A Brutal book review

SPRAGGETT ON CHESS

Some books should have never been written! The following is a criticism by Mr. Edward Winter (http://www.chesshistory.com/) of one such book …written by the well known Canadian mathematician/comedian Dr. Nathan Divinsky.

I have to confess that I have never read the book that is the subject of this brutally honest critique. Call me biased, but many years ago I learned never to pay good money for anything written by the good doctor!
I now give the floor to Edward Winter, one of the world’s most respected authorities on chess history and related matters:

”Worst-ever Chess Book?”

”Any serious contender for the Worst-ever Chess Book Award’ needs to display a comprehensive range of defects, for the competition is tough.

Spectacular incompetence with basic facts is a sine qua non. There must also be many typos (or ‘mere typos’, as some self-exculpatory authors like to call them), with at least one or two jumping out to hit the eye from almost any page where the opened volume happens to expose itself.

The prose should be excruciating. Wily and/or inept propaganda is de rigueur. As its crowning glory, the book should contain the uncredited lifting of other people’s writing, whilst also featuring self-congratulatory words about its superiority over rival titles.

At this point, a number of readers will naturally be anticipating the nomination of Nathan Divinsky’s The Batsford Chess Encyclopedia, but we intend to consider another front-runner, a 191-page hardback published in India in 2001: Chess (Basics, Laws and Terms) by B.K. Chaturvedi”. (!!!)…”

………………………………………………………………………………………….
This is about the closest thing to being nice that Mr. Winter allows himself to go with respect to Mr. Divinsky’s book! I recommend the readers , should they be interested in the hack job delivered to Mr. Chaturvedi’s book, follow the link given above.

Now let us continue to Mr. Winter’s official and very BRUTAL book review of The Batsford Chess Encylopedia:

”A CATASTROPHIC ENCYCLOPEDIA”
source: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/divinsky.html

The dust-jacket of The Batsford Chess Encyclopedia by Nathan Divinsky trumpets ‘the game’s most complete and up-to-date work of reference’. What is provided is a shambles full of mistakes, misjudgements and misprints from cover to cover.

The present review merely aims to point out a warning sample.

Despite a further dust-jacket pledge of ‘explanations of all technical terms’, there are many omissions, such as ‘bind’, ‘excelsior’, ‘skewer’ and ‘transposition’.

What definitions we are offered are frequently casual and imprecise. On page 86 a hole is described as ‘the square in front of a backward pawn’, which is contradicted by the editor’s own use of the word on page 154.

On page 146 the description of the Forsyth (misspelt as Forsythe) Notation as ‘a simple and effective method of describing a chess position’ is belied by a mix-up over white and black bishops in the illustrative diagram and caption.
Page 157: the units in a pawn chain do not have to be opposed by an enemy pawn chain’.
Page 211: Divinsky fails to record that there are two separate versions of the Tarrasch trap.

Page 232: a waiting move does not necessarily occur in the ending.

Even the definition of resign on page 174 (‘to give up the game before being checkmated’) is inadequate because a player may resign by mistake (as in the second diagram on page 54) and even, in theory, when his opponent has insufficient mating material.


Definitions need proper thought to cover all eventualities, however rare.

There is also little rhyme or reason to the selection and balance of biographical entries. Figures such as Albin and Przepiórka have no entry at all, although room is found for a five-word one on José Ferrer (‘Movie actor who enjoys chess’).
Denker, a US champion, gets two lines, but, just overleaf, Divinsky awards himself five times as much space, taking the opportunity to record for posterity that he was ‘on the BBC chess TV show during the London half of the Kasparov v Karpov match of 1986’.


(Divinsky scatters numerous self-mentions throughout the encyclopedia, notably for Warriors of the Mind, a book widely derided by critics.)

Page 87 of the encyclopedia calls Nimzowitsch and Réti the leaders of the Hypermodern school, but whereas the former has a four-column entry with an illustrative game, the latter gets only one column and no game (just an over-familiar endgame study).
A composer of the stature of Rinck receives, apart from an illustrative composition, a grand total of four words. Problemists, and especially problem terminology, are treated with even greater disregard.

Hübner’s name is spelt three different ways in the book’s first 31 pages.

Page 2 refers to the ‘Suisse’ (instead of Sousse) Interzonal of 1967.
Other assorted misspellings include ‘Teichman’, ‘Le Lionnaires’ (instead of Le Lionnais), ‘Kerchnoi’, ‘Nimjowitsch’, ‘English’ (for Englisch), ‘Boundarevsky’, ‘Duz Khotmirsky’, ‘Du-Duz-Khotimirsky’, ‘Blackburn’, ‘Card’ (Caro), ‘zugswang’, ‘Anderseen’, ‘The Philodorian’, ‘Philador’s Legacy’ and many more.

Some foreign accents are put on once in a while, but most never at all.
Page 5: Alekhine was initially buried in a cemetery (‘cemetary’ in Divinsky’s spelling) in Portugal, not France.

Page 9: the move 1 a3 was not ‘first played by Anderssen in his 1858 match with Morphy’.
Page 36: Corzo should be described as Cuban Champion.


Page 91: Jaffe did not win ‘two tournament games from Capablanca’.

Pages 115-117: the three-page entry on London makes no mention at all of the 1922 tournament, which featured three world champions.
Page 131: the entry on Modern Chess Openings (21 lines) does not even name Walter Korn, the person responsible for the book for the past 50 years.
Page 194: Capablanca’s simultaneous score should read 102 wins and not 120.
The encyclopedia also contains many self-contradictions. For example, page 40 says that variations in castling continued until the seventeenth century and, in Italy, until the twentieth century. But page 178 asserts that ‘there was ambiguity about castling until about 1474’.

Page 62 announces that Morphy won the world championship, but elsewhere (page 240, for instance) it is stated that the world championship did not exist until two years after Morphy’s death.
Page 81 reports that Steinitz used the term hanging pawns, but page 144 states that Nimzowitsch introduced it.
The entry on Kostich (or Kostic – Divinsky varies the spelling elsewhere) claims (page 104) that in 1916 he set a simultaneous record of 30 blindfold games, yet page 175 says that Réti achieved a blindfold simultaneous record in 1925 by playing 29 games.

Book references are full of mistakes.
For further reading on Charousek (page 42), two books are recommended, but both authors’ names are misspelt.
Page 68 asserts that Fischer’s Chess Games was written by two people whose names, in fact, appear nowhere in that book.

The titles of two of Purdy’s world championship match books (page 167) are an invention.

A minor book on Smyslov is mentioned, but not his important autobiography (page 196).
English-language titles and publication dates are often given in contradictory forms in different entries; for example, Fine’s psychology work on page 67 and page 167, and many other masters’ books, even the best known ones in chess literature. Page 110 and page 204: Lasker’s Manual is given contradictory titles and contradictory publication dates.

Foreign words/titles are massacred. The entry for Kahn on page 93 lists four titles, with several errors.


Breaking with literary convention and common sense, Divinsky has translated into English many (but not all – there is never any consistency) foreign book titles, a procedure which gives the false impression that English-language editions have been published (e.g. ‘Ragozin’s Best Games’ on page 172).

On the other hand, when such an edition does exist, fresh misunderstandings arise. For example, page 30: David Bronstein – Chess Improviser appeared in Russian in 1976, but not in English until 1983.

Confusing misprints abound. On page 165 a title is not italicized when it needs to be, but a couple of pages later two authors’ names are italicized when they shouldn’t be.

Chess periodicals are treated with similar negligence. The American Chess Bulletin cannot be described (page 7) as ‘bi-monthly’. Purdy’s famous Australasian magazine is repeatedly given as ‘Australian’. Page 93: the information about Kagan’s magazine is wrong.
Page 142: New in Chess (which appears only in English nowadays) is not a ‘monthly magazine’.

Divinsky writes both ‘La Strategy’ and ‘La Strategie’ (without the required accent on the e, of course).

Page 242: ‘Belinger Schachzeitung’. Berliner is meant.

Almost all the illustrative games, positions and compositions are hackneyed, as are the photographs.

In another unkept promise, the dust-jacket twice speaks of ‘photographs of all the great players’, but the articles on such leading figures as Bogoljubow, Nimzowitsch and Réti remain unillustrated, even though there are pictures of a number of present-day British players and, for instance, of Yuri Razuvaev, or ‘Rasvvayev’ as the caption calls him. (The woefully inaccurate and incomplete index offers a third choice: Razuvayev.)
The book purports to give exact birth and death dates of personalities whenever possible, yet despite writing on page 73 that Gaige’s books are ‘indispensable for chess authors’, Divinsky is clearly unfamiliar with Gaige’s indispensable 1987 work Chess Personalia.
The result is disaster. Dozens – yes, literally dozens – of dates are unnecessarily wrong, incomplete or missing.

If people like Gaige put nearly 25 years’ research into a book, why can’t people like Divinsky be bothered to take notice?

An exposé of the encyclopedia’s treatment of dates could be the subject of a lengthy separate review, but two brief points will suffice for now:

Sergey Smagin (page 195) mysteriously has no birth reference at all, and Udovčić, Yudovich and Lundin are believed by Divinsky still to be alive. Unbeknown to themost complete and up-to-date encyclopedia’, they died in 1984, 1987 and 1988 respectively.


Although Divinsky is so manifestly out of his depth on even elementary factual matters, he is seldom shy about dispensing his opinions and prejudices.


Page 239 pontificates that the books of Znosko-Borovsky ‘have not stood the test of time’, ignoring the fact that several of them were/are still in print decades after Znosko-Borovsky’s death.

(The test of time? There are few pages in Divinsky’s encyclopedia that have stood the test of two minutes’ scrutiny.)

Passing over Ernst Grünfeld’s monumental theoretical activity, Divinsky attacks the man: Grünfeld was ‘uneducated, unsophisticated, superstitious and almost primitive’ (page 78).


The appalling truth is that he has repeated dozens – yes again, literally dozens – of factual mistakes in the Golombek book, including many that were pointed out by reviewers at the time.
None of this inhibits the latest Batsford handout from informing the public that Divinsky’s encyclopedia is ‘completely new’ and ‘the definitive work of reference’. GM E.Grunfeld ?!

In reality, of course, The Oxford Companion to Chess is so overwhelmingly superior in all respects that direct comparisons with The Batsford Chess Encyclopedia would be piteous.
”It would be like comparing a Rolls-Royce and a rattle-trap.”



POST SCRIPT: SINCE THE TIME THAT THIS CRITIQUE FIRST APPEARED IN PRINT, MR. WINTER HAS ELECTED DR.NATHAN DIVINSKY’S BOOK ONE OF THE WORST 5 BOOKS WRITTEN IN THE LAST 20 YEARS!

On page 174 we are informed that ‘Reshevsky is a short, grim and determined man with little charm or graciousness’.

The entry on the ‘controversial’ Campomanes is predictably hostile. True to Batsford’s style of sledgehammer propaganda, the criticism is repeated in the entries on Karpov and Kasparov, in identical words both times.
Equally predictably, the entry for Batsford’s controversial chess adviser (page 97) is abject flattery. It takes up more space than the article on Gunsberg, who was a world title match contender.
When Divinsky likes someone, the honey flows. Averbakh is ‘charming’. Dlugy is ‘charming’. Larsen is ‘charming’. Seirawan is ‘charming’. Short is ‘charming’. Ståhlberg is ‘charming’. Timman is ‘charming’.

Spassky’s third wife is ‘charming’. Marco’s annotations are ‘charming’. Baden Baden is ‘charming’. Montpellier is ‘charming’. And so, of course, is Lodewijk Prins. Prins charming.

Divinsky thrives on rumours, and much of what he tells us is like gossip over backyard clothes-lines.

Sentences begin with ‘Some say that …’, ‘It is said that …’, ‘He is said to have lost …’, ‘Janowski is reputed to have said that …’, etc.

Numerous articles are childish (e.g. the patzer entry on page 156 and the Carlsbad material on page 199).

The entries on both Korchnoi and Maróczy make a fuss over that occultist yarn about a game between the two players.

Perhaps the paranormal can also explain why Divinsky unwittingly claims on page 110 that James Gilchrist co-authored a book which was not published until 13 years after his death.

Many sentences are impenetrable.

Page 66 says that Filip ‘is a lawyer and can be called Dr Filip’.

Page 76 proclaims that Gligorić evolved to a curious cross between Rubinstein and Capablanca’.
Page 101 tells us that the knight is ‘one of the most interesting pieces on the chessboard’ (which ones are more interesting and which less?) and that knights can be quite effective’ (which pieces can’t be?).

Page 198 speculates implausibly that after the 1972 match ‘Fischer was completely wiped out of chess by Spassky’.

Worst of all, Divinsky presents other people’s writings as his own.

For example, on page 37 he says of Capablanca: ‘What others could not discover in a month’s study, he saw at a glance’. Word for word, that is what Reuben Fine wrote about the Cuban on page 111 of his 1952 book The World’s Great Chess Games.
Without a murmur of acknowledgment, Divinsky’s book lifts countless chunks from The Encyclopedia of Chess edited by Harry Golombek (Batsford, 1977).
The fact that Divinsky was part of the 13-member team of contributors to that earlier volume hardly entitles him to present under his own name the work (even entire entries or paragraphs) of the other contributors, notably the late Wolfgang Heidenfeld’s technical and illustrative material.
The déjà vu starts on the very first page (see the article on adjournment) and endures until the very last entry in the book (Zwischenzug).
But Divinsky not only copies, he copies undiscerningly. For instance, he fails to correct Pachman’s Czechmate in Prague to Checkmate in Prague (page 155) or Young’s Chess Strategies to Chess Strategetics (page 237).

Rebellion at CYCC

SPRAGGETT ON CHESS

The Canadian Open  got underway this weekend in Toronto.  Close to 300 players including a handful of GMs and IMs braved attending an event directed by the notorious IA Mark Dutton.  Games can be followed at MonRoi and some photos can be found at this link.
But the story this weekend is the decision of the organizing committee of the CYCC (the Canadian Youth Chess Championship, which just finished) to  not give the CFC the profits from the tournament. The CFC received $20,000 from entry fees (as is usual)  The figure going around for the profit is  $18,000.  The committee took a vote before the championship began to re-distribute the profits as prizes to the youngsters.
Now the CFC is claiming rights to have the profits for its own designs, even though the organizer Viktor Itkine wrote that the contract with the CFC clearly states the contrary:
”Here is the quote from 2011 CYCC Richmond Hill bid:

“We guarantee the CFC a minimum of $15,000 from the entry fees, and a maximum of $20,000. This protects the CFC in case of a low turnout, and if there is an above-average attendance, the surplus will distribute to WYCC, PanAM, NYCC entrants.”
No doubt this situation can grow into a serious legal problem should a compromise not be reached in coming days.
In my view, this rebellion is the natural result of a growing distrust of the CFC Executive in recent years.  At the 2007 Ottawa  CYCC the organizer Gordon Ritchie made huge profits and gave them voluntarily to the CFC to be used for the promotion of youth chess.  What happened is that apart from $8,000 that was mis-spent on a reckless venture with the now defunct Karpov Academy (Toronto) the remaining $22,000 (there is some doubt of the exact quantity here, which may be even more!) disappeared without a trace and has never been accounted for.  Fraud is entirely possible.

Gordon Ritchie cynically wrote of a ‘black hole’ in the CFC, but ofcourse we all know that there is no black hole.  Nor does money have legs and run away.  And this incident is just one of a handful of disappearing acts involving tens of thousands of dollars.  Trillium comes readily to mind ($120,000 disappeared without any accounting) And at the 2006 CYCC organizers Hal Bond and Patrick MaDonald lost track of some $16,000.

I will write more on this item later today.

PS
I was informed this evening, after having published the above , that the 2007 CYCC in Ottawa actually gave the CFC $54,000 up and above of the usual ”$20,000” share that the CFC usually gets in these events.  Of this $54,000 only $8,000 is actually accounted for. The remaining $46,000 remains, to this day, unaccounted for.


 
Hal Bond was CFC president that year.  The year before he was VP of the OCA when $120,000 of Trillium Foundation money went unaccounted for (Trillium cut off the OCA as a result). Again in 2006 , Bond and Patrick MacDonald were involved in another case of missing money ($16,000) from the CYCC that they both organized.

Sunday’s chess puzzles

SPRAGGETT ON CHESS

Good morning, Sunday! Today’s Troitzky masterpiece has to do with the theme of domination. More precisely, the domination of the Rook on an open board by a mere Bishop! Troitzky very much liked to amuse us with examples where the normal value of pieces no longer applies. In the position below White has threats to win with his a-pawn. However, to advance it immediately would allow the Black Rook to sneak behind it! So you must find a clever idea before advancing this pawn.
White to play and win. Good luck!

Troitzky 1866-1942

TODAY’S CHESS COMBOS

(FROM THE GAMES OF GM HARRY GOLOMBEK)
1

Golombek vs Reginald Broadbent, London, 1946
WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN
2
Golombek vs Jaroslav Sajtar, Karlovy Vary, 1948
WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN
3
Golombek vs Otto Zimmermann, Venice, 1949
WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN

4

Golombek vs Nicholas Rossolimo, Venice, 1950
WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN

5

Golombek vs David Hooper, Hastings, 1952
WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN

6

Golombek vs Nikolay Minev, Moscow, 1956
WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN

H.Golombek (1911-1995)

Harry Golombek was an important figure in a resurgence of the game in Britain after he began to publicize it in The Times. His name appeared on the prize list of the British championship 14 times, and he was British champion in 1947, 1949 and 1955. He played for England at the Olylmpics not less than 9 times! Golombek was the author of 38 books on chess.

A native of London, he became London Boys’ Champion in 1929 at the age of 18. He studied at London University and represented Britain at world tournaments in Warsaw in 1935, Stockholm in 1937, and Buenos Aires in 1939. He was awarded the IM title quite young, and in 1985 was awarded the GM title (honorary).

He spent World War II as a code-breaker (enigma-right), then resumed his career, which blossomed after the war.
He wrote about chess for The Times for 40 years, from 1945 to 1985, and for The Observer from 1955 to 1979. He also contributed to British Chess Magazine and edited the Encyclopedia of Chess, a standard reference work for chess writers around the world.

In 1966, he made the Queen’s Birthday List, the first honoree to receive the title of Officer of the British Empire “for services to chess.” Harry was a well known aribter, and served in that function at the 1959 Candidates Tournament, as well as the 1963 World Championship match between Botvinnik and Petrosian.

I met Golombek only once, during the 1989/90 annual Hastings tournament. He used to be found every evening in the smoking room of the hotel where the participants were housed, chatting with friends. He was an expert story teller, and his long involvement with chess meant that he personally knew Alekhine, Capablanca, Lasker and all the other world champions! More often than not he would fall asleep in the big arm chair that he claimed as his own!

SPRAGGETT ON CHESS

Today’s insight into the meaning of LIFE

SPRAGGETT ON CHESS

But tomorrow may rain, so I’ll follow the sun
The Beatles

“I get drunk, I get mad, I get thrown from horses, I get all sorts of things.But I don’t get edited. I’d rather see my wife get fucked by the stableboy.”

William Faulkner

One of the things I like best about men is they’re a little vulnerable. Marilyn Monroe

A well dressed woman, even though her purse is painfully empty, can conquer the world.

Louise Brooks

Don’t pay any attention to what they write about you. Just measure it in inches.
Andy Warhol

Everybody’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way: stop participating in it. Chomsky

It’s not fatness, its development
Brigitte Bardot

…………………………………………………………………………………..

If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.
Emma Goldman (1869-1940) feminist activist

…………………………………………………..

Television has brought back murder into the home – where it belongs.
Hitchcock

…………………………………………………………………………………………….

RANDOM SELECTION OF PHOTOS
I’ll be back soon, mom!

Nice shoes babe!

Raymond Chandler: fighting for the Canadian Gordon Highlanders 1917
My god, just the sight of him must have made the enemy laugh

Soon I will have Harvey licking my boots!

Jane Fonda: Really, she must have studied for the part by hiding in the Men’s Washroom and watching how men hold it!

A best lookin’ knee contest! How square can you get?

The days before radar were tough on the butt!

Looks like a good book!

I said ”Just stand in front of the camera, relax and act normal”

Who U calling a faggotty pimp?

We all feel like that from time to time

Whoopy Doo!

Bobby Gentry can sing real good too!

The hair cut is 5cents. But I cut your throat for free.

She did it !

Work harder or I will go down there and pussy whip you!

Michael Jackson he is not

I’ve had enough of these first round pairings!

May I suggest that you might feel more at ease with your shirt off?

Thankyou, Jesus!


Finally an appreciative music fan!

Bruce Harper in disguise?

………………………………………………………………………………………

THE ONE AND ONLY AUDREY HEPBURN


Passed pawns

Every game of chess has a story to tell, some central focus or theme that stands out that strongly influences the play. Games featuring pawn races and mutliple pawn-promotions can produce some of the most fascinating struggles. There is something magical about pawns when they advance and threaten to promote: not just the fact that pawns can promote, but rather how a mere pawn of humble origins can all of a sudden turn into a game winner
The position below is from the game between  IM Cruz and GM Peralta played just a few days ago in the international tournament in  Montcada i Reixac  (Spain).  This game attracted my attention because of the struggle of the passed pawns.  Both sides are trying to win and this game was very important for deciding the top prizes.

POSITION AFTER 30 MOVES:
 

GM  F. PERALTA  (ARG)
IM  C. CRUZ  (PERU)

The position is very assymetrical: Black has a Queen and 2-connected passed pawns on the Queenside.  As compensation, White has Rook , Bishop and a very strong passed d-pawn.   First impressions are that Black must be winning somethere, that all he need do is try to prevent the d-pawn from Queening and advance his connectors.  However, things are not as simple as that: White’s pieces are active and coordinate very effectively, as we shall soon see.  In actual fact, the game is roughly balanced–and a draw is the correct result.  But the fight is very sharp and immensely entertaining!
It is White’s move and he must plough the way for the d-pawn to advance
31. Re7 Qd8 32. Rb7!
A very important move!  Later the threat of Rb8 will oblige Black to lose a tempo by moving his King off of the 1st rank.  In the meantime, Black must advances his connectors…

32… b4! 33. d7 Kh7! 34. Be5!

It is remarkable how White is able to use his Rook and Bishop for both defence and offence at the same time!  Here White threatens B-d4-b6. 
So  Black has no time to waste:

34… a4! 35. Bd4! a3! 36. Bb6
It is now evident that the Black Queen will have to sacrifice itself for the Pawn in a move or two

36… Qf6! 37. d8Q mission accomplished 37… Qxd8 38. Bxd8

White has made a lot of progress: his passed pawn was so strong that it won the Black Queen!  However, now White can not stop one of the Black passers from Queening! 

38… a2! 39. Ra7 b3! 40. Kh2!!
The only move to save the game!  Black was threatening 40…b2 41.Rxa2 b1=Q-ch winning the Rook and the game. White’s last move means that the Black pawn will not promote with check.
40… b2 41. Rxa2 b1Q 42. Rd2!
White sets up a fortress and the game is a positional draw, which was agreed to after a few more moves.  A fascinating struggle!
42… Qe1 43. Ba5 Qc1 44. Bb4 f6 45. Rd4 Qb2 46. Kg1 Qc1 47. Kh2 Qf1 48. Rf4 Qa1 49. Bd6 Qb2 50. Rf3 h5 51. Bg3 Qb4 [½:½]

Today’s insight into the meaning of LIFE

SPRAGGETT ON CHESS
”Be isolated, be ignored, be attacked, be in doubt, be frightened, but do not be silenced.”
Bertrand Russell

”The older one grows, the more one likes indecency.”
Virginia Woolf

‘The man who views the world at 50 the same way as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.”-Mohammad Ali
”Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”Benjamin Franklin
When asked what Gandhi thought of Western civilization: “It would be a good idea.”

”Sacred cows make the best hamburger.”-Abbie Hoffman

”No question is so difficult to answer as that to which the answer is obvious.”
-George Bernard Shaw

…………………………………………………………………………………………….

QUIZ OF THE DAY:

CAN YOU IDENTIFY THIS 2011 CFC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE ?

 HINT:  HE IS FROM ONTARIO AND LIKES ASS!

……………………………………………………………………………………….

Oh that is good!

……………………………………………………………………………………….

Don’t get cheeky! We are watching you, Spraggett!

……………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………….

New CMA publicity campaign/poster for chesstalk.com

Hey!
”IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE FUNNY?”

…………………………………………….

HOW TO STOP A TRAIN DEAD IN ITS TRACKS WITH JUST A STICK:


I think that I’m in love!

……………………………………………………………..
One guess what they did on their vacation?

The one that gotta’ away!

……………………………………………………………………………………

OTTAWA CHESS CLUB REUNION


………………………………………………………………………………………………..

LIVE LONG AND EMBARRASS YOUR CHILDREN!


………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
APPLES ARE GOOD FOR YOU

SPRAGGETT ON CHESS