Fiddling Around

 

     The weather the last couple of weeks has generally been chilly, overcast and dripping rain with a few snow flurries thrown in or it's been warm and rainy. i.e. it's been unpleasant. And so, the yard projects I am getting antsy to get started on are on hold. There's little else to do except do some reading and fiddle around with chess stuff. 

     My chess programs (Chess Assistant 18, Chess Aquarium 2020, ChessOK Aquarium 2014, Fritz 12, Fritz 17 and ChessBase 16) were given another look to see if they had any hidden secrets that might be worth further exploration. The answer was no and Fritz 17 has replaced Fritz 12 (from back in 2009!!) as my go to program. 

     Books...I've been looking through some old books. The improvement ship sailed long ago, so they're all just taking up space. One book that I gave some attention to was the 1941 edition of Rubinstein's Chess Masterpieces by Barnie Winkleman and annotated by Hans Kmoch. For some reason his games just don't appeal to me. 

     Although the biography is interesting, My Life and Games by Pal Benko is not going to make my list of favorites. Never liked his games, they are too boring. I saw Benko play on many occasions and it was like watching paint dry...that is until he got into time trouble and had to scramble to make all his moves.  

     I especially liked his final round game against Reshevsky in the 1975 US Championship. When Benko got into time trouble Reshevsky kept his finger on the clock button making it difficult for Benko to press it after making his move. Benko never said anything...he just glared at Reshevsky and hammered his clock button with his fist! 

     A few years back I posted about 175 Chess Brilliancies by the Scottish player Francis P. Wenman (May 6, 1891 – March 19, 1972). It has 95 complete games and 80 endings (or composed positions) that are little known and quite interesting. I like it, but the one that finally grabbed my attention was Lesser Known Chess Masterpieces 1906-1915 by Fred Wilson and published by Dover back in 1976. You can listen to a most interesting interview with Fred Wilson on Perpetual Chess HERE.

     During those years there was a little known series of books titled The Year-Book of Chess by several different British players. They were a summary of all the important events of the previous year. Besides literary reviews, articles and problems, they contained a well annotated selection of games from all the great tournaments of the period. 

     As Wenman noted, there were books by leading players of that era (Lasker, Marshall, Tarrasch, Rubinsein, Nimzovich, Capablanca and Alekhine), but games by other prominent masters of the period (Schlechter, Teichmann, Maroczy, Spielmann, Mieses, Duras, Janowsky, Reti and Tartakower) were not readily available. Tartakower did eventually publish a two volume collection of his best games; buy them if you find them. 

     It was the games of those largely ignored masters and a few by the leading players that didn't make it into their collections that Wenman included in the book. 

     Carl Schlechter was known as The Drawing Master, but in his day he was, like Petrosian decades later, almost impossible to defeat. However, when the conditions were right he produced some pretty flashy games. 

     Richard Teichmann, blind in one eye, was accused of being lazy, but he won the great Carlsbad tournament in 1911. Then there was the master tactician David Janowsky who is best known as a punching bag for greater masters, but he did produce some stunning games. 

     And, Rudolf Spielmann who was probably the greatest gambit player of all time, played some really fantastic games. The virtually unknown Czech Oldrich Duras had a poor knowledge of openings, but he could conjure up some fantastic complications in the middlegame. Jacques Miesis is another under appreciated player, but he was a 19th century Romantic who showed little aptitude for positional chess. 

     These are the players whose games are featured in the book and that makes it well worth browsing through.

     Vienna 1907 was the first Trebitsch Memorial name after Leopold Trebitsch, a wealthy Austrian silk manufacturer who had been vice-president of the club until his death on Dec. 12, 1906, a month before the tournament. The Memorials were a series of twenty tournaments being played in Vienna between 1907 and 1938.

     The 1907 tournament included a strong field including such international figures as Oldrich Duras, Jacques Mieses, Geza Maroczy, Milan Vidmar and Savielly Tartakower plus Austrian masters Carl Schlechter and Dr. Julius Perlis.

     According to the yearbook, "The result was a triumph for players who favor brilliancy in preference to ultra-modern tendencies, Mieses and Duras admittedly producing some of the most effective examples of contemporary chess from the spectacular point of view." What more could you ask for? 

     In the following game Wolf sacrifices a couple of Pawns, but doesn't get any compensation. He also set a cunning tactical trap at move 32, but Duras wasn't fooled and easily secured the win.

[Event "1st Trebitsch Memorial, Vienna"] [Site "Vienna AUH"] [Date "1907.01.15"] [Round "?"] [White "Oldrich Duras"] [Black "Heinrich Wolf"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C65"] [Annotator "Stockfish 14.1 (8s)"] [PlyCount "77"] [EventDate "1907.01.10"] {Ruy Lopez: Berlin Defense} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. Be3 { Even though there is nothing wrong with this old continuation that was advocated by Dr. A. Kaufmann of Vienna it has disappeared today in favor of 5. c3, 5.Bxc6 or 5.O-O.} Bxe3 {At the time it was believed that this exchange was forced, but 11...Nd4 or even 11...Qe7 are satisfactory.} 6. fxe3 O-O (6... Ne7 7. Bc4 (7. Nc3 c6 8. Ba4 Ng6 9. Qd2 O-O 10. Bb3 {equals. Firman,N (2495) -McShane,L (2614)/Warsaw 2006}) 7... d6 8. O-O O-O 9. Nc3 Be6 10. Bb3 Bxb3 11. axb3 {is equal. Duras, O-Leonhardt,P Nuremberg 1906}) 7. O-O (7. Bxc6 {Does not win a P.} bxc6 8. Nxe5 Qe7 9. Nf3 (9. Nc4 {9.Nf3 -0.16 This recommendation of Marco is quite bad. After} d5 {black has a considerable advantage.}) 9... Qb4+ {with equal chances.}) 7... d5 8. Nc3 (8. exd5 {was preferrable.} Ne7 ( 8... Nxd5 9. Qe1 Qd6 10. Nc3 Nce7 11. Bc4 Qc5 {White is better. Ashwin,J (2454) -Tran,N (2218)/Chotowa POL 2010}) 9. Qd2 {The position is equal.} (9. Nxe5 { would lose.} Qxd5 {forking the B and N})) 8... d4 9. Bxc6 (9. exd4 {results in equality after} Nxd4 10. h3 Nxf3+ 11. Rxf3 c6) 9... bxc6 {Not the best. White now has the better position. The position remains equal after 9...dxc3} (9... dxc3 10. Ba4 cxb2 11. Rb1 Qd6) 10. exd4 exd4 11. Ne2 Ng4 {...Ne3 turns out not to be as strong a threat as it looks, but the other main alternative, 11...c5, is not much better.} 12. Qd2 Qd6 {This move loses the game for Black. 12...c5, or even 12...Ne3, were better.} 13. h3 (13. Nexd4 {would be a mistake.} Nxh2 14. Rf2 (14. Nxh2 Qxd4+ 15. Qf2 Qxb2 {is good for black.}) 14... Ng4 15. Re2 Ne5 {and white can only claim to be slightly better.}) 13... Ne3 14. Rf2 { [%cal Bf1f2,Bf2f3,Bf3g3] Excellent!} (14. Rfe1 {14.Rf2 3. 14 allows black to equalize and it also is a good example of why you cannot trust old annotations! After this move Schlechter commented that black wins a Pawn as follows.} c5 {[%cal Oc8h3] This is the correct move after which the position is equal.} (14... Bxh3 {This is Schlechter's suggestion, but white gains the edge after} 15. e5 Qh6 16. Nexd4 (16. Nfxd4 f5 {and black is better.}) 16... Nxg2 17. Qxh6 gxh6 18. Re4) 15. b4 {The only move to equalize. aiming for bxc5. } Qg6 {[%csl Ge3][%cal Rg6g2]} 16. Nf4 {with a fully equal position.}) 14... c5 15. c3 {[%cal Bc2c3,Bc3d4,Bd4c5] White wins a P.} f5 16. cxd4 fxe4 (16... cxd4 17. Nfxd4 f4 18. Rc1 {with a clear advantage.}) 17. Qxe3 {Also good was 17.dxe4 } exf3 18. dxc5 Qc6 19. Rxf3 {Black's best chance would be to exchange Rs and hope for the best in the ending, but in avoiding the exchange things only get worse for him.} Bb7 (19... Rxf3 20. Qxf3 Qxf3 21. gxf3 Bxh3 {and white has the better chances in the ending.}) 20. Rg3 Rae8 21. Qd4 {[%csl Gg3][%cal Rd4g7]} Qh6 22. Nc3 Rd8 23. Qb4 Bc6 24. Ne4 Rf4 25. Re1 Rdf8 26. Kh2 Qh4 27. Qb3+ Kh8 28. Ng5 (28. Qe6 {would have been even better. After} Bxe4 29. dxe4 h6 30. e5 { white has a routine win.}) 28... R4f5 (28... Bxg2 {While insufficient to save the game this would have put up stouter resistance.} 29. Nf7+ Kg8 30. Kxg2 R4xf7) 29. Ne6 {[%csl Bc7,Bf8,Bg7]} Rg8 {White has a won position, but according to the tournament book (and analysis by the English Master Leopold Hoffer) this move sets a little trap. That is not correct because his analysis was faulty.} 30. Qc3 (30. Nxg7 {This might be tempting because according to Hoffer the N cannot be taken. Even if it is not taken white still wins as follows...} Qxg3+ (30... Rxg7 {white has a mate after...} 31. Qb8+) 31. Kxg3 { [%cal Ob3g8]} Rxg7+ 32. Kh4 (32. Kh2 {This gross blunder loses as black has a forced mate.} Rxg2+ 33. Kh1 Re2+ 34. Kg1 Rxe1+ 35. Kh2 Re2+ 36. Kg3 Rg2+ 37. Kh4 Rf4+ 38. Kh5 Bf3+ {mate next move.}) 32... Rxg2 33. Qc3+ Kg8 34. Qd4 { Stops ...Rf4+.} Rg6 35. Re6 Rxe6 36. Qg4+ Kf7 37. Qxf5+ {and wins.}) 30... Rf6 31. Ng5 Rgf8 32. Rg4 Rf2 {[%cal Oh7h5] This is a real, and quite cunning, trap because if the Q is taken then black draws.} 33. Ne4 (33. Rxh4 {33.Ne4} Rxg2+ 34. Kh1 Rxg5+ 35. Rhe4 Rf3 {[%cal Rf3h3]} 36. Kh2 {[%cal Oe4e8] Threatening mate with Re8} Rf2+ 37. Kh1 Rf3 {forces a repetition.} 38. Re8+ {doesn't work because of the discovered check.} Rf8+ 39. R8e4 Rf3 {is a threefold repitition. }) 33... Qh6 34. Nxf2 Rxf2 35. Re6 {A pretty finish.} Rf6 36. Rxc6 Rxc6 37. Qd4 {[%cal Rd4d8]} Qf6 38. Rf4 Qe7 39. Qd7 {Very precise play by Duras in a complicated game. Wolf resigned.} 1-0