This has been an interesting discussion. I don't know if there is a really reliable way to test computer use. I was a 2300+ correspondence play and a Master OTB and in the ICCF where you could use computer engines legally for chess you found when using the engine often there were two or three fairly good choices and often what choice you chose was the style of play you liked. Engines also can return different results depening on how powerful the CPU and even if you had a lot of games to examine you almost would need to examine them on the type of Computer that you thought the "cheat" might be using.

Kramnik likes to draw too much and probably will not finish much above the middle of the field. Plus no toilets to hide in this time! If Anand's form holds up he probably will win the event. It is too bad Topalov was not invited. He probably would have livened up the field. As it is only 9 of the 30 games finished so far have ended in a decision.

onigoroshi:
I had a chance to check my library and the exact title of the Aagard book is "Excelling at Combinational Play". It has nice tactical exercises plus detailed explanations about them in the solutions area. Paata Garindashvili also wrote a good tactics book called "Imagination in Chess". Both of these should be in print and being published by Everyman and Batsford Presses should not be too hard to obtain. Being a library director, and an old reference librarian before going to the administrative level, it is always nice to be able to recommend books.

Yes and Colonel Crockett, just keep the play and study up. You are young enough and if you want that Master title you should obtain it. When I was in my early 20s it was one of my passions as well and I used to spend easily 3 or 4 hours a day on chess study, and more if you consider all the correspondence games. However I was the bookish sort and book study isn't necessarily the best way for chess improvement, although it suited my personality.

onigoroshi:
I think somebody between 1400-1599 could win practically all their games against an average player off the street. Even as a youngster in Jr. High School, I could give many of my friends big odds like that of a Rook or even Rook + Knight after reading and studying chess literature for about a year. At that time I could not have been much more than a 1200 level player. My first USCF rating wasn't until I was a Freshman in High School and that was in the mid 1400s. The rating went higher later, but that of course took a lot of time and effort, maybe more than I should have put into it!

There are quite a few modern tactics books out there beyond Reinfeld. Jacob Aagard did one in his series of five instruction books. I personally think playing through complete games is also helpful and any game collection of aa famous chess player from Morphy to Kasparov would be helpful. "The First Book of Morphy" might be a good place to start. The games of older players are a little easier to understand and the mistakes often were a bit more obvious before defensive technique became more refined.

The Grim Reaper, a.k.a Ed Trice, has scored an impression 5.5 out of 6.0 in the Mir Malik Sultan Khan Memorial tournament here on BrainKing. Congratulations Ed and considering you opponents were all over 2300 rated a nice performance in that final. Nice to see you back in competition on this site!

Now that you are back in action maybe I can talk you into a game or two of Janus Chess.....

Tournament reference added ... WQ

Chicago Bulls: Yes, another match with Deep Blue would have been good publicity for chess. Unfortunately IBM did not have anything to gain by it as the win they had was already worth millions in publicity. Kasparov's accusations of cheating and his general behavior after the 2nd game in the 2nd match also did not help his cause for bringing about another match. "Trash talk" has its place in sporting events and can help generate interest in boxing and other types of sports, but when dealing with corporate types there are different rules. Kasparov and other top chess players haven't always caught onto those rules and they now suffer for the lack of reliable corporate sponsorship in chess events. One big consequence is having to put up with the Kirsan and many of his reforms!

Chicago Bulls: Poor Anderssen didn't have much luck with the Spanish game either just getting a draw and a loss with it in his other two whites. Actually 1.a3 could have been a success if he had followed up his opening advantages better. Morphy did not handle the closed positions very well that arose out of this reversed Sicilian. Beim's books "Paul Morphy a Modern Perspective" gives some interesting analysis on these games. Anderssen should probably have won the 6th match game that he lost with 1.a3, but a lack of practice and the speed of the play did not help his chess in that match.

It is too bad that Morphy did not give Anderssen a rematch or play Kolisch a couple of years later. Unfortunately we chess players have missed out on a number of interesting matches, because of players losing interest in the game or refusing to play worthy contenders in the good old days before FIDE or after if for that matter! If we count Kramnik's refusal to play Kasparov before the latter retired from chess.

Pafl:
Actually Andersen would most likely have played 2. c2-c4 as he did in his match with Morphy three times in 1858! Hugh Myers would have liked an e4 follow up more likely and he wrote something about it in a couple of his books. I think he called it something like Mangarini's Opening, but my spelling may be off on that.

Carl Schlechter : Life and Times of the Austrian Chess Wizard is probably the best book on Schlechter published in 1994, but may not be in print any more. Rudolf Spielmann also wrote a book in Swedish in 1924 and there is a Russian book written by Verkhovsky that was written in 1984. There no doubt are others, but those found there way into my chess library over the years....