(The issue was wrongly dated May 2009.)

You may not know that there is a U.S. Blind Chess Championship, but there is
one every year, and this year it was in Weirton, West Virginia, less than an
hour from Pittsburgh.
 
The dates were June 12 and 13, a Friday and Saturday.  I took a day off from
work on Friday and volunteered to help both days.  Volunteers are largely
needed to keep score and to make sure that the players have the right positions
on their boards (more about that below).  There wasn't much for me to do,
because the organizer, Rick Varchetto, had recruited some local high school
kids to do the scorekeeping, and sure enough, they did just fine.  (Gosh, I
wonder if I can get a team from Weirton to play in our high school league!)
I did some post-mortem analysis with some players.
 
There were six players.  The strongest two were Experts:  Stephen DeJoseph, of
Western New York, and Dennis Cummings, of Arkansas.  DeJoseph unfortunately
withdrew after the 2nd round.  Cummings won the title.  The other players were
Patrick Walsh, Henry Olynik, Virginia Alverson, and Pittsburgh's own Joe
Wasserman.  Ms. Alverson is a Pittsburgh native, now living in New England.
 
I exchanged some e-mails with Al Pietrolungo, a past participant in this
tournament, who told me that he had once been at the Western Pennsylvania
School for the Blind, where he learned chess in a group taught by the late Bob
Bornholz.  At that time he also got to know Ginny Alverson and Joe Wasserman.
I hadn't known about that old Pittsburgh connection with chess for the blind.
Of course, I knew Bob Bornholz; he was Pittsburgh's strongest active player in
the 1960's and 1970's, except for Hans Berliner.
 
My own connection with chess for the blind goes back to 1978, when Jim Slagle
was the U.S. player in the Blind World Championship.  I went to Belgium with
him as his guide and coach.  Two years later, I served as one of the guides and
coaches for the U.S. team in the Blind Olympiad.  Our team was led by Al
Sandrin, who had won the U.S. Open in 1949, when he was already almost
completely blind.
 
Are you curious about how blind people can play chess?  There's special
equipment:  the black pieces are shaped a little differently from the White
pieces (such as with a knob on top); the pieces have pegs and the squares have
holes; and the boards are made with the black squares raised.  While the blind
player uses that set, his opponent has his own set.  With this arrangement,
it's not a big disadvantage to be blind.  When I play blindfold chess, it's
always a struggle to avoid mistakes remembering where the pieces are.  But the
blind players don't normally have that problem.  (Not all the players are
completely blind.  The criterion for playing in the tournament is "legally
blind".  Some of the players can even use normal sets, and can keep score using
marker pens.)
 
Here's an interesting game between the new champion, Cummings, and Walsh, with
notes by me:
 
White:  Dennis Cummings
Black:  Patrick Walsh
U.S. Blind Championship, June 2009, round 3
 
 1 e4    Nf6
 2 e5    Nd5
 3 Nc3   Nb6
 
   The safer reply to White's offbeat 3rd move is 3 ... Nxc3.
 
 4 Nf3   d6
 5 d4    Nc6
 6 e6!
 
   This is the usual method of handling Black's last move, but still, White could
   not calculate it to the end, and had to have confidence that his compensation
   for the pawn would be sufficient.
 
 6 ...   fxe6
 
   If 6 ... Bxe6? 7 d5.
 
 7 Ng5
 
   It is tempting to try to refute Black's play this way, and that's all we looked
   at in the post-mortem, but on sober reflection, I wonder if the preparatory
   7 Be3 would be better.  Black could try 7 ... e5; then after 8 d5 Nd4 9 Nxd4 exd4
   10 Bxd4 e5 11 dxe6 Bxe6 12 Qf3, I think that White still has a nagging edge.
   On the other hand 7 ... g6 would be challenged by 8 h4.
 
 7 ...   g6
 8 Bb5
 
   8 Bd3 threatens 9 Nxh7 Rxh7 10 Bxh6+ Rf7 11 Qh5.  But perhaps after 8 ... Nxd4
   9 Nxh7 Nf5 Black would escape with a whole skin.  8 Qf3 is tempting, but after
   8 ... Nxd4 9 Qf7+ Kd7 how does White follow up?
 
 8 ...   Bg7
 9 Qf3   Bf6
10 Bxc6+ bxc6
11 Qxc6+ Qd7
12 Qf3   Ba6
13 Be3   Rb8?
 
   If Black could somehow consolidate, he would be at least OK.  13 ... O-O-O
   loses to 14 Nf7, but 13 ... O-O looks OK; for example after 14 Qh3?! Bxg5
   15 Bxg5 e5! the complications look favorable for Black.  Instead Black starts
   an overoptimistic plan of counterattack.
 
14 h4    Nc4
15 b3    Nxe3
16 fxe3
 
   16 Qxe3 also looks logical.
 
16 ...   Bb7
17 e4    Qc6
18 O-O-O a5
 
   It's suicidal to let the knight in at e6, but even after 18 ... Qd7 19 d5 it's
   clear that Black will never get to consolidate.
 
19 Nxe6  a4
20 Nd5!  axb3
21 axb3  Kf7
 
   This leads to immediate loss, but Black no longer had anything constructive
   to do.
 
22 Nxf6  exf6
 
   Not 22 ... Kxe6 23 d5+.
 
23 Rhf1  f5
24 d5    Qb5
25 exf5  Bxd5
26 fxg6+ Kxe6
27 Qf7+  Ke5
28 Qf5 mate