Anthony Santasiere (1904-1977) is better known. He was a Master and chess writer, who also wrote extensively on non-chess topics. Santasiere was a middle school math teacher by profession. He won the 1945 US Open Championship, four New York State championships and six Marshall Chess Club championships.
The Orangutan (1.b4) has never been popular at the top level, though a number of prominent players have employed it on occasion. In 1963, Alexey Sokolsky (1908–1969) wrote a monograph on it and so it’s sometimes called the Solkolsy Opening.
In the Tartakower vs. Maroczy game played in the New York 1924 tournament the players had visited the Bronx Zoo the previous day and Tartakower noted that the climbing movement of the Pawn to b5 reminded him of the orangutan. Alekhine said that the problem is that 1.b4 reveals white's intentions before he knows what black's intentions are. Santasiere modified the Orangutan by playing 1.Nf3 first and he, himself, named it Santasiere’s Folly.
Santasiere was an original thinker, but he was often dogmatic and exaggerated the value of novelties and sometimes insisted that it took bizarre moves in the opening in order to play “Romantic” chess. At one point, in the 1970s I believe it was, Santasiere got into a written feud with Larry Evans after Evans showed disdain for Santasiere's hypocrisy for “talking like a tiger and playing like a Tigran (Petrosian).” But, Evans did admit Santasiere had the heart of a Romantic even if he didn't have the games to back it up.
Writing in his Game of the Month column in the January 1942 issue of Chess Review, Reuben Fine presented the below game as a complete refutation of Santasiere’s Folly and, at the same time, poked fun at the opening. It’s quite possible it was sour grapes on Fine’s part owing to the fact that in the 1938 US Championship Samuel Reshevsky finished first with an undefeated 13.0 while Fine was second with 12.5 (their individual game was drawn). Fine lost one game to, guess who? That’s right...Santasiere, who finished tied with George Treysman for tenth (out of 17) with a score of 7.0.
Note regarding Levy’s 2...f6. In his notes in Chess Review, Fine attached two !! to the move. Later in Chess Marches On he upped it to three! Fine wrote that it's a "a natural reply which nobody seems to have thought of before.” Earlier in the tournament Harry Fajans had played 2...f6 with the same result. Even earlier Santasiere had lost a game in the NY State Championship against the move.
Playing over this game using a board and pieces instead of just clicking through the moves on the computer screen gives a whole different perspective to the game. Seeing the game unfold as the players did gives a better appreciation for the complexities that Levy had to thread his way through!
Anthony Santasiere–Louis Levy0–1A06Marshall CC Championship3New York, NY USA14.12.1941Stockfish 16
A00: Irregular Openings 1.f3 d5 2.b4 Reuben Fine admitted that while
Santasiere had a lot of success with this opening, it was, nevertheless, a
waste of time. Fine wrote that while this move is useful in certain variations
of the Reti Opening in most cases it amounts to nothing more than a loss of
time, adding that at any rate, sometimes it does lead to unusual positions.
Fine snidely commented Santasiere had applied for a copyright on the move. In
his book on the opening Santasiere called it the Futuristic Chess Opening f6
Ordinarily the early advance of the f-Pawn is bad because it deprives the N of
its best square, but here it is very much to the point because black can build
a strong Pawn phalanx in the center. (Fine) Today 2... f6 is long forgotten
and it;s very rarely played. 3.d4 3.e3 h6 4.c4 e6 5.b3 a5 6.b5 d7
White is better. Zurek,M (2405)-Sikora-Lerch,J (2380) CSR 1991 3...e5 3...a5 While not exactly bad, this move does not challenge white's setup. 4.b5 c6 5.e3 d7 6.a4 e6 White is better. Elkin,A (2195)-Samborskiy,V (2052)
Ulyanovsk RUS 2013 4.a3 According to FIne this is a routine reply, after
which black secures an overwhelming position. Black is better, but
overwhelming is a bit of an exaggeration. 4.dxe5 This keeps things even. fxe5 5.xe5 xb4+ 6.c3 After the B retreats to safety ob any reasonable
square it's an odd position. Does the weakness of black's K offset his
basically sounder P formation? 4...e4 5.fd2 d6 5...f5 6.c4 f6 7.c5 f4 8.b3 e3 9.fxe3 fxe3 with equal chances. Chandler,P (2265) -Krenz,V
(2287) Bad Vilbel GER 2010 6.e3 f5 We now have, with colors reversed, a
variation of the French Defense which is highly favorable to the attacker
(here black) and which is particularly strong because white has made two
wholly useless moves on the Q-side (b4 and a3). No more complete refutation of
white's faulty opening strategy could be thought of. (Fine) Again. Fine
exaggerates. Three different engines evaluate this position as equal. 7.c4 c6 8.c3 f6 9.b3 According to Fine this move illustrates white's dilemma
because castling K-side is too dangerous. Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration!
White could also play 9.Be2 or 9.b5 with a satisfactory position. e6 10.cxd5 Fine said this move, clarifying the situation in the center, only helps black,
but white has no constructive plan. In that he is correct, but 10.b5 would
have kept things about even. After the text black is slightly better. cxd5 11.e2 bd7 Black has so strong an initiative that normal development creates a
positional threat: the occupation of c5 by a N. White manages to prevent this,
but at a terrific cost. (Fine) 12.a4 c8 13.a5 White's position is cramped,
but it looks safe enough. A bomb explodes his serenity. Of course, while Black
retains the better of it with the simple ...Qe7 and ...f4, the line chosen is
far more forceful. xh2 This gets a ! from Fine with the comment, that it's
obvious and strong. According to the engines castling was equally goo. 14.g3 This not quite as good as capturing the B, but neither continuation is quite
satisfactory. 14.xh2 c7 15.h1 xc3 16.xc3 xc3 Black's control of
the c-file gives him the advantage. 14...xg3 Black gets three Ps for the
B and a strong attack. 15.fxg3 c7 16.d1 Too passive, One of the first
principles of defense is that one must be as active as possible, else the
pieces become meaningless. Fine recommended 16.Bb2. Black's attack now keeps
getting stronger. 16.b2 (Fine) xg3+ 17.d1 0-0 Black has the
advantage. 18.a6 b5 This sets a clever trap. White cannot afford to grab
the P, but rather he must try and defend his K with 19.f1 g2 20.h2 g1 21.d2 g4 22.xg4 fxg4 23.e2 f2 24.xf2 and black's gob of Ps on the
two files will prove decisive. xf2 In Shootouts white scored +0 -4 =1, but
securing the point was a long and tedious process. Here is a sample
continuation. 25.fg3 b6 26.f1 g2 27.g1 f3 28.c1 c4+ 29.d1 f8 30.c3 f7 31.e1 e8 32.f1 f3 33.g1 c8 34.xf3 gxf3 35.f2 g4 36.h2 h5 37.e1 e5 38.dxe5 xc1+ 39.f2 d2+ 40.g1 xe3+ 41.f2 f4 42.e1 xe5 43.h1 h7 44.e3 e6 45.e1 e7 46.g1 xb4 47.f1 e7 48.e3 e6 49.c2 f6 50.h1 f7 51.b1 xa6 52.a1 f6 53.xa7 e8 54.a2 f4 55.h2 c1+ 56.g1 d2 57.g3 b4 58.a7 g6 59.a6 c1+ 60.e1 f5 61.a7 g4 62.xg7+ xg7 63.e5+ f7 64.xd5+ e6 65.xe4 f2 66.f3+ e8 67.xf2 b3 68.e2 e7 69.f2 b2 70.h4+ d7 71.d4+ e7 72.h4+ d7 73.d4+ c8 74.e4 b1 and wins. 16...xg3+ 17.f2 g4! 18.xg4 fxg4 19.dxe4 Justifiable suicide. (Fine) The truth is there was nothing better. g2 After this the thrust ...g3 is a killer no matter what white does. (Fine) 20.d6+ d8 21.e4 aiming for Bf4. 21.xc8 is met by g3 22.f1 f8 23.a2 h3 24.d3 Everything is defended, but after xf2 25.fxf2 gxf2+ 26.xf2 g1+ 27.e2 g4+ picks up the R 28.f3 28.d2 xf2+ 29.c3 xc8 28...xc8 29.c2+ d8 30.b5 30.xh7 g2+ 31.d1 xf3+ 30...g2+ 31.d3 xf3 21.xb7+ is met by c7 22.c5 xc5 23.bxc5 g3 24.a2 hf8 25.f1 h3 21...g3 22.g5+? 22.xb7+? e7 23.f1 23.g5+? f6-+ 23...gxf2+ 24.xf2 h1+ 25.d2 hf8-+ 22.f1 was forced. f8 23.g5+ c7 24.xc8 gxf2+ 25.d2 xg5+ 26.e3 22...f6 23.xf6+ gxf6 24.f1 gxf2+ 25.xf2 h1+ In view of the exposed white K the rest is simple. Levy repeats
moves at several points, doubtless to gain time on his clock. 26.f1 h4+ 27.f2 h1+ 28.f1 h4+ 29.f2 g8 30.e2 g4+ 31.e1 e6 32.e2 g3 33.a4 g4+ 34.d2 h6+ White resigned; it's mate in 2/ 0–1
I'm old enough to have watched the Evans-Santasiere feud as it played out in the pages of Chess Life. It escalated very quickly! And the level of personal animosity, from both sides, seemed excessive--to say the least! I think Evans, who was Jewish, interpreted some of Santasiere's remarks as anti-Semitic, while Santasiere, who was gay, interpreted some of Evans's comments as homophobic.
ReplyDelete