It is often comes to a conclusion - what is the meaning nowadays to play the correspondence chess? Where is the creativity, where is the psychology, where is the risk? All the correspondence players use the chess programs, and that one is winning, whose program is stronger and who has better learned to press buttons. And the games that computers play against each other are utterly dull...
No sacrifices, no original moves. No, that is not chess.
However, one should not hurry with making the conclusions.
Let us consider the following game. It is amateurs' game that was played over the Internet on one of the chess servers. Both opponents new that another side used a chess program for the analysis.
Chess Fonts1. d4 d5 2. ¤f3 ¤f6 3. c4 c6 4. ¤c3 a6 This is the Chebanenko variation named after a Moldavian coach. Black plays this variation frequently. A young Moldavian female player played as Black and her coaches taught her the same things that Chebanenko might have taught. 5. a4 Theory does not promise White an advantage after this move; 5.c5 is more popular. However, if one wants to play an interesting game, then one should avoid well explored continuations. Black's standard plan in this position involves the b7-b5 advance and White temporarily prevents it. 5... e6 6. „g5 ¤bd7 7. a5 White is trying to block the black queenside but fails to achieve this aim. It is a pity that White cannot immediately make another blocking move c4-c5. 7... dc 8. e3 b5 9. ab £b6 10. ¦a2 Now the game enters an unexplored sideline.
[Let us consider the other continuations: 10. „c4 £b2 11. ¤a2 „b4 12. ¤b4 £b4 13. ¤d2 ¤e4 White has no compensation for the pawn;
10. £d2 c5 11. „c4 cd 12. £d4 (12. ¤d4 £c5 13. „f6 £c4 14. „h4 „b4³) 12... „e7=;
10. £c2 ¦b8 11. „c4 £b2 12. £b2 ¦b2 13. O-O ¦c2 14. ¦fc1 ¦c1 15. ¦c1 c5=;
10. £c1 c5 11. „c4 „b7 12. O-O „f3 13. gf cd 14. ed „d6 Black has solved all of the problems... 1/2-1/2, Kursova Maria 2264 - Kovalevskaya Ekaterina 2443 , 12. 8.2003 North Ural Cup (Women)]
10... ¤d5 11. „c4 „b4 Now White is practically forced to sacrifice a pawn.
[Too risky is 11... £b4 12. ¤d2 ¤c3 13. bc £c3 14. O-O with a great advantage in development for White.]
12. £c2 At that moment I decided that the pawn sacrifice would not yield anything real for White and I undertook an unclear exchange sacrifice.
[I did not like 12. O-O due to 12... „c3 13. „d5 cd 14. bc O-O 15. £c2 (15. „e7 ¦e8 16. „b4 „b7 The program evaluates this position as better for White but this evaluation appears doubtful to me since opposite colored bishops are present on the board and White has no chances for an attack against the black king) 15... a5 16. „f4 „b7=]
12... ¤c3 Black accepts the challenge.
[The inclusion of the moves 12... h6 13. „h4 is not to Black's benefit, for example, 13... ¤c3 14. bc „c3? 15. £c3 £b1 16. ¢e2 £h1 17. ¦a1 £g2 18. ¦g1 £h3 19. e4 (the black queen is trapped)]
13. bc „c3
[After 14. ¢e2 „b4 White retains some compensation for the pawn.]
14... £b1 15. ¢e2 £h1 16. d5!? White staked his hopes on this move.
[Weak is 16. „e6? fe 17. £c6 O-O 18. £a8 £b1 19. ¦a5 „b7 20. £a7 ¦f3°;
it would be interesting to check out 16. £a3!? c5 17. dc h6 18. „h4 O-O 19. c6 ¤b6 20. „d3 £g2 21. £b2 ¦b8 22. „e7 ¤d5 23. £b8 ¤e7 24. ¦a1]
[The other continuations are: 16... f6? 17. de ¤c5 18. „d3 „e6 19. £c5 „d5 20. e4;
16... £g2? 17. £g7;
16... O-O 17. ¦a1 £g2 18. ¦g1 £h3 19. dc with a dangerous attack for White;
16... cd 17. £g7 ¦f8 18. ¦a1 £g2
17. £g7 It seems that White obtains perfect play for the exchange - he's got two bishops, the black king is in the center and the black queen is offside. But searching for a direct win was futile. Was it not a paradox?
[17. ¦a1 £g2 18. £g7 ¦f8]
17... ¦f8 18. „d3
[Futile is 18. „h6 (threatening 19. ¦h1) 18... £b1! (18... £c1 19. „d3±) 19. ¤e5 dc 20. ¦d2 £b4 21. ¤d7 „d7 22. £f8 £f8 23. „f8 „g4 24. f3 ¢f8 25. fg a5µ;
very complex variations arise after 18. ¤h4!? £b1 (18... £c1 19. „d3±; 18... dc? 19. ¤f5 £h2 20. ¦d2) 19. ¦d2 (19. ¦b2 £e4 20. „d3 £e5 21. ¤f5 f6°) 19... a5 20. „d3 „a6 21. ¤f5 „d3 22. ¦d3 and it is not clear if White can get anything better than a draw.]
18... £g2 19. ¤h4
[The other continuations are: 19. £h7 ¤e5! 20. ¤e5 £g5 and Black is all right;
in the case of 19. ¤e5 Black plays 19... h6! (but not 19... ¤e5? 20. £e5 „e6 21. ¦b2 £g4 22. ¢d2 with a dangerous initiative for White) 20. ¤d7 „d7 (20... £g4 21. f3 £g2 22. ¢e1 £g1 23. „f1 „d7 24. £e5 „e6 25. „h4 ¢d7 26. ¦b2 ¦fb8) 21. £e5 „e6;
the most complex variations arise after 19. ¦c2 but it is not all completely clear, for example, 19... f6 (19... „b7? 20. „f5; 19... c5 20. ¦c5 f6 (20... ¤c5 21. £f6±) 21. ¦c6 £g4 22. h3 £h3 23. „h7 fg 24. „g6 ¢d8 25. ¤d4 ¦f2 26. ¢f2 £h2 Surprise! According to all the laws of chess strategy White has the advantage but this cannot be proven.) 20. ¦c6 £g4 21. h3 £h3 22. „h7 fg 23. „g6 ¢d8 24. ¤d4 ¦f2 and an already familiar unclear position arises.]
19... £g4!
[Weak is 19... £h2? 20. ¤f5 h6 21. „h4 £c7 22. „g3 £a7 23. £h6]
20. f3 £e6
[After 20... £h3 White also has no advantage, for example: 21. ¤f5 £h2 22. ¢d1 £h1 (but not 22... £e5? 23. f4! £e6 24. £h7±) 23. ¢c2 £h2=]
21. ¤f5
[21. „h7?! a5 22. ¤f5 „a6 23. ¢d2 d4 24. ¦a5 (24. ¦a4 de 25. „e3 O-O-Oµ) 24... c5 25. £f8 ¢f8 26. „h6 £h6 27. ¤h6 ¤e5µ]
21... f6 22. „h6 There I considered the continuations 22.£xh7 22. „f4 and 22. ¦c2 but failed to find any advantage. 22... ¦g8 23. £h7 ¤e5
[23... ¦g2 24. ¢f1±]
24. ¤d6 ¢d8 25. „f5 Here I had an impression that I managed to outplay my opponent.
[In the case of the natural 25... ¦a7 I cherished hopes for a success after 26. £a7 £d6 27. £h7 ¦e8 (27... ¦g2 28. ¢f1 ¦a2 29. £h8 ¢c7 30. £c8 ¢b6 31. „f8
26. ¢f1 £g8 Draw. [...]
[In the case of 27. ¦g2 £h7 28. „h7 „h3 29. „f4 (29. ¢f2? „g2 30. ¢g2 ¢c7°) 29... ¤f3 30. ¢f2 „g2 31. ¢g2 the position is unclear.]
[½:½]
Conclusions:
1. Few chess players would dare to play such a position in real tournament practice.
2. Chess programs would also avoid such position without intervention of a human player.
3. I cannot speak for you; I was not bored at all.