White: Mousessian, John (2420)
Black: Morss, Mark F. (2421)
USCF 1998 Absolute, 1999

1.e4 c5 2.c3 Nf6 3.e5 Nd5 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.cxd4 d6 7.Bc4 Nb6 8.Bb3 dxe5 9.d5 Na5 10.Nc3 Black's time forfeit 10...Nxb3 11.Qxb3 e6 12.Nxe5 Bd6 13.Qb5+ Kf8 14.dxe6 Bxe6 15.Bf4 Nc4 16.Nxc4 Bxf4 17.Ne3 Qd7 18.Qxd7 Bxd7 19.Rd1 Bc6 20.Ncd5 Be5 21.Nc4 (White proposes draw) 21... Re8 22.0-0 Bb8 23.Na5 Bb5 24.Rfe1 b6 25.Nc3 Rxe1+ 26.Rxe1 Bd7 27.Nb3 g6 27.g3 Kg7 28.Rd1 Bg4 29. Rd4 h5 30.Rd4 h5 31.f4 h4 32.Kg2 hxg3 33.hxg3 Bc8 34.Nd2 Bb7+ 35.Nf3 a6 36.a4 Rc8 37.Rd7 Bc6 38. Rd2 Ba7 0-1 Mousessian Resigns
Last Updated: 2000.11.03

After 38. … Ba7 0-1

Match Introduction by J. Franklin Campbell

Both players have sportingly agreed to this arrangement and will be communicating the moves to me on a regular basis. USCF Correspondence Chess Director Joan DuBois has also agreed to allow this presentation, under the strict understanding that no unsolited advice will be submitted to the players (a violation of USCF rules). I encourage all viewers to resist any temptation to send such advice. It will, at any rate, be totally ignored. Save your comments for after the game.

Mark Morss Match Comments (22 Nov 2000)

White's premature resignation is typical of correspondence chess. At the time he resigned John was (and as of this writing, still is) working hard to pull out an IM result in the Arne Henriksen Memorial, and I surmise that he wanted to concentrate his intellectual resources there. John was gracious enough to say when he resigned that he considered the result inevitable, but Black's win is not yet evident, at least to me. Certainly the position is quite uncomfortable for White, in view of Black's two bishops and the openness of the board. Yet White has no particular weaknesses. Soon …b5 would have figured in my plans, but Black's big risk is that the pawn situation will become so simplified that there will be nothing left to play for.

This game is theoretically significant and casts 8. Bb3 into doubt. I don't spend a lot of time preparing variations these days, and I was unfamiliar with the theory of this move before John played it. I looked at some games in my database, and I decided that 12…Bd6! is a whole lot safer than 12…exd5 in spite of the loss of castling privileges after 13. Qb5+ Kf8. That the books deprecate this solid way of playing says something about the trustworthiness of published theory. I noticed that somebody had won with 15…Nc4, so I looked at it for a while and decided to try it.

An important move for me was 17…Qd7, which either gains time or brings off the queens. I was also happy to find 21…Re8, which offered White his one chance to exchange knight for bishop, but only at the expense of quite a bit of inconvenience. After that, I was just maneuvering, trying to preserve both the bishop pair and a fluid position, with no particular object in mind. I suppose …h5, …h4, …hxg was a good idea, but I'm really not sure. It seems to make the position a little more fluid, but at the expense of some simplification. I was quite happy with 33…Bc8, redeploying to the long diagonal and discomforting White's king.

Though John and I later mended the tear in our chess friendship that resulted from it, I should explain here what the notorious Mousessian-Morss rules dispute was all about. In reply to my 9…Na5 John sent "10. Nc3 and if 10…Nxa3 then 11. Qxb3." I sent back, "Sorry, I'm too busy to reply to your 'if' -- 10…Nxa3," or words to that effect. My false belief was that the USCF permitted such a reply and that my reply released my opponent from any obligation to play 11. Qxb3. John claimed a time forfeit when a sufficient number of days had elapsed after my failure to respond to 11. Qxb3, which he considered to be "on the board." John's interpretation of the USCF rules turned out to be correct, but fortunately for me, the rules also say that a time forfeit can be claimed only if the current time situation has been shown on one's previous card(s). Card or cards? -- the rules are a little unclear. In any case, John had not been sending any statements of the time situation, so his forfeit claim was ultimately denied.

The USCF rules need to be changed. During a given game, the first instance of a failure to send a valid move should result in a five-day penalty, not a continuation of the clock. A second instance may create the presumption that there is an intention to delay, and should perhaps be dealt with more severely. Further, while I now accept that one should respond to the first then-move if one plays the if-move, there should be a limit to the number of then-moves to which one is required to reply. I don't think a player should be required to examine a vast tree of variations, for example, just to get his next card out. This is a gap in all current correspondence chess rules of which I'm aware, and it should be addressed.

John Mousessian Match Comments (23 Nov 2000)

In my game with Mark, I had two intentions:

1. To challenge Mark's data base
2. To challenge Mark's ability to choose the proper continuation

I failed! I felt 17…Qd7! was the decisive move. Both, more or less, force the Queen exchange and leave a pair of bishops in an open ending. White's game, in my view, was lost. After 38.Rd2 I was anticipating 38…b5 39.a:b a:b and could not find a way to save my b-pawn and avoid the rook exchange. But 38.Ba7 is just as effective but only one move slower.

J. Franklin Campbell Final Comments (23 Nov 2000)

I wish to salute these two gentlemen for playing this game in a very public way. Instead of allowing a technical dispute to boil over and create a permanent rift they boldly went on with the game, each sending me their moves for documentation at The Campbell Report. Thank you for a very entertaining game and for the lesson in good sportsmanship, gentlemen! In the meantime they have both made their own personal marks on the cc world.

Mark Morss is just finishing up play in the final round of the 13th USA cc championship (13th USCCC) and is undefeated with only two games remaining with a score of +6=5 -0. You can check out his games at Diary of Mark Morss and the official crosstable at 13th USCCC Final Crosstable.

John Mousessian has only one remaining game in the ICCF tournament Arne Henriksen Memorial Invitational. If he can win his final game vs. Josef Pribyl (CZE) he'll earn the IM title. Check out his games at: Diary of John Mousessian and the official crosstable at Arne Henriksen Memorial Invitational Crosstable.