1935, the Year of the Boondoggle

Boondoggles

     Boondoggle is work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value. The term originated in 1935 when the press excoriated President Roosevelt's New Deal for spending $3 million giving unemployed people crafts lessons where they made boondoggles (a braided ornament sometimes also called a gimp, lanyard or scoubidou) and the word became a nickname for any overpriced useless government project. 

     In the New Deal, Roosevelt called for a new tax program called the Revenue Act of 1935, which imposed an income tax of 79% on incomes over $5 million. This tax rate affected literally one person: John D. Rockefeller. 

     The Nye Committee, a Senatorial Committee, concluded the U.S. entered World War 1 for financial gain! And, speaking of a boondoggle, when Social Security set the retirement age at 65 in 1935, the average male only lived 59.9 years, women, 63.9! Just like today, the government and businesses have ingenious ways of getting their hands on our money. 

     The biggest news event was probably the great dust storm that hit eastern New Mexico and Colorado and western Oklahoma. Other newsworthy events included the first brief underwear were introduced in Wisconsin by the Cooper Underwear Company of Kenosha, the world’s first parking meters were installed in Oklahoma City and Porky Pig made his debut in I Haven’t Got a Hat. Finally, boxed wine and beer in a can were introduced and Alcoholics Anonymous was founded in New York City. 

     The 36th annual meeting of the American Chess Federation (formerly known as the Western Chess Association), took place in July of 1935 at the Hotel Schroeder in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

     In the absence of a rating system, the players perceived to be the best were seeded into three preliminary sections of 10 players each. In Section A, Reuben Fine and William Ruth dominated the play. Samuel Factor and Harold Morten tied for third place, but the tournament committee decided no play-offs would be held in the event of ties, so both qualified for the finals. 

     In Section B were Isaac Kashdan was undefeated and edged out the 1934 Canadian Champion John Belson by a half point. The other qualifier was Anthony Santasiere who only managed to qualify after a hard 80-move game in which he defeated Barnie Winkelman in a difficult ending. 

     In Section C, Arthur Dake was undefeated and finished 8.5-0.5, drawing with 6th place finisher George Eastman. Far behind with 6 points were Frederick Chevalier, Arpad Elo and Albrt Simonson, all three also qualifying for the finals. 

     In the Final Masters tournament, for the most part Fine played excellent chess but was aided by a few lucky breaks. This was especially the case against the Milwaukee expert Arpad Elo. Fine had a lost position, but Elo was unable to win the Q+P ending in which he had a two P advantage.
 

     Arthur Dake was satisfied to draw against the leaders and, as Chess Review pointed out, unlike matches, tournaments cannot be won by drawing. The same could be said of Isaac Kashdan. 

     Somewhat surprising was the solid play of the virtually unknown Frederick R. Chevalier (August 14, 1907 - May 19, 1988, 80 years old) who wrote a chess column for the Christian Science Monitor for many years. 

     Anthony Santasiere actually played better than he had in the preliminaries, but even so, he was out of form. Canadian champ Belson was overcautious and won no games. 

     A big surprise was the poor showing of William Ruth (September 18, 1886 - February 3, 1975, 88 years old). It was speculated that it may have been due to the fact that two games a day put a strain on the aging 48 year old Ruth. Remember, men were only expected to live to about 60 in those days. Although Ruth continued to be active for many years to come, even in 1935 it was noted that he had lost some of his aggressiveness.

     The following game between the inventor of out modern rating system, Arpad Elo, and  the colorful Albert "Buddy" Simonson was an entertaining see-saw affair.

[Event "Am Chess Fed Final, Milwaukee"] [Site "Milwaukee, WI USA"] [Date "1935.07.26"] [Round "?"] [White "Arpad Elo"] [Black "Albert Simonson"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "C11"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "74"] [EventDate "1935.??.??"] {French Defense} 1. e4 {[%mdl 32]} e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. dxc5 Bxc5 7. Qg4 Kf8 {Black has played a similar move in the Winawer and there it's better than it looks. Here he would do better with either 7...O-O or 7...g6} 8. Nf3 Nc6 9. a3 a6 (9... h5 {was played in Narmontas,M (2367) -Bokiej,P (2063) Warsaw 2007} 10. Qh3 Be7 11. b4 g5 12. Nxg5 Bxg5 13. fxg5 Ndxe5 {White is better.}) 10. Bd3 Be7 11. h4 Nc5 12. O-O (12. h5 {was worth considering.} Qb6 13. h6 Nxd3+ 14. cxd3 Rg8 15. Qh3 {but here, too, white has no great advantage.}) 12... b5 {Better was 12...Nxd3 and 13...h5. Now white gets the initiative.} 13. Bd2 b4 14. Nd1 {Elo's passive play fritters away the initiative he could have had with 14.axb4 followed by 15.f5} Nxd3 15. cxd3 Rb8 16. a4 {White is wrongly concerning himself with the Q-side when his attention should have been directed at the K-side. So, 16.h5 was his best try.} Na5 17. Be1 Nb3 18. Rb1 Qa5 (18... Qb6+ 19. Kh1 Qc6 {White's position is very passive.} ) 19. h5 {Finally. This coupled with black's last move has allowed white to equalize.} h6 (19... f5 {was correct. Then after} 20. exf6 gxf6 21. h6 Rg8 22. Qh5 Rg6 23. d4 {the chances would be even.}) 20. d4 Qb6 {Capturing on a4 would leave his Q misplaced.} 21. Bh4 Bxh4 (21... Nxd4 {leads to no more than equal chances for black after} 22. Bxe7+ Kxe7 23. Nxd4 Qxd4+ 24. Kh2) 22. Qxh4 a5 { This is too slow; it would have been better to play 22...Nxd4. White now gets a slight plus, but a few less than precise moves allow black to keep the balance.} 23. Ne3 Ba6 24. Rfd1 {The immediate 24.f5 would have been very good.} Be2 25. f5 Bxd1 26. Rxd1 Rc8 27. fxe6 {This allows black to get his Q to the defense of the K-side. Keeping his options open with 27.Qf2 would have been better.} (27. Qf2 Rc7 (27... Ke7 {With the idea of connecting his Rs} 28. f6+ gxf6 29. exf6+ Ke8 30. Qe2 Qc7 31. Qd3 Nc1 32. Qb5+ {and white, with play on both sides of the board, has gained a decisive advantage.}) 28. fxe6 Qxe6 29. Nh4 {Threatening Ng6+. White is near winning.} Kg8 30. Qe2 Rc6 {There isn't much constructive action black can undertake.} 31. Nef5 Kh7 32. Qe3 {The N on b3 is gone.}) 27... Qxe6 28. Kh2 Rg8 29. Rd3 Nc1 30. Rd1 g5 31. hxg6 Qxg6 32. g4 {This looks inviting, but it seriously weakens his K. 32.Rd2 defends the g-Pawn and keeps the position equal.} Qe4 (32... Nd3 {Gets real tactical!} 33. Rxd3 (33. Rf1 h5 34. gxh5 Qh6 35. Nxd5 Rc2+ {with a strong attack.} 36. Kh1 Rc1 {Obviously the R cannot be taken because of ...Qxc1+ with mate to follow.} 37. Qd8+ Kg7 38. Qf6+ Qxf6 39. exf6+ Kf8 40. Rxc1 Nxc1 {Black's advantage should prove decisive.}) 33... Qxd3 34. Qxh6+ Ke8 35. e6 Qe4 36. exf7+ Kxf7 37. Ne5+ Qxe5+ 38. dxe5 Rh8 39. e6+ Kg8 40. Qxh8+ Kxh8 41. Nxd5 {The smoke still hasn't cleared, but a draw seems likely. In Shootouts white scored +0 -1 =4}) 33. Nf5 {[%mdl 8192] This hasty move is a game losing blunder!} (33. Qxh6+ {is an entirely different story!} Ke8 {and white can play either 34.Nh4 or 34.Nxd5} 34. Nxd5 (34. Nh4 Rxg4 35. Nxg4 Qxg4 36. Rxc1 Rxc1 37. Qxc1 Qxh4+ {draws}) 34... Qxd5 35. Rxc1 Qxf3 36. Rxc8+ Kd7 {and there is no way for white to avoid the perpetual check.}) 33... Qf4+ {Game over.} 34. Qg3 Rxg4 35. Qxf4 Rxf4 36. Nd6 Rc2+ 37. Kg3 Ne2+ {White resigned.} (37... Ne2+ 38. Kg2 (38. Kf2 Nc3+ 39. Ke3 Rxf3+ 40. Kxf3 Nxd1) 38... Nxd4+ 39. Nd2 Rxb2) 0-1