The answer is, I suppose, it depends. In the case of opening books, the ideas may not have changed, but engines will sometimes alter the evaluation of individual moves.
In practice though I don’t think it matters much. Below the Master level (or perhaps even the VERY strong Master level) the players don’t follow published analysis very far anyway...sometimes only 5-6 moves.
Also, for non-Masters even a huge opening plus can be frittered away.
Also, some popular openings of today were unknown way back when and many once popular openings are now obsolete. Consequently, in the old books comments on the openings must generally be looked at with a jaundiced eye.
Many books on middlegame strategy hold up better and are still useful. Tactics are another matter because they can be iffy. Often those old books were cranked out out without a lot of analytic effort and they didn’t have the benefit of an all-seeing engine. Also, in may cases the games were annotated based on the result. Everything the winner did was praised and everything the loser did was criticized.
 |
| Spielmann |
However, for non-Masters and those of us for whom the improvement ship has sailed, the games in those old books are a source of enjoyment. The following game is one such.
It was played in 1934 in a tournament in Sopron, a city in Hungary on the Austrian border. The tournament itself has been long forgotten and few games survive. The event was won by Rudolf Spielmann and Erno Gereben finished second. The other players were Pal Rethy, I. Csath, Antonio Sacconi, Arpad Vajda, Laszlo Szabo, Immo Fuss, Kornel Havasi and Ernst Gruenfeld, but I was unable to locate the final standings.
The game appears in Spielmann’s book, The Art of Sacrifice in Chess. Rudolf Spielmann (1883-1942, 59 years old) was born in Vienna, Austria. His chess persona was the exact opposite of his personality away from the board. He loved complex positions and tactics.
Being Jewish, he fled Nazi Germany and in 1939 went to Sweden. His death is something of a mystery. According to his close relatives he locked himself in his room and was later found starved to death.
 |
| Gereben |
Another version says that he suffered from am illness similar to Parkinson's disease which rapidly became worse at the end of his life. Parkinson’s disease is a disorder of the central nervous system that affects movement. It often starts with a tremor in one hand. Other symptoms are slow movement, stiffness, and loss of balance. There are, however, several other conditions that can mimic Parkinson’s.
Another source stated that he was admitted to the hospital and he died there. The source adds that the official cause of death was high blood pressure and a condition in which the heart muscle becomes fibrous.
His opponent was Erno Gereben (1908-1988), a Hungarian-Swiss Master whose career extended from the mid-1920s to the late 1970s. He was born in Sopron, where this tournament was played. Due to the Hungarian revolution in 1956, Gereben emigrated to Switzerland. He was awarded the IM title in 1950.
As for the game itself, like the game in the preceding post, it represents the evils of having not castled in an open position. Spielmann’s sacrifice lead to an attack against the exposed King whose defending pieces were largely undeveloped and somewhat scattered left him with excellent attacking chances. As is often the case, the defender was not up to the task of defending which is often harder than attacking. As for Spielmann’s notes in the book, let’s just say he didn’t have Stockfish and leave it at that.
Shootouts are mentioned in the analysis. As a reminder, this is a feature in the Fritz program in which an engine play out the rest of the game. It’s useful to test different engines by letting them play out a tactical, strategic or endgame position at different depths, but it’s also useful for analysis purposes to see what the potential outcome might be.
Erno Gereben–Rudolf Spielmann0–1D94SopronSopron HUN09.1934Stockfish 16
D95: Gruenfeld Defense 1.d4 f6 2.c4 g6 3.c3 d5 Although played as far
back as 1855, this defense only became popular after Ernst Gruenfeld began
playing it in 1922. 4.e3 White has the possibility of 4.cxd5 which gives
him an imposing Pawn center which black will try to attack. The move played is
usually a quiet backwater variation. g7 5.f3 0-0 6.d2 c6 7.b3 b6
At the time this game was played black usually played 7...dxc4, but Spielmann
thought this move was probably better, Today black usually plays 7...e6. There
is not much difference between any of the moves. 8.cxd5 cxd5 9.c1 Simpler
9 B-K2 and 10 0-0 b7 10.e5 fd7 11.xd7 Spielmann was critical of this
move because it gives away two tempi and his recommendation was 11.f4. He
wrote that because black has gained two tempi, it is not far fetched for him
to think of sacrificing his d-Pawn in order to gain still more tempi. He
reminded reader that in open positions, three tempi are approximately worth a
Pawn. What does Stockfish say? The text results in equality, but 11.f4 gives
white a slight advantage. 11.f4 xe5 12.fxe5 f6 13.exf6 xf6 14.b5 c6 15.xd5+ xd5 16.xd5 with a slight advantage. 11...xd7 Playable was
11...Qxd7. Instead, black offers a P for development, Spielmann wrote that
either acceptance of the sacrifice, or its refusal by an indifferent move, was
too dangerous for White. And this was the basis of the subsequent sacrifice
which was already under consideration when he played 11...Nxd7 12.f4
A defensive Pawn move, when his development is backward-. According to
Spielmann this means the loss of another tempo, so black has already gained
three tempi. This advantage, it is true, cannot be utilized in what is at
present a close position. The following preventive sacrifice, however, opens
up all lines at one stroke. Stockfish's suggested move is 12.f4 and its
evaluation is 0.00. e5 This gets a ? from Stockfish which recommends either
12...Nf6 or 12...Rc8 with equality. After the text black is technically just a
P down. 13.fxe5 xe5 This violent P breakthrough is the idea behind the P
sacrifice! Since black is already at a disadvantage this sacrifice is probably
the best practical choice. 14.dxe5 d4 With this move black creates oopen
lines for his attack. Spielmann wrote the following: "The sacrifice of the N
cannot be vindicated by analysis and it would possibly hav3 been refuted in a
correspondence game. But in a contest over the board and with a time limit of
eighteen moves an hour, it would nearly always win through." In that he is
quite correct because a mistake by a defender is often more serious than a
mistake by the attacker. Technically white's advantage is about two Ps. Black
could play 14...Bxe5, but he must play ...d4 anyway now is the best time to
play it. 15.d1 After this most of white's advantage disappears. 15.exd4 keeps a clear advantage. xd4 16.e2 xe5 17.c3 Materially white has a N
vs.a P and there is no way for black to take advantage of the position of
white's K in the center. 15...xe5 16.e4 In order to close at least one
of the center files. But this costs a P, so that black will already have two
Ps for his piece and his attack remains just as strong. As correctly stated by
Spielmann. xe4 17.f2 d5 18.h3 According to Spielmann white guards his
g-Pawn in order to be able to develop his B. Unfortunately it further lessens
white's advantage. 18.c4 develops a piece and keeps a slight advantage.
Practically though calculating the best line and evaluationg the position OTB
seems nearly impossible. xg2 19.g1 b7 20.d1 f6 21.g4 f3+ 22.e2 xg4 23.xg4 xh2 24.h3 e5 25.d3 e6 26.c4 f5 27.h4 xh3 28.xh3
According to Fritz and Stockfish white is clearly better...clearly?! 18...e7 Naturally much stronger than capturing the a-Pawn. 18...xa2 19.d3 c8 20.0-0 xc1 21.xc1 White is better. 19.e2 Spielmann called this
the decisive mistake, but it actually results in equalit, He was correct in
that the best defense is 19.Kd1 and white maintains only a slight advantage. d3 A sacrifice that gains space and after black's next move white is
prevented from castling. 20.xd3 fe8 21.f1 White is in a
difficult position, but after this his position can be considered lost. 21.0-0 d4+ 22.h1 xe2 is obviously bad. 21.e3 looks ;ike a dangerous
place to put the Q, but it's the best defense. h4+ 22.g3 xg3+ 23.xg3 xg3+ 24.hxg3 xh1 25.f2 with unclear complications. In Shootouts from
this position white scored +1 -0 =4 21...xb2 This is the best
by far. 21...ad8 22.e3 b7 23.xe5 xg2+ 24.g1 xh1 25.f3 xf3 26.xf3 xf3 27.xf3 Again, the position us unclear, vut in Shootouts white
scored +0 -3 =2 22.e1 f6+ 23.f2 There is hardly anything else. d4 24.g3 e4 This is a mistake that went unnoticed in Spielmann's book.
Against the correct defense black's advantage would be minimal/ 24...xe2
There is no need to get fancy. 25.xe2 xf2 26.f4 xf4 27.xf4 xe1 28.xe1 24...e5 keeps a winning position. After 25.c3 25.c1 xf2 wins 26.xf2 f5 25...xc3 26.xc3 ae8 27.c2 b5 28.h4 c4 29.g4 xe2 30.xe2 xe2 and wins 25.h4 25.c1 was the crucial
defense. ae8 26.f3 4e7 27.h4 e3 28.xe3 xe3 29.g4 b2 30.xe3 xc1+ 31.d1 xf3 32.xf3 d8 33.f2 and in practical play white might be able
to draw. In Shootouts white scored +0 -3 =2 25...ae8 26.b5 xe1+ 27.xe1 e3 Best. He could also have won with 27...Rxe1+, but this winds up the game,
too. 27...xe1+ 28.xe1 xf2+ 29.xf2 a1+ 30.d2 xh1 with a long
ending in view. 28.g5 xe1+! 29.xe1 xf2+ 30.d1 xg2 31.e1 f3+ 32.e2 c3 33.xf3 xf3+ 34.c2 xe1 35.d8+ g7 White resigned 0–1
No comments:
Post a Comment