ShashChess Revisited, Komodo and Stockfish

     I didn't realize it but back in 2018 I did a review of SashChess and considered it "interesting." 

     SashChess is based on Stockfish. The difference is that this engine is an attempt to apply Alexander Shashin's theory based on his book Best Play: A New Method For Discovering The Strongest Move that was published in 2013.Read book review HERE

     In the book physicist and master Alexander Shashin breaks down the position into mathematical ratios that compare the elements of material, mobility, safety and space which, supposedly, leads you to the proper plan and the right mental attitude in light of what’s happening on the board. Based on the games of three world champions with distinctive playing styles (Tal, Capablanca, and Petrosian) and backed up by personal and computer-aided analysis, Shashin attempts to form guidelines to help make decisions in different situations, including those too wild and murky to provide clear-cut conclusions. 

     SashChess is based on Stockfish and the book. Depending on the position the engine has algorithms modeled after the play of Tal, Capablanca and Petrosian as well as "mixed," so it plays differently, based on the type of position it is analyzing. Additionally, the engine has a GoldDigger mode in which it favors depth over the pruning of variations. In this mode it is supposed to be able to uncover hidden possibilities although it loses slightly in playing strength. It also means it will require more thinking time. I should mention that this mode does not seem suitable for auto-analysis in Fritz (or the tactical analysis as it's called in ChessBase 16) nor is it good for use in engine speed tournaments because it is slower. 

     It's this GoldDigger mode that I was interested in for correspondence play. As a test I entered an event on Lechenicher SchachServer where engine use is allowed. My opponents were all in the 2100 range and one had an ICCF title. 

     Of course, there was no way of knowing what engines they were using or how much time they were allowing engines to think before selecting their move, but I suspect that Stockfish was the norm and since most moved fairly quickly I assume their engine "thinking" time was not especially long. For my part, all games were played in the GoldDigger mode and the minimum engine thinking time on three cores was five minutes, sometimes 15-30 minutes. 

     My main observation was that there was little difference between SashChess' moves and those of whatever engines my opponents were using because in none of the games did they make a move that was totally unexpected. All of the games were uneventful draws. 

     So, while SashChess is a most interesting concept, in my opinion it did not seem to offer any real advantage over Stockfish 15 which is still my preferred engine for analysis. 

     Speaking of engines, I also have Komodo 14 which I seldom use, but for those that are interested you can download Komodo 13 free from their site HERE. The claim is that Komodo's advantage over brute force engines is its positional style of play and the fact that it relies on positional evaluation over depth. This means that "when most engines can't find a good plan, Komodo can seemingly create something out of nothing." 

     Komodo 14 also has different "personalities" the names of which are self-explanatory: aggressive, defensive, active, positional, endgame, beginner and human. The idea is to simulate different styles.  The ChessBase site gives an example...say if you think the position offers enough attacking potential to warrant playing for a win then  you can switch to the aggressive mode, etc. I think this sounds like sales hype or may it's something similar to SashChess' different modes. Testing it out on Lechenicher SchachServer is not something I want to bother with.

     All that said, on the CCLR 40/15 rating list there is not all that much difference between Stockfish, Komodo Dragon and SashChess! If you are interested you can download SashChess HERE

Apostle of Aggression

     That's how Chess Review described Weaver Adams after his victory in the 1948 U.S. Open that was held in Baltimore, Maryland. 

     The US Open of 1948 started the day before my third birthday, but I was unaware of it. Some other events in July that I was unaware of were Idlewild International Airport (today John F. Kennedy) opened in Queens, New York and pinball machines and other gaming devices were banned in New York City. The Berlin Airlift was taking place and, for reasons that I cannot begin to explain, The Woody Woodpecker Song by Kay Kyser and His Orchestra topped the Billboard singles charts.

     Only once before had the 47-year old Weaver Adams scored a major success and that was in 1945 when he won first prize at Ventnor City in New Jersey.

    In this US Open, Adams showed his aggressive nature when, after a second round loss and a third round draw, he was far off the pace, but came from behind to take first prize when he fought off a determined challenge by Olaf Ulvestad in the last round. 

     Max Pavey was the hard luck player; he missed possible wins against Adams (they drew) and Ulvestad (he lost) and had at least a draw against Kashdan (also a loss). That's a possible 2.5 points he left on the table...enough for a clear first. In the event the excellent showing of young players Robert Steinmeyer and Arthur Bisguier was a promising sign. 

     Adams success was remarkable because he frequently found himself playing against his own analysis, most of which was published for everyone to see. Such faithful adherence to his own theories made Adams' career a difficult one because he really was one to practice what he preached. 

     Adams made only one foray into the international tournament (Hastings 1950-51) and it was a disaster. He finished in 9th place with a +2 -6 =1 score in no small part because everybody knew what he was going to play. His iconoclastic theories just wouldn't hold up in actual play.

ChessBase

Weaver W. Adams–Anthony Santasiere1–0US Open, Baltimore12.07.1948Stockfish 15

Caro-Kann: Advance Variation 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 For a long time this was regarded as inferior for many years for no other reason than the way in which Capablanca crushed Nimzovich at New York 1927. But, it was revived by Tal and later Alexei Shirov and Nigel Short. f5 The other main continuation is 3...c5. 4.d3 xd3 5.xd3 e6 6.e2 b6 7.f4 This appears to be as least as good as the alternatives 7.c3, 7.Nd2 and 7.a4 g6 Santasiere takes precautions against the advance of white's f-Pawn, but Adams opts to play it anyway. 8.g4 c5 Black is doing well here as white is facing some difficulty in getting his pieces out. 9.f5 Aggressive, but that's about all you can say for it. cxd4 10.fxe6 xe6 Not a bad move by any means. Engines prefer 10...fxe6, but it results in complications galore. 11.xd4 d7 A wimpy retreat. Larry Evans once criticized Santasiere for talking like a Romantic, but he didn't have any games to back up his bravado. 12.e2 e7 13.e6 fxe6 14.xe6 Better than taking with the Q. White wants to keeps pieces on the board. c6 15.0-0 Now white has the upper hand. f6 16.h6 e4 It would have been safer to play 16...Kf7 and if 17.Ng5+ Kg8 even though the R on h8 would be imprisoned. 17.g7+ d8 18.c3 Black should now continue with 18...Nxc3 with approximate equality. d4 Black's centralized pieces coupled with white's exposed K appear to assure him of superiority, but, in fact, his position is lost. 19.g2 More precise was 19. Qd3 c8 20.ad1 Another slightly imprecise move, but even so, white still remains much better. 20.xe4 dxe4 21.xe4 xc2 and white is winning after 22.e6+ 20...xc3 As good as anything else! 21.bxc3 b5 22.c4 bc3 23.cxd5 c5+ It finally looks like black has an attack, but it's an illusion. 24.h1 xd1 24...f2+ This was no better. 25.xf2 xd1 26.e6+ c8 27.e2 White's only a P ahead, but is winning. How is that so? f2+ 28.g1 e4+ 29.e3 xe3+ 30.xe3 d6 31.g3 c4 32.b3 e8 33.f4 d6 34.e3 b5 White wants to play c4 35.a4 a6 36.axb5 axb5 37.a3 xe6 37...b8 38.a6 38.d4 e1+ 39.f2 c1 40.a8+ c7 41.c5+ mate next move 25.xe4 f2+ 26.xf2 Putting an end to any hopes black has of counterattacking. xf2 27.e5 The threat is Bg5+. Compare this position to the one after 18...Nd4...black center gas completely disappeared. xg4 28.e6+ White mates. Weaker is 28.b8+ e7 29.xb7+ d6 30.e8+ xe8+- 28...d7 29.c7+ e8 30.g7+ f8 31.f5+ Very precise and aggressive play by Adams. 1–0

Download PGN

A Crackerjack Game By Tal

     Merriam-Webster defines "crackerjack" as either a candied popcorn confection or a person or thing of marked excellence. Today's game is an example of the latter definition. 

     The Botvinnik-Tal match of 1960 was played in Moscow in the spring of 1960 and what a match it was! There was the famous 6th game in which Tal, right after the opening, sacrificed a Knight. Yasser Seirawan explains the game on YouTube HERE...check it out!

     In that game Tal was pacing back and forth on the stage and when Botvinnik's clock showed only a few minutes left the arbiters Stahlberg and Golombek had to move the game backstage because the spectators were so excited and noisy! Botvinnik's efforts at refuting the sacrifice were in vain...Tal won the game, and in spite of Botvinnik's stubborn resistance, he went on to win the match. 

     The match was from March 15 to May 7, 1960, and after 21 games, and at the age of 23, Mikhail Tal became the 8th World Champion. 

 

     Tal often sacrificed material for the initiative and those intuitive sacrifices created complications that were often difficult, if not impossible, to solve over the board. Post-game analysis, and these days analysis with engines, may find flaws, but who cares?! 

     In the following game, for the second game in a row, Botvinnik lost when he played what was considered a gross blunder.

     This game (the 7th) featured a Caro-Kann and the same variation that was played in the fifth game, but this time Botvinnik adopted a line that led to an exchange of Queens. Tal could have avoided doing so, but at the expense of incurring a weak center Pawn. 

     The main feature of this game is that it's an example of two minor pieces against a Rook. Examination of the notes by Hans Kmoch and Peter Griffiths, a strong British master who was active from the 1960s until 1989, shows that their notes contained errors, but they were written before today's powerful engines. What is more important is that they both pointed out some practical guidelines that it's important to be aware of. 

     If you are interested in general principles on two minor pieces against a Rook then you might want to check out Larry Kaufmann's excellent article on page 6 in the March 1999 issue of Chess Life. If your not interested in principles, just play over the game for enjoyment. 

 

ChessBase

Mikhail Tal–Mikhail Botvinnik1–0B18World Championship Match, Moscow729.03.1960Stockfish 15

Caro-Kann 1.e4 c6 Tal wrote that there was no reason to suppose that Botvinnik would change his tactics which, in four out of six games, had given him a playable game and so the Caro-Kann was his most suitable choice. 2.d4 d5 3.c3 dxe4 4.xe4 f5 5.g3 g6 6.1e2 d7 This move prepares ...e5. More cautious is 6...e6 as played in game 5. After that game Tal had considered the possibility of sacrificing a N on e6 should they reach the same position again. Probably Botvinnik had also given it some thought and so he played a different line. In any case, Botvinnik took 12 minutes to decide to play this move which gives white a slight edge and indicates he had some concerns about what course to take. 6...e6 This is safer. 7.h4 h6 8.f4 h7 9.c4 f6 10.e2 d6 11.e3 bd7 12.gh5 xh5 13.xh5 g8 with equality. The game was eventually drawn. Tal-Botvinnik, 5th game. 7.h4 7.f4 allows black easy equality after e5 8.xg6 hxg6 9.dxe5 and black can play either 9...Nxe5 or 9...Qa5+ and 10...Qxe5+ 7...h6 8.f4 h7 9.c4 9.d3 This would diminish some of the value of the break ...e5, but black continue as usual with ...e6, ...Ngf6, etc xd3 10.xd3 e6 11.d2 gf6 equals 9...e5 Tal wrote that black doesn't have much choice and this move is practically forced. Tal was still speaking of the possibility of a N sacrifice on e6. 9...e6 10.c3 gf6 11.0-0 b6 12.b3 bd5 13.xd5 xd5 is equal. Mamedov,R (2667)-Kovchan,A (2563) Aix-les-Bains FRA 2011 9...gf6 is favorable to white. 10.0-0 e6 Had they reached this position Tal thought the sacrifice on e6 would decide the game. 10...b6 is safer, but not quite satisfactory. 11.b3 a5 12.a3 a4 13.a2 e6 14.e1 White has the better prospects. Sedina,E (2320)-Zelcic,R (2460) Turin 1994 11.xe6 fxe6 12.e1 g8 13.xe6 xe6 14.xe6+ f7 15.e2 Actually, here the position is equal, but it's the kind Tal liked and Botvinnik disdained. 10.e2 Tal was already thinking about the ending and believed he would have a slight advantage in it. 10.d3 is an interesting possibility suggested by Tal. exd4 11.0-0 xh4 12.e1+ e7 13.f3 gf6 14.f4 b6 15.d6 0-0 A most interesting position. White is slightly better after 16.Bxe7 16.xf7+ This is not quite correct. 16.xe7 xc4 17.xf8 xf8 and white has a R vs B+2Ps 16...xf7 17.xe7 xe7 18.xe7 bd5 19.e1 and black is better. 10...e7 11.dxe5 xe5 12.e3 c5 13.xc5 xe2+ 14.xe2 xc5 15.he1 f6 16.b4 When Tal annotated this game he completely forgot that he had played this opening before! Against Illivitsky he played the equally good 16. Kf1+ 16.f1+ f8 17.b4 ce4 18.xe4 xe4 19.d3 xd3+ 20.xd3 g5 21.e5 gxh4 22.ae1 e8 23.xe8+ xe8 Draw agreed. Mikhail Tal-Georgy Ilivitsky Riga 1955 16...cd7 17.f1+ f8 18.b3 g5 After this move Botvinnik had used an hour and 20 minutes for 18 moves and Tahl only half that time! Botvinnik has achieved an active position, but the clock is now going to be a factor. 19.hxg5 hxg5 20.h3 g8 21.ed1 White has some initiative and and in order to maintain it he wants to keep as many pieces on the board as possible and this move avoids the exchange of Rs on the e-file. a5 22.bxa5 This is white's best chance as the separation of Q-side Ps is not serious. xa5 23.d6 e7 24.ad1 e5 Kmoch claimed that this move was not the best and his next move permitted a simple but beautiful tactical sequence with two temporary sacrifices of the exchange. Soviet Maste Vasily Panov agreed. Neither Stockfish 15 nor Komodo 12 find any fault with the move and evaluate the position as equal. 25.h5 A pretty and trappy move but no it's really threat. All that Tal has achieved so far is equality as he has no tangible advantage. [However, Botvinnik is beginning to get into time pressure. Actually, a more solid continuation for white would have been to reposition a N witn Ng1-e2 g6 The general consensus of opinion (for example Hans Kmoch and Peter Griffiths) claimed that with this move Botvinnik walked into the trap. Kmoch suggested the idea of dislodging the N with 25...Bf5(!) or even 25. ..Rg6 was playable. The text, while it results in equality, allows Tal to force an extremely sharp and interesting ending which also takes advantage of Botvinnik's time pressure not to mention that Botvinnik found positions in which he was forced to walk a tightrope distasteful. 25...f5 This results in a sharp position after 26.xf6 xf6 27.xg5 xg5 28.f4 with equal chances. 25...g6 is tamer and white has a number of options. One is 26.xf6 xf6 27.6d2 27.xg5 doesn't work. exg5 with a decisve advantage. 27...g4 28.f4 h6 29.g1 f5 Here, too, the chances are even. 26.xd7+ The results in white getting two pieces vs. a R. While technically the result is equal chances, in view of Botvinnik's time pressure and the fact that he disliked these types of unclear position, Tals' choice is absolutely the correct one. 26.xf6 is the safer course...too wimpy for Tal. xf6 27.f3 f5 28.xg5 xg5 29.f4 e4 29...g4 is also playable. 30.fxg5 e8 31.6d4 xd1 32.xd1 xg5 30.fxe5 xd6 31.exd6+ d7 26...xd7 27.xd7+ xd7 The R comes into its own in the ending so that winning with two minor pieces against a R is much harder here than it would be in the middlegame. At this point, in his book on endings, Griffiths stated that Botvinnik has walked into a trap that lost two Ns for a R, but "lost" is probably too strong. That said, the resulting position is harder for black to handle and so the position certinly favors Tal. 28.f6+ d6 29.xg8 Tal's problem here is that his pieces are scattered and are not working together. If you have the two minor pieces the essential points to remember are 1) coordinate them and 2) security; a R on the rampage can do a lot of damage. c5 30.h6 f6 30...xc2 would be a mistake because after 31.xf7+ 31.xc2 xc2 and the outcome is not clear. 31...e7 32.fxg5 and the two passed Ps are likely more than the R cn handle. 31.g4 Kmoch wrote that white has a winning advantage, but the technical difficulties he has makes the task difficult. That's wrong; white does not have a winning advantage; in fact, he has no advantage at all. In 5 Shootuts white scored 5 draws. xc2 Eliminating as many Ps as possible is the best way of putting up resistance. 32.xf6 xb3 33.axb3 And now Ne4+ would win. 33.e4+ is tempting, but it doesn't lead to anything. d5 34.xc5 c4+ 35.e1 xc5 36.xg5 xa2 draws. For example. .. 37.d2 b5 38.g4 d5 39.f4 b1 40.c1 g6 41.f3 e4 42.e5 e8 43.c2 xf4 44.d3+ xg4 45.c3 f5 46.d4 e6 47.c5 d7 48.b4 c7 49.a6+ b7 50.b4 d7 51.c2 a6 52.b4+ a5 53.a2 f5 54.b4 e4 55.a2 a6 56.b4+ b7 57.a2 a7 58.b4 d5 59.c2 a6 60.b4+ a5 61.c2 a4 62.b4 e4 63.a2 b3 64.b4 a3 65.a6 b3 66.b8 g2 67.a6 black can make no progress. 33...b5 Well played! The the fact that white can't defend his Q-side Ps looks ominous! 34.xg5 Now white's Ns are now excellently placed to escort the Ps. xb3 A surprising error by Botvinnik a this capture loses without much of a fight a fight. He had to prevent white from promoting a P. 34...xg5 loses quickly after 35.e4+ d5 36.xg5 34...e5 The K.s presence on the K-side is absolutely vital for the defense. 35.fe4 xb3 Five Shootouts from this position were drawn. 35.f4 Thanks to the absence of black's K this P practically marches through. b1+ Although it matters little because black is lost, this aids white by enabling him to activate his K. 35...b5 Puts up a tougher defense, but in the end white is able to force the win. There are many variations, but here is just one example... 36.fe4+ e7 37.g4 c5 38.f5 c4 39.f6+ f8 40.h7+ g8 41.f7+ xf7 42.d6+ g6 43.xb5 xh7 44.f2 g6 45.f3 g5 46.g3 b6 47.c3 g6 48.f4 f6 49.g5+ g6 50.g4 g7 51.f5 f7 52.g6+ g7 53.g5 f8 54.f6 g8 55.g7 and it's a mate in 4. h7 56.d5 56.f7 h6 57.g8 56...c3 57.e7 c2 58.g8+ 36.e2 b2+ 37.f3 b3+ 38.g4 b2 39.g3 b5 Black advances this P because it's the more distant one. 40.fe4+ d5 41.f5 b4 42.f6 a2 43.f7 a8 44.h7 A nice finishing touch. b3 44...xe4 At first glance, this seems to win, but that's not the case. 45.f6+ e3 46.e8 and the f-Pawn queens. 45.d2 b2 46.f3 This is the only move that wins! 46.f8 xf8 47.xf8 d4 Watch this... 48.f5 d3 49.b1 c2 White has to take the draw with 50. Na3+ so as to keep b1 covered. 50.a3+ b3 50...c1 loses 51.d7 and black has no way of avoiding the loss. 51.b1 etc. 46.f5 This doesn't work either. d4 47.b1 47.g4 loses d3 48.b1 c2 49.f8 xf8+ 50.xf8 xb1 and the P queens 47...d3 48.f8 xf8+ 49.xf8 c2 50.a3+ 46...d4 47.e2 White's K guarding the N makes all the difference. c5 48.f8 xf8 49.xf8 c4 Black's Ps are nothing more than a harmless demonstration. 50.e6+ d5 51.f4+ d4 52.b1 The Ps are stopped and black can't get to the g-Pawn. An amazing game by Tal and theoretically correct or not his 26.Rxd7 was a crackerjack move that was largely responsible for winning the game. 52.b1 e4 52...e5 53.f3 53.f2 f5 54.f3 1–0

Download PGN

An Unknown (slightly flawed) Masterpiece by Charles Kalme

     Karlis Ivars Kalme was the Latvian name of a player better known as Charles Kalme (November 15, 1939 – March 20, 2002), a Latvian American master and a mathematician. 

     Kalme was born in Riga and at the conclusion of World War II what was left of his family fled Latvia and for six years lived in a Displaced persons camp in Germany before finally arriving in Philadelphia in 1951. 

     After the war, the western Allies established DP camps in the Allied-occupied zones of Germany, Austria and Italy. The first inhabitants were concentration camp survivors who had been liberated by the Allies on German soil. 

     Especially at the beginning, conditions in the camps were difficult and the occupants found themselves still living behind barbed wire and subsisting on inadequate amounts of food with shortages of clothing, medicine and supplies. 

     In the camps Jews sometimes lived alongside anti-Semites and Nazis. As a result, Jews were transferred to separate camps where conditions were somewhat better. All of the camps were closed by 1950, except for Fohrenwald in the American zone. It was one of the largest camps and remained operative until 1957. 

     Kalme's first major success came in 1955 when he became the youngest player to win the US Junior Championship, held in Lincoln, Nebraska. Chess Life described the 15-year old Kalme as "a handsome unassuming youth from Philadelphia."

    His 9-1 score showed a striking superiority over a field of 25 players that included three Experts (2000-2199) and four Class A (1800-1999) players. In those days even an Expert's rating was quite high and achieving one was an admirable feat. His rating was 2186. Other top finishers were Larry Remlinger (a distant second with a score of 7.5-2.5), Robert Cross (7-3), Ronald Gross and Andris Staklis (both 6-4). 

     Kalme lost one game, to Robert Cross (1925-1993), the 1948 California Champion who was also a champion correspondence player 

     As a side note, the tournament was held in mid-July in the Lincoln YMCA which was air conditioned and that was especially welcome because there was a 100 degree heat wave that hit the city. Chess Life gave TD Alexander Liepnicks praise because he directed the tournament which was a Swiss event, something new at at time. And, the rules were considered complicated because the pairings were based on USCF ratings which changed from round to round depending on the game results!

     In addition to chess Kalme also became a master of contract bridge. He sometimes played as a partner of Michael Lawrence, who was a member of the world champion bridge team, the Dallas Aces. 

     Kalme, who held the IM title, received a Ph.D. degree in mathematics from New York University in 1967, and became a professor of mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley and later at University of Southern California.

     When Latvia restored its independence in 1991 from the Soviet Union, Kalme returned to Latvia, where he worked on a National Strategy for Bringing Computer Literacy to Latvian Schools. He died there in 2002. 

      The following thriller is an almost unknown slightly flawed masterpiece that he played against a player known only as Nedora in a Philadelphia City League match in 1953. 

ChessBase

Nedora–Kalme0–1Philadelphia City League1953Stockfish 15

French Defense, Winawar Variation 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.c3 b4 The pin forces white to resolve the central tension. 4.e5 White normally clarifies the central situation...for the moment...in this way. The move gains space and he hopes to show that black's B is misplaced...it isn't. c5 5.a3 xc3+ 6.bxc3 White has doubled Ps which form the basis for black's counterplay,but, at the same time, they strengthen white's center. White also has the semi-open b-file, a space advantage and the potential for a K-side attack because black has traded off his dark-square Bishop. If he can survice, black's P-formation is favorable. e7 7.d3 White has far better chances of success with the sharp 7.Qg4 c4 Black leaves the book which offers 7...Qa4 and 7...Nbc6 as the only two options. 8.e2 a5 9.d2 a4 9...bc6 transposes into Remizov,Y (2385)-Aitbayev,A (2475) lichess.org INT 2021 which continued 10.h4 d7 11.h5 h6 12.f4 0-0-0 13.h3 g6 14.0-0 dg8 with equal chances. 10.h3 White had somewhat better chances with 10.h4 d7 11.0-0 bc6 12.f4 0-0-0 Black's K will be perfectly safe here and white's K-side maneuver has come to naught. 13.g5 df8 14.b1 f6 This jab at the center gives black the initiative. 15.f3 15.exf6 is quite inferior as after gxf6 16.f3 f5 Black has a promising position. 15...f5 16.b2 h5 Something has gone awry for white...it's black with the makings of a K-side attack while white's prospects of successfully attacking black's K down the b-file are slim. 17.ab1 b6 18.e1 White is curiously helpless when it comes to finding a promising plan. h4 19.g4 ce7 20.b4 h6 21.xf5 Perhaps he should have played 21.Bh3 to stop the advance of the h-Pawn. xb4 22.xb4 xf5 23.a4 fh8 24.f3 Now it's time for a tactical display by the 14-year old Kalme. g3 25.fb1 Taking the N allows mate. g5 This seemingly logical move (it rips open the K-side) is seriously flawed. Correct was 25...Ne4 25...e4 26.a1 Supporting the advance of the a-Pawn. g6 which black can ignore. 27.a5 b5 and black still has his K-side attack while white is left with nothing but trying to defend against it. 26.e1 26.fxg5 This counter-intuitive move salvages the game! fxg5 27.xg5 f5 28.a5 Black's P on h4 renders the Rs impotent while white's Rs are poised to rip black's guts out! b5 29.f7 White picks up the exchange which should prove sufficient. 26...e4 27.exf6 g4 Thanks to his slip at move 25 Kalme has allowed his opponent back into the game. 27...gxf4 This was even better. 28.e5 xf6 29.a5 b5 30.xd7 xd7 31.xb5 d6 with a small advantage. 28.e5 xf6 29.xd7 White counters with a slip of his own... this time Kalme isn't going to let him get away. 29.a5 fully equalizes. b5 30.xd7 xd7 31.xb5 with equal chances. d6 32.b8 fh6 33.h3 xb8 34.xb8 gxh3 35.gxh3 etc. 29...xd7 30.a5 xf4 31.axb6 a5 The difference here compared toi the position in the previous note is that white's Rs can't operate on the b-file. 32.a4 32.4b2 g3 33.b7 f1+ 34.xf1 gxh2 and the P queens. 32...g3 33.b7 33.h3 hf8 would cost white heavy plastic as he is forced to play 34.xg3 hxg3 35.aa1 xc3 36.e1 f2 and all of white's hope is gone. 33...f1+ The game is over. 34.xf1 gxh2 35.e2 h1 36.b8 xb8 37.xb8 All that's left is for white to figure out how to deliver the mate. xg2+ 38.d1 f3+ Black mates. 39.c1 f4+ 40.d1 xb8 Black has a mate in 11 moves. With the one exception, Kalme's play was very precise. 40...xb8 Stockfish 15: 41.xh4 b1+ 42.e2 xc2+ 43.f3 d1+ 44.e3 d3+ 45.f4 f1+ 46.e3 h3+ 47.e2 xh4 48.d1 f2 49.a2 xa2 50.c1 d6 51.d1 d2# 0–1

Download PGN

An Unsound Q-Sac and a Psychology Lesson

 

     Some time back I posted about the joys of playing the Borg Defense (1...g5) in Blitz games on the Internet. I like it because it often leaves opponents bewildered. 

     In the following game at move 11, thanks to some weak play by my opponent, I had a winning game. That's when I decided that just for fun I'd sacrifice my Queen and end up with a B+N+2Ps vs a Q and a position that Stockfish says is losing by about three Ps. That was OK though because I wasn't playing Stockfish and I had what looked to me like a position that white would find difficult to crack.

     The whole idea of giving up the Queen was to complicate, confuse, muddle, jumble, garble, blur, obscure, make unclear, cloud and obfuscate...all that stuff just to make the game more interesting. 

     For some reason on Chess Hotel where opponents are anonymous, when some players get a lost game they leave the site. I don't understand this. Why not just resign and seek another game? 

     There's a psychological reason. According to one article I read, a person who exaggerates their chances at anything will often fly into a rage when they do not achieve the results they hoped for. Actually, it's not out of the ordinary to find people so competitive that their behavior upon losing borders on being unhealthy. 

     According to the article, a bad loser's action can be traced back to childhood. Often they were not corrected when they were kids and reached the point where they were unable to control themselves after they lost a game. This lack of discipline continues into adult life...they are immature. 

     Bad losers often have low self-esteem and are often highly critical of themselves. They lack confidence and more often than not see themselves as inadequate, underappreciated and undervalued and in turn, they tend to try and overcompensate. This can make them irrational and unapproachable. 

     They can also be envious and in real life and they will sometimes try to find ways to sabotage your efforts if it means they will lose or look bad. They don't care about the consequences and ultimately don't care about friendships because they are so self-centered. They may even resort to force if they feel it's necessary. 

     Bad losers blame everyone but themselves for failure because to them any failure, no matter how small, is a big deal. It might just be a friendly anonymous chess game online, but to them, it is a symbol of asserting their dominance. Their opponent is the object of their rage because their opponent has obtained something that is, in their mind, rightfully theirs...victory. 

     Bad losers never hide their disgust and disappointment...they don't hesitate to let you know how upset they are. And, in an attempt to alleviate the stress of feeling like a loser they will attempt to demean opponents via insults. Like one of my opponents who when he was losing kept spewing out profanity. When I didn't answer, he kept sending longer and longer vulgar messages.

     On Chess Hotel when a player abandons a game you are given the win shortly after they leave so it's not a big deal. More annoying are the losers who don't leave, they just let their time run out. After a few minutes I usually send them a message like, "Take your time; I am watching television while we play." It sometimes infuriates them to the point the leave the game. On to the game... 

ChessBase

Volodya–Tartajubow0–1B00Blitz Game, Chess Hotel2022Stockfish 15

Borg Defense 1.e4 g5 2.d4 This is almost always played. g7 Daring white to take the P. I don't think it's a good idea to do so because black gets good play. The safe and solid 3.Nc3 may be better. 3.xg5 c5 The threats black generates against the b- and d-Pawns in this line often seems to befuddle folks. 4.c3 cxd4 5.c4 Not a bad idea; white develops. 5.cxd4 b6 attacks both the b- and d-Pawns but things should still work out to white's advantage. 6.e2 xb2 7.bc3 xd4 8.c1 8.xd4 xc3+ 9.e2 and black is at least equal. 8...xc3+ 9.xc3 c6 10.c4 and white has development that compensates for his two P minus according to both Stockfish and Komodo 14. 5...b6 5...a5 6.d2 b6 does not look so good as 5... Qb5 6...dxc3 7.xc3 white is better. 6.e2 But at this point letting black capture the b-Pawn is not such a good idea. Preserving the P with 6.Qe2 was better. xb2 Black is at least equal after this. White has a reasonable try here with 7.Qb3 to exchange Qs and drastically reduce black's attacking chances. 7.d2 This is not really a mistake, but the black P on c3 will create problems for white. dxc3 8.b1 This is a serious tactical oversight. 8.b3 c2 9.d3 c6 10.c1 e5 11.xc2 xc2 12.xc2 xc4 13.xc4 and black can only claim to be slightly better. 8...cxd2+ 8...c2 This packs an even bigger wallop. 9.xb2 cxd1+ 10.xd1 xb2 and being a R and P ahead, black wins. 9.f1 Better, but not by much, was 9.Bxd2 9.xd2 is the only way for White. e5 10.c1 9...e5 10.xd2 xe4 11.b4 The threat is Bxf7+ xc4 The easy way was 11...Qc6, but this is more challenging. 12.xc4 I have a B+N+2Ps for the Q and according to Komodo 14 a slightly over two P disadvantage. c6 13.f4 d6 14.h3 d7 15.d5 c8 16.b1 e6 17.e3 Somewhat preferrable would have been 17. Bc3 inviting the trade of black's active B. d5 18.a4 This places the R out of play; he should ahve retreated to c1. Now his advantage has shrunk to about half a P! f6 Interesting. Engines think I should have played 18...b6, but frown on his next move. At least 18...Nf6 is a developing move. 19.xb7 19.c3 keeps a slight advantage after 0-0 20.g4 e5 21.f5 xf5 22.xg7+ xg7 23.xf5 White is only slightly better. 19...e4 19...b8 was a bit better. 20.a6 b1+ 21.e1 0-0 Black is actually better here. 20.e1 This feeble move loses at once. 20.xe4 Forceful and good. dxe4 21.g1 b8 22.a6 0-0 23.h2 Getting the R into play. White now has a Q vs R+B+P and can only claim a very slight advantage and the win would not be a foregone conclusion. 20...b8 21.a6 21.c7 e5 wins the Q 21...c5 22.e2 xa4 White resigned, but even though the engine evaluation puts him 3. 5 Ps to the bad, he can still make a fight of it. 22...xa4 23.xd5 0-0 24.f4 d4 25.d1 b2 White has a very passive position while black's are very active, but white isn't playing Stockfish or Komodo either! 0–1

Download PGN

A Bright Day For Smyslov

     As mentioned in the previous post, I think Vasily Smyslov (March 24, 1921 - March 27, 2010) is greatly under-appreciated as a player. Besides being an 8-time candidate for the World Championship and holder of the title in 1957-58, he tied for first place in the Soviet Championship twice (1949, 1955), won 17 Olympiad medals, won ten gold medals in the European Team Championships, and he also had great longevity, remaining active and a dangerous opponent well after the age of sixty. 

     Among the books in my library is his My Best Games of Chess 1935-1957. Smyslov's original book contained games only up to 1951. My copy is the 1958 edition translated and edited by Peter H. Clarke, who (unfortunately) felt it necessary to eliminate 11 games from the original work while adding 18 later games "for balance." 

     After posting one of Smyslov's miserable losses to Botvinnik in their 1958 World Championship match, let's go back to their 1954 tied match and watch Smyslov absolutely crush Botvinnik. 

 

 

In this match there were 14 decisive games, 12 of the first 16, including a streak of 8 decisive results in a row! 

ChessBase

Vasily Smyslov–Mikhail Botvinnik1–0C18World Championship Match, Moscow903.04.1954Stockfish 15

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.c3 b4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 a5 6.b4 cxd4 7.g4 This is the most aggressive continuation. In the 1st and 3rd games Smyslov played 7.Ng5 but didn't get any advantage. e7 7...f8 gives white a dangerous attack. 8.b5 White gets the initiative. 8.bxa5 dxc3 9.f3 e7 10.d3 d7 11.b4 c7 12.0-0 Unzicker,W (2592)-Botvinnik,M (2702) Amsterdam 1954. White is better, but despite Botvinnik's subsequent poor play Unzicker could only manage a draw. 8...b6 9.f3 c6 10.b2 8.bxa5 This is the only try for an advantage. 8.xg7 g8 9.xh7 c7 10.b5 a6 11.xc7+ 11.xd4 is less good. xe5 12.gf3 and now in Estrin-Khasin, Moscow Championship 1953 black could have gotten the better game with 12...Bf6 11...xc7 12.e2 xe5 with plenty of play. 8.b5 leads to no more than equality after c7 9.f3 g6 10.d3 c6 8...dxc3 9.xg7 g8 10.xh7 d7 Bringing another piece over to defend the K. Smyslov is already threatening to launch a formidable K-side attack by Nf3-g5 etc. 11.f3 f8 This is not very good. 11...Qc8 tying white down to the defense of his e-Pawn was better. 12.d3 xa5 13.h4 secures g5 and, given the opportunity, the further advance of the h-Pawn is a real possibility. Smyslov has already built up a position that's on the verge of being decisive. This seems unimaginable against Botvinnik. d7 14.g5 White would also have a good position after 14.Ng5, but developing the B on g5 is better. 14.g5 a4 15.h3 d7 16.f4 with good attacking possibilities. 14...c8 15.d4 Centralizing the N is quite logical, but the all seeing Stockfish prefers 15.Rb1 and then 16.Qd4. Smyslov's move is perfectly OK though. f5 16.b1 Very nice. White does not want to exchange the light squared Bs and so prevents ...Bb5. c4 Botvinnik should have contented himself with the docile 16...b6, but instead he plans to sacrifice the exchange in the hopes of obtaining some play. 16...b6 17.g4 xd4 18.xd4 xa3 Even though he is a P up and has a passed a-Pawn white is still better because he has good attacking possibilities. White scored 5 out of 5 in Shootouts from this position, but they were long games and securing the win could prove quite tricky. 17.xf5 exf5 17...e4+ loses at once because of the nifty... 18.xe4 dxe4 19.d6# 18.xb7 e4+ Botvinnik's intention was to play 18...Rxg5, but it is hardly much better. 18...xg5 19.hxg5 xa3 20.b8+ e7 21.xd5 e4+ 22.e2 c1+ 23.d1 xd1+ 24.xd1 and white is winning. 18...xa3 is also insufficient. 19.b8+ c8 20.xc8+ xc8 21.xd5 a1+ 22.d1 here, too, white is winning. 19.xe4 dxe4 20.b8+ c8 21.b5+ xb5 22.xb5 e6 23.f6 The advance of the h-Pawn quickly decides the outcome. xg2 24.h5 a6 25.h6 Botvinnik resigned. Forceful play by Smyslov! 1–0

Download PGN

Smyslov's Most Horrible Moment

     Last night was dreadful. Scattered heavy rain with thunder and lightening, a tornado which fortunately did not touch down, isolated flooding of streets and homes and a nearby river overflowing its banks were the order of the evening. 

     We were blessed that except for a brief period of heavy downpour the bad stuff missed us, but only by a very few miles. After the storm passed a couple of hours before sunset a beautiful double rainbow appeared that lasted for about half an hour. 

     This morning as I drink my coffee and work on this post my sympathy is extended to those who are left with a messy cleanup and have destroyed cars and damaged homes. I know because in the past we suffered a catastrophic flood that put us out of our home for a couple of weeks and did over $20,000 damage, not including the loss of my car which was sitting in three feet of water. 

     Vasily Smyslov (1921 - 2010) was a Candidate for the World Championship on eight occasions (1948, 1950, 1953, 1956, 1959, 1965, 1983, and 1985), played three world championship matches and held the title from 1957 to 1958. 

     The 1954 World Championship match between Botvinnik and Smyslov was drawn 12–12, meaning Botvinnik retained the world title. Smyslov won the Candidates' Tournament at Amsterdam in 1956 and then went on to defeat Botvinnik by a score of 12.5-9.5 in 1957. 

     Botvinnik exercised his right to a rematch, and the following year won the title back with a score of 12.5-10.5. Smyslov later said his health suffered during the return match, as he came down with pneumonia, but he also acknowledged that Botvinnik had prepared very thoroughly. 

     Botvinnik started with three straight wins and was never in any danger of losing the match. After 14 games Botvinnik was leading with a score of 9-5 when, in a favorable position after 55 moves and only to two moves to make in three minutes to reach adjournment, he became so absorbed that he was surprised when the referee, Gideon Stahlberg, informed him that he had forfeited in time.

     Game 18 was critical. After 17 games Botvinnik was leading 10-7. If he won he would be up four games with six games left. If he lost his lead would be two games and Smyslov would have had some hope. 

     As it turned out Botvinnik missed a brilliant win then Smyslov returned the favor, but things got even worse; he repeatedly missed the best moves. After this game his hopes of salvaging the match were zero. 

 

     It's interesting to note that in their three world championship matches Smyslov held a slim edge: +18 -17 =34, but history gives preference to Botvinnik. 

     Personally, I think Smyslov was the better of the two and his games are more enjoyable to play over. Smyslov was primarily a positional player, but many of his games were fantastic attacking games and he was also an endgame virtuoso. You can read an interesting short article on Smyslov at ChessBase HERE. 

 

ChessBase

Mikhail Botvinnik–Vasily Smyslov1–0A16World Championship Match, Moscow1819.04.1958Stockfish 15

English Opening 1.c4 The English was a favorite of Botvinnik. f6 2.c3 d5 2...g6 3.g3 g7 4.g2 0-0 5.e4 d6 6.d3 Became known as the Botvinnik System in which white obtains good piece play and a center spatial advantage. 3.cxd5 xd5 4.g3 g6 5.g2 xc3 6.bxc3 g7 7.b3 A departure from Games 14 and 16 in which Botvinnik played the more modern 7.Rb1. The text move threatens 8.Bxb7, but the Q will exposed to possible attack. c6 In the other games Smyslov played 7...Nd7 which is satisfactory because 8.Bxb7 loses to 8...Rb8. With the text move Smyslov is seeking complications. 8.f3 0-0 9.0-0 a5 10.c2 c5 11.d3 f5 The threat is 12...c4 and ...cxd3 which would leave white with weak Ps in the center. 12.e4 This meets the threat but his center ends up vulnerable. A safer continuation is 12.Nh4 followed by ...Rb1 d7 13.g5 White hopes to provoke black into weakening his Ps with ...h6 or . ..f6 c8 14.d2 b5 15.fd1 a4 16.e1 f6 17.h6 This P offer is more active than the quiet retreat to e3. xh6 18.xh6 xd3 Smyslov accepts the challenge, but 18...e5 may have been safer. 19.e5 Intending to play on the e-file. If allowed he will play 20.exf6 exf6 21.Re7 which explains black's next move. c6 19...xc3 would be a serious error. 20.ac1 b2 21.exf6 xf6 Otherwise white has Re7 22.g5 g7 22...xf2+ 23.h1 f7 24.f1 wins 23.d5+ h8 24.xg7+ xg7 25.e6+ h8 26.xf8 xf8 27.xc5 and white is winning. 19...ce8 This is the best move challenging white on the e-file. The continuation might be 20.e3 f5 21.ae1 h5 22.xh5 gxh5 with equal chances. 20.e3 c2 21.exf6 exf6 21...xf6 loses to 22.g5 xf2+ 23.h1 f7 24.f3 22.ae1 cd8 Both playesr have overlooked the fact that white has a clear win after this move. 22...xa2 fails... 23.h3 cd8 24.e6+ 22...e5 This would keep white's advantage to a minimum. 23.xe5 fxe5 24.d5+ h8 25.f4 25.xe5 xf2+ 26.h1 ce8 White's attack is over and black is left a P up. 25...c6 26.c4 White is slightly better. 23.h3 White can still claim the advantage after this, but 23.Nd4 wraps it up! 23.d4 cxd4 24.d5+ leads to mate h8 24...xd5 25.e8 25.e7 xe7 26.xe7 Black can only delay, but not prevent, mate. 23...e5 By blocking the e-file black has succeeded in repelling white's attack. 24.xe5 fxe5 25.f4 Botvinnik is still seeking play on the e-file, but it allows Smyslov to seize the initiative. 25.e6+ h8 Eliminating the threat to his f-Pawn. 26.f3 de8 27.d5 with an equal position. 25...c6 White must now prevent ...Rf7. White is under pressure. 25...d2 looks threatening, but it allows mate. 26.xe5 dd8 26...xh2 27.e6+ f7 28.xf7+ xf7 29.e7+ mate next move. 27.e7 f7 28.xf7 black cannot avert mate. 26.g5 This move ought to have lost immediately. It's shocking that the two best players in the world missed the refutation of this move. 26.xe5 xc3 27.g2 d4+ 28.h1 d6 29.xc6 xc6+ 30.g1 f6 31.f5 31.xc5 d4+ 31...d7 32.xc5 Black is only marginally better. 26...de8 Smyslov proceeds as he intended, but misses the win. 26...d2 There is no answer to this. 27.e6+ f7 He gets mated after 27.Kg7 28.Qe7+ 28.h4 g2+ 29.h1 xh2+ mate next move 27.xe5 xc3 28.xe8 This next move is much weaker than trading off the Rs with 28...Rxe8 xe8 28...xe8 29.xe8+ xe8 30.e6+ f8 Black has what should prove to be a won ending. 29.e5 xe5 30.xe5 b6 White's active R compensates for his P minus. 31.e7 a5 32.b7 Better was 32.Be6 first f6 It's interesting that in annotating this game Hans Kmoch was critical of this move claiming that it throws away whatever advantage black had. He recommended that black play 32...b5. That's the exact opposite of what Stockfish claims as it gives 32...Rf6 an exclamation mark. 33.b8 f7 34.f2 d6 35.e3 a4 It's surpring that an endgame player of Smyslov's caliber missed the winning line here. Kmoch makes no mention of it either. 35...c4 36.f1 c3 37.d3 With his K cut off from the defense white is helpless. d7 38.b7 b5 with a decisive advantage. 36.b7+ g8 37.b8+ g7 38.b7+ g8 39.b8+ f7 40.b7+ f8 41.xh7 c4 The difference between this position and the one in the note to move 35 is that black's K is also cut off and white's R is more active and he, too, has a P-majority that black will have to reckon with. 42.c7 b5 43.e4 b4 43...d2 is the main alternative, but it's no better and things get quite tactical. 44.e5 xa2 45.f6 b4 46.h7 g8 47.g7+ h8 47...f8 48.e6 mate next move. 48.e6 xh2 49.c7 d2 49...c3 50.c8+ mates in 5 50.f5 d7 50...gxf5 51.c8+ h7 52.xf5+ h6 53.h8# 51.xd7 d6+ 52.f7 mates in 8... g5 53.f6 h7 54.e7 g6 55.xd6 xf6 56.g4 f7 57.e5 e7 58.e6+ f8 59.f6 c3 60.c8# 44.xc4 d2 45.e5 xa2 46.c8+ Now with 46...Ke7 black can hold the draw. e8 47.d7 Black is in Zugzwang. e2+ 48.f6 White id winning. g5 49.fxg5 49.xe8+ obviously loses. xe8 50.xe8 xe8 51.xg5 b3 49...f2+ 50.e5 e2+ 51.f4 b3 Black loses a piece after 51...Rf2+ 52.Ke3 52.b8 b2 53.xe8 xe8 54.xb2 a4 55.a2 a8 56.a3 White has a sure win, but a quick one. f7 57.h4 g6 58.e4 h5 59.d4 d8+ 60.c4 e8 61.d5 d8+ 62.e5 a8 63.d5 d8+ 64.c5 b8 65.xa4 b3 66.d6 xg3 A visit to the SHredder endgame tablebase web site reveals that after Botvinnik's next move he has a win in 30 moves. 67.e7 b3 68.a6 b7+ 69.f6 b4 70.d6 a4 70...xh4 runs into 71.f5 and there is no way to avoid Rh6# 70...xh4 71.g6 is an obvious win 71.e6 b4 72.f7 b7+ 73.e7 b4 This the move as given in Chess Review's June 1958 issue. Some databases give the continuation 73...Rb5 74.Kg7 1-0 74.g7 Smyslov resigned. Black must lose eventually. 74.g7 Play might continue. e4 75.f7 g4 76.f5 f4 77.f8 a4 78.h8+ g4 79.g6 b4 80.h7 g3 81.h5 b7+ 82.g7 h2 83.f8 e7 84.g6 g1 85.h6 e6+ 86.h7 e7 87.h8 e1 88.g8+ It's mate in 4 1–0

Download PGN

Two Unknowns Grapple

 

     Browsing the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle of 1884 uncovered the following game played at the Manhattan Chess Club that the magazine described as "a brilliant little partie". 

     I was unable to locate any information on J.J. Merian. I did, however discover several men named Eno, but was not able to determine which one was the member of the Manhattan CC who played black. 

     The most famous, or rather infamous, Eno was John C. Eno who took over management of the Second National Bank upon the death the former manager and proceeded to embezzle about $4 million. 

     On June 1, 1884, he was captured, along with a Catholic priest, one Father Ducey, in Quebec, as they were about to depart on a steamer for England. Eno remained in Canada for nine years, returning to New York only when it was certain that the indictment against him would be quashed. 

     Eno's father died in 1898, leaving him an inheritance which was soon gone. When John Eno died in June, 1916, all he left was debts, but he never spent time in jail and never paid a dime in restitution. 

     His father, Amos Richards Eno (1810-1898) was for a time a clerk in a dry-goods store and among his friends and fellow clerks at that time were E. D. Morgan, who eventually became Governor of New York and Junius S. Morgan who became a banker. 

     In the spring of 1833, Eno (the father) established himself in the wholesale dry-goods business in New York; the firm was dissolved in 1850 and he then began investing in real estate on a large scale.    

     Besides Amos and his larcenous son John, he also had, in addition to two daughters, sons Amos F., Henry (a doctor) and William. So, who played the black pieces? 

     It wasn't son John the crook because he was on the lam in Canada. That leaves daddy Amos or sons Amos or Henry. Who knows? Was the game really brilliant? The answer to that can be determined. Take a look.

 

 

ChessBase

Merian–Eno1–0Manhattan Chess Club1884Stockfish 15

Sicilian: Kalashnikov Variation 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.f3 c6 4.xd4 e5 The Kalashnikov Variation (sometimes known as the Neo-Sveshnikov) is a close relative of the Sveshnikov Variation (4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5). The move 4...e5 has a long history; La Bourdonnais used it in his matches against McDonnell in 1834 and it was also popular for a short time in the 1940s. These earlier games focused on the Lowenthal Variation with 4...e5 5.Nb5 a6 6.Nd6+ Bxd6 7. Qxd6 Qf6, but the variation fell out of favor when it was determined that white has the advantage. Then the late 1980s 4...e5 was revived with the intention of meeting 5.Nb5 with 5...d6: this is the Kalashnikov Variation proper. 5.b5 This is the main move, buying time by threatening to play the N to d6. d6 Black accepts a backward P and weakens d5 but gains time by chasing the N. 6.c4 White's main options are 6.c4, 6.N1c3 or 6.Be3. While the text is rarely played there is nothing wrong with it. a6 6...e6 should be considered. 7.xe6 fxe6 8.h5+ g6 9.g4 d7 10.g5 a6 11.5a3 b5 12.c3 equals. Vallejo Pons,F (2635)-Shirov,A (2699) Ayamonte 2002 7.5c3 h6 Too cautious says a note in the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle. 7...e6 8.b3 8.d5 c8 8...b5 9.b3 f6 10.g5 d4 11.bc3 a5 12.xf6+ gxf6 13.e3 xb3 14.axb3 White is better. Hajbok,R (2366)-Pavel,S (2087) Calimanesti ROM 2013 9.bc3 e7 10.e3 b5 11.b3 g5 12.b6 d7 13.0-0 White is slightly better. Yemelin,V (2380)-Sukhorukov,A (2300) Orel 1992 8...f6 9.g5 h6 10.xf6 xf6 11.d5 xd5 12.xd5 e7 13.c3 0-0 14.0-0 White is slightly better. Milu,R (2410)-Sekularac,P (2220) Nice FRA 1993 1-0 (44) 7...f6 This is black's best because after 8.g5 e7 9.xf6 xf6 he has full equality. 8.0-0 Also good was 8.Nd5 f6 White is slightly better. 9.f4 But not after this move. Correct was 9.Nd5 b5 Better was 9... exf4 and 10...Ne5 10.d5 b6+ 10...xd5 is inferior because after 11.xd5 e7 12.bc3 b4 13.e3 white is slightly better and black must not fall for bxc3 14.b6 cxb2 14...d7 15.c7+ 15.b1 xd5 16.xd8 e3 17.d3 xf1 18.c7 White has much the better game 11.h1 b7 12.e1 e7 12...xd5 is still wrong. 13.exd5 e7 14.fxe5 dxe5 15.xe5 with the better game. 13.e3 c7 14.d2 White would have done better with the aggressive 14.Qg3 0-0 15.f5 d4 16.c1 b4 16...xd5 is a serious mistake. 17.xd5 xd5 18.exd5 d8 18...b4 19.c3 bxc3 20.bxc3 b5 21.f6 xf6 22.xf6 gxf6 23.xh6 and wins 19.c3 and the N is trapped. 17.e2 This give black a huge advantage. 17.xb7 bxc3 18.bxc3 xc2 19.xc2 xb7 20.e2 and black's advantage is minimal. 17...xe2 17...xd5 only equalizes. 18.exd5 xe2 19.xe2 18.xe2 xd5 Another mistake! 18...xd5-+ 19.exd5 xd5 should prove decisive. 19.exd5 xd5 Black's best defensive chance is 19...f6 20.xh6 An imprecise continuation. 20.f6 packed a harder punch. xf6 21.xf6 gxf6 22.xh6 and wins. 20...gxh6 21.f6 White wants to mate with Qg4+. h8 22.e3 xg2+ This shot was not available in the line given in the note to move 20. 23.xg2 23.g1 was the only way to keep the balance. c5 24.xc5 dxc5 25.xg2 with equal chances. 23...g8+ There is absolutely no reason for black to lose this position! 24.f2 g6 Why did he allow white to capture the B?! 24...f8 leaves black better after 25.g1 a7 26.c4 xe3+ 27.xe3 25.fxe7 xe7 Thanks to black having lost a piece now there is absolutely no reason for white not to win! 26.f3 f5 27.g1 f4 28.e4 a7+ 29.e2 f6 30.c4 e8 There is no point in quibbling about moves that might be a tad better; black is lost. 31.c5 dxc5 32.g6 h7 33.cg1 c4 34.f1 c3 35.bxc3 bxc3 36.xe5 d6 This allows a nice mate, but he was lost anyway. 37.xd6 xe4 38.xh6+ h7 39.f7# Auto-annotation with Stockfish assigns white a Weighted Error Value of 0.71 and black 1.02. Hardly what the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle described as "a brilliant little partie." What a difference today's engines make! 1–0

Download PGN

Half a Dozen Passed Pawns!!!

     Awesome, fascinating, unbelievable and marvelous are a few words that spring to mind when describing the following game in which Denis Victor Mardle (August 9, 1929 - July 31, 2000, 70 years old), a well known British player, amassed an array of six (!) passed Pawns in his defeat of British stalwart Robert Wade. 

     Mardel contracted polio at the age of 15 and was badly disabled for the rest of his life, walking with crutches and leg braces. 

     He took part in several British Championships from 1951 to 1965, with a best finish of =7th in 1957. Some of his best performances were in the Stevenson Memorial tournament held at Bognor Regis where he shared first place with Gereben in 1959, ahead of Karaklaic, Wade, Cafferty and Pritchard. 

     In 1964, he finished clear first ahead of a strong field that included Golombek, Karaklaic, Mestrovic, Rellstab, Hartston, Keene and Basman with the excellent score of 9.5-1.5. He participated in the Hastings Premier in 1964-65, but managed only two draws out of nine games. After playing in the 1965 British Championship in which he scored +4 -4 =3 he gave up major OTB activity but still played some correspondence chess. 

     Mardle had a distinguished career as a cryptanalyst after he was recruited during WWII by British master C. H. O'D. Alexander at an Oxford-Cambridge match. At the time Alexander was head of the cryptanalysis division of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), an intelligence and security organization responsible for providing intelligence information to the government and armed forces of the United Kingdom In 1969, Mardle directed the Mathematics Research Group before being promoted to chief mathematician in 1973. In 1982 he was appointed head of the cryptanalysis division, and was awarded the CBE in 1988. 

     During the 1953 British Championship Mardle met Barbara Lally (1920-1972), who was taking part in that year's British Ladies' Championship and they were married in 1954. After her death he married again. His second wife's daughter wrote an account of the last years of his life which was published in The Lincolnshire Post-Polio Information Newsletter in 2000. You can read the article HERE.

ChessBase

Robert G. Wade–Denis V. Mardle0–1E97Stevenson Memorial, Bognor Regis1959Stockfiah 15

King's Indian: Classical Main Line 1.d4 f6 2.f3 d6 3.c4 g6 4.c3 g7 5.e4 0-0 6.e2 e5 7.0-0 c6 8.d5 e7 9.b4 a5 10.a3 axb4 11.xb4 d7 12.d2 So far this is all book, but here white usually continues 12.a4 f5 13.b3 b6 14.a4 c5 15.xc5 bxc5 16.f3 h6 17.d3 h8 18.b5 18.a5 a6 19.b5 g8 20.g3 f6 21.f2 g7 22.c3 fxe4 23.fxe4 h3 with equal chances. Kaabi,M (2365)-Kahn,E (2350) Budapest 1995 18...d7 19.a5 a6 20.a2 g8 21.c3 f4 22.g3 So far black has had a clear initiative, but is next move should have allowed white to gain the advantage. g5 The simple retreat 22... Bh6 was correct. 23.h1 Forcing black to sacrifice the B. 23.xc7 is not nearly as good because after xg3 24.hxg3 xg3+ 25.h1 a7 black has equalized. 23...xg3 23...e3 is forcefully met by 24.f4 d4 25.xd4 cxd4 26.fxg5 and white is a piece ahead. 24.hxg3 Not bad, but 24. Rg1 was even better. 24.g1 f4 25.xc7 a7 26.b5 h5 Threatening ...Qh2# 27.d1 xb5 28.cxb5 and white has a decisive advantage. 24...xg3 24...f4 was somewhat better. 25.d1 fxg3 26.g2 f4 27.h1 etc. 25.f4 25.Nxc7 would be a mistake because after 25...Qh3+ black gets a threefold repitition. h4+ 26.g2 f6 White has a nearly won position here after 27.Qe1 beating back black's attack. Instead, he makes a move that looks plausible, but turns out to be a serious error. At least that's the way Stockfish looks at it. From the human standpoint things are not nearly so clear! 27.h1 27.e1 h6 28.fxe5 xe4 29.f3 dxe5 and white is "clearly winning." Indeed, in Shootouts white scored 5 out of 5, but here's is the winning procedure at 21 plies...it wouldn't be so easy for a human. 30.xe4 fxe4 31.xf8+ xf8 32.d2 c6 33.c3 cxd5 34.xd5 f5 35.xe4 g4+ 36.g3 g5 37.e3 xe3 38.xe3 h5 39.e4 c6 40.d5 a8 41.g1 g7 42.xc5 a7 43.e6+ h7 44.a6 h6 45.ec7 c6 46.b5 d7 47.a7 h4 48.a8 xa8 49.xa8 e4 50.bc3 e3 51.xe3 c7 52.cd5 c6 53.f2 h3 54.a1 h2 55.h1 a6 56.g2 h5 57.g3 g5 58.xh2+ g6 59.c5 f7 60.f2+ g7 61.f5+ f7 62.c6 a1 63.fe3+ e6 64.c2 g1+ 65.h2 a1 66.c7 a8 67.c8+ xc8 68.xc8 d6 69.c4 e6 70.g3 d6 71.c7 e5 72.f3 d4 73.c4+ e5 74.g4 d6 75.xg5 e6 76.c6+ e5 77.f4 Stockfish 15: e4 78.f5 f3 79.c2 e4 80.f2 e5 81.e2# 27...xf4 28.f3 28.xc7 is still unsatisfactory. a7 29.b5 xe4 with the advantage. 28.c1 offering a draw was a good idea. fxe4 28...xc1 29.xc1 c8 was acceptable if black wants to play on although here white is slightly better. 29.f1 h4 30.h1 draws 28...g5+ 29.g3 xg3+ 30.xg3 xe4+ 31.g2 A truly unique position. Amazing! Black's best move is now 31...Rc8 c6 This looks good. but it should have allowed whit to salvage the game. 32.dxc6 32.xd6 was better. xd6 33.xc5 a7 34.xd7 xd7 35.dxc6 c7 36.b1 xc6 37.a6 a8 38.a7 cc8 39.a5 e8 40.c5 c8 This position offers equal chances. 41.b8 xa7 42.xe8+ xe8 43.xa7 c8 44.a5 c7 45.c4 The position is evaluated at 0.00, but that is not the same thing as a draw... at least not in this position! 32...xc6 33.f3 b8 34.d2 This gets a big thumbs down from Stockfish. 34.ha1 g7 35.g1 c3 36.xc3 xf3 37.d2 c6 38.b1 And this position is also evaluated at 0.00! 34...xd2 35.xc6 xc4 This is the only correct move. 35...Rxc6 36.Rxd2 is allegedly equal. 36.d7 d5 Six passed Ps...they can't be stopped, but Wade gives it a try. The rest of the game received some minor tweaking by Stockfish, but the outcome is not in doubt. 37.c3 e3+ 38.f3 d4 39.b5 a7 40.b1 g5 41.c6 e4+ 42.e2 xb1 43.xb1 c4 44.a6 e5 45.d2 c4 46.a4 d3+ Black is clearly winning. 47.e3 c3 48.c4 f4+ Wade resigned. 0–1

Download PGN

Vintage Alekhine

     Playing over Alekhine's games is still an enjoyable experience because he played exceptional fighting games and conjured up attacks seemingly out of thin air. 

      His annotations frequently contain glaring errors and his attacks weren't always sound, but who cares? Humans can't calculate like Stockfish; they make mistakes in their calculations, they suffer from fatigue, etc. 

      When reading old chess books, which often have mistakes in analysis, the important thing to remember is that the general principles they contain can be of great value to the practical player. 

     The following game was played in a 1st category tournament in Moscow in October. In December Alekhine scored another triumph when he cleaned house in the Moscow City Championship with a score of 11.5-0.5!    

 

     This game demonstrates the importance of the Pawn center and how an attack can develop from it. In the complications Alekhine reached a position where his superiority was evident: he controlled the center and his opponent's pieces were all huddled together trying to defend his King. Then he made a tactical error! Not one that lost the game, but one that should have allowed Zubarev to at least equalize...but he, also, missed the correct continuation and Alekhine finished him off with a couple of crushing blows.

 

ChessBase

Alexander Alekhine–Nikolay Zubarev1–01st Category tournament. Moscow1915Stockfish 15

Nimzo-Indian: Classical 1.d4 f6 2.c4 e6 3.c3 b4 4.c2 This is the Classical Variation. The idea is that in the event of ...Bxc3 white can recapture Qxc3 avoiding doubled Ps and the Q keeps an eye on e4. b6 This game was played pre-Nimzovich and this move is a major concession because it allows white to push e2-e4. Good moves are 4...O-O and 4...d5 5.e4 b7 6.d3 6.e5 is also good. After xc3+ 7.xc3 e4 8.e3 f5 9.d3 9.f3 h4+ black is better 9.exf6 xf6 favors black 9...0-0 10.e2 white has a favorable position. 6...xc3+ In this line white can't avoid the doubled Ps because recapturing with the Q koses the e-Pawn. 7.bxc3 d6 8.e2 Not 8.Nf3 blocking f-Pawn. 8.f4 This bold move was also playable! e5 9.f3 bd7 10.fxe5 dxe5 11.g5 with an excellent position. 8...bd7 Hoping that at some point he can play ...e5 9.0-0 0-0 9...e7 10.f4 e5 10...0-0-0 in Virkud,A (2027)-Amrayeva,A (2191) Porto Carras GRE 2015 black got away with this risky move. 11.a4 Correct was 11...e5! a5 12.g3 g6 13.f3 h5 and black succeeded in launching a decisive K-side attack. 11.g3 g6 12.c5 exd4 13.c6 xc6 14.cxd4 b8 15.f5 fd7 16.d5 b7 17.xc7 a6 18.xa6 xa6 19.b7 Black resigned. Horvath,J (2525)-Fokin,S (2365) Budapest 1990 9...e5 It's too soon to play this because after 10.f4 0-0 11.g3 white has the better prospects as any capture by black with the f-Pawn has disadvantages. 10.f4 h6 11.g3 Good, but Euwe's 11.e5 dislodging the N first was even better. 11.e5 e8 12.g3 c5 13.e2 h4 14.f5 cxd4 15.f4 d8 16.cxd4 dxe5 17.dxe5 c7 18.g4 e7 19.xg7+ Black resigned. Euwe, M-Colle,E Amsterdam 1928 11...e7 12.e2 ae8 Black is in a very difficult situation here. The two games in the notes, Horvath-Fokin and Euwe-Colle, already hint at the truth of the statement. 12...e5 The move black hoped to play meets with disaster. 13.f5 d8 14.fxe5 dxe5 15.e3 Threatening to sacrifice the N and there is nothing black can do about it! h8 15...h7 16.xg7 16.xg7 g8 17.f5 g5 18.h3 g6 19.xh6 xh6 20.xh6 and white is winning. 13.a3 An excellent place for the B. c5 Blocking the Bs diagonal. 14.ae1 This centralizing move brings his last piece into play. The immediate 14.e5 was also playable. h8 As good a move as any. 14...cxd4 Only opens up the diagonal for white's B. 15.e5 dxc3 16.xd6 15.d5 Not the best, but it's good enough. 15.e5 g8 Shoring up h6. 16.c1 f5 17.exf6 dxf6 18.g6 d8 19.d5 e5 20.f5 White has a winning attack. Just one example... c7 21.h4 e7 22.g4 d7 23.g5 g4+ 24.xg4 xg4 25.h3 hxg5 26.fxg5 the N is trapped. 15...g8 16.e5 This is a serious tactical mistake that loses a little material and should have allowed black to equalize.. It was necessary to first bring the B on a3 back into play with 16.Bc1 g6 Zubarev returns the favor. While this move may preclude the possibility of white playing f4-f5 it further weakens the K's position. 16...dxe5 equalizes 17.fxe5 exd5 18.cxd5 xd5 and in the ensuing complications black can hold his own. 19.c1 19.b1 xe5 20.c2 f5 21.xf5 g5 22.g3 with equal chances. 19...xe5 20.h5 does not lead to any things and black is two Ps u 17.d2 A positional move that gets the Q out of the way of the R on e1 and so makes dxe6 a real threat. exd5 17...a6 This is a pass to demonstrate the dxe6 threat. 18.dxe6 xe6 19.f5 Crushing! 19.exd6 xd6 is good for black. 19...gxf5 20.xf5 e7 21.exd6 d8 22.c1 xe1 23.xe1 e8 24.d1 df6 25.f4 white is winning. c8 26.xh6 xh6 27.xc8 xc8 28.xf6 17...dxe5 18.fxe5 f5 19.exf6 xf6 20.xf6 xf6 21.e4 White is clearly better. 18.cxd5 dxe5 18...xd5 19.b5 b7 20.exd6 and white is winning. 19.c4 h7 With nothing much to do, black gets his K off the dangerous long diagonal. 20.b2 gf6 21.fxe5 g4 22.e6 h4 White has a mate in 14! 23.xf7+ Very characteristic of the vintage Alekhine. xf7 23...g8 also leads to his getting mated in a pretty way. 24.g7+ h8 25.xg6+ df6 26.xg4 xg4 27.xh6+ g8 28.xf6 xf6 29.h7+ h8 30.g6+ g8 31.h7+ f8 32.e7+ xe7 33.h8# 24.xg6+ xg6 25.d3+ g5 26.c1+ Black resigned as mate follows. 26.c1+ f6 27.f5+ g7 28.xf7+ h8 29.xe8+ h7 30.xd7+ h8 31.b2+ f6 32.e7 d4+ 33.xd4 cxd4 34.e8+ g8 35.xg8+ xg8 36.e8# 1–0

Download PGN

A Late Night Movie, Plumbing and Chess

     Yesterday morning consisted of a Chick-fil-A breakfast followed by a ten minute repair job on a toilet that wouldn't stop running. Ten minutes, that is, if you are a plumber or a home handyman. If you're neither, it's an all morning job.

     Maybe it took so long because it was a short night and I was tired...I get up at 6am regardless. It was a short night because we stayed up until midnight watching Pawn Sacrifice on television.

     The movie is rated 7 out of 10 stars and Rotten Tomatoes may have called it "fantastic", but I think real chess players would rate it lower. 

     Spassky called the movie "weak" and said that it had "no intrigue." He added he that the film misrepresented how and why he agreed to continue the match after Fischer failed to show up for the second game. 

     Anatoly Karpov said, “Maybe the film is not bad for the popularization of chess, but its content is terrible. There are many inaccuracies. The chess positions are simply idiotic. The film is quite budgetary, so take a chess consultant, pay him a fee, he will correct your position. And then there the diagonal from left to right is white. You are making a film about world champions, and such bloopers, for me as a professional, are terrible." 

     The New York Times review was probably on point. "Pity any ardent chess fans who go to this movie; they’ll be pounding the walls over the differences between Mr. Zwick’s depiction and reality, and will no doubt be irked that the film doesn’t dwell much on the actual chess playing. But this isn’t a chess movie, it isn’t a biopic, and it isn’t a documentary. (For that, see “Bobby Fischer Against the World,” a very good 2011 treatment from HBO.) It’s a dramatization, one aimed at a general audience." 

     The afternoon was spent napping and then playing a few games on Chess Hotel, the following of which was the pick of the litter. That isn't saying much, but it was a lot of fun. 

 

ChessBase

Guest–Tartajubow0–1Chess Hotel2022Stockfish 15

Irregular Defense 1.d4 f6 2.e3 e5 I often play the Fajarowicz variation of the Budapest (2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4) even though it's not considered very good. When an opponent crosses my plans with this move which has happened several times by those apparently wanting to play the Colle, I have played this dreadful move several times. 3.c3 3.dxe5 This is, of course, the only move worth considering. e4 4.f3 c6 5.c3 d5 6.exd6 xd6 7.c2 f5 8.d3 e7 Guest-Tartajubow Chess Hotel 2019. Black has no real compensation for the P. 3...e4 Assuring that white is going to be horribly cramped. 4.f4 This is awful. He should have played 4.c4 even though it involves a lost tempo. At least he would have had some freedom. d5 5.d2 g4 Stockfish likes 5... Ng4 attacking the e-Pawn and forcing white to misplace his N on b3. 6.e2 I was happy to see this move, voluntarily exchanging his good B. 6.b3 This is his best chance. c6 7.xb7 d7 8.a6 8.b5 b8 9.a6 xb5 10.xb5 xd4 wins for black. 8...b8 9.b3 g4 10.e2 Black has sufficient compensation for the P. 10.h3 h4+ wins 6...xe2 7.xe2 d6 8.0-0 0-0 9.c4 c6 10.b3 bd7 In spite of white's rather poor play in the opening black cannot boast of anything more than being slightly better. 11.a4 c7 I realized this is rather pointless, but couldn't think of anything else to do. 11...g4 is the engine way. 12.b1 h5 13.h3 h6 14.e1 g6 15.a3 xa3 16.xa3 f5 and black is slightly better. 12.c5 White is playing to gain space on the Q-side. Stockfish can't make up its mind between 12.Nb1 and 12.h3. xc5 White has a decisive advantage says Stockfish. I knew this wasn't good, but it was an 8-minute + 2 seconds per move game and rather than the passive 12...Be7 with near equality I wanted to complicate things. 13.dxc5 xc5 14.b1 Too passive. 14.Nd4 was better. No matter...white still has a huge advantage. b6 The engine wants me to play 14...Re8. Why, I don't know. At least with the text I am threatening the e-Pawn. 15.d4 a5 I didn't want my Q driven back. 16.a3 With the elimination of my B all attacking chances disappear. xd4 This assures me of at least one advanced passed P...for whatever that might be worth. 17.exd4 17.xf8 would actually lose. xa1 18.d6 xe3+ 19.h1 e8 and those center Ps will be decisive. 17.xd4 A really swell move as it pretty much forces the exchange of Qs xd4 18.exd4 and black has two Ps for a piece, but that is not enough compensation in this position. 17...fe8 18.c5 c7 19.g4 While this is not fatal, it creates a weakness on the K-side that allows black plenty of counterplay. Simply 19.Nc3 keeps white's winning position. b6 Much better was 19...e3. After the text white is better, but not winning. 19...e3 20.c3 e4 21.xe4 xe4 with a completely equal game. 20.a3 e3 21.e2 A better way of stopping the advance of the P was 21.Ra2 h5 22.g5 22.gxh5 b5 22...xh5 23.f5 f6 24.c3 and white is better. 23.axb5 cxb5 24.c1 White must deal with the e-Pawn. 24.xb5 e2 25.e1 xf4 and black is winning. 26.a2 26.c3 xd4+ 27.g2 xc3 26...ab8 27.d3 e3 etc 24...e4 with complications and equal chances. 22...g4 23.f3 Better was 23.Nc3 getting the N and R into play. e4 Attacking the f-Pawn; I thought the attack on the d-Pawn was incidental. 24.c3 Now this is wrong! He must tend to the defense of his K-side. 24.h3 xd4 24...f2 25.c3 xf4 26.xe3 favors white. 25.hxg4 e8 26.xe3 xe3 27.xe3 e4 Amazing! White is two pieces up, but with the R and N out of play black stands better. 28.c1 c8 29.d1 e6 30.d2 xf4 Black threatens mate beginning with ...Qe6+ 31.e1 xg4+ 32.h2 xg5 33.e7 f6 34.h3 to prevent ...Rh4# d4 35.e6+ h7 36.f3 g4+ 37.xg4 hxg4+ 38.g3 gxf3 and the B might have difficulty coping with all of black's Ps. 24...xf4 Wrong P because it allows white to ease his position with exchanges. After 24...Rxd4 white would be pretty much helpless. 25.af1 xd4 26.xf7 xf7 Relying heavily on my extra pieces seemed like a good decision, but it actually leaves white (according to Stockfish) with a decisive advantage. Keeping the Q with 26... Qe6 would have kept white's advantage at a minimum. 27.xf7 xf7 28.d1 This attack on the P is fruitless. 28.h3 wins the N. f2 29.xh5+ g8 30.g6 and the threst of Qh7# leaves black with no way out. c5 31.xd5 d1+ 32.g2 e2 33.h7+ f8 34.h8# 28...e8 This threatens to win with ...Rd2 and black is right black in the game. 29.b2 He should not have allowed the R to go to e2! 29.h3 d2 30.e1 h2 31.h1 f3 32.f1 h2# 29.c1 keeps the chances equal. de4 30.h3 8e5 31.g6+ 31.hxg4 xg4+ 32.h2 exg5 wins. For example... 33.f3+ e6 34.xe3 h4+ 35.h3+ gg4 36.xb6 xh3+ 37.xh3 b4 31...xg6 32.c3 f4 33.d3+ f6 34.e2 f2 35.c2 xh3+ 36.h2 c5 37.b2 d4 38.xh3 Stockfish evaluates the position at 0.00. It's unclear and anything could happen. 29...d2 After this white is lost. After a promising start a combination of passive play and using too much time has been his undoing. 30.f3+ g8 Now there is simply no way to deal with the coming ...e2 31.h3 e2 White resigned 31...e2 32.e3 e1+ 33.f1 f2 34.d3 xf1+ 35.xf1 g3+ 36.g2 e1# 0–1

Download PGN