ACF Bulletin No. 43 - November 13, 1999



On behalf of everyone involved in Australian chess, may I congratulate the

12 young Australians who represented us at the World juniors. Whilst most

finished mid field (as usual) their results represented great efforts on

their part. Without the benefit of a national academy and a lot more work

in the area of junior development, our juniors are always going to be

disadvantaged in comparison with their better resourced counterparts in

many parts of the world.


May I also thank Michael Gluzman and Manuel Weeks for their great efforts

on behalf of the juniors and Australian chess. Manuel in particular has

been looking after our junior interests overseas for several years and this

has required many personal sacrifices on his part. On this occasion he has

travelled all around Europe for the last three months supporting various

juniors in different competitions.




On the government front we are awaiting the report from Sports Minister

Jackie Kelly's Sports 2000 Task Force. This should be brought down soon and

we are hoping that this report will recommend (amongst many other things)

that chess be recognised and funded as a sport. We made a submission to

this Task Force back in August and this was supported by Tim Fischer and

Margaret May.


On the corporate front I have been contacting many leading corporations

trying to get in the door for a meeting to discuss a national corporate

sponsor for chess - so far without success.


In both cases it is a matter of never giving up!



The remaining two events for 1999 are: Geelong Open 20/21 November Cat 5

and Tuggeranong Vikings 11/12 December Cat 3. We hope to have a points

update next week - just a polite reminder to NSW that we are still awaiting

results from two tournaments.


I'm very grateful to Jason Lyons for putting the time, energy and thought

into revamping the Grand Prix for 2000. We need more chess

administrators/marketers like him involved in chess. Here are his plans for



The format for the 2000 Grand Prix is now in place. Entry forms go to the

printers tomorrow and will be sent to chess clubs across Australia this

week. It is hoped that organisers and players alike will benefit from the

restructured GP. More tournaments from NSW and Tasmania are already on

board, however I have yet to receive any replies to emails sent to chess

clubs and administrators in Victoria, SA and WA. Next year's format includes:

Better Marketing

All GP tournaments will receive a folder containing:

* Large format posters.

* Programs.

* Media Release.

* ACF letter.

Additionally, chess websites, magazines and journalists will be provided

with regular reports.


The points gap between classes has been halved to prevent the results of

smaller tournaments getting swamped by more financially secure events, as

has previously been the case. Now every result counts! There are three GP

classes, with points allocated for each division – Open, U/2000, U/1600,

Junior, Women and Unrated:

Class 1 Class 2 Class 3

1st 12 16 20

2nd 9 12 15

3rd 6 9 12

4th 4 6 9

5th 3 4 6

Each player's best 5 scores, by category, are accumulated to determine the

prize winners. The reduction to only counting a player's best 5 scores

offers all players a fairer chance of success in the 2000 Grand Prix.

The closer points allocation between categories gives more significance to

smaller events, encouraging broader participation.

At the same time, keeping a class structure maintains the recognition of

the bigger events that attract more entries and higher prize pools.


Fees for tournaments are now far more equitable, combining an affordable

up-front fee with a small payment per tournament entry.

Class 1: $50 up-front, plus $2 per player

Class 2: $100 up-front, plus $2 per player

Class 3: $150 up-front, plus $2 per player

Events held in Tasmania, SA, WA, and outside state capitals receive a $50

reduction in their up-front fee. Clubs in these areas can thus stage a

Class 1 event with no up-front fee.


Categories are determined by total prize money.

Class = TP/1000 (TP=total prizes, rounded to nearest class)

In practice, this formula works out as follows:

Class 1: Total prize money less than $1,500

Class 2: Total prize money $1,500 – $2,499

Class 3: Total prize money $2,500 or more


Open u/2000 u/1600 Junior

1st 1250 750 750 500

2nd 750 500 500 300

3rd 500 300 300 200

4th 300 200 200

5th 200

Women: 500

Unrated: 200

State Prizes: 200 Estimated prize pool: $9,000

a) Ratings from the December 1999 ACF list will be applied

b) A player may win one prize only.

c) Juniors must be u/18 years old on 1st January 2000.

d) State prizes are awarded to the highest point scorer, regardless of

division, in every state where there are no prize winners.

It is hoped that clubs and organisers are able to enter their events by

mid-December so that publicity kits can be issued to tournaments in

January. I can be contacted by email <> or phone

(0412 90 76 86). The 2000 Grand Prix - coming to a tournament near you.



One extra motion has been added to the agenda for the national conference

due to be held at the Mingara Club on 6 Jan 2000 at 10am.

That clause 7a of the constitution be amended to read "The council shall

meet at least four times per year with an interval of not more than four

months between meetings. Meetings may be 'in person', 'phone hook ups' or

'internet based'. At least one meeting per year must be an 'in person'

meeting. A meeting may be convened by the Secretary or President or by any

three delegates."




Entries to the Australian Championships are due in by 3 December. A

committee has been formed to review entries and make selections for the

championships based on the rules of the ACF Handbook (which are available

on the ACF webpage). The selection committee is Mike Partis (chair), Roly

Eime, Denis Jessop, Ian Murray, Mal Murrell, Gary Wastell and Peter Parr.




A reminder that all chess clubs in Australia are entitled to a free

licenced copy of the Swiss Perfect computer pairings programme. Just let me

know by email that you would like a copy and I'll make the necessary

arrangements. All schools are entitled to a free copy of the relevant state

licence on the proviso that we are advised. Now that several licences have

been issued to each and every state we are very hopeful that Swiss Perfect

will become the standard in Australia.




John Paul played Kasparov on ICC. He lost both games, though he put up

admirable resistance in the second game. Just as well he didn't know who he

was playing. The third game is also a K game vs GM Gilberto Milos (Brazil).


[Event "ICC 5 0"]

[Site "Internet Chess Club"]

[Date "1999.09.09"]

[Round "-"]

[White "cambala"]

[Black "wally"]

[Result "1-0"]

[ICCResult "Black resigns"]

[WhiteElo "2680"]

[BlackElo "2672"]

[Opening "Sicilian defense"]

[ECO "B40"]

[NIC "SI.43"]

[Time "10:53:57"]

[TimeControl "300+0"]


1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d3 d5 4. Nbd2 Nc6 5. g3 Bd6 6. Bg2 Nge7 7. O-O O-O

8. Qe2 Qc7 9. Re1 f6 10. c3 Bd7 11. Nh4 g5 12. Nhf3 d4 13. Nc4 e5 14. h4 h6

15. Nh2 Kg7 16. Rf1 Ng6 17. h5 Nge7 18. Bd2 b5 19. Nxd6 Qxd6 20. f4 a5 21.

Kh1 dxc3 22. bxc3 b4 23. Rf2 bxc3 24. Bxc3 Nd4 25. Bxd4 Qxd4 26. Rc1 Rac8

27. Nf3 Qd6 28. Qe3 exf4 29. gxf4 gxf4 30. Qd2 Nc6 31. Rg1 Kf7 32. Nh4 Ne5

33. Qxf4 Ke7 34. Bf1 Rg8 35. Rxg8 Rxg8 36. Qxh6 Ng4 37. Qh7+ Kf8 38. Ng6+

Rxg6 39. hxg6 Nxf2+ 40. Kg2 Be6 41. g7+ {Black resigns} 1-0


[Event "ICC 5 0"]

[Site "Internet Chess Club"]

[Date "1999.09.09"]

[Round "-"]

[White "wally"]

[Black "cambala"]

[Result "0-1"]

[ICCResult "White forfeits on time"]

[WhiteElo "2689"]

[BlackElo "2663"]

[Opening "Robatsch (modern) defense"]

[ECO "B06"]

[NIC "KF.05"]

[Time "10:43:00"]

[TimeControl "300+0"]


1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Bg5 a6 5. Qd2 Nd7 6. f4 b5 7. e5 Bb7 8.

O-O-O Nb6 9. Bd3 Qd7 10. Nf3 Bxf3 11. gxf3 d5 12. f5 gxf5 13. Rhg1 e6 14.

Ne2 Bf8 15. Nf4 h5 16. Rde1 Nc4 17. Qe2 Ne7 18. Bf6 Rh7 19. Bxe7 Qxe7 20.

Bxf5 Rh8 21. Bxe6 Bh6 22. Bxd5 Bxf4+ 23. Kb1 Nxb2 24. Kxb2 Qb4+ 25. Bb3

Qxd4+ 26. Kb1 O-O-O 27. Qe4 Qxe4 28. Rxe4 Bxh2 29. Rh1 Rd2 30. Bxf7 Kd8 31.

f4 Ke7 32. Bb3 c5 33. c3 Rf8 34. Rf1 c4 35. Bc2 h4 36. f5 h3 37. Rh4 Bxe5

38. Rxh3 Rh8 39. Re3 Kf6 40. Rfe1 Rhh2 41. Rxe5 Rxc2 42. Re6+ Kg5 43. Rxa6

Kxf5 44. Ka1 Rxc3 45. Rb1 Rd3 46. Rb6 c3 47. Rb6xb5+ Ke4 48. Rc5 Kd4 49.

Rc8 Rdd2 50. Rd8+ Kc4 51. Rc8+ Kd3 52. Rd8+ Kc2 53. Rc8 Rd3 54. a4 Rhd2 55.

a5 Rd5 56. Ra8 R2d4 {White forfeits on time} 0-1


[Event "ICC 5 0 u"]

[Site "Internet Chess Club"]

[Date "1999.09.09"]

[Round "-"]

[White "G-Milos"]

[Black "cambala"]

[Result "0-1"]

[ICCResult "White resigns"]

[WhiteElo "2707"]

[BlackElo "2644"]

[Opening "Sicilian: Kan, Polugaievsky variation"]

[ECO "B42"]

[NIC "SI.42"]

[Time "10:30:07"]

[TimeControl "300+0"]


1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Bd3 Bc5 6. Nb3 Ba7 7. Nc3 Nc6

8. O-O d6 9. Kh1 Nf6 10. Bg5 h6 11. Bh4 g5 12. Bg3 h5 13. f4 h4 14. Bf2

Bxf2 15. Rxf2 gxf4 16. Rxf4 Nh5 17. Rf2 Ne5 18. Be2 Ng3+ 19. Kg1 b5 20. Qd2

Nxe2+ 21. Qxe2 h3 22. g3 Bb7 23. Rd1 Qb6 24. Nd4 Rc8 25. Nb1 b4 26. c3 bxc3

27. Nxc3 Rc4 28. Nb3 Rg8 29. Kf1 a5 30. Rf4 Rxc3 {White resigns} 0-1




Venue: Nanyang Technological University, Singapore


When: Arrival 22 June 2000 - Departure 28 June 2000


Eligibility: All full time students in all institutes and universities all

over the world


Teams: 4 players + 2 reserves (teams must include at least one female who

will have to play at least 3 rounds). There will be a 3 point deduction for

all male teams although special consideration will be given to all male



Cost: S$250 per team. Teams will have to meet their own travelling costs

to/from the venue. Food, board and transport within Singapore will be

provided free of charge.


Prizes: 1st S$3,000 + trophies, 2nd S$1,500 + trophies, 3rd S$1,000 +

trophies, 4th S$400 + trophies, 5th S$300 + trophies. Four board prizes and

a best female prize will also be awarded.


Time controls: Two hours per side, 7 round swiss.


Matt Sweeney, Univ of Woolongong is interested in hearing from any

interested parties. His email address:




This will be held from 18-26 March 2000. Four players plus one reserve per

team. Entry fee US$250 per team. Teams pay own travelling costs but hosts

provide hospitality for one team per country. 9 round swiss 100 mins/game +

30 secs per move. Total prize money US$6,500. Chief Arbiter Casto Abundo.

Please let Robert Jamieson or myself know if you are interested in entering

a team.




There has been a little more correspondence on this issue and it is

included below. Before I put in some of my own ideas I'd appreciate it if

those in favour of changes (whether those that have been proposed or

revisions) could email their thoughts for publication.



The proposals set out in ACF Bulletin 38A were considered by the ACTCA

Committee at its meeting on Sunday, 7 November 1999. No formal decision was

taken regarding them. It was clear that the Committee fully supports in

principle the initiatives taken by the ACF Executive and,in particular, the

President, Graeme Gardiner, to reform the Australian chess scene. But there

was a general feeling that more work needs to be done on the proposals that

would implement these reforms.

The idea of a fee per rated game to raise revenue was felt to be unworkable

in practice and an annual membership fee of some kind was felt to be more


The proposed constitutional changes are, in places, self-contradictory and

further information from the ACF is to be sought to enable this matter to

be fully considered at our next meeting.

This arises partly from the statement that the changes would result in

State/Territory bodies ceding their powers to the ACF Board, thus relieving

them of their separate financial and legal responsibilities while later

indicating that half of the revenue from the new revenue-raising measures

would be returned to the States/Territories. If that is to happen the

States/Territories will not be relieved of their legal and financial

responsibilities whether they remain independent affiliates, or become

branches, of the ACF.

The proposed changes, in their reference to cession of powers, also do not

make it clear just what the role of the State/Territory Associations is to

be in the future. This really needs some clarification before the States

and Territories can form a view about the proposed new structure. It was

felt that strong regional associations are essential for the continued

development of chess at the grass roots level. The widespread geographical

location of the Australian centres of chess strength makes it difficult for

day-to-day organisation to be effective from a central location. Moreover,

strong local organisation can more readily help to deal with the perceived

decline in chess clubs that has recently been the concern of the ACF

Executive and the subject of some discussion through the ACF Bulletin.

My own thought on these matters, not necessarily those of the ACTCA

Committee, are as follows.

First, I agree with the Committee's views outlined above.

Without wishing to sound like an old fogey I, like quite a few others still

on the chess scene, have been involved in chess administration at one level

or another for around 45 years and, in that time, without wishing to

detract from a lot of hard work that has been put into Australian chess

administration, the emphasis has always been on a steady control at best so

that, as when I first took an interest in chess in the late 1940s/early

1950s there were two or three outstanding players there are still only

about that number. The overall standard is somewhat higher, but not

dramatically so. The initiatives that you are taking to raise the level of

chess in Australia are, I think, the first ever taken on that scale in

Australian chess history. To some they may sound idealistic but really they

are not, provided we keep our goals within reasonable limits. That is, we

need not aim to make chess a mass-participation activity. Whether you

regard chess as a sport, art or science, Australia has achieved standards

at the world level far beyond expectations in minor participation

activities in other areas, for example cycling, painting and classical

music, and atomic physics and medicine respectively so why not in chess?

Turning now to the restructuring proposals themselves - finance first -, I

have real difficulties with the fee-per-rated-game idea. From a practical

point of view it would prove very cumbersome and complicated both for the

tournament organisers and for the ACF - quite the opposite of the stated

aim. Because of byes and forfeits, organisers cannot tell in advance which

games will be rated and which not. Their alternatives would be (i) to

collect a fee at the start on the basis that all games would be rated, (ii)

to collect the fee round-by-round or (iii) to collect the fees at the end

of the event. (i) would involve possible refunds which is a bit of a

nuisance; (ii) would involve a lot of work often with requests met by a

promise to pay next week as the player has no money and (iii) would be

difficult as chasing up players puts a big burden on organisers. (Some

years ago we had a weekly playing fee system at the Canberra Chess Club and

it was a real administrative pain, to put it mildly, eventually being

abandoned in favour of increased entry fees.) Equally, the ACF would be

faced with a fairly monstrous task as, among other things, its Treasurer,

or some other official, would have to check that all fees had been paid so

that games could be rated and, just as importantly, the auditor satisfied

that proper accounting procedures had been followed.

A fee-per-tournament would be easier for organisers and a bit easier for

the ACF but more expensive for players because it would be collected with

entry fees and there would be no refunds for byes or forfeits. Were it

adopted, I would suggest a fee based on $1.00 per game, that is, $9 for a

9-round tournament, $7 for a 7-rounder etc. Most of our tournaments are

7-rounders but 5 or 9 are quite common.

There is, however, a presentational and philosophical objection to tying

increased revenue measures to tournaments in either way. The need for

increased revenue is to fund wide-ranging initiatives to develop Australian

chess in general. Tying the measures to games presents it as a rating fee

which it is not and which, if it were, would be too high. Moreover, it

places a higher burden on those who play most chess. In the ACT many of

those people are either retired, students or juniors - the people less able

to afford increased costs.

In either case there is also the practical question of what do the

organisers do with the money. Double handling through their State

Associations would be messy. The State ratings officer would not seem to be

an appropriate person. Logically, it should go direct to the ACF. There

would still need to be checks made to see that each game to be rated had

been paid for. Perhaps one other reform would be to create a central

ratings office and do away with State ratings officers. There could also be

some technical difficulties about keeping the membership register that is

required by the Associations Incorporation Act.

For those reasons, I favour a single annual membership fee. It would be

easiest to collect and could be presented as in respect of all the things

that the ACF will do for chess players.

The idea of attaching a magazine to the membership fee is, in my view, a

good one because a national magazine not only helps to inform members and

give them something tangible for their money but also, if it is a good one,

adds prestige to the organisation.

The need for extra revenue does need to be sold effectively as I think

there could be a real danger that ordinary club players could simply take

the view that all they get from the ACF is a rating and this could as

easily be done at a State level, especially as most players do not travel

beyond their own State. If such a view were to prevail in State

Associations, through pressure from ordinary club players, the result could

pose some real difficulties for the ACF.

I think many chess players, including myself, would not mind paying

something more for chess but I am not sure how widely-held this view is.

One slightly quirky feature: it is not clear what the benefits of ACF

membership would be but it would seem that I could, under the proposals

tying membership to rated games, get them as easily by playing one rated

game a year as by actively playing in tournaments.

Regarding the proposed constitutional changes, in addition to what has been

said above, I think there will have to be some clear details worked out

about the status of the ACF Branches. At present most State and Territory

Associations are incorporated and have certain statutory responsibilities.

If they are to remain incorporated and branches of the ACF, these

responsibilities will need to be taken into account. Winding them up could

be a bit messy. Having them continue but not as ACF Branches would be

contrary to the concept of the reforms. There are probably a lot of other

details that the constitutional subcommittee, if it goes ahead will need to

be aware of and to consider.

I am also a bit uneasy about the board of experts. Are they simply to be

expert administrators or are they to be people who know something about

chess. These days there is a fairly widely-held concept, held especially by

adminstrators, that an expert administrator can administer anything

regardless of specialist knowledge of the matter to be administered. To a

point that may be so but it also can lead to some disasters and to friction

between the administrators and the administered. The question of lack of

State representation as such may also cause some opposition, depending, I

think, on the amount of residual independence the States and Territories

will have - a matter that, as I have said, is not at present, clear. I

wonder whether there really is a conflict of interest between State and

Australian chess as the proposals suggest or whether, as is often the case,

the conflicts are of points of view or, in some cases, personalities, which

the reforms may not overcome.




Just a brief note about the re-structuring of Aussie chess, in my opinion,

some more attention should be given country players. I live in the

Goldfields in WA in a city of 40,000 people; we did have a YMCA chess club

here, but it shut down. People couldn't make it because of the unusual

times people work here (Kalgoorlie is a mining shift-working town), it was

only me and my dad and the guy organising it that turned up. I know a lot

of chess players here and the country is a gold mine of good chess players.

I'm sure that country WA isn't the only case of chess isolation, it would

be nice to have a chess club here again, perhaps there could be a

tournament in Kalgoorlie, I dunno, just something to promote chess in the




Just a thought but does chess really want to be the clever sport?

Australians aren't that keen on cleverness, so far as I can judge and chess

has a boring highbrow sort of image anyhow. I reckon you could sell blitz

on speed, pressure and excitement but I am just not sure that emphasising

the cleverness of the game is going to attract a broad range of people.

(Still, 'clever sport' better than 'the quiet game'.)

BOB GOODWIN, Treasurer/Secretary, Suncoast Chess Club:

Some feedback on the restructuring proposal. My concerns lie with the

charge of $1 per adult per rated game. I have no problem with this for Open

Tournaments and other publicised competitions, but I am concerned for the

tournaments that operate at club level and are sent in for rating. This

would mean that in addition to the nightly club fee players would also have

to pay $1 per game. As we run club comps all year round this would present

a problem for many of our club members. We have many pensioners amongst our

membership. Perhaps tournaments held on regular club nights can be exempt.

Our only other option would be not to submit the games for rating, however

we are currently striving to get more club games rated not less.


PETER PARR, 3 times President NSW Chess Association:

In response to the ACF President's request for feedback I submit the following

The current membership scheme throughout Australia needs to be streamlined.

At present each of the 7 states associations charge substantially different

fees for individuals to be members of their respective state associations.

NSW Chess Association charges the largest fee of $50 per member per year

and has lost 50% of its members (about 350 now) in recent years.


BRIAN NOVAG, a new player, goes to any of the 35 clubs affiliated to the

NSWCA and listed on the NSWCA web page. He simply wants to play competitive

chess and has never heard of the ACF or NSWCA. In the year 1999 NSWCA

membership forms are not available at NSWCA affiliated clubs. Brian Novag

then competes in 6 different club championships, the Western Suburbs

inter-club competition, 8 large tournaments in Sydney open to everyone

attracting about 70 players each.

Brian Novag has now played in a number of Australian Chess Federation Grand

Prix tournaments accumulating a lot of Grand Prix points and the Australian

Chess Federation pays him prize money from the Grand Prix. Brian Novag

completes 50 tournament games in each of the 3 rating periods. So Brian

Novag has now played 150 tournament games in many NSWCA affiliated clubs

and in the ACF Grand Prix. All games are processed for rating by the NSW

Chess Association and the Australian Chess Federation. His rating is

published and updated in the national chess magazine.

The state ratings officer has done a lot of work for Brian Novag, the ACF

has processed ACF Grand prix points and awarded him Grand Prix prize money.

Brian Novag has become the most active chess player in NSW. The ACF in

1999 has provided all these services to Brian Novag for FREE. The NSWCA in

1999 has provided all the services to Brian Novag for FREE. The Australian

Chess Forum has published his rating for FREE. Has Brian Novag seen a

membership form yet - NO. Why would he join paying $50 when in 1999 ACF

and NSW provide him with all these free services?

I am not surprised that NSWCA has lost half its entire membership but the

reasons are so obvious.

The AGM is next Sunday and important decisions must be made. States need

to communicate with their members 6 times per year for a maximum of $18 per

your (not $30 as in 1999) Non members should not receive benefits of

memberships for free. The membership fee must be reasonable, members must

receive value for money and periodicals paid for must be sent to all

financial members.


It saddens me greatly that NSW has lost half its members. United States

Chess Federation membership has increased annually from 8,000 to 85,000 in

the last 12 years with low membership fees and good value and constant



ACF Structure from Jan 2001

I recommend a flat low annual membership fee - the same fee for all 7

states - for all chess players - $20.

This fee to be collected by State Associations and used by the State

Associations. Players would be full members of the ACF and State

Association. Each state association would make its own arrangements to

communicate with their members. I suggest the quota system where the 7

states pay ACF $12,000 per year (NSW pays over $4,000) be abolished. The

ACF instead to receive its income from the rating system. (note over 70% of

the income of the Australian Bridge Federation and States comes from the

master points system) I suggest the rating fee be 15 cents per player per

game (so a 70 player, 9 round event rating fee is $94.50 the rating fees

being the ACF income.) The ACF should only rate events where all players

have paid their $20 membership fee - standard Australian wide.


Hundreds of players in NSW and other states are not members of ACF or State

Associations yet all their results are processed free and ratings given

without charge. This is unfair on all players who are paying membership

fees. Every game rated by US Chess federation is from members. Australia

should be the same.



MICHAEL GLUZMAN, Coach and International Master:

Dear All,


I am pleased to report a very good performance of all Victorian Juniors

participating at the World Junior Chess Championships.


Around 80 countries sent their representatives to the 1999 World Junior

Championship. The most competitors came from host-country Spain (76)

followed by Russia (32) and France(31).


Out of 30 prize-winners 16 came from a former Soviet Union (10 from Russia,

three from Ukraine, three from Georgia,) five from China, two from India,

one from Nederlands, one from Germany, one from Indonesia, one from Israel,

one from Vietnam, one from Romania and one from France. A big

disappointment was performance of the USA team which had GM Benjamin and GM

Fedorovich as their coaches.


Girls Under 10


Michelle Lee 5.5/11 Came 31 out of 62 players


It was her first world championship and she showed a good result 5.5 out of

11. The competition was tough: Anna Muzychuk the 1999 European Under 10

Girls Champion scored the same points as Michelle.


Michelle still underperformed if you take into account that some points

were lost because of inexperience: Michelle didn't claim a draw in round

one in inferior position, and lost a lot of points just because of

inexperience: at least in two games she continued to play quickly after

first time control is over.


But consider this: she won three games in less than twenty five moves,

including a win against a girl who came fifth overall!


Tairova,A-Lee,M Round 4

1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 3.Nc3 Nxd5 4.Nxd5 Qxd5 5.d4 Nc6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Be2 0-0-0

8.c3 e5 9.Be3 exd4 10.Bxd4 Qe4 11.Ng5 Bxe2 12.Qxe2 Qxg2 13.Nxf7 Nxd4

14.cxd4 Bb4+ 15.Kd1 Rxd4+ 16.Kc2 Rd2+ 17.Qxd2 Bxd2 18.Nxh8 Be3 19.Rad1

Qxf2+ 20.Kb1 Qf5+ 21.Ka1 Qf8 22.Rhe1 Bc5 23.Re2 Qxh8 24.Rde1 Kd7 game

continued for a little bit longer but white's position is absolutely lost.


She always played on top boards and unfortunately lost her last two games.

She will be a big hope for Australia next year as she can still play in the

same age category.


Boys Under 10


Ruperto Lugo 5/11 Came 67 out of 96


As Michelle he played for the first time. It took him while to find his

game first. Again we have seen some mistakes because of inexperience:

agreeing to a draw in absolutely winning position. The same pattern as most

Australian children under 12 and 10 played if game didn't last for more

than four hours than Australians would do well. If a game goes for more

than four hours than it is tough. As Michelle Ruperto had some very good

games but more in a positional manner. He won two games using concept

called "Minority Attack". Ruperto is a very talented chess player: during a

day-off he played in a lightning tournament and came ninth! I think if

Ruperto puts a good effort into his chess studies he should do very well

next year.


Boys Under 12


Richard Machet. 4.5/11 Came 82 out of 101


Before the tournament many people have told me that Richard is not

experience enough to play at the World Championship. With his Australian

rating of 1052 he was rated six hundred points lower than another

Australian representative Peter Jovanovic from Canberra. Never mind he

scored only 0.5 points less than Peter. In the first game he played against

a French player rated 2099. Only a blunder at a very end of this game

prevented Richard from achieving a draw. Richard played very good attacking

chess and showed a good result.


Boys Under 18

Sasha Soloveychik 3.5/11 Came 82 out of 90


Sasha played in the tournament which is much stronger than the Australian

Championship. There were players rated over 2500. Never mind he took a

challenge and started really well beating a Chinese player rated 2410!

After 5 rounds he was on 50%. The score which is considered very good for

Under 18 Division. Sasha is also three years younger than most his

competitors. He didn't finish that well mainly due to inexperience. Sasha's

Fide Rating is expected to be around 2200! Well done Sasha!


I immensely enjoyed coaching Victorian Children. I have spoken with many

other coaches from different countries and have bought at least 15 books in

Russian Language in order to pick up all new ideas about coaching children.

I will comprehend all those ideas and look forward to apply them in

Australia. I will also give my recommendations to the ACF how to create

better opportunities in Australia for those who want to represent Australia



At the end I want to say thank you to all our sponsors: Bialik College, Box

Hill Chess Club, Chess Ideas, Essex Heights Primary School, Mount Scopus

Memorial College, United Energy and every one who help us with our trip.



Best wishes to all


Graeme Gardiner


Graeme Gardiner

President, Australian Chess Federation

C/- Somerset College, Somerset Drive, Mudgeeraba Q 4213

Phone 07 5530 3777 (w) 07 5530 5794 (h) Fax 07 5525 2676 (w)


Chess - the clever sport!