Bad News and Game Downloads

For the bad news: Jim Ablett’s excellent site, Winboard Chess Projects has bitten the dust. The site now reads, “Goodbye and farewell. It was fun for a while. Not anymore. Now back to the real world.” Jim Ablett. [08-08-13] The site says a single self-extracting archive containing everything he has done over the past 15 years, chess engines compiles (inc every version) , logos etc. is available for download, but when I tried downloading I got a message saying the site is no longer available.

Game Downloads
Keeping a database updated is necessary if you want to keep up with recent developments in you favorite openings. Personally, I never use the opening book that comes with Fritz. I use a database instead. If I hadn’t found Fritz 12 on sale at Office Max for $20 a couple of years ago, I would be using Scid. Shane's Chess Information Database is a database application for Windows, Linux and Mac OS X operating systems that allows you to maintain a database games, search games by many criteria, view graphical trends, and produce printable reports on players and openings. In addition you can analyze games with the Xboard or UCI compatible chess program, play online on FICS, and even use Scid to study endings with endgame tablebases. Download Scid HERE.

A good source of recent games can be found at the following sites:

The Week in Chess – Mark Crowther’s The Week in Chess (TWIC) publishes games played each week
Now in Chess – Gerardo Fernandez' site offers games not included in TWIC.
ICOfY – This lesser known site is a free games collection that can be used with most free and commercial chess programs, which support the PGN file format. It is also available in the file formats of Chessbase, Chess Assistant and SCID. The collection does not contain any short games with less than ten moves (good) and does not include tournament locations (not so good) or round numbers (who cares about round number?!).
KATAR Chess - games for use with SCID
Norm’s Chess Downloads – Norm Pollock's page features a collection of games between top players.

Best engine downloads:

Stockfish 4
Houdini 1.5a

Does Hard Work in Chess Pay Off?

      Natalia Pogonina’s site has an interesting article by GM Daniel Gormally in which he voiced his opinion on the subject. I found it interesting because it set off a storm of replies, some agreeing, some not, not only on Pogonina’s site, but on a couple of other forums. For example: “This guy is a GM and he nails exactly what I’ve been saying for years.” “The article is 100% conjecture and based on pure opinion. And not really all that insightful. He could be correct, or completely wrong. What he doesn't do is bring anything new to the discussion.”
      So what did he have to say? Gormally wrote, “You often hear a debate about work vs talent. The "10,000" hours rule is brought up again and again by those who like to champion the merits of hard work. Basically the theory is, if you put in 10,000 hours of preparation, study, training and so on, you are certain to achieve a level of mastery of whatever subject or activity you are involved with. As if it can be boiled down to a mathematical formula. What a load of crap.”
      My first question, why do we think chess is any different than anything else? Sports, music, writing, or any profession. Talent will only get you so far. As a corollary, hard work will only get you so far. 
      In her book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success by Carol S. Dweck argues that there are two fundamental mindsets that people use: the fixed mindset and the growth mindset. Dweck describes the properties of these mindsets in great detail, and demonstrates their profound effects by applying them to education, sports, relationships, and personal change.
      The premise is the idea that people exercise either a growth mindset or a fixed mindset. Those with a fixed mindset believe their talents and abilities cannot be improved through any means. They feel that they are born with a certain amount of talent and typically do not wish to challenge their abilities due to the possibility of failure. Individuals with a fixed mindset frequently guard themselves against situations in which they feel they need to prove their personal worth. Challenges are frequently viewed negatively, instead of as an opportunity for personal growth.

People that practice a growth mindset believe abilities, such as athleticism and mathematical capacity, can be improved through hard work and persistence. When presented with an obstacle, those practicing a growth mindset tend to rise to the challenge. Often, people of the growth mindset do not fear failure; instead, they view it as a chance to improve themselves. Dweck explains that mindsets …can drive multiple aspects of our lives, ranging from parenting and relationships, to sports and work. She reveals how prominent members of a variety of fields – business, literature, music, science, and sports - possess the growth mindset to achieve personal goals and dreams.
      In the realm of sports, mindsets have a bigger role than most realize. Often 'the greats' are looked at as perfect specimens with innate talent that allowed them to excel, but in reality, this is not the case. Talent and being 'a natural' can only get you so far. Hard work and dedication are necessary to fulfill your potential. People with a growth mindset realize this and push themselves to achieve and maintain this high level of accomplishment. On the other hand, people with a fixed mindset believe that you possess certain skills and that any attempt to go beyond this natural talent is not only useless, but is looked down upon.
      There are 3 main things that sports researchers found when they looked at commonalities between the athletes that exhibited the most (growth mindset):

1- found success in doing their best, in learning and improving
2- found setbacks motivating because they're informative and are a wake-up call
3- took charge of the processes that bring success and maintain it.

      This is not to say that natural talent means nothing and cannot take a person far, but the growth mindset and the motivation and dedication that comes with it will take a person farther.
      It seems you can have (1) a talent for chess but not work at it, (2) no talent and work very hard, or (3) both talent and the gumption work at it. Obviously the third possibility will result in more success while having just 1 or 2 alone will result in only limited success. My guess is that’s where most of us find ourselves; we’re not (3)’s.

Howard Staunton

      Howard Staunton (1810 – 22 June 1874) was generally regarded as having been the world's strongest player from 1843 to 1851. Today he is best known for his chess piece design, but probably very few players have actually played over any of his games; I haven’t.
      Staunton was apparently twenty-six when he took a serious interest in chess and from 1840 onwards he became a leading chess commentator and won matches against top players of the 1840s. Modern experts consider Staunton's understanding of positional play to have been far ahead of his contemporaries. In 1847 he began a career as a Shakespearean scholar but ill health and his two writing careers led him to give up competitive chess after 1851. 
      Staunton was the principal organizer of the first international chess tournament in 1851, which made England the world's leading chess center and resulted in Adolf Anderssen being recognized as the world's strongest player. The tournament was disappointing for Staunton because in the second round he was knocked out by Anderssen who won the tournament convincingly and in the playoff for third place Staunton was narrowly beaten by Elijah Williams. Immediately after the tournament Staunton challenged Anderssen to a match of twenty-one games, for £100. Anderssen accepted the challenge but the match could not be arranged: Staunton was physically unfit for an immediate match and Anderssen had to return to work.
      In 1847 Staunton published his most famous work, The Chess-Player's Handbook, consisting of over 300 pages of opening analysis, and almost 100 pages of endgame analysis and his book The Chess-Player's Companion followed in 1849. On 23 July 1849 Staunton married Frances Carpenter Nethersole, who had had eight children by a previous marriage.
      In 1858 attempts were made to organize a match between Staunton and Morphy but for whatever reason, all attempts failed. Upon arriving in England in June 1858, Morphy promptly challenged Staunton to a match. At first, Staunton declined Morphy's offer but, finally, in July agreed provided he was given time to get back into practice on openings and endgames and provided that he could manage all this without breaking the publication contract for his Shakespearean work.
     In early August, Morphy wrote asking Staunton when the match could occur and Staunton asked again for a delay of some weeks. Staunton’s enemy, George Walker, published an article accusing him of trying to delay the match indefinitely, and Staunton received another letter from Morphy pressing him to name a date for the match. Staunton and Morphy met socially in Birmingham and, after a discussion, Staunton agreed to play in early November. An anonymous letter appeared in Staunton's column in the Illustrated London News alleging that Morphy did not have the money for his share of the stakes. This letter is thought to have been written by Staunton himself.
      Around this time Morphy wrote to friends in the US asking them to obtain the stake money for the Staunton match. Morphy's family refused to contribute as they "should not allow him to play a money match either with his own money or anyone else's", but the New Orleans Chess Club sent £500. Meanwhile Morphy went to Paris to play against continental masters. On 6 October 1858, while in Paris Morphy wrote Staunton an open letter which was also circulated to several publications, in which Morphy complained about Staunton's conduct. Staunton replied restating the difficulties he faced, but now giving them as reasons to cancel the match. 
      Morphy then wrote a letter to the president of the British Chess Association explaining his efforts to bring about the match and accusing Staunton of avoiding the match by all means short of admitting he did not wish to play, complaining about Staunton's representation of the facts in the Illustrated London News, and demanding "that you shall declare to the world it is through no fault of mine that this match has not taken place." The reply to Morphy was it was reasonable for Staunton to decline the match, but he should have done so plainly in his first letter to America, but had instead often given the impression that he would soon be ready to start the match.
      In 1849 Nathaniel Cook registered a chess set design, and Jaques of London obtained the manufacturing rights. Staunton advertised the new set in his Illustrated London News chess column, pointing out that the pieces were easily identifiable, very stable, and good-looking. Each box was signed by Staunton, and Staunton received a royalty on each set sold. The design became popular and has been the standard ever since.

St. George pieces

   On March 1, 1849 the pattern was first registered by Nathaniel Cook. Prior to that, the pieces most commonly used were called the St. George design chessmen, followed by the Calvert, Edinburgh, Lund and Merrifield designs.  In September 1849 the manufacturing rights were bought by John Jaques of London, workers of ivory and fine woods. Jaques was the brother-in-law of Nathaniel Cook. The sets were made in wood and ivory. The unweighted King was 3.5 inches in size. The weighted King was 4.4 inches in size. Jaques removed much of the decorative features of earlier chess patterns, and was able to manufacture the new design at less cost. On September 8, 1849 the first wooden chess sets from Jaques became available.

Staunton pieces

      The first sets had a different pattern to the King's Rook and King's Knight that distinguished it from the Queen's Rook and the Queen's Knight. Eventually players came to realize that it was not necessary to distinguish between them. On the same day that the Jacques chess sets were available, Howard Staunton recommended and endorsed the sets in the Illustrated London News. Nathaniel Cook was Staunton's editor at the Illustrated London News (small world, huh?) The ad that appeared in the newspaper called it "Mr. Staunton's pattern."
      Most of his later life was occupied in writing about Shakespeare. When he died suddenly of heart disease, on 22 June 1874, he was at his desk writing on Shakespeare. At the same time he was also working on his last chess book, Chess: Theory and Practice, which was published posthumously in 1876.
      Chess historians trace much of the 20th-century animosity against Staunton to books by Sergeant about Morphy. Sergeant in turn made use of a book by Edge, who accompanied Morphy to Europe in 1858 as his secretary and personal assistant, but returned to the US in January 1859, a few months before Morphy. Sergeant's books made extensive use of Edge's book, but noted Edge's strong anti-Staunton bias. Lawson also suggests that Morphy had seen the manuscript of Edge's book, disliked its treatment of the Staunton affair so much that he disavowed it, and objected to Edge's treatment of other matters. Edge's letters show that he regarded Morphy as lazy and rather helpless, and himself as the one who would make Morphy's name immortal, and that Morphy wanted to keep the negotiations with Staunton discreet while Edge insisted on making them as public as possible.
      H.J.R. Murray wrote that Staunton's response to Morphy's initial challenge and his article about the same in the Illustrated London News should have been interpreted as a courteous refusal of the offer, but that Morphy interpreted them differently, and one of the main reasons for his visit to Europe in 1858 was the hope of playing a match with Staunton.
      Gary Kasparov considered Staunton "by the early 1840s ... superior to all his rivals" and Bobby Fischer believed that "Staunton was the most profound opening analyst of all time. He was more theorist than player, but nonetheless he was the strongest player of his day... In addition, he understood all of the positional concepts which modern players hold dear, and thus—with Steinitz—must be considered the first modern player."

Chess Hotel

   

 

Play chess online. In addition to regular chess, Chess Hotel offers Fischer Random chess (also known as chess960). When registering you will receive a free account with statistics of your games. A ranking will be set for both chess and Random chess. You can also play as a guest.

1960 Ohio Valley Open

      Looking through an old issue of the West Virginia Chess Bulletin, May 1961 to be exact, I came across the crosstable for the 1960 Ohio Valley Open (5 rounds). The standings were: 1-G.W. Baylor (4.5) 2-3-H.Landis Marks and William Byland (4.0) 4-5-Anthony Cantone and Walter Grombacher (3.5) followed by six players at 3.0. There were 25 entrants.
      A couple of names jumped out at me. One was that of roving Walter Grombacher of Chicago, Illinois. Grombacher was a Class A player and a real character who worked at a Chicago haberdashery and who was likely to pop up at a weekend Swiss anywhere in the country. I met him once at very small tournament held in Avon Lake, Ohio. Grombacher showed up with another player from Chicago and was so disgusted with the turnout of about a 12-15 fairly low rated players that he was having a hissy fit in the ‘coffee room’ and wanted to go home, but the guy he had traveled to the tournament with (an Expert, if I remember) convinced him to stay, telling Grombacher one of them could likely win it and a pick up a few dollars prize money. I don’t remember who won the tournament, but remember my dad dropping me and a non-playing friend off at an inn that was within walking distance to the venue, the basement of the public library, where we stayed overnight by ourselves. (At the inn, not the library!)  I went into the last round with a 2-2 score and had figured a win would net me a (very) small prize and maybe, just maybe, put me into Class A. My opponent was an old Russian player with a Class C, or maybe it was a B rating, and I was up two Pawns in a won N and P ending when disaster struck! Somehow I blundered away 3 (!) Pawns and lost. I’d show you the game, but the shoe box that held all those old games and my notebook filled with ‘analysis’ has long since disappeared. Another thing I remember was there was a picture of the tournament that appeared in Chess Review magazine and I was in it.  Well, sort of in it...you could see my entire left arm in the photo.
      The other name was that of George W. Baylor whom I believe was rated an Expert. When I was just getting into tournament chess, his name was pretty prominent in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area as one of the better players in the area and a prominent junior player. Then he just disappeared from the chess scene.
      It turns out that Baylor is a retired professor of psychology from University of Montreal and the author of a number of papers on dreams and is a consulting editor for the ASD journal, Dreaming. He did clinical training in psychosynthesis. Baylor was also a student and friend of Herbert Simon. As chess player and student at Carnegie Mellon University, Baylor was hired by Simon to work on his chess programs and he wrote a mating combinations program, dubbed Mater, which was subject of his masters thesis; he later focused on cognitive psychology.
      Herbert Simon was a strong influence and determining force in Baylor’s life. They met in 1959-60 while Baylor was as a sophomore at Carnegie Institute of Technology. Simon and Allen Newell were programming computers to play chess and Simon hired Baylor as a summer research assistant to work on chess programs. Shortly after that he sent Baylor to Amsterdam to help translate Adriaan de Groot's book on the thought processes of chessplayers. When Baylor returned, Simon helped him with his masters thesis on the mating combinations program and helped Baylor become a cognitive psychologist.
      By then it was 1967-68 and the war in Vietnam was raging so Baylor bailed out on the prospect of getting drafted and went to Canada. Thirty years later, in 1997-98, Baylor returned to Carnegie-Mellon University to do a sabbatical with Simon.
      Here’s the deciding game from that Ohio Valley tournament. There was a whole gaggle of spectators to watch the hair raising finish. Both flags were dropped at the end (the time control was at 45 moves), but nobody was paying any attention to the clocks and it took the players about an hour to reconstruct the scoresheets! Obviously, the players can be excused for the seesaw of errors late in the game.

Alekhine Articles

   

Alekhine and his cat, "Chess"

Alekhine’s propensity to fake games in his writings is well known and I just finished reading chess historian Edward Winter's article, Mysteries at Sabadell, 1945. Held in August 1945, Sabadell was a small tournament won by Alekhine.  Two (of six pictures) gave rise to a couple of mysteries that make interesting reading. The vintage photographs of the tournament are a delight. For those who are not aware, Winter has one of the most fascinating sites on the Web. Read article.

Silman's Alekhine articles at Chessdotcom:  Part 1  Part 2

Bora Kostic

 

     Bora Kostic (born on 24 February 1887 in Vrsac, died November 3, 1963) was the first Serbian grandmaster. He learned chess at the age of ten and by the time he was in grammar school, he was one of the best players in Vrsac. After school, Kostic went to study in Budapest at the Oriental Trade Academy.
      His first major success was winning the Budapest amateur tournament in 1909. In 1911 he won a sensational victory against Frank Marshall and that same year he participated in the international tournament Carlsbad (Karlove Vari) where he finished tied for 19-21 out of 26 with a score of +5 -9 =11. The event was won by Teichmann ahead of Rubinstein and Schlechter.
      In 1913 Kostic moved to Buenos Aires where he worked as the chess lecturer at the Military Academy. In Argentina, at one time or another, he defeated most of their best players. 1915 found him in New York where started a chess tour from the East to the West Coast. The tour lasted six months Kostic achieved the world record for the number of games on simultaneous exhibitions. Out of 3281 games he lost only 112, and drew 237. During his stay in America he visited Nikola Tesla and was a chess coach for Enrico Caruso. Kostic matches against Frank Marshall, Jackson Showalter, and Paul Leonhardt, and won them all.
      While in New York City, Kostic participated in many Manhattan Chess Club Championships and as a result of his games against Capablanca in those tournaments a match in Havana was arranged. The match was a disaster for Kostic. The match was supposed to be eight games, draws not counting. The match came to an untimely end after only five games, all won by Capablanca. You can read all the gory details HERE.
      He returned to Europe in 1915 and in Hastings took the second place after Capablanca. The next year in Hastings he took the first place then came Gothenburg 1920 - fourth place, Budapest 1921 – tied for 3-4, Hague 1921 4-5 place. In Yugoslavia a rivalry developed between Dr. Milan Vidmar and Kostic but unfortunately, a match was never organized.
      Kostic liked to travel and see new countries and customs so he organized world chess tour which lasted from 11 November 1923 to 28 May 1926. As he himself said to his friend Kosta Jovanovic immediately before the trip: "I want to see the world, those parts of the world that were only the objects of my imagination. I believe that on that trip there will be a lot of interest for chess. "
      First he set off to Australia and New Zealand. Then over to South Africa and Kenya, where the famous match on the equator was played. Kostic was on the northern hemisphere, and his opponent on the south. His next stop was India, where he was at the end met by maharaja from Patiale who organized tournaments on the heights of the Himalayas. From there he went to Nepal and on Tibet, and then to the island of Java in Indonesia. From Java he crossed to Sumatra where he played with the chief of the Bataki tribe. From there he moved to the Philipines, and then to Hong Kong and China. From China he moved to the Soviet Union from where his return to Vrsac began. Through Siberia, over Irkutsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Sverdlovsk, Moscow, Odessa, Leningrad to Riga.
      Everywhere he played simultaneous matches, blindflod games, matches, and as he himself confessed the greatest number of lost games he had, were played just in the Soviet Union. Finally, at the end of May 1926, he arrived to Vrsac and ended the first part of his trip around the world at the chess-board.
      The first chess Olympics were played in 1927 and Kostic played first board for Yugoslavia and scored 8.5 (out of 15). The following year he won in Trencanske Toplice, and in 1930 he was fourth in Nice. In the same year he continued his trip around the world. He went to Mexico where he stayed eight months. From there he went to Cuba, then to the United States and returned home in the middle of 1931 to arrive to the Olympics which took place in Prague. Then came extraordinarily strong tournament in Bled , which was marked by the world champion Alekhine.
      The first Yugoslav championships took place in 1935 in Belgrade and Kostic shared the first place with Vasja Pirc. Kostic achieved his greatest tournament result in 1938 in Ljubljana at the Yugoslav championships. He scored 10.5 out of 15 games defeating the likes of Szabo, Tartakower and Steiner.
      At the beginning of WW2 chess activity stopped for all those who did not want to play in Nazi Germany. Kostic was one of them and as a result spent some time in the concentration camp in Veliki Beckerek (Zrenjanin). Kostić, an Orthodox Christian, was imprisoned in a by a Nazi SS commander Schiller because he declined to participate in tournaments called "Free Europa" and to glorify the Nazi regime. Afterwards, he played chess only in a more minor capacity. His final appearance was at the Zurich Veterans Tournament in1962, which he won.
      Kostic was awarded the Grandmaster title by in 1950, on the first list issued by FIDE. Kostic died in Belgrade, 3 November 1963. Objectively Kostic would not be ranked among the world’s top players, but his constant travel and the circumstances he lived under later did not allow him to fulfill his creative potential to its full extent. However, he was a unique, extraordinary person who devoted his life to chess.

Watch how easily he defeats Tartakower in the following game.

An Article on the Use of Databases

 

    Chess Skills had an interesting blog post concerning databases and their use back in March of 2011.

"Ever since the dawn of civilization, humans have sought help in games of chess that did not conclude in a single sitting. Such help takes many forms. Sometimes the help is actively encouraged. Other times it is forbidden. When I was young, top level chess tournaments and world championship matches were characterized by adjournments. After many hours of play, a competitor would seal a move, eat a small meal, and go to sleep. While he slept, teams of seconds would labor through the night, analyzing the likely continuations. After a night of sleep and a hearty breakfast, the player would spend the morning with his seconds learning the results of overnight research. He returned to the game fully prepared for the next stages."  ...READ MORE

Windows 8

      When my laptop’s mother board crapped out Best Buy wanted $400-500 to fix it…that’s more than the computer was worth so it meant a new laptop. Of course you can’t find one without Windows 8 on it, so that’s what I had to get and let me tell you, I positively hate the start screen! Those big icons really are annoying. 
      In addition, Best Buy wanted $90 to salvage the files off the hard drive in the deceased laptop. Can you believe it? The solution was to download a free program that makes the Windows 8 start screen look like Windows 7. There are two (and probably more) free, easy to use programs you can download. See my post on free stuff HERE.
      The solution for the other problem of getting files off my old hard drive was solved by going to Office Max and spending $16 for an Iocell Network 2.5" SATA Enclosure. The device got a couple of crappy reviews on the Office Max website along with one 5-star review. For me, it works great with Windows 8 and I essentially have a 500GB flash drive.

Classic Bishop Sacrifice

Kindle edition.

      The Art of Attack in Chess by Vukovic remains one of the best chess books ever written. In Algebraic notation! This is THE book you want if you want to study attacking chess. Weak squares, sacrifices, castled position... it's all here. Vukovic expounds both the basic principles and the most complex forms of attack on the king. The book is all about tactics and while it’s true Vukovic didn’t have a powerful engine to double check his analysis, he gives examples that will serve you well when contemplating an attack on your opponent’s King.  That said, I’d recommend playing over the games using an engine because there are some errors in analysis.

      The Classic Bishop Sacrifice is always popular; I’ve seen it played many times on the internet, usually by lower rated player who seem to think it’s an automatic win; it’s not. Even when the conditions are right, exact play is often required by BOTH the attacker and defender. Here a quick synopsis of the conditions required for the sacrifice to have a chance to succeed.

White:
1-White must have a Q, N and B
2-The light squared B must be able to reach h7
3-The N must be able to reach g5
4-The Q must be in reach of h5 (or in some cases, any square on the h-file)

Black:
1-Pawns on f7 and g7 (In some cases g7 may have a B instead of a P) and h7 (or the h-Pawn may be missing or, rarely, on h5)
2-Q on d8 and R on f8. Note: this indicates the sacrifice may be good but does not guarantee it.
3-Black’s N should not be able to reach f6 4-Neither his Q nor B should be able to occupy the h7-b1 diagonal.

These are the basic conditions. Please note that even when the above conditions are met, there is no guarantee that the sacrifice is correct. Modifying the position in the Kottnauer-Kotov game shows some conditions where, due to some minor detail, the sacrifice does NOT work.

 

In this position after 1.Bxh7+ Kxh7 2.Ng5+ Kg6 3.Qg4 f5 the Q does not have access to the h-file. In the following position, the sacrifice is also incorrect.

 

1.Bxh7+ Kxh7 2.Ng5+ Kg6 3.Qg4 f6 [3...f5 4.Qh3 Ne4 5.Qh7+ Kf6 6.Qh4 Nxg5 7.Bxg5+ Kf7 and white's 'attack' has fizzled out.] 4.Nxe6+ Kf7 5.Qxg7+ Kxe6 6.Re1+ Ne4 7.Be3 Qd8 and, again, the 'attack' is over.

Enjoy Kottnauer's brilliancies against Kotov and Pachman (in the notes).

Judge Alexander B. Meek

  

    Meek (1814-1865) is best known in the chess world as the president of the first American Chess Congress, but he had a very colorful history outside of chess.  A resident of Nashville, Tennessee, Judge Meek was born in Columbia, South Carolina and spent much of his life as a resident of Alabama where he was a prominent supporter of slavery.
      Meek had a distinguished career as a public servant. He served as Attorney General of Alabama in 1836-37, and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under U.S. President James K. Polk. He became Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives and is credited with leading the way for the passage of a bill guaranteeing Alabama students their first free public education. Today in his honor, there are A.B. Meek schools in Arley and Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Meek trained for law and finished first in his class at the University of Alabama in 1833 at the age of 19.
      He was gifted in many areas including journalism, history, poetry, and politics. He was part of a group of poets called the “Tuscaloosa Bards.” Meek fought in the Seminole War and his best known poem (2000 lines long!) celebrates the bravery of the Indian chief, Red Eagle. Meek was the one who prepared the tombstone for Red Eagle, also known William Weatherford. Another poem, The Mocking-Bird, was later set to music and became one of a series of songs known as Songs of the South.
      As an historian Meek wrote book on the history of the Southwest and detail how in 1817, some of Napoleon’s generals were given a land grant in rural Alabama, and formed a small French colony. Things didn’t work out too well for the colonists, who eventually returned to France.
      Many contemporaries apparently had a high regard for Meek. An article appearing in the Southern Literary Messenger, February 1856, read “Meek, whether known as Alexander, as A.B. or Judge, has been guilty of good things. If we try to hum a song, ten to one that his ‘Mocking Bird’ or his ‘Come to the South’ …Friendship, Fidelity, Truth and Love have also made him their eloquent mouth-piece, and exhibited him the friend of the benevolent, no less than of literary enterprises.” Sounds like a nice guy, but his position on slavery was a blot even if it was a commonly accepted view. 
      Meek’s defense of slavery was based on the view that it was beneficial because it “has generated, upon the part of our white inhabitants, a spirit of superiority and self-esteem, a certain aristocracy of feeling, and a proud chivalry of character, which do not elsewhere so generally exist,” and that among a thousand other advantages it was necessary, in order to free people to devote their lives to the higher intellectual arts.” Typical of such people; no thought for the slaves, just themselves.
      Meek didn’t just pay lip service to slavery. As a prominent southern politician he also played a role in national politics. At the Republican convention of 1860 Meek was a Democratic delegate and he was the one who read to the convention the “Alabama Platform,” which declared that the territories (not the states) must be open to slavery with slave-owners’ rights vigorously enforced. The rejection of this proposal caused the Southern delegates to walk out of the convention and the Democratic Party splitting into the northern and southern factions. Short version: This resulted in a rather convoluted political mess that ended up allowing Abraham Lincoln to win the Presidency. Meek campaigned hard nationally for his candidate (John Breckenridge) and as a result took support away from Lincoln’s main adversary Senator Stephan Douglas. Meek was also involved in many, many other political issues of his day both locally and nationally.
      As a friend of the Morphy family, Meek was able to help persuade Paul Morphy to play in the First American Chess Congress in 1857. Morphy twice sent telegrams to the congress organizers saying he would not be able to attend however Meek brought a good deal of pressure to bear upon Morphy’s family and finally Morphy accepted the invitation about two weeks before the congress was scheduled to begin. Reporter Miron Hazeltine wrote in the Macon Telegraph (May 2nd, 1867) that it was evident that ties of honor and friendship existed between them. He described Meek’s attitude towards Morphy as that of a father watching over his son.
      In the following game from the 1st American Congress Meek adopts an unusual opening and quickly gets the upper hand against his apparently much weaker opponent. I don’t know what the opening is, but looking at it for a few minutes with Stockfish 4 suggests it’s not an entirely bad one. It might be worth experimenting with for the adventurous.

Reshevsky's Luck

 

    #1 In the 1942 US Championship he lost on time to Arnold Denker, but when the TD, the eccentric L. Walter Stephens, came up and picked up the clock from the back and turned it around he forfeited Denker. Despite his error being pointed out to him by Denker and the spectators, Stephens refused to reverse his decision. Reshevsky’s comment was, “It’s not my decision.” The result was Reshevsky tied for first with Isaac Kashdan and went on to win the playoff match.

#2 In the AVRO 1938 tournament Reshevsky had two adjourned games to play; one was scheduled in the morning and one in the afternoon. His morning game ended earlier than expected so the TDs called Rueben Fine, his afternoon opponent, to come and finish their adjourned game. Fine protested saying he was asleep and had not looked at the position. Threatened with a forfeit, Fine consented to resume play immediately. Reshevsky had a won position, but blundered into a drawn position, but Fine overstepped the time limit and lost.

#3 In the last round of the 1940 US Championship Reshevsky needed only a draw against Fine to secure first place. Fine surprised him with the Giuoco Piano and Reshevsky played poorly, ending up with a lost position. With the US Championship in his grasp, Fine miscalculated and lost.

#4 At the 1953 Zurich tournament Laszlo Szabo missed a mate in two against Reshevsky and only drew.

      His success in escaping from bad positions and time pressure earned him the title of “Escape Artist” from the leading Soviet players of the day. Reshevsky, on many occasions, offered draws in lost positions and his reputation was such that his opponents accepted.  
      Reshevsky usually played to win in the endings and his will to win was phenomenal. One spectator reported watching Reshevsky at play and his face was red and the veins in his forehead were actually pulsating.
      His openings were generally terrible and as a result he had to defend inferior positions coming out of the opening. He would tenaciously defend and play on and on until his opponent blundered. Denker described playing him was like having a bulldog clamped to your leg. Reshevsky never studied theory and his play was generally lacking in intuition, but he calculated and calculated. That explains his frequent time pressure escapades. In the opening he was often forced to calculate what his opponents already knew.
      Reshevsky was often perceived as a positional player, but all the players ‘in the know’ attributed his success to his enormous ability to calculate tactics. At one time, one of his favorite openings as white was the QGD, Exchange Variation because the fixed P-formation allowed him to calculate very deeply. This was typical; one rarely saw wild positions in his games because his habit was to never allow the tension to remain in the position in the form of Pawn captures. The reason was because he played by calculating long variations and it is difficult to do that with any great accuracy if there are a lot of Pawn captures available. In many of those Exchange Variation games he made the win look easy so for a long while I played it, but never had the success he did. In fact, most of the games were drawn.
     A taciturn man, Reshevsky never had much to say and it’s doubtful he actually wrote the book of his best games (Reshevsky On Chess); rumor is Fred Reinfeld ghosted it for $100. NM Jim Schroeder once asked Reshevsky about several facts appearing the ‘autobiography’ and Reshevsky had no idea what Schroeder was talking about. I  played Reshevsky an ‘instructional’ correspondence game and he didn’t offer anything even close to instruction. He did tell me one move was questionable because it allowed him to play …Bf5. Apparently he was unaware that it had appeared in a recent game between a couple of first class GMs (Donner and Kavalek, if memory serves) at Wijk aan Zee. He said, “Thank you.” when I wished him Happy Hanukah and, finally, “I believe this game is a draw.” That was the extent of his instruction!