Paul Tautvaisas

Dr. Povilas Tautvaisas of Lithuania was a doctor, forensic expert and pathologist. During the Nazi occupation of WW2 he was ordered to supervise Holocaust sites. In 1945 the Soviet government arrested and deported him where he treated prisoners in exile until his death.  

His son Paul, also known as Povilas, was born in 1916. After the war and the USSR's annexation of the Baltic nations, Tautvaisas found himself a Displaced Person in Germany and eventually made his way to the United States where he finally settled in Chicago, Illinois.  Tautvaisas was one of the Midwest’s strongest masters and his prominence in the Chicago area in the 1950s and 1960s earned him the nickname "The Old Fox".  For many years Richard Verber and Tautavasis traded city championship titles. When Edmar Mednis published an early work on Tahl’s games, The Chess Psychologist Tal, many of the games were annotated by Tautavasis. He passed away in Chicago in November 1980 due to complications from alcoholism.

 
In the following game he defeats Erik Karklins, father of FM Andrew Karklins.  Both players were long regular fixtures in the Chicago chess scene.  Tautvaisas' last move resembles a chess puzzle, Black to play and mate.

Ramon Rey Ardid

Rey Ardid circa 1984

      Rey Ardid (20 December 1903 – 21 January 1988) was champion of Spain from 1929 to 1943. By profession he was a psychiatrist and a professor at Zaragoza University and ranks with the best of the Spanish players such as Golmayo, Fuentes, Díez del Corral, Sanz, Saborido Toran, Visier and Pomar.
      In 1924, he played for Spain in the first Chess Olympiad held in Paris where he scored +4 -5 =4. In 1928 he won the pre-Olympic tournament in Madrid, but did not participate in the 2nd Olympiad at The Hague. In 1929, he tied for 4-5th in Barcelona and took his first Spanish Champion title.
      In 1929 he won a match for the Spanish title against Manuel Golmayo with 4 wins, one loss and 2 draws. He defended the title, winning matches: against R. Casas (+5 –1 =0) in 1933, Vicente Almirali Castall (+5 –0 =2) in 1935, Juan Fuentes (+5 –1 =1) in 1942, and lost the title to Jose Sanz (+3 –4 =3) in 1943.
   Probably his major international success was finishing 2nd, behind Lilienthal at Sitges 1934 defeating Tartakower and Spielmann in the process. In 1935 he defeated Victor Kahn (+2 -0 =4) in at match held in Zaragoza 1935. Also in 1935 he tied for 1st in Hastings 1935/36 B tournament. He played a match against Alekhine in 1944 and lost by the narrow margin of +0 -1 =3 and the same year soundly defeated Francisco Lupi (+5 –1 =0); both matches were held in Zaragoza. He finished first in a small tournament in Madrid in 1946.

      Dr. Rey Ardid excelled in the field of neuropsychiatry. In 1926 he graduated from the Faculty of Medicine of Zaragoza, and moved to Madrid where he combined the medical profession with chess. In 1943 he abandoned serious chess but continued to participate by giving simultaneous displays, correspondence chess and writing. He published twelve books, most notably Principles of Chess hundred items Opening chess and Spanish. He was a columnist for the Daily Herald Dawn Aragon and Zaragoza, and Barcelona's La Vanguardia. While Professor of Psychiatry an the University of Zaragoza he translated the works of Sigmund Frued and developed the method of spinal pumping for schizophrenia which was utilized in several German and Austrian universities. However, according to an article appearing in The American Journal of Psychiatry in 1956, it was stated that no noticeable therapeutic results were obtained in a series of 50 psychotic patients treated with spinal pumping procedures and the method was not recommended for the treatment of psychiatric disorders.
      Today the Rey Ardid Group consists of various nonprofit mental health organizations catering to children, the elderly and others by providing professional and social services.

Here is a snappy win from the 1930 Spanish Championship against Golmayo.

Black Throws Away a Win

The following position arose in an offhand club game against an opponent rated around 1700 (otb-USCF).  I was playing White and an early sacrifice did not work out at all well and we reached this ending. In this position Black is winning, but it is not so easy.  What’s his best move?

Black can safely play several moves here: 33…Ke8 and 33…Ra4 come to mind.  I like 33…Rc3.

33…      Ra2? 
Attacking the g and h Ps may look attractive; Black still has the advantage, but it’s not as great as before.

34. c5!    ….
Obviously he can’t capture because of 35.d6

34…     Kf6?

Moving his K away from the action is not a good idea.  Best was 34…Ke8 35.c6 Kd8 36.Rd7+ Kc8 37.Kf3 and he still has a winning advantage.

35.cxd6?! …
It would have been better to play 35.c6 Bf6 36.c7 Ra4+ 37.Kd3 Rd4+ 38.Ke3 Rc4 but even in that case Black wins because the c-Pawn cannot advance, Black’s d-Pawn is safe and my K is cut off from the P.  Now, however, the position is critical for Black because he must find the one move that keeps his winning chances alive.

35…    Ra4+?
This check is meaningless and, in fact, it is harmful to Black’s position because it allows my K to advance and assist the P.  Obviously he can’t take the P on g2: 35...Rxg2 36.Rxe7 Re2+ 37.Kd3 Rxe7 38.dxe7 and White wins.  And, 35...Bxd6 is a bad alternative because after 36.Rb6 Rxg2 37.Rxd6+ Kg5 38.h3 only yields a draw.  The correct move is 35…Bf3! Then after 36.d7 he has to find 36…Rd2! and White is stymied.

36.Ke5     Bf6

37.Ke6 Ra6
This is inferior to 37...Re4+ 38.Kd7 when Black has only a slight advantage. Correct is the cunning 37...Ra2! 38.d7 Ra6+ 39.d6 Ra5! (Threatening mate by ...Re5) 40.d8Q Bxd8 with a slight advantage.

38.Rc7 Kg5
Another rather pointless move.  38...Ra2 and Black could have gained the advantage 39.Rc6 (But not 39.d7 Re2+ 40.Kd6 Be5+ 41.Kc6 Rc2+ with an easy win) 39...Re2+ (39...Rxg2 only draws 40.d7 Rxh2 41.Kd6 Ra2 42.Rc8 h5 43.Rf8 Bg5 44.d8Q Bxd8 45.Rxd8 Kf5 46.Rh8 Kg4 47.Ke7 Re2+ 48.Kf7 Rd2 49.Ke6 drawn) 40.Kd7 Rxg2 and Black should win.

39.Rc6   Ra8
40.d7  ....  
Now it is Black who is fighting for the draw.

40…   Rd8?
40...Kg6 would keep Black in the game 41.Rc8 Ra2 42.d8Q Bxd8 43.Rxd8 Rxg2 44.d6 Re2+ 45.Kd5 Rd2+ 46.Kc6 Rc2+ 47.Kd7 Rxh2 48.Rc8 Kf7 49.Kd8 g5 50.d7 Rd2 51.Kc7 Rc2+ 52.Kb6 Rd2 53.d8Q Rxd8 54.Rxd8 and White has a theoretical win, but I doubt I could have pulled it off.

41.Rc8 Kf4
42.Kd6 Be5+?
Of course Black couldn’t resist the check, but it loses outright. 42…Ke4 getting the K into the action offered better chances of fighting on.

43.Kc6 Bf6
44.Kc7  Resigns

Compare Analysis

      When this game was played I had O'Kelly's The Sicilian Flank Game and an extensive Chess Life article by Gligoric published in 1982. The dilemma was that both sources gave totally different evaluations of the same lines.
      I thought it would be interesting to let Houdini 1.5 x64, Fire 2.2 xTreme x64, Naum 4.2 and Critter 1.6a 64 do a comparative analysis on the game just to see how their evaluations stacked up against each other and against the analysis of the day.
       It seems to me that Gligoric’s evaluations were more accurate than O’Kelly’s. It appears that the analyst of the day missed a promising line for Black at move 19 when he could have played 19…Bh4+. My database shows the only move for White as 19.c4 which was played 52 times. Black played 19…Bh4+ in 29 of those games with a performance rating of 2722 which is around 200 points higher than was achieved with 19…Ra7 (18 games), 19…c5 (2 games) and 19…Be7 (2 games).  However, looking at the actual results of games where both players were rated over 2400 the results for 19…Bh4+ were +2 -1 =3. 
      Once again, engine evaluations are not always 100 percent reliable, especially at fast time controls. The position is very complicated and trying to make an accurate determination is way beyond my ability.

Lajos Szedlacsek

One of the first local masters I remember seeing in action was the Hungarian emigre, Lajos Szedlacsek. His rating, if memory serves, was something over 2300, which was quite high for the early 1960s. Supposedly Szedlacsek arrived in U.S. in 1956 or 1957. According to one source he was born in Hungary in 1910. He passed away in Cleveland, Ohio on 16 June 1964 at St. Lukes Hospital at the age of 54. Beyond that, I was unable to find much information about him and his games are scarce. I did find the following crosstable from the following tournament held in Budapest in 1953.

There are several mentions of him playing in tournaments, usually with considerable success, all over the Mid-West during the late 1950s to early 1960s, but beyond that, nothing. I did uncover a couple of his games from the West Virginia chess archives, including the one that follows. His opponent was a well-known Mercer, Pennsylvania master. In the event in which it was played, the 1963 Tri-State Championship, Wheeling, West Virginia, the final scores were: 1. Szedlacsek 4-1 (two draws), 2. John Downes of New Martinsville, Pa, with 3.5-1.5 , 3-4. Johnson and James R. Schroeder, Cleveland, Ohio 2.5-2.5, 5. Dr Alex Darbes of Huntington, West Virginia with 2-3 and 6. Richard Ling of Dayton, Ohio with 0.5-4.5. Ling’s draw was with Szedlacsek who was also held to a draw by Schroeder.

It’s interesting to see how good garden variety masters were in those days. The game was pretty well played except for White’s blunder at move 46 which lost immediately.

Skunked by the Rasmussen Attack against my Lemberger Counter Gambit against the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit!!

When my opponent in this game opened with the Blackmar I felt pretty good. After all, according to GMs and other authorities, it is not very good. Of course there remains a small but dedicated group of players, my opponent included, who think otherwise. Every time a refutation is found to the latest move they find another try to rehabilitate it.

Most ‘experts’ think Black can successfully defend his position and use the extra P in the ending. IM Gary Lane thinks the opening is suitable for club players (what opening isn’t). In his book Understanding the Chess Openings Sam Collins wrote, "Nobody who plays good chess plays this line, and nobody who plays good chess ever will." IM Andrew Martin wrote, "playing the Blackmar–Diemer Gambit is like shopping for a tombstone." When you read stuff like that who wouldn’t be excited to see an opponent open with the Blackmar, especially in a correspondence game!

I don’t have any books on this gambit, only the few games mostly by lower rated players that appear in my database, so I was pretty much on my own. I essayed the Lemberger Counter-Gambit where Black counterattacks against the d4-pawn instead of defending the attacked e4-pawn. White can head for a drawish endgame with 4.dxe5 which gives few winning chances for either side. I didn’t expect that from somebody playing the Blackmar though. White played 4.Nge2 which is best met by 4...Nc6! when Black has good chances of obtaining an advantage. That’s what the ‘books’ say and there ended my knowledge of the Blackmar-Diemer.

White countered my Lemberger Counter Gambit with the Rasmussen Attack, 4. Nge2. This is a versatile move. It defends the d-Pawn and reinforces the other N in case it gets pinned. I countered with 4…Nc6 which is the critical move because Black protects his e-Pawn and at the same time attacks White’s d-Pawn a second time. After the moves 5.d5 Nce7 6.Ng6 Black has to make a decision. According to the book, if White is able to win the P on e4 without making any concessions he will have the advantage. So, Black has to find a way to continue attacking the White d-Pawn.

I preferred to take another route and defend the P by 6…f5. According to the book, this move is not so bad as it looks (Black compromises his K-side) because it is not easy for White to make progress in the center. According to IM Christoph Scheerer, 6…f5 is the ultimate test of the Rasmussen Attack because Black has weakened his light squares and the a2-g8 diagonal. Apparently we followed the book until I played my ninth move; White informed me after the game that Scheerer recommended 9…Ng6 instead of the clunker I played.

I spent about two hours annotating this game and was nearly done when I went to get a cup of coffee and when I returned the computer had automatically downloaded and installed security updates. In the process of rebooting, I lost all my analysis. Just an indication of the bad memories associated with this game! As a result I present it Blunderchecked with a couple of different engines.

In the end, despite the fact that the engines were telling me I enjoyed about a one Pawn advantage throughout much of the game, my gut was telling me that my King stuck in the center, lack of development and the fact that I couldn’t seem to find a viable way to generate counterplay was not going to turn out well and I just seemed to have drifted into a lost game!

What's the Best Move?

 



 

      The above position is given in one of  GM Artur Yusupov's books.  Yusupov has been coached and mentored by GM Mark Dvoretsky, considered by many to be the world's best trainer.  In addition, Yusupov, a FIDE Senior Trainer, has long collaborated with Dvoretsky and between them they have helped many successful GMs, including Anand and Leko. Take a minute to think about what you would play.

      The position is interesting and it was posted on one of the forums by a player who made the following comments:  If you give following position to a chess engine, it probably says the best move is 1.Ne4 or 1.Bxc4. But an expert will (probably) say 1.Bh6, which stops black from castling and the black king remains in the centre. So don't trust engines always!

      Out of curiosity I decided to see what some various engines’ top three choices were.  After about 3 minutes thinking time, here are the results:

Fire 2.2 xTreme GH x6

1.Ne4 0.28/22

1.Bxc4 0.17/22

1.Ra3 0.09/22

After 1.Bh6 0.00

Houdini 1.5 x64

1.Ne4  0.22/19

1.Bxc4 18/19

1.Re1 0.10/19

After 1.Bh6 0.00

Stockfish 2.3.1 JA 64bit

1.Ne4 0.56/25

1.Bxc4 0.48/25

1.Re1 0.36/24

After 1.Bh6 0.08

Naum 4.2

1.Ne4 0.42/20

1.Bxc4 0.33/20

1.Bh6 0.08/20

After 1.Bh6 0.01

Fritz 12

1.Bxc4 0.49/19

1.Ne4 0.49/19

1.Bh6 0.43/19

After 1.Bh6 0.43

Komodo64 3

1.Bh6 0.42/19

1.Ne4 0.31/19

1.Bxc4 0.31/19

Interesting that this is the only engine that selected 1.Bh6 as its first choice.

Critter 1.6a 64–bit

1.Ne4 0.28/20

1.Bxc4 0.24/20

1.Re1 0.11/20

After 1.Bh6 0.08

      One 1900 rated player commented: First thought that came into my head was Ne4-Bxc4 and go from there. I like centralized knights. Besides, Bh6 focuses black's play on the queenside, whereas it's more spread out if you don't play Bh6. Not that Bh6 isn't perfectly fine. Apparently he disagrees with Yusupov.

     King stuck in the centre is a sudden death in majority of cases. In this particular example Bh6 is also a positional accuracy - king's potential castle position is weakened (dark squares), and in case of fianchetto structure bishop has to be on g7/2, only later can it roam somewhere. This is something chess engines can't see yet. Good comment.

     All three moves are good and have up sides and down sides. All three moves should be considered by the expert, and then decided upon thereafter based on taste and experience. An interesting comment.  He is correct that all three moves are reasonable, but apparently he would also disagree Yusupov’s advice that you should play the best move…assuming you know what it is.  I disagree with that philosophy, but at the same time see his point.  If one is better at tactics than strategy or does not understand the strategic implications of the position, then go for a tactical line.  Of course here does 1.Bh6, preventing Black from castling and forcing him to keep his King in the center not have tactical implications?  He is correct that engines often do not make the best moves when it comes to positions where strategic considerations are important.



      What move did I select?  First I considered 1.Bxc4 0–0 2.Be3 Rb8 3.Bb3 followed by Qd2, centralizing the Rs and then playing Bh6, but because Black can’t defend the P anyway, finally decided on 1.Bh6 first to prevent Black from castling. But that was without spending a lot of time on the position.  After more analysis I might have changed my mind. 

      After deciding on my move I looked at 1.Bh6 Bf5.  This is interesting because now if White continues with the routine 2.Bxc4 Rb8 3.Bb3 then after 3…c4 4.Bxc4 Rxb2 both his N on c3 and c-Pawn are under attack but the position, according to the engines, is equal after 5.Qf3.  To me it looks like White is losing control of the game.  What White has to play after 1.Bh6 Bf5 is 2.g4! driving back the B and then he can safely take the P on c4.  The scary thing is that 2.g4 appears to weaken White’s own King’s position.

      After 1.Bh6 Rb8 it seems, analyzing with an engine, that Black has plenty of play on the Q-side, so the truth is, if I had this position in a game on LSS I would have probably selected 1.Bxc4.  Given more time in a game played without engine assistance I might have finally decided on 1.Bxc4 anyway. Because Komodo won the contest in selecting 1.Bh6 we will rely on it to tell us that after 1.Bh6 Rb8 play should run 12.Ra2 Be5 3.Bxc4 Rb4 0.16. 

     What did Yusupov say?  Winning the c4-pawn is not important, but stopping Black from castling is worth more than winning a pawn. Unfortunately I do not have Yusupov’s book so can’t say what his analysis is, but it would be interesting to know.

      This is just another example of why, even playing with an engine on LSS or ICCF, it’s impossible for us rating challenged players to outplay people who really understand chess.

 



Fire 2.2 xTreme

      Fire 2.2 xTreme GH x64 was out for some time but I never paid much attention to it until a couple of days ago.  Apparently it is no longer available for download; I am not sure why. However, it can be downloaded from MediaFire HERE.

      For a while now I have been relying on Critter 1.6a 64-bit for my analysis instead of Houdini 1.5 x64 but decided to run a quick and very unscientific test by playing some engine vs. engine 5-minute games and was kind of surprised at the results.  I am quite aware that this ‘test’ in no way meets even the minimal standards for testing, 5-minute games are not a satisfactory time limit and the Fritz Opening Book may not be a suitable book for all three engines, but the results were still interesting.

      Critter scored +3 -3 =7 against Houdini so I ran some quick games to pit FirexTreme against Houdini. FirexTreme also tied with Houdini with a +2 -2 =5 score.  Then I pitted FirexTreme against Critter.  FirexTreme won that match by a score of +4 -0 =0!

      So, against Critter and Houdini, FirexTreme scored +6 -2 =5.  Of course this hardly constitutes anything even close to being ‘scientific’ and a long match might give totally different results, or even longer time controls for that matter, but the results are worth further investigation.  I could not find FirexTreme on any rating lists, so am not sure how it stacks up against other engines.

      The following game was interesting because Critter misevaluated the ending. After 55.a5 it took Houdini a minute or so to discover the mate while FirexTreme found it faster and also a shorter mate.  Even after several minutes Critter had not found a mate. When I finally played 55…a3 after about 3 minutes Critter started showing a mate in 24 while FirexTreme was showing one in 14.  My impression is that Critter is a little slow in its calculations. Other than that you can’t draw any real conclusions, but it was an interesting…let’s call it a quiz.