Artur Yusupov

     Yusupov (aka Artur Jussupow) was born February 13, 1960 in Moscow, and is GM, chess writer and coach. 
     Yusupov learned to play chess at the age of six and trained at the Young Pioneers' Palace in Moscow. He won the World Junior Championship in 1977, which automatically qualified for the IM title and he was awarded the GM title in 1980. 
     He finished second in his first USSR Championship in 1979 (behind Efim Geller) and for the next 10 years he enjoyed a lot of success in international tournaments. 
     According to Chessmetrics, between March 1986 and May 1987 Yusupov was ranked number three in the world on 12 different months. 
     He reached the semi-final of the Candidates Tournament on three occasions: in 1986 (defeated by Andrei Sokolov), 1989 (defeated by Anatoly Karpov) and 1992 (defeated by Jan Timman). 
     In May of 1990 he returned to his Moscow apartment after finishing second at the SKA tournament in Munich. He was carrying a large amount of cash and shortly after arriving home armed thieves came to his apartment and proceeded to rob him of money and other valuables and although Yusopov put up no resistance, one of the thieves discharged a shotgun into his stomach. Yusopov considered himself lucky to have survived. Soon after, he decided to move to Germany, which has remained his home. 
     After that experience his (Chessmetrics) rating gradually slipped and by the early 2000s he was no longer in the world’s top twenty. 
     In 1999, Yusupov was acknowledged as the leading authority on Petrov’s Defense and his opening book on it was considered the most comprehensive available. He is also an expert on Lasker’s Defense in the QGD. 
     According to GM Alexei Suetin described Yuspov as "a player with a rational, positional style. He boasts high technical skill in the endgame and detailed knowledge of his customary opening systems. Least of all does he rely on inspiration; his every move is based on industrious study." 
     Throughout his playing career, Yusupov has been coached and mentored by Mark Dvoretsky, considered to be the world's leading chess trainers. As a result they established he Dvoretsky–Yusupov Chess School. Students of the school have included strong grandmasters Peter Svidler, Sergei Movsesian and Vadim Zvjaginsev. 
     In 2005, Yusupov was awarded the title of FIDE Senior Trainer. Yusupov has also been a frequent contributor to Dvoretsky's books and has been a second and advisor to both Viswanathan Anand and Peter Leko during their world championship campaigns. 

Watch an interesting interview with Yusupov on Youtube 

In the following game from the 1981 USSR Championship Yusupov concludes it with a surprising little tactical shot.

Final standings:
1-2 Psakhis and Beliavsky 10.5 
3-5) Balashov, Romanishin and Yusupov 10.0 
6-8) Dolmatov, Kupreichik and Kuzmin 9.5 
9-10) Tseshkovsky and Vaganian 9.0 
11-12) Rashkovsky and Vasiukov 8.5 
13) Makarichev 7.5 
14-15) Geller and Georgadze 6.5 
16-17) Lputian and Razuvaev 6.0 
18) Chekhov 5.5

Play Online Chess

[Event "USSR Championship Frunze"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1981.12.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Artur Yusupov"]
[Black "Gennadi Kuzmin"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Queen's Indian: Old Main Line} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 {This move avoids
the Nimzo-Indian Defense but allows the Bogo Indian 3...Bb4+ which is also a
good alternative for black.} 3... b6 {The solid Q-Indian increases black's
control over the central light squares e4 and d5 by fianchettoing the QB.} 4.
g3 Bb7 { This is known as the Old Main Line and was the most frequently played
line from the 1950s until 4...Ba6 became popular in the 1980s. Nowadays this
move is often employed as a drawing weapon.} 5. Bg2 Be7 {Usual is 6. 0-0 0-0
7. Nc3 Ne4 8. Qc2 Nxc3 9. Qxc3. White has a spatial advantage, but black has
no weaknesses.} 6. Nc3 {With this move white postpones castling in favor of
preparing action in the center with the d4-d5 and e2-e4.} 6... O-O 7. Qc2 d5
{A better line begins with 7...c5.} 8. cxd5 exd5 9. O-O Na6 10. Rd1 h6 {In
Grischuk,A (2772)-Li,Y (2456)/China CHN 2017 black unsuccessfully tried 10...
c5 and eventually lost the game.} 11. Bf4 Re8 12. a3 c5 13. Be5 {White got
nothing out of the opening after 13,dxc5 in Lerner,K (2529)-Grinshpun,E
(2410)/ Herzeliya ISR 2006.} 13... Nc7 14. Nh4 {Black has two reasonable moves
here: 14... cxd4 and 14...Rc8.} 14... Bd6 15. Bxf6 {White could have gotten
active play with 15. e4, but Yusupov prefers a more position approach.} 15...
Qxf6 16. Nf5 Rad8 17. Nxd6 Qxd6 {This slip gives white a distinct advantage.
Better was 17...Rd6 because now black's Q is in danger.} 18. dxc5 bxc5 19.
Ne4 {Had black captured on d6 with his R this move would not have been
possible.} 19... Qg6 20. Qxc5 {Here balck would have been better off to simply
play 20...dxe4 21.Qxc7} 20... Ne6 21. Qxa7 Ba8 22. Nc5 Nf4 {This looks more
dangerous than it is.} 23. gxf4 d4 24. Nb7 Rxe2 25. Rxd4 Rxd4 26. Qxa8+ Kh7
27. Nc5 Rxb2 {Kuzmin has made the best of a bad situation, but he does not
have quite enough play for equality because white's minor pieces are more
active, plus the a-Pawn can be a real danger to black.} 28. Ne4 {Black's best
chance here lies in 28...Qg4 29.Qc6 Ra2! and the R can't be taken because of
...Rd1 mate. Black could then eliminate the P on f4, but even then white keeps
the advantage.} 28... f5 29. Ng3 Qd6 {This turns out to be the losing move.
After 29...Qb6 he would have had a fighting chance.} 30. Nxf5 Rd1+ 31. Rxd1
Qxd1+ 32. Bf1 Qg4+ 33. Ng3 {The ending is lost for black after, say,
33...Qd1, but his next move loses outright to a nifty little tactical
resource. } 33... Qxf4 34. Bd3+ g6 35. Bxg6+ {Kuzmin resigned here because if
35...Kxg6 36. Qg8+ Kf6 37.Nh5+ forking the Q and K.} 1-0

Blunders, Not Tactics, Win Games

   Tal created very unclear positions by making sacrifices that engines quickly demonstrate to have been unsound, but he wasn’t playing engines. 
    Tal was an incredibly strong player and he knew his sacrifices might not be fully correct, but he judged the resulting position so messy that they, like chess problems, gave his opponent many ways to go wrong and the refutation required moves that were hard to find. 
     For most amateurs, rather than using imagination and creativity, our “tactics” involve throwing away some material without any really good reason and calling it a “sacrifice” or playing for a mating attack with moves like Ng5 and Qh5 and hoping our opponent won’t see an obvious threat or will make a gross blunder. For us, that is playing tactical chess. 
     We do this because we have heard tactics win games. While that may be true, the fact is for most of us amateurs, our tactics usually aren’t sound nor are they clever like Tal’s. If they succeed it’s usually because our opponent’s blundered. We just like to call these blunderfests “tactics.” 
     Since my state’s governor announced that all indoor sporting events, including high school, collegiate and professional sports, shall continue without most spectators in attendance in an effort to contain the spread of the coronavirus, the high school basketball championship game I was planning on attending was out. Instead I had to play some online chess and the following game illustrates my point.

Play Online Chess

[Event "Online G10"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Guest"]
[Black "Tartajubow"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Queen Pawn Opening} 1. d4 d5 2. Bf4 {The beginning of the London System which
has been popular with some amateurs for a long time. A few years back GM
Henrik Danielsen from Iceland out out a DVD proposing this move which as an
advertising gimmick he gave a "!" The accompanying hype claimed the B move is
rarely played and looks innocent, but in the DVD he showed why it is a good
weapon for white.} 2... Nf6 3. Qd3 {3.Nf3 leads to the London System. This is
apparently an attempt to tke me out of the book and make me think on my own.
Of course, my opponent has done the same thing to himself. There's no
refutation, but simple straightforward development assures me of equality.}
3... Nc6 {I know, 3...c5 is more principled.} 4. c3 g6 5. Nd2 Bg7 6. f3
{White's intention is to play e4 and meet ...dxe4 with fxe4 and have the big P
center or so you would think.} 6... O-O {The immediate 7.e4 doesn't turn out
too well after 7...dxe4 8.fxe4 e5!} 7. O-O-O Bf5 {Better was 7...Re8. If white
played 8. e4 dxe4 9.fxe4 e5! this now only results in equality.} 8. Qb5 {This
Q-side diversion accomplishes nothins so 8.e4 was better.} 8... Rb8 {A
moment's thought convinced me that letting him have the b-Pawn in this
position was bad.} 9. g4 {I was expecting 9.e3 and my first thought was that
this is a bad move, but it's actually Stockfish's first choice. In either case
black now has a slight advantage.} 9... Bd7 10. Qd3 {Here it occurred to me
that white controls the center and I can't play ...e5, so there is only one
other option...begin an assault on the Q-side.} 10... b5 11. h4 {Par for the
course, of course...attacking on opposite wings.} 11... b4 12. c4 {Excellent!
White wisely keeps the b-file closed.} 12... b3 {Better was 12...dxc4 and
13...Nd5 and black's attack will come faster against white's compromised K
whereas my own K is quite safe.} 13. a3 {Still keeping the files closed...a
good idea. Now my best chance is 13...dxc4 and 14. ..Nd5 and black can boast
of no more than a slight advantage. Black has an wild (but unsound) piece
sacrifice with 13...Nxd4 14.Qxd4 Nxg4 with wild complications that end up
favoring white.} 13... Nb4 {This sacrifice completely turns the tables; now
it's white who has a significant advantage.} 14. axb4 { Komodo is suggesting
the best course of action is 14...dxc4 15.Nxc4 Nd5 and ... Bb5, but it's not
all that much better.} 14... Rxb4 15. c5 {This is a good move denying me the
opportunity to further open up the Q-side with ...dxc4 and ... Nd5. Black has
an interesting additional sacrifice here: 15...Nxg4?! 16.Fxg4 Rxd4 and
materially white has two Ns vs three Ps. This is actually a little better
than what I get with my next move.} 15... Qb8 {Make that (15...Nxg4) a lot
better. The feeble plan is to somehow penetrate on the a-file.} 16. e3 Ra4
17. Qxb3 Ra1+ 18. Kc2 Qxb3+ 19. Nxb3 Rxd1 20. Kxd1 {Having been compelled to
exchange off the Qs and a R there si nothing left with which to attack white's
K and I am left a N doen with no compensation that I can see.} 20... Rb8
{Hoping for 21.Kc2 Ba4 regaining the piece.} 21. Nd2 Rxb2 22. Bxc7 Ba4+ 23.
Ke1 Nd7 {I have a plan.} 24. Bd3 Nxc5 {It wasn't to play ...e4, it was to play
this and confuse him.} 25. dxc5 Bc6 {Now all he has to do is play something
like 26.Ne2 and get his R into play. My a-Pawn is no threat.} 26. Ke2 {Two
question marks for walking into a pin.} 26... Bc3 {The position is now, for
the first time in a long time, equal.} 27. Ba6 Rxd2+ 28. Kf1 Ra2 {Now either
29.Be2 or 29.Bd3 or 29.Ne2 keeps things equal.} 29. Bc8 {But this gross
blunder exposes his K to the full force of the R on the second rank and my two
Bs.} 29... Bb5+ 30. Ne2 Rxe2 { Good enough, but tactically 30...d4 was even
stronger.} 31. Kg1 Rxe3 {Again 31. ..d4 was even better.} 32. Kf2 Re2+ 33.
Kg3 Be1+ 34. Kf4 d4 {The game is over.} 35. h5 d3 36. hxg6 fxg6 37. Be6+ Rxe6
38. Be5 d2 39. Bc3 d1=Q {White resigned.} 0-1

Match: Reshevsky vs. Donald Byrne

     I remember ‘57 pretty well even though I was new to chess. I remember some guy in Russia named Smslov won the world championship, but the really big news was the USSR launched the beach ball sized Sputnik satellite. 
     At the time anyone possessing a short wave receiver could hear the satellite as it hurtled through space and hearing the steady beep, beep, beep was intriguing. That’s it; it just a beep, but it was coming from outer space! Some sources say that though Sputnik 1 was small, it was visible from Earth through a pair of binoculars (and perhaps even with the naked eye, if you had good vision). Others say what people saw was actually the much larger rocket booster. 
     There was also the Asian Flu Pandemic of 1957 and 1958. It was first identified in East Asia and subsequently spread to countries worldwide. It followed the influenza pandemic of 1918–19 (also known as the Spanish flu) and preceded the Hong Kong flu pandemic of 1968. 
     The Asian flu outbreak of ‘57-58 caused an estimated one million to two million deaths worldwide and is generally considered to have been the least severe of the three. By midsummer it had reached the United States, where it initially infected relatively few people, but several months later numerous cases were reported, especially in young children, the elderly, and pregnant women.
     By March 1958 an estimated 69,800 deaths had occurred in the United States. The rapid development of a vaccine against the virus and the availability of antibiotics to treat secondary infections limited the spread and mortality.

     1957 saw the continued growth of bigger and taller tail fins on cars and more lights and bigger, more powerful engines. An average new car cost $2,749 ($25,300 today). 
     Popular TV programs were Gunsmoke which is still showing reruns today. The Danny Thomas Show. It was a sitcom that regularly featured music by Danny Thomas, guest stars and occasionally other cast members as part of the plot. 
     Danny Thomas (born Amos Muzyad Yaqoob Kairouz; January 6, 1912 – February 6, 1991) was a nightclub comedian, singer, actor, producer, and philanthropist whose career spanned five decades. 
     Today Thomas’ is most remembered for making a vow that if he found success, he would open a shrine dedicated to St. Jude Thaddeus, the patron saint of hopeless causes. 
     In the early 1950s, he began traveling the United States to help raise funds to build St. Jude Children's Research Hospital because he fervently believed "no child should die in the dawn of life." With help from Dr. Lemuel Diggs and close friend Anthony Abraham, an auto magnate in Miami, Florida, Thomas founded the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee in 1962. 
     Since its inception, St. Jude has treated children from all 50 states and around the world, continuing the mission of finding cures and saving children.
     Westerns were poplar and besides Gunsmoke people were entertained by Tales of Wells Fargo, Have Gun – Will Travel, the non-Western I've Got a Secret and The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp. 
     I don’t think I ever knew of this, but from August 20th to September 4th, 1957, Samuel Reshevsky and Donald Byrne, then living in Ann Arbor, Michigan and recent winner of the Western Championship, played a match in New York.
     Details are very sketchy and there was no mention at all of the match in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. I found a couple of snippets from the New York Times, but not being a paid member I can’t read the articles. Another unanswered question is, why was the match played? 
     The match got off to a rocky start and Bill Wall’s site offers what scant information I could find. In the first game Byrne's flag fell, but Reshevsky didn’t notice it and offered a draw in a position where he had a perpetual check. Of course, Byrne accepted. 
     Then in the second game, Bryne again overstepped the time limit and again, Reshevsky, who had an easily winning position, didn’t notice that Byrne’s flag had fallen. Then, of all things, Reshevsky's flag fell, but neither player noticed that both flags were down. 
     At that point Reshevsky’s wife, Norma who was sitting in the audience, claimed the win for her husband! Byrne pointed out that the rules stated that only the player on the move could claim a time forfeit and since it was his move, he was claiming the win. However, the game was ruled a draw. It’s not clear exactly who made that ruling, but I assume it was the referee. 

Mr. & Mrs. Reshevsky

     I am not sure Byrne’s claim is correct. From my OTB days, when a player’s flag fell (obviously that player was on the move) his opponent immediately called it. I never heard of a rule that said you had to wait until it was your turn to move to claim the win. 
     Mrs. Reshevsky’s actions caused a dispute and I would loved to have been there! An appeals committee was organized to settle the dispute, but Byrne objected because to him there was nothing to settle. Wall states that Byrne walked out (exactly when is not clear), but later returned, but he offered no further explanation. 
     In any case, the third game was played and it was a lengthy B+P ending that was drawn. 
     A snippet of information from the New York Times stated that Byrne failed to appear at the Manhattan Chess Club for the fourth game. Normally one would expect that this would have resulted in a forfeit, but the fourth game was actually played. It was short (Reshevsky’s draw offer was accepted on move 26), but sharp. 
     I was unable to unearth what happened here, but am going to venture a guess that after the disputed second game, the third game was played while awaiting a ruling from the committee. And, when the ruling upholding the draw in the second game was announced prior to the fourth game, that’s when Byrne failed to show up. 
     Since Byrne was living in Ann Arbor one would have expected him to return home, but apparently he was convinced to continue the match starting with the fourth game. Whatever happened, it sounds like a comedy of errors. 
     Game 5 was a hard fought draw and game 6 was a lengthy (70 moves) affair where Reshevsky had a R+P vs R ending that was drawn. 
     Finally, in game 7 there was a decisive result when Byrne miscalculated, lost a piece and eventually the game. 
     In game 8 Reshevsky, in an 88 move marathon where he had 2Rs and 2Ps vs Byrne’s Q and P, managed to finagle Byrne (playing white) into a position where his K was on the 8th rank and mate was unavoidable. 
     Game 9 was the most interesting. A powerful attack left Byrne facing a mate in 3 and so he resigned. 
     Game 10 saw Byrne playing to adjournment, but he was two Ps dawn so he resigned. Thus, one rather strange and forgettable match ended.

Play Online Chess

[Event "Match, New York City"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1957.9.2"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Samuel Reshevsky"]
[Black "Donald Byrne"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Symmetrical English} 1. Nf3 c5 2. c4 {The symmetrical systems of the English
constitute a large and important area of modern opening theory.} 2... Nc6 3.
g3 g6 4. Bg2 Bg7 5. O-O d6 6. Nc3 Nh6 7. d3 Nf5 8. Bd2 h5 9. h4 Bd7 10. Rb1
Rb8 { Yawn!} 11. a3 Nfd4 12. Nh2 Qc8 13. b4 O-O 14. b5 Ne5 15. Nd5 Re8 16.
Bg5 {Is anybody still awake?!} 16... f6 {Neither Stockfish nor Komodo can
suggest anything interesting here, but neither of them like this...not that
it's bad, but it creates a tiny weakness around black's K.} 17. Bd2
{Interesting for black would be 17...Bg4 and if 18.Nxg4 hxg4 he has the
possibility of a P-advance against white's K. A little action, if nothing
else. But, that's not the way Donald Byrne played...he was a super-solid
positional player...to the point his games were usually boring affairs.}
17... Ng4 18. e3 Nxh2 19. Kxh2 Nf5 20. Nf4 Kf7 21. Be4 Rh8 {The fact that
black plays this indicates that his position is passive and it is hard to
suggest anything bordering on counterplay.} 22. Qf3 Rh6 {To help defend the
g-Pawn.} 23. d4 {Offering a Pawn which Byrne rightly considers too risky to
take. If 23...cxd4 24.exd4 Nxd4 25.Qd3 the attack on black’s g-Pawn forces
him into all kinds of contortions to defend it and leaves white a free hand to
further strengthen his position.} 23... e5 24. dxe5 dxe5 25. Nd3 Rh8 26. Bd5+
{Black's best hope is to trade some pieces with 26...Be6 27.Bxe6+ Kxe6 28.Qd5+
and if white takes the c-Pawn next move black can at least also trade Qs.}
26... Ke8 27. Qg2 Nh6 28. f4 Ng4+ 29. Kh1 {Black is in a difficult situation
here, but his best best is still 29...Be6. Instead, he makes matters worse by
opening up the position.} 29... exf4 30. exf4 b6 {After this Reshevsky
launches a final assault, but 30...Kd8 wasn't much better.} 31. Qe4+ Kf8
{There's nowhere to hide, but 31...Kd8 was a little better.} 32. Qxg6 Nh6 33.
f5 Bxf5 {Reshevsky now concludes the game with a nice tactical display.} 34.
Rxf5 Qxf5 35. Nf4 {Now taking the Q is no help. 35...Qxg6 36.Nxg6+ Ke8 37.
Re1+ Kd7 38.Bc6+ followed by the capture of the R on h8.} 35... Rg8 {It's mate
in 8.} 36. Re1 Rd8 37. Qxf5 {Byrne gave up..} 1-0

San Juan 1969

   In 1969 Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first humans to set foot on the Moon. That is if you believe the stories, but a lot of people still think the whole things was faked. Pontiac introduced the epitome of the American muscle car, the Firebird Trans Am. 
     The music world that year saw the Beatles' last public performance and despite residents’ opposition to a “hippy” music festival, more than 350,000 fans attended a three day long event in Woodstock, New York. 
     A demon possessed unemployed ex-convict who had spent more than half of his life in prison encouraged his followers to commit murders in the Los Angeles area and make the killings appear to be racially motivated. They murdered actress Sharon Tate who was 8-1/2 months pregnant and four others in her home on August 8 and 9, 1969 and they followed up with the murder of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca the next day. Manson died in California State Prison at Corcoran on November 19, 2017; he should have died 83 years sooner. 
 

Senator Kennedy's victim

    Senator Edward Kennedy, thanks to his money and connections, got away clean after the drowning of his 28-year old passenger Mary Jo Kopechne, who was trapped inside of his car when it ran off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts after they had been at a party. Kennedy left the scene and did not report the accident to police until several hours later. The Grand Jury determined there was not enough evidence to indict him on charges of manslaughter, perjury, or driving to endanger. Actually, he didn’t get away completely clean... his driver's license was suspended for a total of 16 months. He also got a suspended sentence of two months in jail for leaving the scene of an accident.
     In aviation the first Concorde test flight was conducted in France and the Boeing 747 jumbo jet made its debut. Aviation had a tragedy that year when Prinair Flight 27, a regular passenger flight by Puerto Rican airline Prinair, between Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, crashed into a mountain near Fajardo, a suburb of San Juan, killing all 19 occupants on board. The approach controller, a trainee, was mistaken about the plane’s location and issued them incorrect instructions. 
     San Juan was the site of a major international tournament that year. The final standings were: 

1) Spassky 11.5 
2-4) Parma, Bisguier and Browne 10.0 
5) Schmid 9.5 
6-7) Donner and Larsen 9.0 
8-9) Damjanovic and Kaplan 8.5 
10) Kavalek 8.0 
11-12) R. Byrne and O'Kelly 7.5 1
3) Berrios 5.0 
14) A. Colon 2.5 
15) M. Colon 2.0 
16) Martinez 1.5 

     Naturally with that many strong players and a bottom half that was relatively weak, there were a lot of good games played as well as a lot of crushes. Today’s game features another Bisguier game. This one is his round 5 game against Anger Berrios Pagan. 

     CJS Purdy was always quick to point out that a positional evaluation is reliable only if a winning tactic can be ruled out. In this game Barrios was allowed to keep black’s King in the center, establish a strong outpost for his N on e4, placed his Q on the strong square d4 and control the e-file with his Rs. Certainly enough positional pluses to score the win, but it didn’t work out that way because in the end, Bisguier’s tactical possibilities turned out to be more dangerous.

Play Online Chess

[Event "San Juan"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1969.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Angel Barrios Pagan"]
[Black "Arthur Bisguier"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Ruy Lopez: Archangel Defense} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5.
O-O b5 6. Bb3 Bb7 {Archangel or Arkhangelsk Defense often leads to sharp
positions in which black hopes his Bs influence on the center and K-side will
offset his delay in castling. White has several options, including attempting
to build an ideal P-center with c3 and d4, defending the e-Pawn with Re1 or
simply developing.} 7. d4 Nxd4 {Interesting is 8.Bxf7+ Kxf7 9.Nxe5+ Kg8
10.Qxd4 c5 and most Masters prefer black.} 8. Nxd4 exd4 9. e5 Ne4 {White falls
into the Noah's Ark Trap with 10.Qxd4? c5 11.Q-any c5 winning the B.} 10. c3
d3 11. Qxd3 Nc5 12. Qg3 Nxb3 13. axb3 h5 {This aggressive move is typical
Bisguier, but two years later at Vrsac 1971 in Lujubojevic-Planinc black found
the better 13. ..Qe7 and Bisguier's move was forgotten.} 14. Rd1 {After this
black has the advantage. Necessary was 14.h4} 14... h4 15. Qg4 {White's
strategy is two-fold: hinder the development of the B on f8 and ...O-O-O.}
15... Qe7 16. Bg5 Qe6 17. Qd4 { Once again, in annotating this game Bisguier
ignores this move which saddles white with a distinct disadvantage. He could
have made is life easier by tradings Qs and then black's advantage would not
eb so great.} 17... h3 18. Nd2 Rh5 19. Ne4 {This well placed N defends the B,
blocks the long white diagonal and hinders the development of black's N to c5
where it belongs in the Archangel. Nevertheless, black is better because of
his tactical chances against white's K. Black's next move is a little
tactical trick: he threatens ...Rxg5 and the R can't be taken because of mate
on g2. Stronger was 19...f5, but the situation is tricky and unclear after
20.exf6?! Bxe4 21.fxg7 Rxg5 22.gxf8Q+ kxf8 23.g3.} 19... Qc6 20. f4 {This move
is doubled-edged. Perhaps he should have played the safer 20.Be3.} 20... d5
{Bisguier wants to get his B to c5 so begins trying to for the N to move, but
in doing so he allows white to regain equality. It's hard to fault him for not
playing Stockfish's way: 20...f6 21. exf6 O-O-O 22.fxg7 Bxg7 23.Qxg7 Qxe4
after which black is supposed to have a significant advantage, but for a
hum,an to evaluate it as such OTB seems like a difficult task! For humans,
unclear is probably the best evaluation,.} 21. exd6 Bxd6 22. Re1 {Capturing
the B would put white in the difficult position of having to be on guard
against mate on g2.} 22... Kf8 23. Re2 {Defends g2 and controls the e-file.}
23... Re8 24. Rae1 {Bisguier now plays an exchange sacrifice to remove the
annoying N. After Stockfish's preferred 24...f6 25.Bxf6 and now 25...Rxe4
26.Bxg7+ Kf7 and then after multiple exchanges on e4 and ...Kxg7 black has a B
vs two Ps with each side having a R...a very difficult ending.} 24... Rxe4
25. Rxe4 f6 {Barrios now makes a fatal mistake in at long last permitting
black to get his B to c5. Much better was 26.b4. In his book Bisguier stated
that he still preferred black, but engines think the position offers chances
for both sides equally.} 26. Bxf6 {Fatal. It's possible Barrios was hoping
for 26...gxf6 27.Qxf6+ when he could have forced mate.} 26... Bc5 {White could
try breaking the pin on his Q and K with 27.Be7+ Bxe7 28.b4, but after
28...Qg6 his position also proves impossible to defend.} 27. Re8+ Qxe8 28.
Bxg7+ Kf7 29. Rxe8 Kxe8 30. g3 Bxd4+ 31. Bxd4 c5 32. Be5 Kd7 33. g4 Rh4 {It's
futile to try and hold this position against a GM and so white resigned.
After 34.g5 Rg4+ black plays his R to g2 and it's all over.} 0-1

Chess Psychology

Vishy Anand on the Psychology of Chess is a Chess24 print of a 2017 interview with Anand who talked about how top players have had to adapt. READ

For further reading: 
The Cognitive Psychology of Chess‎ 
Bill Wall’s synopsis of Dr. Fernand Gobet - READ

Psychological tips for chess players 
Dr. Shrirang Joshi, a well-known psychiatrist and counselor gives three tips - READ 
Perception, Memory and Visualization: The Psychology of Chess 
Article on Southeastern University’s Online Learning site - READ

A Hair Raising Game by Bisguier

     After the 1948 US Championship tournament the USCF concluded there was something wrong. That tournament, won by Herman Steiner a half point ahead of Isaac Kashdan, consisted of 20 players, but due to the fact that it was made up of regional qualifiers, the strength of the players was quite low. 
     As a result the USCF created a “Master Plan” for reorganizing the title that consisted of a three-year cycle of elimination contests similar to the one that FIDE had just established to choose a world championship challenger. 
     The cycle began with regional preliminaries the first year and the second year there would be a Candidates Tournament made up of the regional qualifiers and seeded players. The finals would be played the third year.  This system would result in a smaller, more manageable event. The plan struck a snag almost immediately...the Candidates Tournament of 1950 was never organized! 
     As a result, in 1951 the USCF tried to salvage their botched plan by holding some kind of a huge invitational event with 50 players from across the country.  At some point, somebody realized this would be even worse that the 1948 disaster. 
     Their solution was to hold a 24 player event, but that, too, met with a problem...very few players were interested in playing! Herman Steiner, Arnold Denker, Reuben Fine and Isaac Kashdan turned down their invitations. In the end 24 players showed up in New York in June to go through elimination events to qualify for the 12-player finals in July. 
     The finals winner and new US Champion was Larry Evans who scored an undefeated 9.5-3.5. Samuel Reshevsky finished second a point behind as a result of a surprise loss (his only one) to 8th place finisher Dr. Ariel Mengarini.
     Apparently at that time the Champion could also put his title on the line in match play and so Herman Steiner was able to arrange a match with Evans for the title,
     The prize fund was $3,000...no small amount; it was the equivalent of over $29,000 today. The average cost of new house in 1952 was $10,250 and gas cost 22 cents a gallon and a movie ticket cost 70 cents. 
     The games were scheduled to be played in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Reno and New York, but the games in New York were canceled after Evans had established a commanding +8 -2 =4 lead. 
     The USCF idea of a championship cycle completely flopped as only a few of the regional preliminaries were held. The problem was local sponsors could be found to hold the preliminaries in the country’s big chess centers, but nowhere else.
     In an effort to salvage the disaster, the USCF planned a candidates tournament to be held in Philadelphia in September 1953.  This tournament would be open to anybody with a rating above 2000 and who was willing to pay a $25 (almost $250 in today’s dollars) entry fee. 
     The idea wasn’t very popular and 23 players showed up to play in a Swiss system instead of round robins. The entire prize fund was $250 ($2,400 today). The real stake though was six spots in the 1954 championship. 
     As usual, the USCF was having financial difficulties and couldn’t afford to pay for a hotel venue to hold the 1954 tournament. As a last resort the Marshall Chess Club offered its rooms. 
     Arthur Bisguier, at the age of 23, was just out of the Army and had qualified from Philadelphia. He had been an up and comer a few years before when he won the 1950 US Open and his first international tournament at Southsea, England, but hadn’t done much since then. Bisguier was attending college classes during the day and ended up sleeping in one of the Marshall's upstairs apartments at night. 
     Play began on May 29, 1954 and it was a relatively weak field. Bisguier was eighth on the latest rating list while the defending champion Larry Evans was only tenth. None of the five top rated players had accepted their invitations. They were Samuel Reshevsky, Robert Byrne, George Kramer, Donald Byrne and Arnold Denker. 

Bisguier in 2011

     Among the favorites were Evans, Bisguier, recent French emigre Nicolas Rossolimo and Max Pavey. 
     The 20-year-old James T. Sherwin, a Marshall Chess Club junior star, was only ranked 24th on the rating list, but he took the early lead after five rounds. Sherwin was unable to keep up the pace and ended up with a +4 -2 =7. His two losses were to Bisguier and Evans. 
     When Bisguier and Sherwin met in the next to last round it was one of the most exciting games of the tournament. They castled on opposite sides and both were P-storming their opponent’s King. The last third of the game saw mate threats hanging over the head’s of both Kings. 
     Then Sherwin tried to force a draw and declining it meant Bisguier had to accept an extremely dangerous Knight sacrifice. He decided that with the US Championship title on the line that he had to take the risk so declined the sacrifice only to have Sherwin give him a bad scare by making another sacrifice, this time a Rook. But in the end luck was with Bisguier and he won when Sherwin blundered and and lost on time. 

Sherwin

     Bisguier entered the final found only a half point ahead of Evans who had white against Seidman who he would normally expect to beat. Mengarini had white against Bisguier.
     Mengarini refused Bisguier's draw offer. What’s interesting is that in the 1951 tournament, Mengarini had white against tournament leader Larry Evans and refused the draw offer there also.  In a dead drawn B of opposite color ending he suddenly began blundering and ended up losing! 
     History repeated itself in this tournament. Instead of accepting Bisguier’s draw offer, he desperately tried to win, blundered on the 47th move and lost. Meanwhile the Evans-Seidman game was drawn and Bisguier was the new US Champion and $254.35 (about $2,400 today) richer. 

Final standing: 
1) Arthur Bisguier 10.0 
2) Larry Evans 9.0 
3) Herbert Seidman 8.0 
4-5) Max Pavey and James Sherwin 7.5 
6-7) Sidney Bernstein and Nicolas Rossolimo 7.0 
8-9) Hans Berliner and Saul Wachs 6.5 
10) Eliot Hearst 6.0 
11) Karl Burger 5.5 
12) Carl Pilnick 5.0 
13) Paul Brandts 3 
14) Ariel Mengarini 2.5 

     In his book The Art of Bisguier, he included his wins against Dr. Karl Burger, Carl Pilnick, Eliot Hearst and James T. Sherwin from this tournament. 
     There are two books in the series, both were written with coauthor Newton Berry. Volume 1 covers 1945 to 1960 and Volume 2 covers 1961 to 2003. 
     The first book is not without flaws. It measure 8.5 x 11 with a cheap binding that will fall apart after minimal use. It also has a lot of pictures which is nice, but for some reason many of them appear distorted. Bisguier also has the annoying habit of calling pieces Monarchs, Prelates, Steads, etc. apparently in an attempt at humor. 
     In spite of the awkward size, poor binding and wonky photographs, the printing is easy to read with large type for game moves and italic type for notes, plus the 82 games are packed with 380 diagrams. In spite of the rather superficial notes, the games are a joy to play over. 
     Bisguier was a classical player and his attacks followed as a result of his straight-forward moves. Although he hated to lose, he had panache and wasn’t afraid to take chances with hair raising consequences such as in this game against Sherwin. 

     For Sherwin's story outside of chess read it in the National Registry of Exonerations HERE.  Sherwin has lived in England for mnay years and at the age of 86 in the 2019 British Rapid Play Championship he tied for first place.

Play Online Chess

[Event "US Championship New York"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1954.6.12"]
[Round "12"]
[White "Arthur Bisguier"]
[Black "James T Sherwin"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Veresov Attack} 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 3. Bg5 {The Veresov avoids heavy
theoretical lines, white typically plans castling Q-side and an early f3 and
e4 } 3... Bf5 {This is just one of a gaggle of reasonable moves black can play
here. Kurt Richter, an early advocate of this opening, usually continued 4.f3,
hoping to build a large Pawn center while Gavril Veresov usually played 4.Bxf6
to wreck black's P-structure. Thus giving rise to the Richter and Veresov
variations.} 4. f3 c6 5. Qd2 Nbd7 6. O-O-O h6 7. Bh4 e6 8. e3 Be7 9. Kb1 b5
10. Bd3 Bxd3 11. cxd3 O-O 12. f4 a5 13. Nf3 a4 14. Rc1 b4 15. Ne2 c5
{Sherwin's P storm begins in earnest.} 16. Bxf6 {Forcing Sherwin to make a
decision: accept a shattered P-formation or lose a P (16...Bxf6 17.dxc5).}
16... gxf6 17. g4 Qa5 18. dxc5 Nxc5 19. Ned4 Qa6 20. Rcd1 Rfc8 21. h4 {You
just know what's coming is going to be exciting!} 21... Rc7 22. Qe2 Rac8 23.
g5 h5 24. Ne1 Nb3 {Threatening mate on c1, but Bisguier finds the right
defense. Not 25,.axb3 axb3 26.Nxb3 Ra7 and black wins.} 25. Nec2 {Shame on
Bisguier when he annotated this game in The Art of Bisguier. Of Sherwin's
next move Bisguier only mentions that after 25...Nxd4 white gets a slight
advantage which is totally not true. The fact is that after 25...Nxd4 26.Nxd4
even though black's h-Pawn disappears he has equal chances after 26...f5. I
know this because I left Stockfish running while I went and fixed breakfast
and upon my return the evaluation was 0.00.} 25... e5 {This move is just
awful...it opens up his K's position.} 26. Qxh5 { It would have been much
better to have played 26.gxf6 first. Black would then have had no defense
after 27.Qxh5} 26... exd4 {With his next move Bisguier threatens mate with
28.gxf6+ and 29.Qh8 mate, but the threat is easily parried. Perhaps he should
have tried 27.g6, but as dangerous as it looks, black's defensive resources
are adequate against that move also.} 27. Rdg1 {White's N and d-Pawn are under
attack, but can't be taken because of the mate threat (28.gxf6+) and so
Sherwin goes for the draw by repeating moves.} 27... Nd2+ 28. Ka1 Nb3+ 29.
Kb1 Nd2+ 30. Ka1 Nb3+ {Now in his desire to avoid the draw Bisguier walks into
a mate in 11 moves!} 31. axb3 axb3+ 32. Na3 Rc1+ {Two !! for this move which
caught Bisguier completely off guard.} 33. Rxc1 {Now Sherwin misses 33...
Rxc1+!! 34.Rxc1 bxa3 35.Qxf7+ Kxf7 36.g6+ Ke8 37. Rc7 Bb4 38.Re7+ Bxe7 39.bxa3
Qxa3+ 40.Kb1 Qa2+ 41.Kc1 Qc2 mate} 33... bxa3 {Even after this black is still
winning.} 34. Rxc8+ Qxc8 35. Qd1 axb2+ 36. Kxb2 Qc3+ 37. Kb1 {There's only one
winning move here and that's 37...dxe3! and white can't handle two passed
Ps.} 37... Ba3 {Now the game is only a draw with best play.} 38. Rh2
{Defending against the mate threat on b2. Now Sherwin decides to go all out for
a mating attack and leaves his K to fend for itself. Unfortunately for him,
it's the wrong decision. He now should play 38...fxg5! which would keep the
g-file closed.} 38... dxe3 {Whereas this was good last move, now it's not.}
39. gxf6 {Suddenly Sherwin realizes there's no way to make any headway. If,
for example, 39...b2? 40.Rc2 Qxf5 41.Qg1+ and white, being the exchange up,
should win the ending.} 39... Kf8 {The K flees the lurking danger on the
g-file. I am sorely disappointed in Bisguier in his notes to this game in The
Art of Bisguier when he offers only a few relatively meaningless notes for the
remainder of the game and ignores the fact that black had counterchances.
Bisguier surely knew better because the games were analyzed with the help of
the Fritz engine which even in 2003 (the date of publication) was good enough
to spot the possibilities.} 40. Rg2 { Black could win a P here, but at the
cost of getting mated in a clever fashion or giving up his Q: 40...Bd6 41.Qe2
Bxf4 42.d4 Qxd4 43.Rg8+ Kxg8 44.Qg4+ Kf8 45.Qc8 mate Nevertheless, there is a
defense: In stead of capturing the P on d4 black could play 42...Qc6! 43.Qh5
Qxf6 44.Qxd5 and he has defensive possibilities now that white's P on f6 is
gone.} 40... Ke8 41. d4 {Bisguier seriously lessens his winning chances by not
playing 41.Rg8+ Bf8 (Not 41...Kd7 42.Qg4+ winning outright). 42.d4 and black
is in a difficult situation, but the win is by no means a sure thing. Of
course Bisguier made no comment on this move. Remember that Sherwin was in
time trouble here...no mention of that fact by Bisguier.} 41... Kd8 {This loses
immediately and yet Bisguier makes no comment on it. After 41...Bd6 black has
excellent drawing chances. In a Shootout using Stockfish at 5-13 plies, white
lost only one game with 4 draws.} 42. h5 {Headed for victory.} 42... Kc8 43.
h6 b2 44. Rc2 {It's mate in 8 moves after this; Sherwin's time now expired.}
1-0

A Rant

     This post isn’t about chess, but it could be seeing that we are all Armchair Grandmasters thanks to powerful chess engines. This allows us to be critical of almost every move strong players, even world champions, made while sitting at the board with the clock ticking. Those who can, play. Those who can’t, have a blog and analyze with Stockfish! 
     What got me thinking about this was something I witnessed a while back at a high school basketball game. One of the star players on the winning team had a good game, but it wasn’t up to his father’s expectations. As a result, the boy’s father told him that he was so embarrassed by his performance that he didn’t even want to ride home in the same car. 
     It reminded me of the time I was heading to the parking lot after a round of a junior chess tournament and witnessed a mother stooped down in her small daughter’s sobbing face and berating her for not playing the opening like she had been shown and losing. 
     Or the time a coworker told me he had talked to his daughter’s high school principal because his daughter’s volleyball coach hadn’t taken his advice and as a result a game was lost. The same guy told me of an incident on a cruise ship where in a swimming pool volleyball game between the crew and passengers one of the passengers was so bad, “I told him to get the (expletive deleted) out of the pool!” 
     Why is it that people who are on the hot seat making instantaneous decisions receive so much criticism when their decisions don't turn out well? 
     It’s called hindsight bias and it occurs all the time and it’s not limited to the world of sports. Whether it is sports fans saying the coach should have done something differently or when after a tragedy people start explaining how those involved should have acted differently, we all fall prey to hindsight bias.
     People can be quick to make judgments about the decisions of others when, in fact, in many cases, it is difficult or impossible to know what decision is the correct one. 

     In sports statistics are often used to make decisions and it’s easy to commit the hindsight bias error in evaluating the result of a decision because you already know what the result was. People are fallible in their decision making and nobody has all their decisions turn out the way they intended even if they are based on sound statistics. 
     When you go to a sporting event, whether it is a professional team or a kid’s recreational game, there are always people being critical. We live in a society of critics. It has almost become common place that we criticize even the things we supposedly enjoy the most. 
     Often at a sporting event the same fans who paint their face and dress in silly costumes are also demeaning, negative and just plain nasty toward their own team, players and coaches. Sometimes they seem so miserable that you wonder if they are even enjoying the game at all. 
     We have become critical in our culture. We expect perfection, yet we have very little appreciation for what it takes to perform the skill or action needed. Even if one is not a football fan, it’s a source of amazement how a quarterback can throw a ball to a player on the move 40 or 50 yards downfield and it lands in his hands. Or, at the instant a baseball is hit how does an outfielder know the precise spot where it’s going to come down so he can be standing there to catch it? Let them misjudge just once and fans will be screaming and yelling at them.
     Those are professional players, but the same expectations make their way down into youth sports in the form of fanatical parents who are screaming at their kids to perform better because the parents are expecting perfection and anything less means the kid wasn’t trying hard enough. 
     Criticism is not restricted to sports. Everybody has their opinions, but many seem to lack the ability to separate their own identity from outside events. Disappointment in the outcome leaves people angry. Sport fanatics riot when their team loses. Or, when a President that a lot of people don't like gets elected instead of trying to work with him, some leaders spend four years neglecting the country’s business, stirring up hate and dedicating themselves to staging a coup to overthrow a duly elected President.  In fact, their hatred is so strong that when a member of their own party stated that for the good of the country he would try to work with the man, he was vilified and told if he wanted to do something good for the country he should resign from office. 
     Or, a few years ago in gymnastics the sensational teen Gabby Douglas ran into a lot of harsh criticism because some idiotic people didn't like the way she wore her hair!

     When it comes to sports, why do people place so much emphasis on things over which they have no control to the point that they let those things dictate how they act and respond? Why do people become so emotionally upset over an outcome or result, that it affects their relationships with others?  
     Non-constructive criticism never results in anything positive. Now, get this. In 2010 and 2011, two studies were published that revealed a significant increase in domestic violence following sporting events...up to 30 percent. 
     The answer lies in the motivation behind being a fan. Often, especially in the case of parents, they were athletes. or chess players, or whatever, that were unable to reach their goals and are living vicariously though their children. Because of this, their criticism is the result of disappointment, anger or they may even be jealous of their own children. 
     While watching their children some parents become critical perhaps because they were unable to participate in such events when they were a child, but feel their lives would have somehow turned out differently had they had the opportunity. 
     Others feel that their child’s performance is tied to their identity as parents, so when the child performs poorly, the parent looks bad. 
     Still others seem to want their child to succeed because the child is seen as a meal ticket. If the child can make a living at the sport, they can share the wealth with their parents. 
     For others, their identity as a person is tied to their team and when the team looks bad, the fans look bad. 
     End of rant...

Tournaments of Peace

     During the first Tournament of Peace, Vladimir Vukovic said “Even though it is structurally an image of war, the game of chess is in fact more inclined to point its admirers towards the devotion of peace since the battles fought on chessboards are pole opposites of actual war. These battles have been taking place for centuries without thoughts of physical or moral degradation, or injury, to the opponent, with chess games at all levels ending in heartfelt handshakes.”
     Vladimir Vukovic (August 26, 1898, Zagreb – November 18, 1975, Zagreb), a Croatian chess writer, theoretician, player, arbiter, and journalist is probably best known for his classic book, The Art Of Attack In Chess, in which he expounds both the basic principles and the forms of attack on the King. 
     There have been four of the Tournaments of Peace held. The first took place in April 1965, and was organized by Zagreb city officials and Zagreb chess players. First place was shared by Borislav Ivkov and Wolfgang Uhlmann with 13.5-5.5. World Champion Tigran Petrjosan finished third a point behind. 
     The second was held in Rovinj and Zagreb in 1970 and is remembered because of the performance of the legendary Robert J. Fischer. 
     The third was played in 1975 and first place was snared by Hungarian GM Gyula Sax with a score of 8.5-4.5. He was followed by local players Kovacevic, Nikolac and Ceckovski who scored 8.0-5.0. 
     The fourth, this time a Swiss system, took place in 2018 in Zagreb and was won Indian GM Baskaran Adhiban. Second place went to Bacrot on tiebreaks ahead of Ivanchuk. 
     Bobby Fischer won the second tournament in 1970 by a full two points over his nearest competitors, which included 10 other GMs in a field of 18 players. The tournament was held in two different cities in Yugoslavia: Rovinj from April 12th to April 26th, and Zagreb from April 27th to May 8th. It followed the USSR vs. Rest of the World match which had been held in Belgrade and the Unofficial World Speed Championship in Herceg Novi which was also won by Fischer. 
     Fischer lost only one game, but was it because he was cheated?  He jumped out to a quick lead, scoring 6.5 points in the first seven rounds! Then came round 8 and the cheating incident as was alleged by some when he suffered his only loss at the hands of a little known Yugoslav player named Vlatko Kovacevic who was playing black. 
     Kovacevic (March 26, 1942 in Dubrovnik) was awarded the GM title in 1976 and had some tournament success in the mid-1970s to mid-1980s. He played in six Olympiads.: for Yugoslavia in 1982, 1984, 1988 and 1990 and for Croatia in 1992 and 1998. 
     Fischer's loss to Kovacevic was his first loss since he had lost to Geller in Skopje three years earlier in 1967. How did Kovacevic pull off his win? Here is the position after Fischer’s 18.f3: 

     Kovacevic had played an opening innovation on move 10 and it resulted in his gaining a huge advantage to the point that in the diagram he is clearly winning. 
     According to Kovacevic he was nervous at the prospect of defeating the mighty Fischer and began walking around the room. That’s when Rona Petrosian approached him and said something he claimed he didn't understand because he didn’t speak Russian. 
     This game appears in William Lombardy’s book published in 1972, Modern Chess Opening Traps. Lombardy stated simply that in an earlier round Fischer had brilliantly defeated East German GM Wolfgang Uhlmann, but some questioned Fischer’s opening analysis. Lombardy made no mention of any controversy and simply stated that Kovacevic found the flaw. 
     According to Victor Korchnoi in Chess Is My Life, in the diagrammed position Fischer set up a trap for Kovacevic. Tigran Petrosian, his wife and Korchnoi were watching the game and Korchnoi loudly said "How interesting" after realizing Fischer's trap. He then proceeded to explain that if Kovacevic fell for it and trapped Fischer's Queen he could lose. That’s when Petrosian's wife said she would inform Kovacevic. 
     She then approached Kovacevic while he was walking around and warned him. Of course Kovacevic insisted that he found the right move on his own and that it was only afterwards that he realized Petrosian's wife had tried to warn him. 
     Kovacevic wrote that after the game Fischer said “Very good,” signed the scoresheet and left. Before Kovacevic could sign his own scoresheet Petrosian grabbed it from his hands and exclaimed, “For Moscow, for Moscow!” 
     Of course nobody knows what really happened, but I doubt that Kovacevic needed anybody’s help in finding the right move (18...e3!) from the diagram. He was a strong player even if not well known at the time. Stockfish’s top choice is 18...e3 and it gives black an advantage of almost six Pawns, so there is no reason to suspect that a strong master wouldn’t find it. 
     In fact, black has two other moves that aren’t bad: 18...Nf8 (4.33 Ps in black’s favor) and 18...Nh4 (1.70 Pawns in black’s favor). After both of those moves Fischer could still have escaped with his Q with 19.Qb5, but that move would have been worse that letting black capture it. The bottom line is, I believe Kovacevic. 
     In the end, the loss didn’t matter all that much though it could have. Fischer defeated Gligoric in the next round and had a point and a half lead over the field after nine rounds. His final three rounds were tough draws against Browne (who should have won), Korchnoi and Petrosian. 

Final standings: 
1) Fischer 13.0 
2-5) Hort (undefeated), Gligoric, Smyslov and Korchnoi 11.0 
6) Petrosian 10.5 
7-8) Minic and Ivkov 9.0 
9-11) Bertok, Kovacevic and Uhlmann 8.5 
12) Browne 7.5 
13-15) Ghitescu, Kurajica and Parma 6.5 
16) Marovic 6.0 
17) Udovcic 5.5 
18) Nicevski 3.5 

     As I have mentioned a few times in the past, there were others playing in this tournament besides Fischer and they also played some good games. Take a look at this Petrosian vs. Gligoric game. It wasn’t often that Petrosian, who at one time had the reputation of being the hardest player in the world to defeat, got beaten so soundly. 
     Gligoric’s style was classical: he went for a strong Pawn center, the pair of Bs and his play was always aggressive. Like Fischer, he didn’t believe in psychological warfare. The title of his biography was "I play against pieces."

This game was originally published on a now defunct site, but you can view it HERE

Play Online Chess

[Event "Rovinj/Zagreb"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1970.4.16"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Tigran Petrosian"]
[Black "Svetozar Gligoric"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{King's Indian: Classical Main Line} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6
5. Be2 O-O 6. Nf3 e5 {Gligoric was one of the world's foremost authorities on
the K-Indian and so Petrosian now avoids his favorite line beginning with 7.d5
Nbd7 8.Bg5.} 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. b4 Nh5 {This is by far the most popular
move today, but at the time the moves 9...Ne8 or 9...Nd7 were always played.
Glicoric prefers this move because it immediately gives him active play on the
K-side.} 10. Nd2 {This is almost never played today. White prefers 10.Re1 f5
11.Ng5 with active play for both sides.} 10... Nf4 11. a4 f5 12. Bf3 g5 13.
exf5 Nxf5 14. g3 {This move is rather surprising from a cautious player like
Petrosian because it weakens his K-side. Much better was 14.Be4 and 15.Ng3
with a solid position. As far as I know nobody ever questioned Gligoric's
next move sacrificing a piece, but it is somewhat risky. A better way to
continue was found by Igor Smirin in 1997. 14...Nh3+ 15.Kg2 Qd7 Be4 g4! with a
vigorous attack. Josh Manion (2425) vs. Igor Smirin (2625)/Las Vegas, 1997.}
14... Nd4 {This Tal-like sacrifice is not quite correct, but it's successful
against one of the best defensive players in the world so it can't really be
criticized.} 15. gxf4 Nxf3+ {This is a seriuos mistake! Correct was to play
15...exf4 first. In the game A. Martin (2430) vs. R. Britton (2260) in the
1991 British Championship white found the correct 16.Nxf3! e4 17.Nxg5 Bxc3
18.Ra3 Bg7 19. Rg3 and black resigned.} 16. Qxf3 {After this white is still
perhaps a little better.} 16... g4 17. Qh1 {This defensive maneuver is typical
of Petrosian's passive style, but it's still a strong move and white remaions
just a bit better.} 17... exf4 18. Bb2 {Petrosian wants to exchange black's
strong dark squared B as soon as possible, but after this Gligoric gets a lot
of play. Better would have been 18.Nde4 and the develop the B on d2. He
could then play a R to e1.} 18... Bf5 19. Rfe1 f3 20. Nde4 {Black should now
play 20...Bxe4 21.Rxe4! Qg5 with the threat of ...Qd2.} 20... Qh4 {This
threatens ...Qh3 leaving white's Q completely out of the game. In an effort to
free his Q Petrosian plays 21.h3, but it is a serious mistake. Much better
was 21.Ng3 and if 21...Qh3 22.Nxf5 Rxf5 23.Nd1 Bxb2 24. Nxb2 with both Qs out
of play and in addition to having a N for a P white has control of the
e-file.} 21. h3 Be5 {After his next move Petrosian's game unravels. By
playing 22.Nd1 and eliminating dark squared Bs he would have at least had a
fighting chance.} 22. Re3 gxh3 23. Qxf3 Bg4 {Forcing the Q back into the
corner. White is completely busted.} 24. Qh1 h2+ 25. Kg2 Qh5 26. Nd2 Bd4
{Even more devastating was 26...Qg5.} 27. Qe1 Rae8 {An even harder punch was
27...Bxe3 28.Qxe3 Rf3} 28. Nce4 Bxb2 29. Rg3 Be5 {Rather than just piling up
material Gligoric is going for the kill.} 30. Raa3 Kh8 31. Kh1 Rg8 32. Qf1
Bxg3 33. Rxg3 Rxe4 {The final blow. If 34.f3 Bxf3+ 35.Qxf3 Qxf3+ and 36...Re2
leaving black with an easily won ending.} 0-1

Denker and Feuerstein Grapple At The Manhattan Chess Club

     Going back to 1955, on January 5th, Samuel Reshevsky won the first Rosenwald Trophy in New York and on January 8th, Vasily Smyslov and Paul Keres tied for 1st at Hastings. 
     It was a bad year for English chess. On January 31st Henry Atkins, born in 1872, died in Huddersfield, England at the age of 82. On May 16th England also lost chess historian H.J.R. Murray (born in 1868) who died at the age of 86. The English lost a third player on December 11th when R.C. Griffith died in Hendon. He was British champion in 1912 and co-author, with John H. White, of Modern Chess Openings. Then on December 17th they lost a fourth player, William Winter (born 1898) when he died in London of tuberculosis at the age of 57. 
     On November 25, Herman Steiner died at the age of 50 while playing in the California championship. He was defending his state title and finished his 5th round game (a 62-move draw against William Addison) when he said he didn’t feel well. His afternoon game was postponed and around 9:30 pm he had a fatal heart attack while being attended by a physician. 
     George Koltanowski set a new US record for simultaneous play by playing 110 boards in Los Angeles. It took him 12 hours and 10 minutes and he scored + 89 -4 =17. 
     In May Bobby Fischer played in his first official USCF tournament, the US Amateur in Lake Mohegan, New York and scored +2 -3 =1; he tied for 33rd place out of 75. Carmine Nigro was President of the Brooklyn Chess Club which is where he met Fischer and in 1951 became his first chess teacher. Nigro took the 12-year old Fischer, who only wanted to watch, to the tournament, but Nigro persuaded him to play and paid for his USCF membership and the $5 entry. Fischer’s post-tournament provisional rating was 1826. 
     In July, the USSR handed the US a humiliating defeat in Moscow by a score of 25-7. One bright bit of news came when Edmar Mednis took 2nd place with a 7-3 score in the world junior championship in Antwerp, Belgium. The tournament was won by Boris Spassky. A couple on months later Mednis won the New York State Championship in Cazenovia, NY. 
     The US Open in Long Beach, California was won by Nicholas Rossolimo on tiebreaks over Samuel Reshevsky. In August Charles Kalme won the US Junior Championship in Lincoln, Nebraska. Fischer was way down in 20th place. 
     The big international news was the Gothenburg, Sweden Interzonal which was won by David Bronstein. 
     In the 38th Marshall Chess Club Championship Franklin Howard and William Lombardy tied for first. The club’s main rival was the Manhattan Chess Club and Lombardy also played in their championship tournament. 
     The Manhattan Chess Club was founded in 1877 and started with three dozen men, eventually increasing to hundreds, with women allowed as members from 1938. It was the second-oldest chess club in the United States (next to the Mechanics' Institute Chess Club in San Francisco) before it closed in 2002. 
     The Manhattan’s list of champions includes some pretty impressive names: Eugene Delmer, Simon Lipschutz, Major James Hanham, Albert Hodges, Frank Marshall, Paul F. Johner, Abraham Kupcik, Oscar Chajes, David Janowski, Morris Shapiro, Geza Maroczy, Isaac Kashdan, Albert Simonson, Arnold Denker, Albert Pinkus, Alex Kevitz, Arthur Bisguier, George Shainswit, George Kramer, Max Pavey, Pal Benko, Paul Brandts, Bernard Zuckerman, Walter Shipman, Arthur Feuerstein, Joel Benjamin, John Fedorowicz, Vitaly Zaltsman, Michael Rohde, Kamran Shirazi, John Fedorowicz and Alex Wojtkiewicz to name just a few. 
     In the 1955 club championship Max Pavey, the club champion in 1953, regained his title by scoring 13-3 in the 1955/56 renewal of the annual championship. He suffered a lone loss to Arthur Feuerstein while defeating his closest rivals William Lombardy and Albert Pinkus. 
     I played two postal games against Feuerstein in the Chess Review Golden Knights. In the preliminaries in 1970 I caught him in a trap in the opening and won a Pawn. Thinking I couldn’t get more than a draw in the ending, I went for his K with a nifty 5 move deep combination, but he saw a couple of moves deeper than I did and dazzled me with some tactics that netted him a R. Two years later we met in the finals. We were following a line in an opening booklet on the Sicilian that had a mistake in the analysis which I only realized after it was too late. Feuerstien had the same booklet and was aware of the mistaken analysis. I was busted and resigned after 29 moves. 
     In the ‘55 Manhattan Championship Abe Turner started out with four straight wins, but then only scored two points in the remaining eleven rounds! Pavey got off to a slow start and Feuerstein was in the lead with 8.0-2.0 at the end of ten rounds, but failed to maintain his early pace. 
     Lombardy suffered losses in the sixth and seventh rounds then made a strong finish, but it was too late. Thanks to their risky style of play Bisguier and Denker had a rough time. 

Final standings:
1) Max Pavey 12.0 
2-3) William Lombardy and Albert Pinkus 10.5 
4) Arnold Denker 10.0 
5) Arthur Feuerstein 9.5 
6-7) Alex Kevitz and Arthur Bisguier 8.5 
8) SidneyBernstein 8.0 
9) Martin Harrow 7.5 
10) Reuben Klugman 6.5 
11-12) Abe Turner and Morton Siegel 6.0 
13) Benjamin Owens 5.5 
14) Raul Benedicto 4.5 
15) M. Schroeder 3.5 
16) A, Reiter 3.0 

     In the following game after 8 moves things look a little boring, but by move 13 the game starts to look like it could get interesting. Then at move 17 Denker went astray and miscalculated. Three moves later he tried to hornswoggle Feuerstein, but it didn't work and Feuerstein managed to thread his way through some tricky play to keep the win in hand.

Play Online Chess

[Event "Manhattan CC Championship"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1955.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Arnold Denker"]
[Black "Arthur Feuerstein"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{QP Opening} 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Nc3 {I think it might be safe to call this
the Veresov Attack, but if so, it's an offbeat version.} 3... d5 4. Bf4 Bg7
5. e3 Nh5 {Safer is 5...O-O} 6. Be5 {The most effective move. Obviously black
doesn't want to exchange his B so...} 6... f6 7. Bg3 Nxg3 8. hxg3 {Although
black's K-side looks like it might be badly weakened there does not seem to be
a good way for white to take advantage of it.} 8... c6 {There are three games
in my database in which black played the odd looking 8...Be6 (also favored by
Stockfish) and drew.} 9. e4 Be6 10. Bd3 Bf7 11. Qe2 Nd7 12. exd5 cxd5 13.
O-O-O O-O {The battle lines are drawn...whose attack will come first?
Stockfish thinks the chances are dead equal as long as white takes the proper
steps to meet ...e5 with 14.Qe3 in order to vacate e2 for the B.} 14. Rh2 {But
this move which is obviously designed to double Rs on the h-file leaves white
at a decided disadvantage.} 14... e5 15. dxe5 fxe5 16. Bb5 e4 {Clearly black's
position is superior even after the better even after 17.Nd4. Instead Denker
makes a serious miscalculation.} 17. Nxd5 {There's no doubt Denker had
calculated the following line: 17...exf3 18.Ne7+ Kh8 19.Rxh7+ Kxh7 20.Rh1+
Bh6+ 21.Qd2 and wins.} 17... Nb6 {Unlike checkers, in chess captures are not
compulsory.} 18. Qxe4 Nxd5 19. Bc4 Qf6 20. Rxd5 {Clever fellow that Denker.
If 20...Bxd5? 21.Qxd5+ Kh8 22.c3 and white has compensation for the sacrificed
exchange.} 20... Qxb2+ { Feuerstein's a clever fellow, too. He's not
distracted by a little material. You have to admire his calculating skills to
thread through all the variations. } 21. Kd1 Qa1+ 22. Kd2 Qc3+ 23. Kd1 Rfc8
24. Bb3 Qa1+ 25. Kd2 Bc3+ 26. Ke2 Re8 {A rather messy situation has appeared,
but Feuerstein has everything under control.} 27. Re5 {27.Ne5 was but a
smidgen better.} 27... Bxe5 28. Bxf7+ Kxf7 29. Ng5+ Kf8 30. Nxh7+ Kg7 31.
Qxb7+ {This allows a mate in 7, not that there was anything better.} 31...
Bc7+ 32. Kf3 {32.Kd3 only avoids mate for a few moves.} 32... Qd1# 0-1

Comments Now Moderated

Spammers

Thanks to the dung maggot that keeps spamming three or four posts several times a day under the cloak of anonymity, I have taken the step of reviewing all comments before they will appear. Sorry for the inconvenience.