in BLITZ to make your opponent think and fall behind on time. The player could also instantly snatch up the piece and see what happens - all is time strategy in BLITZ.

Blitz is just different than slower forms of chess and a failure to recognize that basic difference and to slooooooooowwwww it down can pollute the nature of BLITZ. Fast accurate play is rewarded in BLITZ.

6

Dear Michael Atkins:

The last two postings that you have made have been on my mind, could have not even writen a better statement, as dealing with blitz is a different animal then slow chess. With the 6th edition having a 2 second delay to the game of blitz would destroy the spirit of blitz.

One of the problem with a blitz games, when dealing with a one game play-off when it is 3 to 5 minute and black has draw option, would not make a blitz game rated, as having a game of blitz set at 3 minutes can not be rated. If set at 5 to 7 minutes just added more time to blitz and start to make the blitz game more close to quick. The federation does not explain the subject of time odds.

There are a great deal of blitz players that enjoy given time odds for a blitz game, as blitz can not be rated if it goes below 5 minutes the idea of blitz odds cannot be accepted for a rated game. As the player in a tournament cannot give time odds for more time as even adding a minute to the game would be small and might be even thought of a wasted effert. It would slow down the next games, not speed them up if time odds were given if it was below 5 minutes.

The federation talks about taking time off from a clock for a time delay, if a player that want to play in a USCF blitz tournament with a 2 second delay can the director shorten the time control of a blitz game and still be thought of as rated. As the rules of blitz state there is nothing there for the player or the director to make a different idea of time. Even if the director has the right to take 1 minute off the blitz clock, then it is equal to 20 percent of the total time. The director can look at the quick and understand the director can take say G/30 between 5 and one minute off the clock, even at that the director is only taking 10 percent at the most off the game. Some chess clocks, even some digitals have a hard time or not set to have time delay and have the clock set at 4.30 minutes.

The USCF blitz rules are lacking a great deal of information, the exective board need to address this lack of a more solid blitz rules, even taking in part not the whole of the old WBCA.

Earnest
Douglas M. Forsythe, Local TD
12313120

7

Mike,

OK, just a philosophical difference of opinion, I guess! I can live and play with either notion, as I have been doing for many years.

But, in your opinion, should the ILC claim ever be a part of BLITZ chess?

As to USCF vs. WBCA rules, the organizer has the right to modify all USCF BLITZ rules, and most every other tournament rule, so long as he/she makes advanced notice in all publicity. Individual clubs and organizers are, I believe, free to adopt “club”/“House” rules. I’ve played in many BLITZ tournaments where “house rules” are different depending upon where you go. I’ve seen FIDE rules adopted, regarding illegal moves, and I have seen USCF rules adopted. Personally, I like to follow USCF’s rules as opposed to FIDE’s simply because “this is the USA” NOT France!!! I don’t think there’s any need for official USCF intervention in amending the rulebook. Run your tourneys any way you like, just give advance notice in TLAs, and I’m sure USCF would have no problem rating them. Exception, I guess, is the minimum time, which is 5 minutes.

I do agree that USCF should probably adopt a separate rating system for BLITZ chess. Adding it to the QC rating system is not, on first thought, good!

Cheers,
Terry Winchester

8

Dear Terry:

With the blitz chess, if each club has different rules: then like a director like myself would find having a state level blitz tournament. As most or all chess clubs have made different blitz rules for each club, when they do meet at a state level tournament they will have conflicts. In my state of Michigan they do have a state blitz rules that are different then the USCF --as the Michigan Chess Association has one state titled blitz tournament that draws in less then twenty players.

Would like the idea of the federation have a third rating for blitz, only problem like when quick first came out at G/10 to G/29, very few players did have a quick rating, even today when the time controls are now G/10 to G/60, still a large number do not have a quick rating. If the federation has a rating for blitz of G/5 some areas of the nation will not be able to have a blitz tournament, as no local chess club, or a small population. If the federation has a blitz rating would only expect five percent of the membership will have a established blitz rating.

Earnest
Douglas M. Forsythe, Local TD
12313120

9

Considering USCF most likely added G/5 to quick chess rating options as a revenue enhancer, taking advantage of WBCA’s demise, it is highly unlikely they would add a third rating system which would add cost. As a revenue source, rating G/5 makes sense, because you can get twice as many games in the same length of time. The fact that blitz is vastly different from quick chess makes little difference if money is your perspective. As for me, I’ll skip rated blitz - I’m so bad at blitz it amounts to legal sandbagging of my quick rating.

Aside from the issues already discussed, the likelihood of illegal moves is clearly higher than in G/10 or G/15. Two minute penalties not only effectively change the results, they also slow down the tourney. And that assumes people know how to adjust the clocks - lots of people don’t.

I don’t understand why mechanical clocks should ever be preferred to digitals, even without time delay. Knowing that the clocks were set equally and that both players can see exactly how much time they have left is much more important at blitz.

10

Even in quick and regular time controls, if there is a illegal move the players waver the two minute pentalties; if on the other hand the players are both in time trouble, then both players are more willing to ask for the enforcement of the two minute pentalties. With blitz, not sure what will happen, as illegal moves happen almost every game of blitz more then once.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, local td

11

Illegal moves in blitz should be an immediate loss if claimed correctly. Makes it very simple. Time penalties can be confusing, especially if left up to the players.
Someone posted
“I don’t understand why mechanical clocks should ever be preferred to digitals, even without time delay. Knowing that the clocks were set equally and that both players can see exactly how much time they have left is much more important at blitz”

The WBCA rules were originally written when digital clocks were bad, not very reliable, and definitely worse than most analog clocks. The digital clocks in the late 70’s and 80’s often caused more problems than they solved hence the preference for analog clocks in the WBCA rules. Walter Browne ammended this a few years ago to make the best digital clock, the Chronos, equal to analog clocks.

Obviously, the USCF will amend the clock rules if they adopt some form of WBCA rules as they do not want to outlaw their own clocks :wink:

12

Myself do not play that much blitz chess, most of the time like to play G/10 as the rules are so clear then blitz. Will play blitz chess with a friend, as enforcement of the rules does not matter – as the USCF and the WBCA rules, then the club rules or the persons strange rules of blitz. Have not been in that many blitz tournaments, if a tournament is not rated do not care to play. As the unrated blitz events are at the club level, most of the problems that will happen in a game of blitz are taken care between the players: all the director becomes is just a score keeper.

With the idea of having a 3rd rating (classical, quick, blitz) will be years down the road – if the rating department can show there are a number of events reported at G/5: as some directors would just place down quick without given the time controls – the reporting of blitz and quick will always be off.

The USCF need to improve the blitz rules, as being so much conflict with the old WBCA and the USCF, it will take a number of years before any USCF blitz rules be accepted. At this time have no wish to have a state wide blitz tournament, as people that is unknowed to myself will have different views on how blitz is played.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, Local TD
12313120

13

While I am not entirely convinced that a 3rd rating system is necessary or would have sufficient activity to be viable, the new ratings software will be able to support several additional ratings systems beyond the three the USCF currently has (regular, quick, correspondence), and this capability should be there by the end of summer.

14

A 3rd rating system for Blitz is not only neccessary, it is essential to the continued validity of the rating system. Quick and Blitz are NOT alike, they are different forms of chess which have had and certainly ought to have different rule sets.

Quick is a subset of Sudden Death, the fastest form of Sudden Death. The rules for Sudden Death promote the idea that positions can be saved by Insufficient Losing Chances, time delay, and time penalty additions to the opponent’s clock for illegal moves. Blitz is the mutual convergence of chess and the clock. Management of the clock in Blitz is as important as the management of the pieces, that is the fun and spirit of blitz. There are far fewer positions in Blitz which are acceptable for upholding an ISL claim. Time delay is alien to blitz. Adding time to the clock in Blitz is absurd. The only penalty for an illegal move, if claimed correctly, is a loss. That makes people very aware of illegal moves.

These differences make for different philosophies to the approach in playing Quick versus Blitz. Statistically, error is introduced into averages when you are averaging different things - lije averaging two numbers from two distinct number systems. Adding together and ordinal number and a ratio number will produce a number that makes no sense in comparing the two things being averaged. Averaging Blitz and Quick would be like averaging Tangelos and Mandarin oranges. They are simular but different enough to warrant a separate average. The continued blending of Blitz into Quick ratings will pollute the Quick rating system and make it useless. The rule systems are different or should be, so averaging the two systems together doesn’t make sense, unless it is all done for money and then everything makes sense :laughing:

Michael Atkins

15

On second thought, it’s still not good!! :smiley:

16

USCF BLITZ RULE 3. Illegal move penality. A player who makes an illegal move in blitz and presses the clock does not forfeit. Instead, two minutes are added to the opponent’s remaining time.

USCF BLITZ RULE Variation 3A. Illegal move causes loss. A player making an illegal move and hitting the clock shall forfeit the game, if called by the opponent before touching a piece. The one exception to the touch restriction is if a player leaves the king in check, the opponent may then touch the piece delivering the check and remove the player’s king from the board in order to claim a win caused by such an illegal move.

This rule, when adding two minutes to a blitz chess game will give a great deal of problems. It would be annoying to the directors and the players, as some would make a few illegal moves, adding more time to the tournament. Most chess clubs, with this rule would not want a rated tournament, it would add greater amount of time, and most blitz tournaments are late at night at the local club.

Earnest,
Douglas M. Forsythe, Local TD
12313120

17

We used to hold Blitz tournaments every week in our club. It got to be that that’s all we ever played for years. Then, we decided to give the new players, who just couldn’t get the hang of moving quickly, tournaments of longer time controls. We are now doing a ladder tournament, with a time control of G:/60.

But, the point of this post is that we always used the main USCF Blitz rule 3 (add two minutes for illegal moves). We never had many problems with schedule delays, even though the time penalties were sometimes exacted. We would even use a time delay of 2 secs. sometimes. This gave the tournament a bit more prestige, analogous to longer time controls where a player would have enough time to hold a clear draw. We even allowed players to claim ILC where they weren’t using a time delay clock. We never ran into any problems.

But, that was us, and not all clubs share the same ideas. If you’re experiencing scheduling delays because of illegal move time back penalties, then use variation 3A. If there are no problems with those delays, then you might want to use the main rule (3). It’s all up to each individual club. BTW, I think most National side event Blitz tournaments (especially at scholastics, where illegal moves abound), variation 3A is used.

There shouldn’t really be any fuss about this. USCF allows the organizer/director to advertise the rules, and the players decide whether or not they will play.

I think, if there’s any problem at all, it’s that rules across the country aren’t consistent. Some clubs play “illegal move loses” others “add two minutes to the opponent’s time”. I’ve personally fussed about this in times past because I was used to playing under the time back rule, and I always considered the "loss rule’ as a FIDE rule. My argument was always, “we’re playing in the U.S., folks, how 'bout using U.S. rules?” But, now that USCF has included the “loss rule” as a variation (and I think this was listed in the 4th edition, as well), I think I can live and play under either variation. Just let me know in advance, is all I ask :slight_smile:

-Terry

18

You all might have known I’d eventually throw in my two cents on this topic. Here goes!

First, there should definitely be separate rating systems for Quick and Blitz, especially since some organizers will be using Blitz rules which are very different from Quick rules. Merging Blitz ratings into Quick ratings was, I hope, a temporary measure, to bridge the gap between the demise of WBCA and the development of new software at USCF headquarters.

One poster mentioned that some clubs use a “clock-move” rule instead of touch-move. For those just arriving from Neptune, “clock-move” usually means the suspension of both the touch-move rule and the determined-move rule. With “clock-move”, a move may be retracted even after the hand has released the piece, as long as the clock has not yet been pressed.

No responsible national or international chess federation endorses “clock-move”. It is an atrocity that should be banished from the face of the earth. In my opinion, even offhand blitz games should be played using touch-move and determined-move.

As to WBCA vs USCF, the most onerous WBCA rule is the one that prescribes loss of game if a player makes an illegal move and presses his clock. It is nothing short of a travesty to allow a well-played, hard-fought blitz game to end prematurely just because of a single inadvertent illegal move.

On the other hand, adding 2 minutes to the opponent’s clock seems a bit extreme in the opposite direction, especially if the same player makes multiple illegal moves.

A better idea for blitz might be along the following lines: First illegal move, opponent gets 1 minute added. Subsequent illegal moves by same player in same game, player loses 1 minute of his own time. (This would result in loss of game if the player has under 1 minute left.) With this rule, no player could make more than a few illegal moves per game before forfeiting.

To combat the problem of nobody knowing how to make a mid-game adjustment on today’s digital clocks, the TD should be empowered to require the opponent of the player moving illegally to possess this knowledge. An opponent who can neither adjust the clock quickly nor substitute his own clock and set it quickly, would be denied the 1-minute adjustment.

That’s enough for one post. Stay tuned for more in a few minutes.

Bill Smythe

19

To be sure, Blitz chess is very different from Quick chess, and even more different from regular-rated chess. As the time control speeds up, the clock becomes more and more of a factor – and this is as it should be.

The clock should never, however, be allowed to become the ONLY factor in a game. For this reason, a delay should be standard in Blitz, just as it is in Quick and regular. A two-second delay is common (and recommended) for Blitz.

And, as with regular and Quick, the organizer should be allowed to subtract up to 1 minute of main time for each second of delay time. Thus, the organizer could specify, for Blitz games played with a delay, a deduction of either 2, 1, or 0 minutes of main time. (I think a 1-minute deduction is about right.)

As for Insufficient Losing Chances, of course the presence of a 2-second delay would make this rule unnecessary (and any such claim would automatically be invalid). For games played without the delay (because the players did not furnish a delay clock), the TD should be empowered to rule at either extreme, or anywhere in the middle: At one extreme, the TD could deny all such claims, on the grounds that the players ought to be furnishing delay-capable clocks, and that such clocks are preferred equipment over clocks without the delay. At the other extreme, the TD could substitute a delay clock (and make appropriate time adjustments) in response to virtually any ILC claim. Somewhere in the middle, the TD could use judgment, case by case, substituting a clock only when it seems likely to make a difference in the outcome.

Of course, if an organizer chooses not to have a 2-second delay in his tournament, he had better decide (and announce in advance) whether to allow ILC claims at all, and how to handle them if he does allow them.

The interim USCF Executive Director has decreed that, for the time being, games played at game/5 through game/9 can be played with either USCF-like or WBCA-like rules (with or without the delay, and with illegal moves either losing immediately or resulting in a 2-minute penalty) as long as the policy is announced at the tournament before the first round. This is a good idea for the moment, because of the demise of WBCA and the need to fill a gap. After a few months, however, USCF ought to specify that the 2-second delay is standard, and that organizers who do not wish to use it MUST announce this fact in all pre-tournament publicity.

Bill Smythe

20

Bill,

Unless I’m missing something, USCF has, in fact, standardized the 2 second delay for Blitz (USCF rule 5F - pp. 9-10).

Nor should it be the PRIMARY factor in a game. Therefore, I agree with the delay.

Subtracting 2 minutes, however, in a 5-minute game, is a bit overboard, although the practice does, indeed, follow the letter of the rules. If we call it G/5, however, is should be as close to G/5 as possible. Perhaps a 1 minute deduction would be correct. I wonder if the framers of the time delay rules were considering Blitz (G/5) chess when they instituted the rule as written in the TD Tip following rule 5F. Of course, I guess there’s ways to get around that, such as calling it G/7 and deducting 2 minutes.

Where do we find these “decrees”? I haven’t seen it published in either Chess Life or the Rating Supplements. Not that I disagree with this one; only that I would like to know ‘how you know’ this?

Terry Winchester