A New Look at the Tayler by David kane

I: Introduction The Tayler Variation (aka the Tayler Opening) is a line that has been unjustly neglected in my view. The line is of surprisingly recent vintage though it is often confused with the Inverted Hungarian (or Inverted Hanham Defense), a line which shares the same opening moves: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Be2: Technically, it is really the Tayler Variation to the Inverted Hungarian Defense rather than the Tayler Opening, though through usage, the terms are interchangeable for all practical purposes. As has been so often the case when it comes to unorthodox lines, I rst heard of this opening via Mike Basman when he published a cassette on it back in the early 80s (still available through audiochess.com). The line stirred some interest at the time but gradually seems to have been forgotten. The nal nail in the cofn was probably some light analysis published by Eric Schiller in Gambit Chess Openings (and elsewhere) where he dismisses the line primarily due to his loss in the game Schiller-Martinovsky, Chicago 1986. After that, the line seemed to all but die out. However, my own analysis (with the aid of Rybka 3 and Hiarcs 12.1) indicates that this judgment may have been a bit too hasty- more on that later. I have continued to play the line since the mid 80s with very good results- in fact, it has been my main weapon against 1. e4 e5. and I expect it to remain so for some time. In the box with the aforementioned cassette, Basman included a copy of Taylers article from Chess magazine. Unfortunately, I have misplaced the article, but I did take extensive notes at the time. This present article is based on those notes, some of Basmans analysis from his tape, and my own research and extensive experience with the line. This then will serve as an introduction to those unfamiliar with the line and hopefully revive some interest among those of you familiar with it but perhaps under the impression it has been busted. II: An Early Deviation Before we get to the main lines, lets examine an instructive early deviation. Looking at the rst diagram again, you can see In contrast to the Ruy Lopez or the Italian Game, the bishop on e2 looks rather passively placed and also blocks the e-le

The Inverted Hungarian is an old opening, dating back to the 1860s, at least. Tartakower played it a few times in the 1920s with mixed results, using the continuation, 3...Nf6 4. d3: a rather unenterprising setup for White. In 1981 British player, John Tayler (see biographical note), published an article in the British publication Chess (vol. 46) on a line he had developed stemming from the sharp 4.d4!?. This is a move which apparently no one had thought to play before, and one that transforms the sedate Inverted Hungarian into something else altogether.

Tayler 2on a square that potentially compromises the defense of the e-pawn in some lines. But this passive placement has a few positives going for it as well. Psychologically, it may (and frequently does) spur Black to be overly aggressive or to dismiss the system as innocuous. More concretely, the bishop is not a target on e2 as opposed to the more normal lines of the aforementioned Ruy Lopez and Italian Game positions where this bishop is frequently a target. This corresponds to Basmans Non-exposure theory where he contends that placing certain pieces on passive squares may have compensating factors such as not allowing the enemy to gain tempi from harassing the piece were it on a more exposed square or not allowing a useful piece (such as the White squared bishop) to be exchanged off too early. Also, White has incurred no weaknesses save from the temporarily unprotected e-pawn. But how is White going to engage in any kind of enterprising play? The answer lies below. But rst, lets look at an early deviation that a lot of lower rated players will play here: 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Be2 Bc5?! this impulsive move allows the hoary fork trick: 4.Nxe5! Now Black has a choice of 4...Nxe5 5. d4! where White gets a good game regardless of Blacks reply, or the slightly better 4...Bxf2 5. Kxf2 Nxe5 where White has a choice of good moves, 6. d4, 6. Rf1 and perhaps the strongest, 6. Re1 which can all be played here with a good game for White. After 6. Re1 (diagram below), many of my ICC games have continued in tragicomic fashion:

6...Qh4+ 7. Kg1 Qxe4?? 8. d4 Ng6 9. Bf3 1-0 Instead of the suicidal 7...Qxe4 Black can essay 7...d6 with a playable position though White still has the better chances overall. Its interesting to note that this fork trick would not be possible with the bishop on c4 because after 4...Nxe5 the knight would be hitting the bishop on c4. The position of the bishop tucked away on e2 gives the opening certain tactical possibilities not available with the bishop on a more exposed post. The downside is that White may have to lose a tempo to get the bishop off the e-le at some point. Assuming that Black isnt silly enough to fall for any of that, most of your games will feature 3...Nf6 which will bring us to the main lines discussed next.

Tayler 3

III: The Main Line Variations After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Be2 Nf6 and now the energetic move that characterizes the Tayler proper, 4. d4!?, we reach a major crossroads: In practical terms, with best play, I believe from this position that Black can achieve equality in some lines, but he must tread a careful path through some sharp complications rst; not necessarily an easy task for even strong players as my game with IM Mike Valvo demonstrates in section A3. Certainly, although White is sacricing a pawn in many lines, White has clear compensation in most cases and certainly does not incur any disadvantage out of the opening. Here Black has three reasonable replies: A: 5...Ne4 B: 5...Nd5 C: 5...Ng4 Black must reply 4...ed to have any hope of equalizing. If instead 4...Nxd4 5.NxN ed 6.Qxd4 and White is ahead in development with better central control. Similarly, if 4...Nxe4 5. d5 followed by 6. Nxe5 and White has the better game. So continuing on after the more or less compulsory 4...ed after 5.e5!?, we reach the main position of the Tayler Variation: A: 5...Ne4

This is the variation that was the primary focus of attention back in the 80s and was considered the

Tayler 4main line. Blacks knight is well centralised but may experience difculties on the e-le. Tayler gives 6 .0-0!? and from here, Black has played: A1: 6...Be7 A2: 6...d6 A3: 6...Bc5?! A4: 6...d5! A1: 6...Be7 6...Be7 this is Rybkas choice in the position but it doesnt seem to work out that well i.e. 7. Nxd4 Nxe5 8.Nf5 Bf6 (perhaps better is 8...g6 with an edge for White) 9. Qd5! c6 (or 9...Nd6 10. Nxd6 cxd6 11. Qxd6 +/=) 10. Qxe4 d5 11. Nxg7+! Bxg7 12. Qb4 (diagram below) computers give this is as equal but White has better pawn structure, better development and a safer king to counter against Blacks better center. compensation.

A3: 6...Bc5?! This attempt by Black to hang on to his booty is popular OTB, but it causes Black big problems due to the lack of good escape squares for the knight on e4. i.e. 7. Bd3! d5 (7...f5?! isnt much better: 8. Bxe4 fxe4 9. Ng5 Nxe5 10. Nxe4 Bb6?? {...Qe7 is better but after 11. Bg5 Qf8 12. f4! White has good attacking chances} 11. Bg5! and Black is losing his queen) 8. exd5 Nxd6 9.Re1+ and here Black can play 9...Be6? 10.Ng5! Qd7 (the surprisingly common panic reaction, 10...0-0?? is bad due to 11.Bxh7 Kh8 12.Qh5 and Black is lost) 11. Nxe6 fxe6 12. Qh5+ and White picks up the bishop on c5 as in KaneKrause ICC 1996. Or instead of the horrible 9...Be6 he can try 9...Ne7 10.Qe2 and now KaneIM Mike Valvo 1996 continued 10...Nf5? (diagram)

A2: 6...d6 This was once thought to refute the opening due to lines like 7. Bb5 dxe5 8.Nxe5 Qd5! where Black is at least equal. Instead, White should play 8. Re1! f5 (now8...Qd5? is well met by 9. c4! with a clear advantage to White) 9. Nxe5 Qf6 10. Nxc6 bxc6 11. Bc4 (diagram) and White has clear

Tayler 5Qe5?! 0-0?? (...Bd6!) 12. Qxc5 where White was winning thanks to the double blunders. Instead of the inaccurate 11. Qe5? White could have won rather straightforwardly with 11. Bxf5! Bxf5 12. Qb5+ and White picks up a piece.

and we reach a position from the Two Knights Defence/Scotch Gambit normally reached via 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. e5 d5 6. Bb5 Ne4 7. Nxd4 Bc5 8. O-O This position is considered playable for both sides/ dynamically equal. Summary of 5...Ne4: Blacks path to equality is relatively narrow here and in general White gets good play in most lines with full compensation in the lines where he sacrices a pawn. This line is seen fairly frequently- around 30%. Of the other major Black alternatives at move ve, 5...Ng4 is the most popular with something like 60% of my games reaching that position. The subject of the next section, 5...Nd5 seems to be the least popular, with it showing up in only about 10% of my games.

A4: 6...d5!

B: 5...Nd5 As is so often the case in double king pawn openings, when Black nds the right moment to play ...d5 he can equalize as he does here. 7. Nxd4 Bc5 8. Bb5

This is the least popular response to 5. e5 even though it seems playable for Black. The normal move for White here is 6. 0-0!? though in internet blitz games I sometimes play 6. c3 here counting on the fact that many of my opponents will blindly

Tayler 6play 6...dxc3?? which of course drops the knight on d5. 6. Nxd4 has also been tried: 6...Nxe5 7. 0-0 d6 8. Re1 Be7 9. Bb5 c6 (9...Kf8 and White can claim some compensation in the form of the displaced king though Im not sure its really worth a whole pawn) 10. Rxe5!? (the simpler 10.Nxc6 is possible here too) de 11.Nxc6!? bc 12. Bxc6+ Bd7 13.Bxe4 Rc8 and White has two pawns for the exchange. Whites queenside pawns look like a force to be reckoned with in the endgame thoughRybka seems to prefer Black here (-.48). Even so, I would rather play White. From the last diagram, 6. 0-0!? is Taylers move. Black has played three replies: B1: 6...Be7 B2: 6...Bc5 B3: 6....d6 8. Nf5! with a double attack on the d5 knight and the g7 pawn or 7...Nxd4? 8. Qxd4 Nb6 9. Qg4! g6 (9...0-0? 10.Bh6 and White wins material) 10. Bh6 d6 11.Qg3 dxe 12.Qxe5 and White has a clear, possibly winning advantage. Indeed, after 7.Nxd4 Blacks best is probably 7...0-0 8.Nf5 Nb6 9. a4 a5 10. Be3 where White can obtain the two bishops but has a slight pull at best. This remains to be tested.

B2: 6...Bc5

B1: 6...Be7

7. c3 d6 (of course not 6...dc3?? 7.Qxd5) 8.cxd4 Bb6 9. Bg5 Nde7 10. Nc3 dxe5 11. Bxe7 (11. dxe5 Qxd1 12.Raxd1 seems playable also) Nxe7 12. dxe5 Qxd1 13. Rfxd1 0-0 14. Rac1 Be6 15. Na4 (diagram)

This move looks sensible enough but White seems to get the upper hand after 7. Nxd4 i.e 7...Nxe5?

Tayler 7White can now eliminate Blacks two bishops here. Note that Black is ill-advised to grab a pawn here: 15...Bxa2?! as White has 16. Nxb6 cxb6 17. Rc7! and White recovers the pawn plus gets his rook on the 7th rank- White must be better here. B3: 6....d6 After 6. 0-0!? we reach the mainline position (diagram below) and the most popular variations encountered OTB. This is generally considered Blacks best try against the opening. Indeed, Benjamin and Schiller went so far to give 5...Ng4 an exclamation point in Unorthodox Openings but I think that assessment is somewhat optimistic. White does sacrice a pawn in most lines but I believe the resultant play is worth it. 2008) there is a lot more to be developed here and undoubtedly improvements will be found for both sides. OTB, these lines have proved to be generally easy to play for White. C: 5...Ng4

This looks natural with Black aiming to dissolve Whites annoying e5 pawn. Play can continue: 7. c3 (again exploiting the pin on the d-pawn) dxe5 8. cxd4 e4 9. Ne5 Nxe5 10. dxe5 c6 11. Qc2 Bf5 12. Nc3 Bc5 13. Nxe4 with a roughly balanced position. Instead of Taylers suggestion of 7.c3 White has also tried 7. exd6 Qxd6 (Bxd6 is a reasonable alternative) 8.Bb5 Nf6 9. Re1+ Be7 10. Qe2 where White has some compensation- but again, is it worth a full pawn? Summary of 5...Nd5 C3: 6...d6 It seems that White does well in these variations mainly due to the vulnerability of the d5 knight visa-vis the queen on d1. Still, Black can reach playable positions particularly in the B3 lines. Of course, since there have been so few games in this variation (only one is included in Mega Base C4: 6...Ngxe5

From this position, Black has played: C1: 6...Bc5 C2: 6...Be7

C1: 6...Bc5

Tayler 8edged position with chances for both sides. White, for the moment, has the initiative but will have to play energetically to maintain it. Basman likes this variation for White but I think Black can hold on with best play. C3: 6...d6

Tayler here gives 7. Bg5 f6 8. exf6 gxf6 (8...Ngxf6 is also playable) 9. Bh4 0-0 10. c3! and White is better -Tayler. If Black plays 10...dxc3 11. Qd5+ Kh8 unfortunately White does not win a piece as 12. Qxc5? fails to 12...cxb2!. Instead, 12. Nxc3 offers White a small edge. Again, Black is logically trying to eliminate the irritant on e5 but this move seems a little inconsistent with the previous 5...Ng4: 6...d6 7. Nxd4 dxe5 8. Nxc6 Qxd1 9. Rxd1 bxc6 10. Bf3! Bd7 11. Rxd7! Kxd7 12. Bxg4+ and White is winning. Or 6...d6 7. Nxd4 Ngxe5 8. f4 Ng6 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. Qd4! (diagram)

C2: 6...Be7

7. Nxd4 Ngxe5 8. f4 Ng6 9. f5 offers White some initiative. If instead 7... Nxd4 8. Qxd4 Bf6 9. Qf2 Ne7 10. Nc3 d5 11. g4!? leads to a double

Tayler 9This nice centralizing move has a record of tempting errors from Black in this position. To wit, one ICC game continued 10...c5?? 11. Qe4+ and White picks up material regardless of Blacks reply i.e. 11...Be6 12.Bb5+ Ke7 13. f5! and Black is lost. Another game of mine featured 10... Qf6!? (as Black wants to play Be7 without losing his gpawn) 11. Qe4+ Be7? 12. Qxc6+ -oh dear! Naturally, Black should have played 11...Ne7 but in that case, although he avoids dropping material, he still has to solve a thorny development problem on his kingside and that seems to be worth the pawn investment by White. as a debacle, that game persuaded him to abandon the opening. I hope the improvement for White in that game suggested in this next section helps to reverse that neglect. From the above diagram, White plays 7. Nxe5 Nxe5 8. Qxd4 (diagram below) now Black has a problem along the a1-h8 diagonal. As Tayler notes, with the queen controlling that diagonal Black has difculty completing his development

C4: 6...Ngxe5

Black has played a few different moves here C 41: 8...d6 C 42: 8...Ng6 C 43: 8...Nc6 This appears to be the critical variation, (for the time being at least), and White must demonstrate compensation for the pawn if the opening is to be considered viable. Given the lack of available material on the Tayler and the fact that what little is available boils down to a few disparaging references in various books by Eric Schiller (see the bibliography section), it seems that the lack of popularity of the line may plausibly be traced to the previously mentioned game, SchillerMartinovsky, Chicago 1986. Described by Schiller C 44: 8...Qf6!?

C 41: 8...d6 This move underestimates the pin of the knight against Blacks g-pawn. Play can continue: 9. Nc3 Be7?! 10. f4 Nc6 11. Qxg7 Bf6 12. Qh6 and White has recovered the pawn while retaining attacking chances.

Tayler 10Or White can play 9. f4 Nc6 10. Bb5 Qf6 11. Qe4+ Kd8 12. Bxc6 bxc6 13. Qxc6 Rb8 14. Nc3 and with Blacks king stuck in the center, White is obviously better. (diagram) If Black here tries 16...d4 then 17. Bxd4! is one good reply C 43: 8...Nc6 9. Qc3! and again the pressure against g7 is annoying: Black is in trouble-Tayler. Black has played: C 431: 9...d5 C 432: 9...Qf6

C 431: 9...d5 10. Bb5 Bd7?! (10...Qd6 is a better defense i.e. 11 Bf4! Qc5 12. Ba4 Be6 13. Bxg7 Rc8 14. Bf4 and Black has an isolated pawn and still hasnt solved how to develop his Black squared bishop.) 10.Bxc6 and now 10..bxc6 11.Re1+ Be6 12. Qxc6+ Ke7 and White is winning. Or another game continued 10..Bxc6 11. Re1+ and Black apparently preferred 11...Be7 12. Qxg7 Rf8 13. Bg5 with a winning game for White to the equally horric 11...Kd7 12.Qh3 Kd6 13.Bf4+ Kc5 14. a4! (14. Qc3 is also winning) where Blacks king will not survive long. C 432: 9...Qf6

C 42: 8...Ng6 Another effort to untangle. Play can continue: 9. Nc3 c6 10. Be3 d5 11. Rae1 f6 (what else?) 12. Bh5 Be7 13. Qd3 0-0!? 14. Bxg6 hxg6 15. Qxg6 (diagram) and White has chances on the king-side with the immediate threat of 16. Bh6 and the idea of advancing the h-pawn in the air.

Tayler 1110 QxQ gxf6 11. Nc3 Kd8 (Nd5 is a threat) 12.Nd5 Bg7 13.Bd2! (with the threat of 14. Bc3) From here (diagram), Black has played: This brings us to the previously mentioned contentious variation from Schiller- Martinovsky, Chicago 1986:

C 4321: 13...Ne5 C 4322: 13..f5 C 44: 8...Qf6! (threatening 9...Nf3+ winning the queen):

4321: 10...Ne5 14. Bc3 d6 15. f4 Ng6 16.Rad1 (the simple 16. Nxf6 is ne too) and White will recover the pawn with a clear advantage i.e. 16...Bf5 17. Rd2 Nf8 18. Bxf6 Bxf6 19. Nxf6 etc. Note that 13...d6 14. Bc3 transposes.

C 4322: 13...f5 -attempting to move the target 14. Bg5+ f6 (of course not 14... Ke8? 15. Nxc7+ etc.) 15. Nxf6 (diagram next page) where Black has to deal with the threat of discovered check through some means other than 15...Bxf6 16. Bxf6+ where he loses the rook. Schiller feels that this move leaves White scrambling to justify his pawn sacrice. That game continued, 9. Qe4(?!) Be7 10.Nc3 c6 11. f4 Ng6 12. f5 d5 13. Qa4 Bc5+ 14. Kh1 Ne7 15. g4 b5 16. Qf4 h5 17.g5 Qxf5 and the rest was a mop-up operation 0-1.

Tayler 12I believe White went wrong with 9.Qe4, a move that cedes one of Whites trumps in the position, namely his pressure on the a1-h8 diagonal. Perhaps, Schiller was afraid to exchange queens. OTB experience however has shown that White has nothing to fear from a queen exhange as his activity and Blacks development problems give him a good game. A better White attempt from this position was 9.Qc3 and even though this results in something of a tempo loss, White won a good game anyway in Stonehouse-Cade, 1993 (Corr.) Searching around for other possibilities in this position, I stumbled on the interesting move 9.Be3!? (diagram) which in addition to developing another piece (and not losing a tempo) ensures that in the immediate event of a queen exchange, White can recapture with the bishop and maintain the pressure against g7. 13. Bh6 (13.Rae1 is also good) d6 14.Bg7 Rg8 15. Nxf6 Bxf6 16. Bxf6 and White is better. 9...Be7 is probably the most sensible move, but even here Black can get in trouble. Another game of mine continued 9...Be7 10. Nc3 Ng6? 11. Nd5! and White regains his pawn with a better position i.e. 11...Qxd4 12. Bxd4 with a double attack against g7 and c7. After 9...Be7 10.Nc3 the attempt to prevent Nd5 by 10...c6 came to grief after 11. Ne4! Qf5 12. g4! c5 13. Nd6+ Bxd6 14.Qxd6 Qe6 15. Bxc5 and White is obviously better. 9...Be7 10. Nc3 0-0 attempting to get out of dodge 11.Nd5 Qd6 12.Rad1 Nc6 13. Qf4 Bd8 14. Qxd6 cxd6 15. Bf4 Re8 16. Rfe1 Ne5 17. Bf1 a6 18 Bg3 and here Black stumbled with 18...Ba5? now after 19. b4! the bishop had no satisfactory retreat i.e.19... Bd8 and now 20. f4 won material in Kane- Sargon V (1-0 in 43) 9...Be7 10. Nc3 Nc6 is probably Blacks best line: White has activity and better development for the pawn. I would assess the position as dynamically equal. Alas, no human games have been played from this position so computer analysis will have to do for now. Fortunately, the results are very encouraging: Rybka 3, Fritz 11 and Hiarcs 11.1 assess the position as at least equal or slightly better for White: +.39, +.45 and +.31 respectively. Engine match results favored White: Rybka 3 vs Rybka 3, 1-0; Fritz 11- Rybka 3, 1/2 / 1/2; Hiarcs vs Fritz 11, 1/2/1/2; Fritz- Hiarcs 1-0 for a total of 2 wins for White, 2 draws and no losses. Note that the draws resulted from the higher rated programs playing Black. In a few of the games, the non-development of Blacks queen bishop was a factor- Black often took a long time to get that bishop and the queens rook in the game. Meanwhile, Whites two bishops and knight were very active. I expect these considerations will be factors in human games too.

Some lines from the diagram: The attempt to develop the queen bishop via 9...b6? fails to 10.Qe4 which not only hits the rook but threatens 11.Bd4 with a nasty double pin. 9...Nc6 doesnt look that good after 10.Qxf6 gxf6 11. Nc3 Be7 (again, Nd5 is a threat) 12.Nd5 Bd8

Tayler 13Summary of 5...Ng4: Biographical Note It seems that White is doing just ne in all the variations after 6.0-0!? including the variation that had previously stymied Schiller. If somehow 9. Be3 doesnt pan out in time, then 9. Qc3 looks to be a decent alternative. Conclusions: It appears that the Tayler is perfectly sound though Black can achieve a few equal positions, mostly in the 5...Ne4 variation, where he can transpose into a well known equal position from the Two Knights Defense. If this remains the case, it means that the Tayler is probably at least as good as the Scotch Gambit, an opening with a lot more mileage on it. The remaining lines offer White a combination of traps for the unwary, exciting attacks and the joy of the initiative in most lines. Another point in its favor is the fact that it introduces a system of play as early as move three in the venerable double king-pawn opening complex. This means a high percentage of your games will allow you to exercise your theoretical knowledge while your opponents will be on the back foot right from the beginning of the game. Finally, I should mention that a few correspondence games have used Taylers line with generally excellent results for White. Of the ten games in the database, White scored 6 wins, 3 draws and only one loss. There is no earthly reason why this opening is not played more, especially when you consider that arguably more unsound openings such as the Blackmar-Diemer and the Latvian enjoy a wide following. Its sad to realize that this is the rst work on the opening (that Im aware of, at least) since Basman and Tayler thirty years ago!. I hope this article encourages more players (and stronger players than me) to explore its mysteries and further develop the nascent theory. I encourage you to play the Tayler, and if you do so, please send me your games! TIA Unfortunately, John Tayler hasnt left much of a trace on the internet aside from his opening variation. What we do know is that he read mathematics until 1955 at the University College of Leicester, UK. He was already a strong player at school- around master strength- and he usually played top or second board with good results. After school, he worked for GEC/EE Whetstone and played for Braunstone Chess Club and the County for many years. Sadly, he died sometime in early 80s as a young man- probably in his early to mid 40s. He had a reputation as a strong county player and was described as intense. One fellow club mate said Games with John were always very tense. Hopefully, he would be proud to know that his opening innovation has become internationally recognized and is still a viable line after all these years. Acknowledgements Thanks to katar (from chessvideos.tv) for spotting the transposition into the Two Knights Defense and for his invaluable proofreading skills. Thanks to Mike Salisbury, John Dawkins, Sean Hewitt, Andy Morley and Neal Beasley for biographical information about Tayler. Thanks to Gary Gifford for publishing this newsletter. And nally, thanks to John Tayler and Mike Basman for developing this line in the rst place. Bibliography/ Resources Gambit Chess Openings by Eric Schiller- Cardoza 2002 Unorthodox Openings by Eric Schiller and Joel Benjamin, Collier Books 1987

Tayler 14Unorthodox Chess Openings by Eric Schiller, Cardoza, 2003 Taylers Variation (Audiochess Cassette #25) by Michael Basman Wikipedia.org article on the Tayler Opening Chessbase Mega database 2008 Chessbase Correspondence database 2006 Online Resources I have assembled a collection of Tayler games which can be found at http:// www.nationalchessacademy.org/Media/ taylergames.pgn I have also produced an introductory video (free) on the opening which can be found at http:// www.chessvideos.tv/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4816 Mike Basman is still selling his cassettes at http:// www.audiochess.com Contact: David Kane can be reached at admin@nationalchessacademy.org 301 879 0654 (US) I would be happy to recieve any games, corrections, praise, criticisms or comments. In particular, I would still like to nd more biographical information, games and/or photos of John Tayler. All material copyright 2010 David Kane