Plus, the first couple of times I tried it came about because I lost a bet. Twice.

Back in the 1980s, Jim Kulbacki (<Resignation Trap>) and I went to a lot of tournaments together. Jim's style was eclectic (I'm being nice and avoiding the word eccentric). For example, he often played the Polish with White and the Lativan Gambit with Black. But the one thing he never played was 1.e4.

One day, he got paired with a guy named Les who <always> played the Latvian Gambit himself. I pleaded with Jim to play 1.e4 to see how he would handle the Latvian with White.

Jim was intrigued, but doubtful. "What if he plays the Sicilian?" "Don't worry--Les never plays the Sicilian. I'll tell you what. If he plays the Sicilian, I'll play 1.b4 in my next game!"

So Jim played 1.e4. Les played the Sicilian. What could I do?

<Moody - Kebrdle (Futurity Kickoff, Ann Arbor, Mich. (2), 16.10.1982

1.b4 d5 2.Bb2 Qd6 3.Nc3>

Taking your opponent out of the book is one thing. Heading for a pre-literate society is quite another. I have no other comment on the game, which gets weird after this point.

<3...Nf6 4.Nb5 Qb6 5.e3 c6 6.Bd4 Qd8 7.Na3 e5 8.Bxe5 Bxb4 9.Bb2 Qe7 10.Qc1 0-0 11.c4 Ne4 12.Nf3 Bg4 13.Nc2 Ba5 14.Ncd4 Re8 15.Nb3 Bb6 16.Be2 Nd7 17.0-0 Bxf3 18.Bxf3 Ne5 19.Nd4 Nd3 20.Qc2 Nxb2 21.Qxb2 Bxd4 22.Qxd4 dxc4 23.Rfc1 c5 24.Qxc4 Nxd2 25.Qxc5 Nxf3+ 26.gxf3 Qxc5 27.Rxc5 b6 28.Rc7 Rec8 29.Rac1 Rxc7 30.Rxc7 g6 31.Kg2 Kg7 32.Kg3 Kf6 33.h4 h5 34.Kf4 b5 35.Rb7 a6 36.Rb6+ Ke7 37.Kg5 Ra7 38.f4 Rc7 39.Rxa6 Rc5+ 40.Kh6 Rc2 41.f5 gxf5 42.Kxh5 Rxf2 43.Kg5 f6+ 44.Kg6 f4 45.exf4 Rxf4 46.h5 Rg4+ 47.Kh7 b4 48.Ra7+ Kd6 49.h6 Rg2 50.Kh8 f5 51.h7 f4 52.Rg7 f3 53.Kg8 Rxg7+ ½-½>

A few years and many tournaments later, Jim was paired with a guy named Stan and asked me what he played with Black. "The French", I replied.

This intrigued Jim, who had been looking at a line against the French, but he was still doubtful. "What if he plays the Sicilian? "Don't worry--Stan <never> plays the Sicilian."

So Jim played 1.e4. Stan played 1...c5. Jim looked at me. What could I do?

<Moody - Bailey
Michigan Open Monroe, Mich. (5), 01.09.1986

1.b4 Nf6 2.Bb2 e6 3.b5 a6 4.a4 axb5 5.axb5 Rxa1 6.Bxa1 b6 7.e3 Bb7 8.Nf3 Be7 9.Be2 d6 10.0-0 Nbd7 11.c4 0-0 12.Qc2 e5 13.Nc3 e4 14.Nd4 Nc5 15.f3 Qd7 16.fxe4 Nfxe4 17.Nf5 Bf6 18.Bg4 Qd8 19.d4 Nxc3 20.dxc5 Be4 21.Qb3 Ne2+ 22.Kf2 Bxf5 23.Bxf5 Bxa1 24.Kxe2 Be5 25.cxb6 cxb6 26.g3 g6 27.Be4 Qg5 28.Bd5 Qh5+ 29.Kd3 Qxh2>

click for larger view

My only real chess skill, honed through years of incessant practice, is swindling my way out of lost positions. Here comes another one.

<30.c5 dxc5 31.Bxf7+ Kg7 32.Qe6 Qxg3 33.Qe7 Bf4 34.Be6+ Kh6 35.Rh1+ Qh2 36.Rxh2+ Bxh2 37.Qxf8+ 1-0>

Yep. Just too darned positional for my taste.

It's funny: normally, I hate closed, positional, gotcha chess. True, the Polish can lead to such a game. But so do the Sicilian and the French, and anytime White plays 1.e4, he gives Black a chance to opt for those defenses and nine times out of ten they wind up in a slogging game.

Anyway. I feel the attitude of the players is more important than the specific opening. Closed games give more opportunities for slow play, but it's hardly inevitable. Someday I'll have to post the French Defense I won after my opoonent lost two tempos by winning a piece with check. That was not slogging!

My 9 year-old student went 4.5/5 and took First Place in the Class B section at the Masters/Experts/Class tournament last weekend. I was wondering if you knew of any younger Class section winner from your times as the Michigan Chess editor. Thank you very much,

Certainly not in Class B! I'll go through the old magazines the next couple of days to see what I can find.

Yes, there may be a new kid in town, but some things never change. Today's lunacy revolves around:

<The John von Neumann Win-Win Situation Award for the Line with the Most Balanced Chances for Either Side to Win>

For the sake of comparison, in the entire database White wins 36.99%, Black wins 26,.91%, a difference of 10.08%.

1. Nimzo-Indian, Fischer Variation (E43) (33.8%, 33.8%, 0.0%)

2. English, Symmetrical, Benoni Formation (A31) (32.7%, 32.5%, 0.2%)

3. Sicilian, Dragon, Classical (B74) (33.7%, 33.9%, 0.2%)

4. Queen's Pawn Game (A45) (35.0%, 35.3%, 0.3%)

5. Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3 (B43) (34.0%, 34.3%, 0.3%)

6. Sicilian (B53) (33.8%, 33.5%, 0.3%)

7. Nimzo-Indian, Leningrad (E30) (32.9%, 33.2%. 0.3%)

8. Sicilian, Closed (B23) (35.7%, 36.1%, 0.4%)

9. Queen's Pawn Game (A46) (32.2%, 32.7%, 0.5%)

10. English (A36) (26.7%, 26.2%, 0.5%)

11. Queen's Gambit Declined Slav, Exchange Variation (D13) (21.8%, 22.3%, 0.5%)

12. Sicilian, Taimanov Variation (B49) (31.1%, 31.7%, 0.6%)

13. English, Symmetrical Variation (A32) (32.2%, 31.6%, 0.6%)

14. Grunfeld, Russian (D98) (28.6%, 27.9%, 0.7%)

15. Sicilian, Najdorf (B96) (34.9%, 34.1%, 0.8%)

16. Nimzo-Indian, Samisch (E24) (37.1%, 36.3%, 0.8%)

17. Sicilian, Alapin (B22) (31.6%, 32.5%, 0.9%)

18. Sicilian, Fischer-Sozin with ...a6 and ...b5 (B87) (34.7%, 35.6%, 0.9%)

19. French, Exchange (C01) (29.9%, 28.9%, 1.0%)

20. Sicilian, Scheveningen (B84) (33.5%, 32.5%, 1.0%)

21. Two Knights (C56) (35.0%, 36.0%, 1.0%)

1. Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3, Main line with 8...dc and 9...cd (E57) (5 games)>

1) If you follow that link you'll find J Kozma vs Minev, 1957 <!!> as first game. Pure coincidence ??

2) If you click for --> find similar games you'll find a lot of other games that qualify for E57...

I am sure that my good friend <WannaBe> will note the general lack of Benonis in this list, despite the fact that 17 of the 20 are d-pawn openings.>

But ECO coding is hardly an exact science. Take this reasonable looking opening:

<1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.e3 cxd4 5.exd4 Nf6 6.Nf3>

Looks like sort of a QGD Tarrasch (D32), doesn't it? Or is it a Caro-Kann Panov-Botvinnik Attack (B14)? And if Black plays the common 6...Bb4, haven't you got a Nimzo-Indian (E54)?

I know that cg.com did a lot of re-indexing of ECO codes this year. Maybe by next year, E57 will have 100 games in it!

Let's get this over, with the silliest statistic of them all:

<The Even Steven Trifecta for the Line with the Most Balanced Chance for a Win, a Loss, and a Draw>

For the sake of comparison, in the entire database White wins 37.0%, Black wins 26.9% and 36.1% are drawn = a difference of 10.1% between the highest and lowest of these numbers.

1. Nimzo-Indian, Leningrad (E30) (32.9%, 33.2%, 33.9% = 1.0%)

2. Sicilian (B53) (33.8%, 33.5%, 32.7% = 1.1%)

3. Nimzo-Indian, Fischer Variation (E43) (33.8%, 33.8%, 32.5% = 1.3%)

4. Sicilian, Dragon, Classical (B74) (33.7%, 33.8%, 32.4% = 1.3%)

5. Sicilian, Scheveningen (B84) (33.5%, 32.5%, 34.0% = 1.5%)

6. English, Symmetrical, Benoni Formation (A31) (32.7%, 32.5%, 34.8% = 2.3%)

7. English (A10) (34.5%, 32.1%, 33.3% = 2.4%)

8. Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3 (B43) (34.0%, 34.3%, 31.7% = 2.6%)

9. Nimzo-Indian, Samisch (E29) (34.7%, 32.0%, 33.3% = 2.7%)

10. Queen's Pawn Game (A46) (32.2%, 32.7%, 35.1% = 2.9%)

11. Sicilian (B56) (35.4%, 32.7%, 32.0% = 3.4%)

12. King's Indian (A48) (31.7%, 33.1%, 35.2% = 3.5%)

13. Sicilian (B58) (31.1%, 34.9%, 34.0% = 3.8%)

14. Sicilian, Najdorf (B96) (34.9%, 34.1%, 31.1% = 3.8%)

15. Nimzo-Indian, Spielmann Variation (E22) (32.5%, 35.7%, 31.8% = 3.9%)

16. Sicilian, Alapin (B22) (31.6%, 32.5%, 35.9% = 4.3%)

17. Alekhine's Defense (B02) (35.5%, 33.4%, 31.1% = 4.4%)

18. English, Symmetrical Variation (A32) (32.2%, 31.6%, 36.1% = 4.5%)

19. Benoni, Classical with ...a6 and 10...Bg4 (A75) (36.1%, 31.6%, 32.3% = 4.5%)

20. Sicilian (B40) (35.9%, 31.3%, 32.7% = 4.6%)