Paul Lipke, One of the World’s Best Players

    It’s surprising that German master Paul Lipke (June 30, 1870 - March 8,1955, 84 years old) isn’t better known, Chess metrics estimates his highest ecer rating tp have been 2725 in October of 1894, ranking him at #5 in the world behind Lasker, Tarrasch, Chigorin and Steinitz. Most likely this is due to his short career which the site shows only spans from 1893 to 1900. 

    Lamentably for the chess world, Lipke retired early from competitive chess, though he continued his involvement in the game at the club level. In 1898, alongside Johann Berger, he was editor of the Deutsche Schachzeitung where he was in charge of the games section. He was also involved in early editions of the Deutsche Schachblatter. 

    A lawyer who worked in several German cities, Lipke was describe as being a good looking man of pleasing, gentlemanly manners who stood about 6 feet, 4 inches tall. At the board he was described as being rather impulsive and in moments of excitement he impulsively moved “in a hasty and jerky manner; but that only on occasions of momentary forgetfulness.” 

    Lipke was born at Erfurt, Saxony (a state in eastern Germany). At a young age Lipke lost his father, a Professor of Philosophy at the Erfurt Gymnasium, his indulgent mother allowed free scope to his predilections for music, the theater, science, philosophy and the art of self-defense. 

   Together with one of his brothers, he learned to play chess in 1887, and soon became enthused, joined the local chess club and quickly improved mostly due to hus association with a well known problem composer by the name of Rudolf L'hermet. During that time he also played correspondence chess.

    In the following game Lipke takes out Janowski with ease at the great tournament at Vienna 1898. 

 

[Event "Vienna"] [Site "Vienna AUH"] [Date "1898.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Paul Lipke"] [Black "David Janowski"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C67"] [Annotator "Komodo 14 Human"] [PlyCount "63"] [EventDate "1898.??.??"] {C67: Ruy Lopez: Berlin Defense} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 {While not nearly as popular as 3...a6 the Berlin Defense has long had a reputation for being solid and drawish. At the tie of this game the defense was popular because it was a favorite of Emanuel Lasker and others.} 4. O-O {By far the most popular. A much slower alternative is 4.d3} Nxe4 {The main alternative is 4...Bc5} 5. Re1 Nd6 6. Nxe5 Be7 7. Bd3 O-O 8. Nc3 Nxe5 9. Rxe5 f5 {This is risky because it weakens his K-side ever so slightly.} (9... c6 10. Qf3 g6 11. b3 Ne8 12. Bb2 d5 {is completely equal. Reinderman,D (2542)-Timman,J (2649) Wijk aan Zee 1999}) 10. Nd5 Bf6 11. Re1 (11. Nxf6+ {is equally good.} Qxf6 12. f4 Ne4 13. Qe1 {Correct was 13.Bxe4 with equal chances.} d6 14. Ra5 Bd7 15. Ra3 Rae8 16. Bc4+ Kh8 17. Re3 {Foerster,S (2070)-Oberhofer,A (2293) Bad Wiessee GER 2012. In spite of all the time white has lost with the T the chances are wqual.}) 11... b6 12. Be2 $146 (12. c3 Bb7 13. Qb3 Kh8 14. Bf1 Ne4 15. d4 { equals. Cordovil,J (2220)-Damaso,R (2430) Loures 1998}) 12... c6 {The logical followup of 12...Bb7 was better. Janowski now embarks on a plan that only results in weakening the position of his K.} 13. Nxf6+ Qxf6 14. d4 {[%mdl 2048] } f4 15. Bd3 Nf7 {Janowski evidently intended to transfer the N to a more active location, bnu it getys stuck here for a long time. There is no real chance of a successful K-side attack so the positional 15...a5 intending ... Ba3 os a credible alterbative.} 16. Re4 g5 17. h4 h6 18. hxg5 hxg5 {It's obvious that black's K-side has suddenly been rather badly compromised, but how can white take advantage of it?} 19. Qh5 {Like this!} Rd8 {Black's best chance is to exchange Qs, but that was not Janowski's style.} (19... Qh6 20. Qxh6 Nxh6 21. Re5 Nf7 22. Re7 {As soon as white develops his B on c1 and doubles Rs on the e-file black will find himself with a very difficult position to defend.}) 20. Bxf4 {[%mdl 512] A little tactical fireworks are in order.} gxf4 {Of course black didn't have to take the B and could have played, say, 20...d5, but that would npt have neen any better. Besides, in the days when this game was played sacrifices were rourinely accepted.} 21. Rae1 { White wants to mate with Re8+.} Qh6 {Finally realizig that the exchange of Qs offers some hope, but now it's too late...white has better.} 22. Qg4+ (22. Re8+ {would be way wrong!} Rxe8 23. Rxe8+ Kg7 {and black has equalized as there is no effective continuation at white's disposal.}) 22... Qg5 23. Qf3 {Now once white captures the f0Pawn black has no defense.} d5 24. Rxf4 Nh6 (24... Bh3 { is met tactically. However, even though the ending would be hopeless it was black's best chance to play on.} 25. Bh7+ Kxh7 26. Rxf7+ Kg8 27. Qxh3 Kxf7 28. Qh7+ Qg7 (28... Kf8 29. Re5 Qc1+ 30. Kh2 Qf4+ 31. Kh3 Re8 32. Rf5+ Qxf5+ 33. Qxf5+ {Here, too, white two passed Ps will enable the Q to overpower the two Rs.}) 29. Re7+ Kxe7 30. Qxg7+ Ke6 31. Qh6+ Kd7 32. Qh7+ Kd6 33. f4 c5 34. Qh6+ Kc7 35. dxc5 bxc5 36. f5 {White is winning.}) 25. Re5 Qg7 26. Qh5 Bf5 27. Bxf5 {White threatens Be6+ and mate.} Rf8 {Resigning was a better alternative.} 28. Rg4 {A nice little tactical trick.} Nxg4 29. Be6+ Rf7 30. Rg5 Kf8 31. Rxg7 Rxg7 32. Qh8+ {Facing a heavy material loss, black resigned.} 1-0

ChessOK Aquarium 2024

 

    In a recent post I mentioned that I have Aquarium 2020 on my laptop and received an e-mail from a reader asking about the Aquarium program. The newest version is Aquarium 2024 which sells for the very reasonable price of about $50.

    There is a brief review of Aquarium 2022 in Youtube HERE which gives a goo idea of the main features of the progrm. The reviewer mentions that there had not been any real improvement to the new program that he was reviewing. I suspect the same holds true for the 2024 edition! 

    Aquarium 2024 is an analysis program featuring their Interactive Deep Analysis (IdeA). There’s a good video on Youtube that explains what IdeA is HERE. It’s ten years old, but probably nothing has changed. 

    The one thing that I like about Aquarium is the graphics...I really like their board. In fact, with a little copying I was able to save the white and black squares and using the User Design option in Fritz 17 I was able to duplicate the Aquarium board. Unfortunately, that option is not available on Fritz 19. 

 

 

    The bottom line...in my opinion Aquarium is an excellent program and for $50 you can’t go wrong if you want an analysis (and publishing) program. My preference is for Fritz, but that’s because I am a long, long time user...since about 2009 when I found the CD at the long defunct Office Max for $20 which was half what it was selling for by mail order.

Curt Brasket, Legendary Minnesota Master

    Today it’s overcast, cold and dripping rain again; at least it’s sunny in Duluth, Minnesota. I have never been to Minnesota, but I am sure I would not want to live there. 

    For example, up in Duluth, a port city on western Lake Superior, the winters are long, snowy and very cold. They normally see temperatures remaining at or below freezing on 100 days which is the second-most of any city in the contiguous US behind International Falls in Minnesota. They have snow cover from late November to early April and winter storms can bring a foot or more of snow to the city; the average annual snowfall is about 7.5 feet. 

    Minneapolis in east central Minnesota isn’t any better. The city lies near the northern edge of Tornado Alley and the region experiences tornadoes almost annually. Then there are derechos which are not tornadoes, bu have winds as strong. Snow averages 9-10 feet a year and during the winter months temperatures average below freezing. 

    Minnesota was home to the legendary Curt Brasket (December 7, 1932 – January 24, 2014), a former US Junior Chess Champion and a sixteen-time (!) state champion. He held the title of FIDE Master. In 2013 he was awarded the Outstanding Career Achievement Award by the USCF. 

    Brasket was born in Tracy, Minnesota, the sixth of eight children. He became interested in chess at age 13 after finding a book on the game when he was looking for a book on checkers. He attended the University of Minnesota and Saint John's University, graduating with degrees in French and mathematics. 

    Upon graduation, Brasket enlisted in the Army and was sent to Japan for a two-year tour. After his discharge he started a career as computer programmer for Unisys. Brasket got married in 1963 and moved to Bloomington, Minnesota. He had three daughters. 

    In 1952. the 20-year old Brasket won the US Junior Championship held in Omaha, Nebraska. During the 1970s he competed in a number of the Lone Pine tournaments and scored wins over the likes of Walter Browne, Arnold Denker and Larry Evans. His peak FIDE rating was 2375 in January 1978 and in 1983 he was awarded the FIDE Master title. Between 1991 and his final tournament in 2011, Brasket competed in 583 tournaments. 

     In the late 70's he was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. After three years in a Veteran’s Administration facility Brasket died in his sleep at the age of 81. He was described by Sean Nagle, the incumbent Minnesota State Champion at the time of his death, as "a truly towering figure in Minnesota chess"

.

[Event "Lone Pine"] [Site "Lone Pine, CA USA"] [Date "1976.03.12"] [Round "6"] [White "Curt Brasket"] [Black "Dr. Anthony Saidy"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "E80"] [Annotator "Stockfish 17"] [PlyCount "63"] [EventDate "1976.??.??"] {E80: King's Indian: Saemisch} 1. c4 g6 2. e4 Bg7 3. d4 d6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. f3 { The Sämisch is has been played by almost all the greats of the past (Botvinnik,Tal, Petrosian, Spassky, Karpov and Kasparov.And, Bobby Fischer eventually came to avoid it. White intemds to use the P on f3 to support the advance of his K-side Ps in hopes of obtaining strong attack.} c6 {In practice this little played side line is neither better nor worse than the far more popular 5...O-O or the less often played 5...e5....} 6. Be3 a6 {This, the Byrne Variation, is a flexible approach that was developed by GM Robert Byrne. Black plays ...c6 and ...a6 in order to prepare . ..b5 while delaying a direct counterstrike in the center.} 7. c5 {An interesting idea aimed at countering .. .b5} Nbd7 (7... b5 {is playable.} 8. cxb6 Qxb6 9. Qd2 O-O {and Hauchard,A (2500)-Gurevich,M (2610) Belfort 1998 resukted in a long, boring draw.}) 8. Nh3 {It's somewhat surprising that this move is Stockfish's second choice (8.cxd6 is first)/} (8. Bd3 e5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 10. Be2 d5 11. Bd4 {is about even. Dlugy,M (2550) -Browne,W (2515) National op blitz 1993}) (8. Rc1 O-O 9. Nh3 dxc5 10. dxc5 Qc7 11. Nf2 Ne5 12. Be2 {with equal chances. Spassov,L (2419)-Dimov,K (2167) Plovdiv BUL 2010}) 8... b5 9. cxb6 Nxb6 10. Nf2 Be6 11. Be2 O-O 12. O-O Qb8 13. b3 {Preventing ...Nc4} {Black's Q-side play is underway while white has yet to start anything on the K-side.} a5 14. Rb1 Rc8 {The more direct 14... a4 was preferable. The tinmy delay in conducting his Q-side play that 14...Rc8 and 15...c5 take gives white just enough time to launch his K-side attack.} 15. g4 {It wasn't too late to try ...a4} c5 16. d5 {Brasket has seized the initiative and he bever lets up.} Bd7 17. Qd2 Qc7 18. f4 (18. Bh6 {might have been played by a lot of players in which case many players would avoid the exchange of Bs and play} Bh8 {The problem here us that white has no really effective way of continuing his attack.}) 18... a4 {Finally! The move is still sufficient to keep black in the game.} 19. g5 Ne8 20. Ng4 axb3 21. axb3 Bxg4 22. Bxg4 Rcb8 23. f5 {Technically the position is quite even, but a K-side attack is always more dangerous than a Q-side one, so there is lurking danger for black.} Nd7 24. fxg6 hxg6 {And here it is; this is the wrong recapture. Brasket meets this with a real surprise.} (24... fxg6 {looks too dangerous, but after} 25. Be6+ Kh8 26. h4 Be5 27. Rf7 Ng7 28. Rxe7 {White's position looks overwhelming, but black can save himself with...} Qa5 29. Bxd7 Bxc3 30. Qe2 Rf8 {White's extra P, R on the 7rh and two Bs aren't enough yo give hjime the advantage. That's theoretical based on the engine's evaluation, but in practice not many players would like to have black's position.}) (24... fxg6 25. Rf7 {This does not work here!} Ne5 {forking the R and B.} 26. Be6 Nxf7 27. Rf1 Be5 28. Bxf7+ Kh8 29. Qg2 Rxb3 30. Qh3 Rxc3 31. Bxg6 Nf6 32. gxf6 exf6 { Black is winnign.}) 25. Rxf7 Kxf7 (25... Ne5 26. Be6 Nxf7 27. Rf1 Be5 28. Qg2 Rxb3 29. Bxf7+ Kg7 30. Qh3 {ends the gane.}) 26. Be6+ Kf8 27. Rf1+ (27. Qg2 { was even more potent.} Ne5 28. Qh3 Ra3 29. Qh7 Nf7 30. Rf1 {wins.}) 27... Bf6 { There is no longer any defense.} 28. Qg2 Ng7 29. gxf6 Ne5 30. fxg7+ Kxg7 31. Qg5 Rh8 {Brasket finishes the game with a very pretty move.} 32. Qxe5+ { [%mdl 512] Black resigned} (32. Qxe5+ dxe5 33. Rf7+ Kg8 34. Rxe7+ Kf8 35. Rxc7 {There is a matein 9/} Ra1+ 36. Kg2 Ra5 37. d6 Ra6 38. Nd5 Ra2+ 39. Kg3 Rf2 40. d7 Rh3+ 41. Kxh3 Rf3+ 42. Kg2 Kg7 43. d8=Q+ Rf7 44. Rxf7#) 1-0

Tal’s Killer Instinct

    Mikhail Tal was born in Riga, Latvia in 1936 and became the youngest world chess champion in 1960 at the age of 23 and died in Moscow in 1992 at the age of 55. 

    Known as the Magician from Riga he had a highly imaginative and explosive style that led to complicated positions in which even the best players of the day went astray. His attacks were often rife with sacrifices (sometimes unsound!) and often resulted in some amazing games. 

    His opponent in the following instructive game was Anatoli Bannik (1921-2013, 91 years old) who was born in Kiev. A five-time Ukrainian champion, he qualified for the Soviet Chess Championship final seven times. Tal won the event with a score of 12.5-5.5. In this game Tal's sacrifice was a bit unusual...it was perfectly sound!

[Event "USSR Champ Semi-Finals, Riga"] [Site "Riga URS"] [Date "1955.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Anatolij Bannik"] [Black "Mikhail Tal"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "E65"] [Annotator "Stockfish 17"] [PlyCount "62"] [EventDate "1955.11.??"] {E65: King's Indian: Fianchetto} 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 {Ar the time this game was played Tal already had a reputation as a fierce attacker, so it appears that Bannik is going to play the opening on a conservative manner.} g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 O-O 5. g3 {While not often seen, this move is statistically on a par with 5.e4} d6 6. Bg2 {One annotator was of the opinion that 6.e4 is better because it gives white a broad Pawn center. Although the text move has been very rarely played the statistics do not support the claim. With either move white's winning percentage renains almost identical, but after 6.e4 black's winning percentage more than doubles and he wins more games than white.} c5 { This move is not part of the main line theory (either 6...Nc6 or 6...Nbd7), but Purdy gave it a ! and it’s Stockfish’s top choice. The idea behind it is to open the a1-h8 diagonal by playing ...cxd4. Of course if white advances his d-Pawn the diagonal still becomes open.} 7. O-O {Equally popular is 7.d5} Nc6 {It’s interesting that this is by far the most popular move, but 7.d5 preventing the N from developing on c6 from where it has an effect on the center seems like a reasonale alternative.} 8. h3 {This is probably not a very good idea because it ever so slighly loosens the position of white’s K without good reason as neither ...Bg4 or ...Ng4 are immediate threats. Additionally, the P on h3 will come under attack. Either 8.dxc5 or 8.d5 were good alternatives.} cxd4 {A good move that opens the long diagonal and opens up the game. Black wants an open game because it will make it easier for him to take advantage of the small weakness white has created on the K-side.} 9. Nxd4 Nxd4 10. Qxd4 Be6 {The c4-Pawn is a target.} 11. Qh4 {A good move as the Q was somewhat exposed on d4 and in any case there is no better square. 11. Bg5 was a reasonable alternative.} Rc8 12. b3 {He has to play this to defend the P because 12.Nd5 fails.} (12. Nd5 b5 {Undermining the N.} 13. Bg5 (13. Nxf6+ Bxf6 14. Bg5 Rxc4 {us even better for black.}) 13... Rxc4 {Black has the superior position}) 12... Nh5 {Tal’s plan is to play ...Bf6, attacking the Q which isn’t particularly dangerous to white. On any case, the position is equal.} (12... Rc5 13. Bf3 Nh5 14. Bd2 Bf6 15. Qe4 Bxh3 {Black has picked up a P, but white has sufficient compensation. Karlsson,L (2495)-Hellers,F (2490) Malmo 1987}) 13. Bd2 Qd7 14. Rac1 Bf6 15. Bg5 {Purdy unnecessarily questioned tnns move and recommended 15.Qe4, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with Babbik’s move.} (15. Qe4 Bxh3 16. Bxh3 Qxh3 17. Qxb7 Bd4 18. e3 Rb8 19. Qe4 { is completely equal. Palmason,G-Book,E Munich 1958}) 15... Bxg5 16. Qxg5 Bxh3 17. Bxh3 Qxh3 18. Qxe7 {[%mdl 8192] The position remains dead equal after 18. Nd5, but this move results in a lost position because it leaves g3 weak.} (18. Nd5 {and white has nothing about which to worry.} Rce8 19. Rfd1 {is completely equal.}) 18... Nxg3 {[%mdl 512] ...and wins. The move might be a bit surprising because black has no minor pieces to join in the attack, so haw is he going to win with only a Q and two Rs? One R actually because one of them has to guard f7.} 19. fxg3 Qxg3+ 20. Kh1 Rce8 {[%mdl 32]} 21. Qxb7 {aiming for Qg2 which is more important than pickong up the P.} Re5 22. Qg2 Rh5+ 23. Kg1 Qe3+ 24. Qf2 Qh6 {White has no way to meet the threat of ...Rh1+} 25. Qxa7 { This allows a mate in 11...not that ot matters.} (25. Qf6 Rg5+ 26. Kf2 Rf5+) ( 25. Qf3 Rh3 26. Qg4 f5 27. Qf4 Rh1+ 28. Kg2 Qxf4 29. Rxf4 Rxc1 {wins}) 25... Qg5+ {Missing the mate, but Tal still has everything under control.} (25... Rh1+ 26. Kg2 Rh2+ 27. Kf3 Re8 28. Qg1 Qh5+ 29. Qg4 Rh3+ 30. Kf2 Qxg4 31. Rg1 Rh2+ 32. Kf1 Qf4+ 33. Ke1 Qxc1+ 34. Nd1 Rhxe2+ 35. Kf1 Qxd1#) 26. Kf2 Rh2+ 27. Ke1 Qxc1+ 28. Nd1 Qc2 29. Qe7 Qxa2 {Threatens to win with ...Qa5+.} 30. Rf2 Qa5+ {...anyway.} 31. Kf1 Rh1+ {White resigned.} (31... Rh1+ 32. Kg2 Qh5 33. Qe3 Qh2+ 34. Kf3 Qh3+ 35. Ke4 Re8+ 36. Kd5 Rxd1+ 37. Qd3 Qe6+ 38. Kc6 Qc8+ 39. Kb6 Qc5+ 40. Kb7 Re7+ 41. Kb8 Qc7+ 42. Ka8 Qc8#) 0-1

Rudolph Loman

    According to Chessmetrics the 9th century London player Rudolph Loman achieved an estimated high rating of 2570 in 1892 and that ranked him #21 in the world; Emanuel Lasker topped the list at 2787. His opponent in the following game weighed in with a high rating of 2430 in 1902 placing him at #52 in the world; Lasker still topped the list at 2829. 

    A professional organist, Rudolph Loman (1681-1932) was born on Amsterdam where his father was a professor of theology at the University of Amsterdam.

    Lonan learned to play chess at the age of sixteen while he was studying at the Conservatoire of Music on Leipzig. After learning the game he began studying and after three years spent finishing his music studies in Cologne he ha become quite strong and when he returned to Holland he was one of the best players in the country and regularly competed in tournaments. 

    Loman arrived in London in 1883, and obtained, among other position, was an organist at the Dutch church in Austin Friars. He was also a professor of the piano at several music academies and he gave piano recitals that were popular. 

    Between the years of 1881 and 1892 he played in many Dutch national and London tournaments usually doing well and finishing among the prize winners. Although living in London until 1914, in 1912 he won the Dutch championship and finished second behind Max Euwe on two occasions. 

    His opponent in the following game was another prominent London player of the day, Thomas Physick (1852-1904), a sculptor and musician who was also a dangerous opponent. For example, in the Minor event at the 1899 London International (won by Lasker), Physick was undefeated and tied for second with Marco a half point behind Marshall. 

[Event "London"] [Site "London ENG"] [Date "1900.04.09"] [Round "?"] [White "Rudolf Loman"] [Black "Thomas Physick"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C30"] [Annotator "Stockfish 17"] [PlyCount "47"] [EventDate "1900.04.05"] { King's Gambit Declined} 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 3. Nf3 d6 4. Nc3 Nc6 5. Bc4 Nf6 6. d3 Be6 7. Bb5 Ng4 {While full of fury this doesn't accomplish much because the attack on f2 is banal. Either 7...a6 or 7...Bd2 would have been more judicious.} 8. Qe2 O-O (8... Bf2+ 9. Kf1 Bb6 (9... O-O 10. Bxc6 {wins a piece.}) 10. h3 {beats back the N because he cannot play} Nf2 11. Rh2 exf4 12. Nd5 {winning the N.}) (8... Nf2 {does not worl out well after} 9. Rf1 Ng4 (9... O-O 10. Bxc6 bxc6 11. f5 Bd7 12. Rxf2 Bxf2+ 13. Qxf2 {and white's two Ns should be better than the R. In Shootouts white scored 5-0.}) 10. h3 Nf6 11. fxe5 dxe5 12. Nxe5 {White is cearly better.}) 9. Bxc6 bxc6 10. h3 Nf2 {This was not good earlier and it's not good now. Retreating to f6 was much better.} 11. Rf1 Bxh3 {A hollow attack, but there was nothing better.} 12. gxh3 Nxh3 13. f5 d5 14. Qh2 Nf4 15. Rh1 {White's attack is irrepressible.} h6 16. Nxe5 dxe4 17. Bxf4 {[%mdl 32]} exd3 18. O-O-O {[%mdl 32]} Bd6 {White now has a clever finish.} 19. Qxh6 {[%mdl 512] White mates in 6} gxh6 20. Rdg1+ Qg5 21. Bxg5 Bxe5 22. Bf6+ $146 Kh7 23. Rg7+ Kh8 24. Rxh6# {A nearly flawless game by Loman!} 1-0

Meet Istvan Bilek

    Istvan Bilek (August 11, 1932 – March 20, 2010, 77 years old) was a Hungarian GM (awarded in 1962) and a three-time Hungarian Champion (1963, 1965 and 1970). He qualified for the Interzonals in 1962 and 1964. Bilek played on the Hungarian team in nine Chess Olympiads (1958 through 1974), earning three individual medals: silver on board 4 in 1962, bronze on board 3 in 1966, and silver on board 2 in 1972. 

    In the following game fron the 1954 Hungarian Championship played in Budapest his opponent was Jozsef Szily (1913-1976). Awarded the IM title in 1950, he played for Hungary at third board in the 10th Chess Olympiad at Helsinki 1952 and scored +6 –2 =6. 

 

[Event "Hungarian Ckamp, Budapest"] [Site "Budapest HUN"] [Date "1954.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Istvan Bilek"] [Black "Jozsef Szily"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B31"] [Annotator "Stockfish 17"] [PlyCount "57"] [EventDate "1954.11.20"] {B31: Sicilian Rossolimo Variation} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 {The Rossolimo Variation (3.Bb5+ after 2...d6 is the Moscow Variation) was also a favorute of Tartakower. White's usual intention is to giving Black doubled Ps by playing Bxc6.} g6 {This is the most popular reply although 3...Nc6 and sometimes 3... e6 are played.} 4. O-O Bg7 5. c3 a6 {Unusual. The thematic move is 6.Bxc6} 6. Ba4 e5 7. Bb3 {Usual is the immediate 7,d4 and black can play either 7...b5 or 7...exd4, but there is nothing wrong with the text. White also opt for a closed position with 7.d3} d6 8. d4 cxd4 {Capturing with either P is acceptable.} 9. cxd4 Nxd4 10. Nxd4 exd4 11. f4 {A rather harmless looking position, but things will soon change!} Ne7 {This was probably played to prevent f5, but f5 was not a serious threat. However, after the text it is.} ( 11... Nf6 12. f5 Qb6 13. Bg5 (13. fxg6 hxg6 14. Bg5 d5 {This looks risky, but it is, in fact, dangerous to white.} 15. exd5 d3+ 16. Kh1 Bf5 17. Re1+ Kf8 { and black will play ...Ng4 with a decisive advantage.}) 13... gxf5 14. Ba4+ Kf8 15. Nd2 d5 16. exf5 d3+ 17. Kh1 h6 18. Bh4 Qb4 19. Nf3 Bxf5 {with complete equality.}) 12. f5 {Threatening f6} gxf5 (12... Nc6 13. f6 Bxf6 14. Qf3 Be7 15. Bxf7+ {is not a position black would want to play.}) 13. Bg5 (13. Qh5 {is a harder blow.} d5 14. exf5 Ng8 15. Bg5 {Black is in a dangerous situation.}) 13... Be6 (13... h6 {is a better defense. Whute's best is} 14. Qh5 d5 15. Bxd5 O-O 16. Bxh6 Nxd5 17. exd5 {and black faces no serious danger.}) 14. exf5 Bxb3 15. Qxb3 Be5 16. Nd2 {[%mdl 1024] White has compensation for his P minus.} (16. Qxb7 {results in equality after} Rb8 17. Qxa6 Qc8 18. Qe2 Rg8 19. Bxe7 Kxe7 20. a4 (20. Na3 d3 21. Qxd3 Rxb2 {Black wins.} 22. g3 Qc5+ 23. Kh1 Qc6+ 24. Qf3 Qa4 25. Nb1 Rxh2+ 26. Kxh2 Rxg3) 20... d3 21. Qxd3 Rxb2) 16... Qd7 {Better was 16.. .f6} 17. Ne4 Ng8 {He can't allow Nf6+.} (17... O-O-O {dies not get him out of trouble. After} 18. Nf6 Bxf6 19. Bxf6 Rhf8 20. Rae1 Rde8 21. Bg7 Rg8 22. Qxf7 Nd5 23. Rxe8+ Rxe8 24. Qxd7+ Kxd7 25. f6 {White is winning.}) 18. Rae1 Kf8 19. f6 {After this white has a strong attack, but Szily's defense makes it difficult to land a knockout.} Re8 20. Qf3 h5 21. h3 Re6 22. Bh4 {[%mdl 128]} Rh6 23. Bg5 {Much weaker than 23.Qf5! but calculating the complications presents a practical problem!} (23. Qf5 Rg6 24. Ng5 Nh6 25. Nxe6+ Qxe6 26. Qxe6 fxe6 27. Rc1 Nf5 28. Rc8+ Kf7 29. Rc7+ Kf8 30. Rxb7) 23... Rg6 24. Qxh5 Qc6 { This little tactical demonstration allows a pleasing finish...by white.} (24... d3 25. Qh8 {This is now not nearly as strong as in the game, but things get really wild!} d5 26. Bh6+ Ke8 27. Bg7 Kd8 28. Qxg8+ Re8 29. Nc5 Bd4+ 30. Kh1 Rxg8 31. Nxd7 Kxd7 32. Re7+ Kd6 33. Rxf7 d2 34. Bf8+ Kc6 35. g4 Rxf6 36. R7xf6+ Bxf6 {with equal chances.}) 25. Qh8 {The threat is Bh6+!} Bh2+ (25... Ke8 { is more resistant.} 26. h4 Bh2+ 27. Kxh2 Rxe4 28. Qh5 {He has to extricate the Q.} d5) 26. Kxh2 Rxe4 27. Rc1 {This demonstrates the problem with black;s 24th move.} Qd5 28. Rc8+ Re8 29. Bh6+ {[%mdl 512] Black resigned. It's mate next move.} 1-0

Tartajubow Gets Slaughtered

    I am still tinkering with my new Fritz 19 and randomly picked one of my old tournament games to let it analyze just to see how well I played nearly 50 years ago. 

    The game was played in the 1975 Eastern Open that was held in Washington D.C. and, oddly, it received no coverage beyond a small blurb in Chess Life & Review. It was won by Rosendo Balinas (1941-1998) with a 5.5-0.5 score. He was from the Philippines and was awarded the IM title in 1975 and the GM title in 1976. My score of +2 -2 =2 was way off the pace and you’ll see why in the following game.

    Both I and my opponent had post-tournament ratings of Class B (1600-1799). I was a little surprised at my opponent’s rating because as the Fritz evaluation chart shows, he played a lot better than I did. 

    I remember the last round; I didn’t feel like playing and the game was dragging on so I offered my opponent a draw. He snickered and snidely replied, “Are you kidding?” I got tickled when a few moves later he blundered and lost quickly. 

    Here is Fritz' evaluation pf our play:

 

 

    In those days I was a big fan of the Pirc Defense because you could use the same basic setup against whatever white played. I never had much success with it though and finally went back to the French Defense...that’s what my early hero Botvinnik played. Here’s hoping you enjoy watching me get slaughtered.

[Event "Eastern Open, Washington D.C."] [Site "?"] [Date "1975.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "E.P."] [Black "Tartajubow"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B07"] [Annotator "Stockfish 17"] [PlyCount "91"] [EventDate "1975.??.??"] {B07: Pirc Defense} 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Be3 Bg7 5. Be2 Nf6 6. Qd2 O-O 7. Bh6 b5 {This is Stockfish's top choicer and I played it many times in those days, but with no particular success. Obbviously the problem was me, not 7...b5} 8. a3 (8. Bxg7 Kxg7 9. a3 Nbd7 10. Nf3 e5 11. dxe5 dxe5 12. Qd6 { Todorcevic,M (2480)-Dao Thien Hai (2565) Las Palmas 1993 is equal.}) 8... Bb7 { In this game I played the opening too mechanically, paying little attention to white's K-side plan.} (8... Nbd7 9. h4 e5 10. dxe5 dxe5 11. Rd1 a5 12. h5 Qe7 { Takacs,B (2386)-Toth,E (2431) HUN-chT 2015 with equal chances.}) (8... e5 { getting play in the center in better.} 9. d5 (9. Bxg7 Kxg7 10. h4 {is about equal.}) 9... cxd5 10. exd5 Bxh6 11. Qxh6 Qa5 {The position is equal. Kelires, A (2530)-Saric,I (2689) Rio (Achaia) GRE 2018}) 9. h4 Nbd7 {In order to stay in the game it's necessary for black to take some action in the center.} (9... e5 {is not as effective as on move 8.} 10. Bxg7 Kxg7 11. Nf3 exd4 12. Nxd4 { followed bu h5 with excellent attacking possibilities.}) (9... c5 10. Bxg7 Kxg7 {This position is quite complicated and it's important to note that the e-Pawn is immune!} 11. h5 b4 (11... Nxe4 12. Nxe4 Bxe4 13. hxg6 Bxg6 14. Qh6+ Kg8 15. Bh5 {and black is in trouble after, say...} Qd7 (15... Bxc2 16. Rc1 Bg6 17. Bxg6) 16. O-O-O Qe6 17. Rh3 Nc6 18. Bxg6 Qxg6 19. Rg3) 12. axb4 cxb4 13. Nd1 Nxe4 14. Qxb4 Qb6 {White's advantage is minimal.}) 10. h5 a5 {Black's position is far worse than it looks. In fact, it is already lost!} 11. hxg6 fxg6 12. Bxg7 Kxg7 {[%mdl 32]} 13. Qh6+ Kf7 14. Nf3 Ke8 15. Ng5 Qb6 16. Nxh7 {This obvious move should have lost much of his advantage.} (16. O-O-O {was much better.} c5 (16... a4 17. e5 b4 18. exf6 bxc3 19. bxc3 Rxf6 20. Bg4 Kd8 21. Rde1 Qb5 22. Rxe7 Kxe7 23. Qxh7+ Kf8 24. Qh8+ Ke7 25. Rh7+ Rf7 26. Rxf7#) 17. dxc5 Qxc5 18. Ne6 {forkinh the Q and R}) 16... Qxd4 {[%mdl 8192] There is no explanation for this!} (16... Nxh7 17. Qxg6+ Kd8 18. Rxh7 Qxd4 {with at least a fighting chance.}) 17. Qxg6+ Rf7 18. Rd1 Qc5 19. f4 Nxh7 20. Rxh7 Qg1+ 21. Kd2 Qd4+ 22. Bd3 {Quicker was 22.Kc1 and 23,Bh5} Qf6 23. Qxf7+ Qxf7 24. Rxf7 Kxf7 25. g4 {[%mdl 2080]} b4 {Black hopes to get some activity in the endgame.} 26. axb4 axb4 27. Ne2 Nc5 28. g5 Nxd3 29. cxd3 {[%mdl 4096] I was hoping my B might prove superior to the N.} Rh8 30. Rg1 {Better was 39.f5} c5 31. Ke3 Rh3+ 32. Rg3 Rh1 33. g6+ Kg7 {And bow 34.f5 would jeep the advantage.} 34. Kd2 { This is a terrible move because it allows me to get active play/} Rh6 {[%mdl 8192] But not with this move which only placed the R in a passive position.} ( 34... d5 {and it's a whole new game!} 35. exd5 (35. f5 dxe4 36. Re3 Rh2 37. b3 e5 38. dxe4 Ba6 39. Ke1 c4 40. bxc4 Rh1+ 41. Kd2 Bxc4 {is a deaw. A possible continuation is...} 42. Nc1 Rh2+ 43. Kd1 Rh1+ 44. Kc2 Rh2+ 45. Kd1 {[%eval 0, 57]} Rh1+ 46. Kc2 Rh2+ 47. Kd1 {Threefold repititiom.}) 35... Bxd5 36. Rg5 Bb3 37. Rxc5 Kxg6 {This position should be drawn.}) 35. f5 Bc8 {Ar rgis point I realized the position was lost and came up with the idea of sacrificing the B and hoping to get two Ps fpr it.} 36. Nf4 Rh2+ 37. Kc1 b3 38. Rg2 Rh1+ 39. Kd2 Rh4 40. Nd5 Bxf5 41. exf5 {[%mdl 32]} Rd4 42. Nxe7 c4 43. Rg3 Rf4 44. dxc4 Rxc4 45. f6+ Kh6 46. g7 {Black resigned.} 1-0

David Gladstone

    Looking at a crosstable from the 1944 US Championship that was won by Arnold Denker ahead of Dr. Reuben Fine, I.A. Horowitz and Herman Steiner, I noticed the tailenders: 16. Irving Chernev (+3 -11 =3), 17. David Gladstone (+2 -14 =1) and 18. Louis Persinger (+0 -16 =1). 

    Chernev is well known, or at least he was at one time, for his books and Persinger was a well known violinist and amateur chessplayer, but Gladstone? A Google search won’t turn up much…a couple of his games, but little else. 

    His name appears in the Log Cabin Independent Open in West Orange, New Jersey in 1957. Saul Wanetick won on tiebreaks and second to fifth in the 61-player Swiss, were Matthew Green, Arthur Feuerstein, Geza Fuster and Anthony Santasiere. 

    Sixth to thirteenth were Bobby Fischer, George E. O'Rourke, Jr., Attillio DiCamillo, Eliot Hearst, Norman T. Whitaker, William J. Lombardy, Homer W. Jones, Jr., and Claude Hillinger. 

     Fourteenth to twenty-sixth with 3.5 – 2.5 each were Joseph Tamargo, John Falato, Herbert M. Avram, Alexis Gilliland, David Gladstone, Sidmund Hauck, Charles C. Heinin, E.S. Jackson, Jr., George Krauss, Jr., George J. Mauer, Jr., and Eugene Steinberger. 

    Chessgames.com has six of his games, all losses. I did locate an article in Boy’s Life, September, 1923, about a couple of young men attending New York University and Gladstone was one of them. 

 

    As further proof that innate ability, not environment and advantages, was the chief factor, there is the story of another boy, also at New York University. This boy-who, by the way, sticks to his short pants-finished the public schools of Newark, New Jersey, far ahead of his years. His name is David Gladstone. While he has had the interest of his family in his progress, he has not has active assistance. One might almost say he has helped them. His vacations he has spent at home, keeping house for his father while the rest of the family were away at summer resorts. 

    Because of a different environment, probably, David has not taken part in outdoor sports and games. And, perhaps as a consequence, he is not as well developed physically as young Talbot. But for recreation he has a hobby-and that hobby is chess. For two and a half years he has been devoted to chess, playing not only direct opponents but exchanging moves by mail with members of the Correspondence League. And, so expert is he, he was chosen a member of the University Chess Team soon after entering. 

    Gladstone doubts if his chess playing has been of any direct value in his school work-and yest he does admit that he led a class of seventy-five freshmen in trigonometry :because chess is something like trig.” In addition to freshmen studies and his “passion for chess” he has been chosen a member of the University Debating Squad; a group of nine students picked to represent the University. From this it may be judged that he has a quick, keen mind-a well ordered, analytical mind that can plan campaigns on the chess board, grasp and digest information of the classroom or book, and organize and present facts in the heat of debate. 

    Talbot and Gladstone are positive individuals. They use their heads sixty minutes out of every hour awake-and probably their subconscious minds are clicking along overtime as the sleep. It is only necessary to talk with them a while to know that they have fairly good ideas of the world about them, and that they pretty much know their own minds. 

    Both Talbot and Gladstone have been interested and active in dramatics. It is their opinion that this training helps in standing up before their fellows of the classroom and in facing the world outside. And that world outside the classroom, their future: it is evident they are working toward definite goals. For each there is a job ahead for which he is fitting himself. 

    Gladstone is divided in his mind between law and journalism, but he has an idea that he will study law and then go into journalism, thus combining his two ambitions. 

 

    Another article describing him as “precocious” informs us that the 15-year old Gladstone was a graduate of Barringer High School in Newark, New Jersey and was probably the youngest player who ever represented a college in the U.S. when he played for New York University in the Inter-collegiate Chess League. 

    The article added that he started out well by drawing a much older opponent and “In doing so the little fellow kept a level head throughout and displayed excellent generalship. He disclaimed any relationship to the great British statesman, but gave every evidence of a precocious ability to handle complicated situations.” 

    The January 8, 1923 issue of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle carried a headline article reading A New Chess Prodigy. It says the 15-year old Gladstone learned to play chess from his father only 2-1/2 years previously and he was soon able to give give his father considerable odds thanks to his experience in high school and college play. It added that “the little fellow will, in time, develop into an expert player." 

    In 1930 and he was president of the Queens Chess Club and he also played for the Manhattan Chess Club as well. He played in the 1944-45 U.S. Championship (won by Arnold Denker), but finished 17th out of 18 with a +2 -14 =1 score. 

    On June 15, 1964, at the age of 57, Gladstone suffered a fatal heart attack near his home. According to his N.Y. Times obituary Gladstone was among the youngest persons ever to be enrolled at New York University. He entered at 15 and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. After his graduation he went to Harvard for his law studies. For many years he maintained an office in Brooklyn until around 1949 when he went to work for the State Rent Commission and later when it became the City Rent Commission. 

    Here is an early Gladstone game from his inter-collegiate days that does not appear in the Chessgames.com database.

[Event "Inter-Collegiate Match"] [Site "?"] [Date "1923.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Casciato (U. of Pennsylvania"] [Black "Gladstone (NYU)"] [Result "*"] [ECO "E12"] [Annotator "Stockfish 17"] [PlyCount "86"] [SourceVersionDate "2024.10.04"] {E12: Queen's Gambit Declined} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Nf3 O-O 7. Bd3 dxc4 8. Bxc4 b6 {Unusual. If black wants to play this he would do better playing the Tartakower variation where black plays 6...h6 and 7...b6. In the Tartakower black avoids ...dxc4.} 9. O-O Bb7 10. Bd3 (10. Qc2 c5 11. Rad1 Bxf3 12. gxf3 cxd4 13. Rxd4 Qc8 14. Be2 {equals. Bellaiche,A (2443)-Dumitrache,D (2467) Marseille 2010}) 10... Rc8 11. Rc1 c5 12. dxc5 (12. Qe2 h6 13. Bh4 cxd4 14. exd4 Nh5 15. Bxe7 Qxe7 {equals. Solomin,M (2022) -Galiev,A (2269) Ulyanovsk RUS 2010}) 12... Nxc5 13. Be2 Nd5 14. Bxe7 Qxe7 15. Nd4 Rfd8 {This position looks harmless enough and after 16.Nxd5 it would be.} 16. Bf3 {[%mdl 8192] This move rates two question marks. Gladstone starts out on the right track to refute it, but then misses the best continuation. Do you see the refutation? Hint: it involves a pin on the g-Pawn and a discovered attack on white's Q.} (16. Nxd5 Bxd5 17. Bf3 {Black has no effective way of continuing jis K-side attack.} Ne4 (17... Qg5 18. Bxd5 Qxd5 19. b4 Ne4 20. Nc6 Qxd1 21. Rfxd1 Rxd1+ 22. Rxd1 Kf8 23. Nxa7 Rc2 {with equal chances.}) 18. Qd3 Qb7 19. Rxc8 Rxc8 20. Rd1 {The position is equal.}) 16... Nxc3 17. Rxc3 e5 18. Nf5 {Now black could wrap it up with 18...Qg5.} Qe6 {After this black's advantage is only minimal} (18... Qg5 19. Nd6 Rxd6 20. Qxd6 Bxf3 21. g3 Qg4 22. Rd1 h6 23. b4 Qh3) 19. Qc2 $15 Bxf3 20. gxf3 e4 21. fxe4 g6 {Using good judgment in not playing the enticing 21...Qxe4 which loses a R to 22.Rxc8.} ( 21... Qxe4 $2 22. Qxe4 Nxe4 23. Rxc8 Rxc8 24. Ne7+ Kf8 25. Nxc8 $18) 22. Ng3 Qxa2 23. Ra3 Qe6 $15 24. Rxa7 Re8 {The aggressive 24...h5 was worth a try.} 25. Rd1 Qg4 26. Kg2 (26. Rd4 {remains equal.} h5 27. Qd1 Qxd1+ 28. Rxd1 Nxe4 29. Nxe4 Rxe4 30. Rdd7 Rf8) 26... Nxe4 {White's next move looks reasonable as it attacks the b-Pawn, but in reality it should have lost. White's best defense was 27.Qe2, but after exchanging Qs and playing his R to c2 black would have had an advantage.} 27. Qb3 {[%mdl 8192] Another critical position and here, too, black misses his chance.} (27. Qe2 Qxe2 28. Nxe2 Rc2 29. Rdd7 Rxe2 30. Rxf7 Ng5 31. Rg7+ Kh8 32. h4 Ne6 33. Rxh7+ Kg8 34. Kg3 Rxb2) 27... Qe6 { Black could have gotten a strong attack with 27...Ng5! Instead this allows white to reach a drawn ending.} (27... Ng5 28. Kf1 Qh3+ 29. Ke1 Qg2 30. Rad7 ( 30. Rdd7 Rc1+ 31. Kd2 Qg1 {White cam only delay mate.}) 30... Nf3+ 31. Ke2 Ne5 32. R7d4 Qf3+ 33. Ke1 Ng4 34. R1d2 (34. R4d2 Nxe3 35. fxe3 Rxe3+ 36. Qxe3 Qxe3+ 37. Kf1 h5) 34... Rc1+) 28. Qxe6 Rxe6 29. Rdd7 {[%mdl 2048] Suddenly it's b; acl who is on the defensive, but his accurate play holds the draw.} Nd6 30. Ra6 Nc4 31. b3 Na5 32. Raa7 Rf8 33. Rd3 Re5 34. Rc7 Rc5 35. Rxc5 bxc5 {[%mdl 4128]} 36. Ne4 Rc8 37. Rc3 c4 38. b4 Nb3 39. Nd6 Rc6 {It's likely the time control wa approaching and this move sets a trap.} 40. Ne4 (40. Nxc4 Nd2 $1 41. Nxd2 Rxc3 42. Kf3 Rc2 43. Ne4 Rb2 {Black has spme work to do, but this poosition is a win.}) 40... Kf8 41. b5 Rb6 42. Rxc4 {aiming for Rc8+.} Rxb5 43. Rc7 Rf5 {Draw} *

Vincenz Hruby...Who Was He?

    You probably never heard of the Czech master Vincenz Hruby (September 9, 1856 – July 16, 1917). That’s too bad because he seems to have been a pretty good player! 

    Chessmetrics shows him as being active between January 1882 and April 1893, His highest ever rating was in May of 1883; it was 2615 which placed him tied with Louis Paulsen for 9th-10th in the world. He won matches in Vienna against Berthold Englisch in 1882 and Adolf Albin in 1891.

    He was born in Krivsoudov, Bohemia, today a city in the heart of the Czech Republic. He worked as a teacher at a secondary school in Trieste, Italy which is where he died. And that’s about all that’s known of him. Chessgames.com has a scant database with only 52 of his games. 

    Here is one of his gaes from the great second international tournament at Vienna 1882. It was a super-strong event; according to Chess metrics nine of the ten top players in the world participated. Hruby’s opponent was Austrian master Adolf Csank (1841-1900).

 

A Brillancy by Carl Walbrodt

Walbrodt

    While browsing through an 1899 copy of the American Chess Monthly I noticed the following game which John F. Barry, a leading American player of the day, called brilliant. It’s not listed in any databases that I am aware of so it has been rediscovered. 

    The American Chess Monthly was edited by Daniel W. Fiske and co-edited for a time by Paul Morphy that was published from 1857 to 1861. Everybody knows who Paul Morphy (1837-1884) was, but few are likely to be familiar with Daniel W. Fiske (1931-1904). He was a driving force in American chess in his time. He is in rhe chess Hall of Fame and you can read about him HERE.

Golmayo

     The loser of the following game was Manuel Golmayo (1883-1973) who was born in Havana and passed away om Madrid on March 7, 1973. His father Celso Golmayo Zupide and elder brother Celso Golmayo Torriente were also noted players. Manuel was Spanish Champion in 1902, 1912, 1919, 1921, 1927, 1928 and tied for first in 1923, but lost the playoff to Ramon Rey Ardid. In 1951, FIDE awarded himo the title International Arbiter. 

    The winner was the German player Carl Walbrodt (1871-1902) who was born in Amsterdam, He learned to play chess from his father. Walbrodt was German co-champion with Curt von Bardeleben in 1893. Gor a while he erved as editor of Berliner Schachzeitung.

     Regarded as a talented player, Walbrodt died in Berlin at the age of 30 from tuberculosis. Chess metrics estimates his highest rating to have been 2706 in October of 1893, ranking him #5 in the world behind Lasker, Tarrasch, Chigorin and Steinitz.

 

[Event "Havana"] [Site "?"] [Date "1899.10.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Manuel Golmayo"] [Black "Cark Walbrodt"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO ""] [Annotator "Stockfish 17"] [PlyCount "54"] [EventDate "1899.??.??"] {C66: Ruy Lopez: Steinitz Defense} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 d6 5. Bb5 Bd7 6. O-O Nf6 7. Nc3 Be7 8. f4 {While this is not bad it has an element of risk because it opens up the K-side. Capturing twice on c6 is rock solid.} O-O 9. Nxc6 (9. Bxc6 bxc6 10. f5 Rb8 11. Qf3 Re8 12. Kh1 Bf8 {Black is better. Almasi,Z (2650)-Kulashko,A (2390) Elista ol (Men) 1998}) 9... Bxc6 10. Bd3 { Apparently white has dreams of attacking on the K-side and so places his B where it aims at h7. While 10.Bd3 is hardly bad taking on c6 was more prudent.} Qd7 11. Kh1 {So as to advance the g-Pawn.} Rae8 12. h3 {This is part of his strategy to advance the g-Pawn, but black seized the initiative with his next move. White's safest course of action was to play the banal 12.Bd2 completing his deveelopment and connecting his Rs. The great Australian teacher C.J.S. Purdy used to remind his readers that one's development was not complete until the Rs were connected.} d5 {There is no really good way to meet this.} 13. e5 { White does not recover from this.} (13. Nxd5 {Capturing with the P simply transposes.} Nxd5 14. exd5 Qxd5 15. Qf3 Qa5 16. Qg3 Bf6 {with an excellent position.}) 13... d4 {White may not have expected this.} 14. Kh2 {This gets the K out of the line of fire of the B and prevents ...Qxh3+, but white has paid a high price for his indiscretion ay move 12.} (14. exf6 {gets him mated.} Qxh3+ 15. Kg1 Qxg2#) (14. f5 {Blocks ...Qxh3+, but it's no better. After} dxc3 15. exf6 Bxf6 16. bxc3 Bxc3 17. Rb1 Qd5 {White is also facing insurmountable difficulties.}) 14... dxc3 15. exf6 Bxf6 16. bxc3 Bxc3 {[%mdl 128] Watch black's attack grow!} 17. Rb1 Qd5 18. Qg4 (18. Qf3 {hoping black will grab the useless a-Pawn is a better defense.} Qxf3 {But he wouldn't.} (18... Qxa2 19. Bxh7+ {Ths doesn't equalize, but it's the best white has.} Kxh7 20. Qxc3 $19 Qd5 21. Rf2 {Black is clearly better.}) 19. gxf3 Rd8 {and at least white is holding on.}) 18... f5 19. Qg3 Rf6 {Black still refrains from grbbing the a-Pawn and instead stoke the fire on the K-side.} 20. Qf2 {At this point white is completely busted.} Be1 {[%mdl 512] Of course the Q cannot abandon its protection of g2.} 21. Rxe1 Rxe1 22. Rb4 {Threatening to pin the Q.} Rxc1 23. Bc4 {Has black blundered?} Rg6 24. Qd2 (24. Bxd5+ Bxd5 {White has no way of defending g2 and the Q cannot afford to move out of danger.} 25. Rb2 (25. Qc5 Rxg2#) 25... Rxg2+ 26. Qxg2 Bxg2 27. Kxg2 b6 {Black has a won R+P ending.}) 24... Rd1 (24... Rxg2+ {Also wins...} 25. Qxg2 Qxc4 26. Rxc4 Bxg2 27. Kxg2 c6 { with a won ending.}) 25. Qxd1 (25. Bxd5+ {is equally hopeless.} Bxd5 26. Qe2 ( 26. Qxd1 Rxg2+ 27. Kh1 Rd2+) 26... Rxg2+ 27. Qxg2 Bxg2 28. Kxg2 b6) 25... Rxg2+ 26. Kh1 Rd2+ {[%mdl 64]} 27. Qf3 Qxc4 {White resigned.} (27... Qxc4 28. Rxc4 Bxf3+ 29. Kg1 Rg2+ 30. Kh1 (30. Kf1 Be2+ 31. Kxg2 Bxc4) 30... Rxc2+) 0-1

Fritz 19 vs. Fritz 17

    A few days ago I decided to purchase Fritz 19 to replace version 17. Because I am a Life Member of the USCF I made the purchase through them. Fritz 19 costs from $90 to $100. That’s not a bad price at all because a couple of steak dinners at a decent restaurant will cost you that; or if you prefer, $100 will get you 5 or 6 crappy Big Mac meals at McDonald’s. 

    The question is, is it worth it? The answer is, it depends. I was not surprised to find that with Fritz 19 ChessBase has emphasized playing for fun and instruction. There are multiple dumbed down personalities with different styles that are designed for players of all levels to play against. So, if you are looking for a program to play and train then it is definitely worth the price. If you want to use the program for analysis and publishing game to the web then it is also definitely worth the price, but not if you already have an earlier version because there are no improvements in that area. 

    There is one handy feature that has been added to the Full Analysis function. Fritz 17, for example, has a Weighted Error Value which basically tells you how closely the players' moves matched the engine. Fritz 19 has additional information. Here is the evaluation of a 5 minute pus 2 seconds per move game I recently played online (I was white).

 

    As you can see, the game was not especially well played and I only won because my mistakes and inaccuracies were a bit fewer than my opponent’s. Unfortunately, so far I have been unable to find an explanation of the terms used like what is a mistake as opposed to an inaccuracy? Also, although I have not made a comparison, it seems that a Full Analysis on Fritz 19 takes much longer than it does on Fritz 17. 

     So, in the final analysis, Fritz 19 is superior to Fritz 17 when it comes to playing against a program and training...no question. But, there is no advantage when it comes to analyzing and publishing games...no surprise there. Which program will I use for this Blog? Probably Fritz 19 simply because I now have it.

Horowitz Rips Apart Bourbeau

    In 1933, President Roosevelt and Nazi Germany were all on center stage in the news. People were eating cucumber sandwiches and carrot cake. Appearing in print for the first time were words like Vitamin B complex, bird-dogging, crunch time, dumb down, goose bumps, jet engine, tune up and VIP (Very Important Person). 

    One in four workers were unemployed, a staggering number! Over 15,000,000 Americans were looking for work and could not find a job. In the United States, the Great Depression began with the Wall Street Crash of October 1929 and then spread worldwide. The lowest came in 1931–1933, and recovery came in 1940

    President Roosevelt's New Deal was unveiled shortly after his inauguration. It was "a series of programs and projects instituted that were aimed to restore prosperity to Americans. 

    To add to the woes, on November 11, a very strong dust storm stripped topsoil from desiccated South Dakota farmlands in one of a series of severe dust storms that year. Two days later dust from the storm had reached Albany, New York, which is 1,500 miles from where the storm had originated. Also in 1933, Prohibition ended which was good mews for many. 

    Former President Calvin Coolidge, who served from 1923 to 1929, died suddenly at his home in Northampton, Massachusetts from coronary thrombosis. On the international scene in 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed as Germany's chancellor and everybody knows what followed. 

    In the 1933 chess world players lost were Johann Berger (1845-1933) the winner of the first major tournament in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The man who popularized the Englund Gambit (1.d4 e5), the Swedish Master Fritz Englund (1871-1933). Hermann von Gottschall (1862-1933),a German lawyer, author and editor. Australian and New Zealand champion William Viner (1871-1933) American problemist and problem editor Henry Barry (1878-1933). Another problemist, William A. Shinkman (1847-1933), who was known as the Wizard of Grand Rapids (Michigan). Leading Dutch Master Adolf Olland (1867-1933) died in The Hague

    According to Chess metrics the leading players in the world were Alexander Alekhine, Isaac Kashdan, José Capablanca, Salo Flohr, Max Euwe, Aron Nimzovich, Mir Sultan Khan, Efim Bogoljubow, Saviely Tartakower and Milan Vidmar (Senior). Unfortunately at the end of 1933, Mir Sultan Khan returned to India with his master and his chess career was over. There is an excellent biography of Khan on Chess.com HERE. 

    Mikhail Botvinnik (1911-1995) was beginning to become a force: he won the championship of Russia, the 8th USSR championship and drew a match with Salo Flohr. 

    The Jewish Emanual Lasker, the grandson of a rabbi, was driven out of Germany because he was a Jew. In July 1933, all Jews were banned from the Greater German Chess Association. 

    On the American scene in January 1933, Isaac Kashdan published the first monthly edition of Chess Review magazine. In November 1969, it merged with Chess Life to become Chess Life & Review. 

    Reuben Fine won the Marshall Chess Club championship. Robert Willman won the Manhattan Chess Club championship. Fred Reinfeld won the New York State Championship. Reuben Fine defeated Arthur Dake in a match in New York. Reuben Fine won the Western Open (US Open) that was held in Detroit. 

    The Chess Olympiad was held in Folkestone, England and it was won by the United States (Isaac Kashdan, Frank Marshall, Reuben Fine, Arthur Dake and Albert Simonson. 

    Today’s game was played in a 1933 Metropolitan Chess League team match. The event was won by the Marshall CC followed by the Empire City CC and the Manhattan CC. Horowitz ripped his opponent apart, but the game was flawed by a colossal double blunder. Nevertheless the finish is nice! 

[Event "Metropolitan Chess League, New York"] [Site "New York, NY"] [Date "1933.03.11"] [Round "?"] [White "Charles Bourbeau (Int'l CC)"] [Black "Israel A. Horowitz (Manhattan"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "A52"] [Annotator "Stockfish 17"] [PlyCount "68"] [EventDate "1933.??.??"] {A52: Budapest Gambit} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e5 {This defense made its debut in 1896, but it wasn't until Dr. Milan Vidmar used it to defeat Akiba Rubinstein in 1918 that it started receiving attention. Today it's not highly tjhough of, but Horowiyz commented that it has enough interesting features to warrant its occasional use.} 3. dxe5 {The only move that offers any chance of gaining an advantage.} Ng4 {It's interesting to note that the Fajarowicz Variation (3... Ne5) is theoretically inferior, but in practical play it yields better results! } 4. e4 {Besides this white has two main options; (a) defend the P with 4.Bf4 or (b) defend it with 4.Nf3. With the text move he returns the P and hopes to obtain rapid development and work up a K-side attack.} Nxe5 5. Nf3 (5. f4 { leads to dynamic play that should favor white after} Nec6 6. Nc3 Bc5 7. Qg4) 5... Nbc6 6. Nc3 Bc5 7. Be2 d6 8. O-O O-O 9. Nd5 Nxf3+ 10. Bxf3 f5 {A bold move, but neither side can claim any advantage here/} (10... Ne5 11. b4 Nxf3+ 12. gxf3 Bb6 13. Nxb6 axb6 14. Kh1 Be6 15. Bb2 f6 16. Qe2 {½-½ Efinowicz,M (2083)-Zdanowicz,P (2050) Poznan POL 2008}) 11. exf5 Bxf5 12. Ne3 {This is a rather odd move that only wastes time. 12.Be3 completing his development was preferable.} Bd7 13. Qd5+ {The object of this check is not apparent. Besides, the Q is not well placed here. There is not much going on so he cou;d have safely returned the N to d5 or even fianchetto the c1B.} Kh8 14. b3 Nd4 15. Bd1 Nf5 (15... Bc6 {Horowitz write that he was tempted to play this, but didn't see that it lead anywhere.} 16. Qh5 Be4 17. Bb2 Bd3 18. Re1 {and black has not really improved his position.}) (15... Qf6 {keeps a significant advantage though. White's best bet is to complicate with} 16. b4 Bxb4 17. Qxb7 {but here, too, black's positional advantage should prove decisive.}) 16. Bc2 c6 {Not the most precise.} (16... Nxe3 {This involves the exchange of too many pieces to ensure victory.} 17. Bxe3 Bxe3 18. fxe3 {etc.}) (16... Nd4 {was a good option.} 17. Ba3 Bxa3 18. Qxd4 c6 {Black can only lay claim to a slight advantage, but at the same time he has all the play and so has reason to be optimistic.}) 17. Qd3 Qh4 18. Bb2 Rae8 19. Rae1 Nxe3 20. fxe3 Rf5 {By bringing the R to the g-file black's attack gains strength, but with care white should have adequate defensive resources.} 21. Qc3 Rg5 22. Rf3 {A very interesting position! With the modest 22...d5 black could have maintained a small edge. Instead he makes a colosslol blunder...one which he missed in his annotations when the game appeared in print months later!} Bd4 {[%mdl 8192] ...and loses...but only id white finds the refutation.} 23. Qxd4 {[%mdl 8192] ...and loses...white failed to find the refutation!} (23. Ref1 {Threatening mate with 24.Rf8#} Bf6 24. Rxf6 {Renews the threat so...} Rxg2+ 25. Kxg2 Bh3+ 26. Kh1 gxf6 27. Qxf6+ Qxf6 28. Rxf6 {with a easy win.}) 23... Qxe1+ {Back on track. Black is clearly winning now.} 24. Rf1 Rxg2+ {[%mdl 512] The line may have been badly flawed, but thi is the point of black's 22nd move.} 25. Kxg2 {The remaining oves were made from inertia.} Bh3+ {[%mdl 512]} 26. Kxh3 Qxf1+ 27. Kg3 Qg1+ 28. Kf3 Rf8+ 29. Ke2 Qf1+ 30. Kd2 Rf2+ 31. Kc3 Qe1+ 32. Kd3 Qd2+ 33. Ke4 Qxc2+ 34. Qd3 Qxd3+ { White resigned.} 0-1

Chessbase Products

 

    The other day I was searching for something and stumbled across some excellent Youtube videos on Chessbase products which I consider the gold standard of chess software. 

    If you are thinking about purchasing one of them the videos listed below will be a big help in deciding which one you should purchase. Or, if you already have one of them the instructional videos show how to use most of the features. 

    I have a number of chess programs on my laptop: the ancient Master Chess 8000, SCID vs PC, Chess OK Aquarium, Aquarium 2020, Chess Assistant 18, Fritz 12, Ftitz 17 and Chessbase 16. 

    Back in the old days when I was a serious correspondence player and was seriously trying to top the 2200 barrier, had these programs been available Chessbase would have been my choice. But, those days are just a dim memory and so Fritz 17 fits my needs perfectly. 

    Should you buy Chessbase? Here is an honest analysis of the program. I do not use my Chessbase 16 simply because it has a lot more features than I am interested in. HERE 

    If pricing is an issue then a good alternative is Fritz. Although Fritz 19 is the current version, this video discusses Fritz 17 (the program I use), but it is still a good overview of the program HERE.

 

Sidebar... 

 

    While I am at it, you might be interested in downloading a free database of 5.5 million games at Caissabase. The game dates ranger from 1610 to 2024. Note: the download is fairly large, so give it some time. 

    There is one snag...the database can only be opened using SCID vs. PC format, so if you are not a SCID vs. PC user you will need to download that program which you can so HERE. These two downloads are an excellent choice if you are looking for free. 

 

NOTE: 

    Apparently there is a glitch in e-mailing me. I recently received an e-mail from a reader of this post who had a question, but it did not show up on the post itself.

    Basically the reader wanted to know about how modern correspondence players attempt to outsmart opponents who rely strictly on an engine. Unfortunately, I am not qualified to address that issue because I am not very knowledgeable about how engines work. Also, when I was active in correspondence play before engines my rating hovered around 2100...hardly championship level! 

    I was not implying that I would like to have used an engine in correspondence play, only that in those days programs like ChessBase and Fritz would have been great for organizing games and studying all phases of the game.

Pillsbury Hit by a Marble

    Murray Marble (February17, 1885 – February 17, 1919, 34 years old) of Worcester, Massachusetts is virtually unknown and when he passed away the American Chess Bulletin stated that they were greatly disturbed and noted that they had not received any news about him in recent years. 

    The writer of the article stated that he had once spent an enjoyable day at a beach resort in company with Marble, he knew very little of Marble’s family or private life beyond that he was obviously of “gentle” family and possessed a quiet and refined both in tastes and demeanor. And, he added that Marble spoke or wrote little concerning himself. 

     Marble was the youngest of four brothers, all of whom predeceased him in death. According to the writer the family occupied a rather palatial if old fashioned family homestead in Worcester. Marble possessed an exquisite chess den at his home. 

    The writer first heard of Marble in 1900, when the chess editor of the Literary Digest chess column, wrote of a two-mover contributed to the periodical by the 15 year old Marble who had just entered the world of problem composing. In 1906, and for a period thereafter Marble was a regular contributor to the American Chess Bulletin. By the early part of 1909, Marble was really making a name for him self. Sample problem

    Only two of his games seem to have survived; one offhand game against an unknown player and the following nice win over Pillsbury in a simultaneous that was held in Worcester.

 

Rzeschewski at the 1922 New York Toy Show

    In the early 1900s all the chess sets sold in the United States were manufactured in Europe. When World War I broke out in 1914, the supply of chess sets to the U.S. ceased. That’s where William F. Drueke comes in.

    Established in 1914, Drueke’s Grand Rapids, Michigan company was known as a high quality game manufacturer in the United States because they used nothing but the finest walnut, maple and aspen for their products. 

    Besides chess pieces Drueke also made wooden chess boards, chess tables, cribbage boards, poker chip racks, backgammon sets, dominoes, checkers, card boxes, and other wooden accessories. Around 1949 they began manufacturing plastic pieces. In my day their Player’s Choice set was very popular. Drueke's name and product lines were assumed by The Carrom Company of Ludington, Michigan in 1991. 

     In 1922, there was an annul toy fair at the Hotel Breslin in New York City and Sammy Rzeschewski, the child prodigy, gave a simultaneous exhibition that was sponsored bu Drueke. 

     Rzeschewski scored 18 wins. Play stopped at 11:30pm after having been in progress for nearly two and a half hours. There were three games unfinished. US Champion Frank Marshall had bee present, but he had left so two of the remaining games were declared drawn by the acting referee, Samuel Katz, secretary of the Manhattan Chess Club. Rzeschewski was awarded the win in the other game after which he was lustily cheered by the large audience. 

    In the following game, after only 20 minutes of play, M. A. Goldsmith of Cleveland. Ohio resigned after only 23 moves. Goldsmith, a leading Ohio expert, was considered to be one of the best players Rzeschewski would be facing in the exhibition. After their game was finished Goldsmith showed everyone a published score of a game, also a Goring Gambit, that he had won from Frank Marshall in an exhibition on Cleveland the previous year.

 

[Event "Simul, New York"] [Site "?"] [Date "1922.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Sammy Rzeschewski"] [Black "M. A. Goldsmith"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C44"] [Annotator "Stockfish 17"] [PlyCount "45"] [EventDate "1922.??.??"] {C44: Goring Gambut} 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 {Named after German player Carl Goring, in this gambit white offers to sacrifice a P. ot sometimes two, in order to open up lines for his pieces and to accelerate his development.} dxc3 4. Bc4 Nc6 {This is not the best reply. If black does not want to risk taking another P with 4...cxb2 then he should play 4...Nf6} (4... Nf6 {Better is 5. Nxc3 equals.} 5. e5 c2 6. Qxc2 d5 {and after either 7.Bb5+, 7.Bb3 or 7.exd6 black stands well.} 7. exf6 {This obvious move is white's least desirable continuation/} dxc4 8. fxg7 Bxg7 9. Qxc4 Be6 10. Qc2 Qe7 {Black has a comfortable lead in development.}) 5. Nf3 Qf6 (5... cxb2 {is still a reasonable try.} 6. Bxb2 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Nf6) (5... Qe7 {turned out badly in the following game.} 6. O-O Nh6 7. Nxc3 Qd6 8. Nd5 Ng4 9. Bf4 Nce5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Qh5 Rb8 12. Bxe5 Qc5 13. Bxc7 Qd4 14. Qe5+ {Black resigned. Zhang Pengxiang (2583)-Chen Xueshen Wuxi 2005}) 6. Nxc3 Bb4 7. Bd2 (7. O-O Bxc3 8. bxc3 d6 9. Qb3 Nge7 10. Bg5 {with equal chances. Angarov,D-Ginzburg,A (2021) Irkutsk 2009 was eventually drawn.}) 7... Bxc3 8. Bxc3 Qg6 9. O-O {[%mdl 1024]} Nge7 10. e5 (10. Nh4 {is not as good as it might look at first glance. After} Qxe4 11. Bxf7+ Kxf7 12. Qh5+ g6 13. Qh6 Rg8 {There is no really effective way of continuimg the attack.} 14. Rae1 Qd5 {Note that} 15. Qxh7+ {is not dangerous to black because afer} Ke8 16. Nf3 Qf7 {In Shootouts from this position white scored +0 -2 =3}) 10... O-O 11. Bd3 Qh5 12. Qc2 {Here the game deviates from the sinul game Marshall-Goldsmith that was played the previous year in Cleveland.} (12. Re1 d5 13. exd6 cxd6 14. Re4 Bg4 15. Be2 d5 16. Rf4 Ng6 17. Ra4 Nge5 18. Bxe5 Nxe5 19. Nxe5 Bxe2 20. Qxd5 Rad8 21. Qe4 Rfe8 22. Re1 Qxe5 23. Qxb7 Rd1 24. Rxd1 Bxd1 25. h3 Bxa4 26. g3 Qe1+ 27. Kg2 Qe4+ 28. Qxe4 Rxe4 29. h4 Re2 30. b3 Bc6+ 31. Kh3 Rxf2 {0-1 Fran Marshall-M A Goldsmith Simul, Cleveland, Ohio, 1921}) 12... d5 13. exd6 cxd6 14. Rfe1 Bf5 15. Rad1 Bxd3 16. Qxd3 Rad8 17. Re4 f5 {This give white a minuscule advantage. Instead, 17...d5 keeps things even.} 18. Rh4 Qg6 19. Rh3 {Black must now prevent Rg3.} Ne5 {[%mdl 8192] Goldsnith has played an excellent game up to this point, but this move is a onumental tactical blunder.} (19... f4 {and Black has nothing to worry about. For example...} 20. Qxg6 Nxg6 21. Ng5 Rf5 22. Ne6 (22. Nxh7 Nce5 {Black is better because white's N and R are out play.}) 22... Rd7 23. Rhd3 Nf8 24. Rxd6 Rxd6 25. Rxd6 Nxe6 26. Rxe6 {The position is completely equal.}) 20. Bxe5 {Probably spotted instantly by the prodigy!} dxe5 21. Qxd8 Rxd8 22. Rxd8+ Kf7 (22... Qe8 23. Rxe8+ Kf7 24. Rxe7+ Kxe7) 23. Nxe5+ {Black resigned} 1-0