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

A Great Game by Paul Michel

    One of the books in my collection is 107 Great Chess Battles, 1939-1945 by Alekhine. The games, almost all of them played by others, were selected and annotated by him. Because Alekhine selected the games you know they have to be good. 

    The games are organized by openings, open, semi-open and closed. In my opinion the book is something of a potboiler with not very deep annotations and they are lacking instructional content, but then it’s games themselves that are interesting. 

    The winner, Paul Michel (1905-1977) of Germany, was awarded the IM title in 1956. He was 2nd= in the German Championships of 1935 and 1938 and was a member of the German Olympiad team of 1939. He remained in Argentina after the Second World War. 

    His opponent was Swedish player Erik Lundin (1904-1088). One of the country;s top players, he was warded the International Master title in 1950, and the Honorary Grandmaster title in 1983. He continued to participate in chess tournaments in his 80's and over the course of his career he defeated many of the world;s best players. Chess metrics estimates his highest ever rating to have been w771 and his best world ranking to have been #18 on December 1946 and January 1947. 

 

[Event "Buenos Aires Olympiad fin-A"] [Site "Buenos Aires ARG"] [Date "1939.09.16"] [Round "14"] [White "Erik Lundin (Sweden)"] [Black "Paul Michel (Germany)"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "C48"] [Annotator "Stockfish 16/Alekhine"] [PlyCount "68"] [EventDate "1939.09.01"] {C48: Four Knights Game, Rubinstein Mariation} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Nd4 {The solid Rubinstein Variation. At the time this game was played the German team would have been satisfied with a draw.} 5. Nxe5 {Lundin wants to avoid the drawish 5.Nxf4 and so Iplayed this rather dubious line. He would have done better playing the standard 5.Ba4. Note that the text does not win a P.} Qe7 6. f4 Nxb5 7. Nxb5 d6 8. Nf3 Qxe4+ 9. Kf2 {The position of white's K has been disturbed in this line and this move is better that 9.Qe2 Qxe2+ 10. Kxe2 because now at least white threatens 10.Re1} Ng4+ (9... Qxf4 {would be a horrible mistake.} 10. d3 Qf5 11. Nxc7+) 10. Kg3 {Alekhinme wrote that this K excursion is artificial and appears erroneous and he added that one could not understand what it was that lead white to play such a risky move. Possibly Lundin wanted to avois shutting his R in with 10.Kg1 although that move would have been preferrable.} Qg6 {Threatening 11...Ne3+.} 11. Nh4 Qh5 (11... Qf6 { is also good.} 12. h3 g5 13. Qe2+ Ne5 14. d4 gxf4+ 15. Kh2 Qxh4 16. dxe5 Qg3+ 17. Kg1 {Popov,I (2613)-Svidler,P (2730) Aix-les-Bains FRA 2011. Now after 17.. .Kd8 black would have had the advantage.}) 12. h3 {Best; this was known at the time.} (12. Nxc7+ {leaves black with the advantage after} Kd8 13. h3 (13. Nxa8 g5 14. fxg5 Qxg5 15. Nf3 Qg7 {The threat of ...Ne3+ cannot be met in any satisfactory way.} 16. Qe2 Ne3+ 17. Kf2 Qxg2+ 18. Kxe3 Bh6+ 19. Kd3 Bf5+ 20. Kc3 Qxe2) 13... Nf6 14. Nxa8 Qxh4+ 15. Kxh4 Ne4 16. Qh5 Be7+ 17. Qg5 Bxg5+) 12... Qxb5 {It was Alekhine's opinion that this simple move forces a series of moves which are dangerous for White's position.} (12... Nf6 {This move was known at the time the game was played and it was the move recompensed by theory. It still is.} 13. Nxc7+ {Trading Qs would have kept black's advantage at a minimum.} Kd8 14. Nxa8 {Kadric,D (2561)-Gelbenegger,P (2260) Austria AUT 2022. Black is better, but only if he finds the correct continuation which is.. .} Qxh4+ 15. Kxh4 Ne4 16. Qg4 Be7+ 17. Qg5 Bxg5+ 18. fxg5 h6 19. g6 fxg6 20. Rf1 {Black is clearly better, but white has a fighting chance.}) 13. hxg4 { This is no good because it exposes his K.} (13. a4 {and white has equalized but the position has a lot of complications!} Qd5 14. hxg4 g6 15. Qe2+ Be6 16. f5 gxf5 17. gxf5 Rg8+ 18. Kh3 Be7 19. fxe6 Bxh4 20. exf7+ Kxf7 {with a slight advantage.}) (13. a4 Ne3 {This also leads to complications.} 14. dxe3 Qc6 15. e4 Be7 16. Re1 O-O 17. Nf3 Bf6) 13... g5 {After this white's game begins to deteriorate.} 14. fxg5 Qe5+ 15. Kf2 Qd4+ 16. Kg3 Qe5+ 17. Kh3 {Michel refutes this swiftly and in masterly fashion.} (17. Kf2 {would have made black's task much more difficult.} Qxg5 18. d3 Qxg4 19. Re1+ Be7 20. Qxg4 Bxg4 21. Bg5 Be6 22. Bxe7 Kxe7 {with on;y sa modest advantage.}) 17... Qxg5 {Threatens to win with ...Rg8.} 18. d4 Qh5 {This fine move emphasizes the disadvantageous position of the K.} 19. g3 (19. Kg3 {is met by} Rg8 20. g5 Qxd1 21. Rxd1 h6 22. Nf3 Be7 23. Re1 hxg5 24. c4 (24. Bxg5 f6) 24... Bf5 {and black can expect to squeeze out the win.}) 19... Rg8 20. Kh2 Bxg4 {After achieving a material advantage the win is a matter of technique, but, as Alekhine pointed out, the speed of the method used produces a very favorable impression.} 21. Re1+ Be7 22. Qd2 Kd7 23. Qh6 Qd5 {Black avoids tthe exchange of Qs inorder to exploit the frail position of white's K.} 24. Be3 Rae8 25. Bf2 Bg5 {Giving back the extra P to force the opening of the h-file with the plan of a diret attack on the K - Alekhhine} 26. Qxh7 Rh8 27. Qd3 Reg8 28. c4 Qf3 {Now simplification assists black's victory since the Q is the only piece protecting white's position.} 29. Qxf3 Bxf3 30. Rg1 {Forced owing th the threat of ...Bxh4} f5 { [%mdl 32]} 31. a4 Rh7 32. Ra3 Be4 33. Raa1 f4 34. Kh3 fxg3 {White resigned. Very precise play by Michel according to Stockfish.} 0-1

Music to Play Chess By

A Finish Too Gruesome to Contemplate

    In the 1958-59 US Championship Bobby Fischer was not only a Grandmaster, but also an international star and the talk of world chess. He had won the previous championship with an undefeated 8 wins and 5 draws, finishing a full 2 points ahead of Reshevsky. 

    Nobody had repeated as as champion in the previous six tournaments and in this tournament virtually all of top scorers of the previous year were back plus Robert and Donald Byrne and Pal Benko were in the line up. 

    Born in France to Hungarian parents, Benko had become one of the leading European juniors during the mid-50s and was making a name for himself. Benko had been involved in the 1956 Hungarian revolt, but was later permitted to play first board on Hungary's team in the 1957 Student Olympiad in Iceland where he promptly defected. He originally landed in Cleveland Ohio, but not for long. He got into a snit because Cleveland players would not support him financially, so he moved on to greener pastures. 

 

 

   Most invitees were chosen because of their rating or because they held the Grandmaster title, but in the 1958-59 tournament the USCF also invited the U.S. Junior Champion 17-year-old Raymond Weinstein, Bisguier's couson. 

    In the end, Fischer was again successful, taking an undefeated first with +6 -0 =5 while Reshevsky again had to settle for second and his loss to Fischer was a real debacle! Fischer played a new, but untested, line on the white side of the Sicilian that he had used earlier in the year to defeat Bent Larsen at the interzonal at Portoroz. In the same tournament against Oscar Panno, it hadn't been so successful, but Fischer had done his homework; Reshevsky hadn't. 

Weinstein

    As usual, Reshevsky wasn't up on theory and relied on his instinct. Also, the line had been analyzed in depth in a recent Russian magazine which, of course, Fischer was familiar with. Reshevsky wasn't and ended up losing miserably.

    Benko, who everybody thought might be a serious contender, failed badly finishing in 8th place with a +1 -4 =6 score. Weinstein shared last place with Edmar Mednis, scoring +0 -5 =6. Here is an interesting game from the tournament.

 

[Event "1958/59 US Champ, New York"] [Site "New York"] [Date "1958.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Raymond Weinstein"] [Black "Samueal Reshevsky"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "E64"] [Annotator "Stockfish 17"] [PlyCount "54"] [EventDate "1958.??.??"] {E64: King's Indian: Fianchetto Variation} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nf3 c5 {A Reshevsky favorite. Most common by far is 5...d6} 6. d5 d6 7. Nc3 Na6 {Again, a Reshevsky favorite. He liked to put the N on c7 then play ... Rb8 and prepare the advance ...b5.} 8. O-O Nc7 9. Bf4 {The B is in a rather vulnerable place on f4. Thos move was popular at the time, but has since been pretty much abandoned in favor of 9.a4 to prevent black's Q-side expansion.} a6 10. a4 Rb8 11. a5 b5 12. axb6 Rxb6 13. b3 Nh5 {This move gains time, opens the diagonal for his B and makes room for the advance of his f-Pawn..} (13... Bd7 14. Qc2 Qb8 15. Ra3 Qb7 16. Nd2 Rb8 17. Na4 Bxa4 18. Rxa4 Qc8 {equals. Panno, O-Ramirez,A Santa Fe 1957}) 14. Bd2 e6 15. dxe6 Bxe6 16. Ng5 {This move does not accomplish much and so continuing his Q-side play with 16.Ra2 and 17.Baw wpuld have been better.} Bd7 17. Na4 Rb8 (17... Bxa1 18. Nxb6 Be5 19. Ba5 { and white is well off.}) 18. Ra3 h6 {Reshevsky begins an attack by driving back the N with a gain of time.} 19. Ne4 {Perhaps 19.Nf3 would have been better. As played white loses time with the N.} f5 20. Nec3 Be6 21. e4 f4 { Reshevsky is going after him. Theoretically with accurate play white should be OK, but as is usually the case, one slip on the part of the defender can be costly.} 22. g4 {As Reshevsky put it, "Closing his eyes to the lurking danger. " This move loses quickly.} (22. Nd5 fxg3 23. hxg3 Nxd5 {and now capturing with either Pawn keeps things fairly equal.} 24. cxd5 {This at least does not give the B a good square on f5.} Bd7 25. Bc3 Bxc3 26. Nxc3 {The chances are equal.}) (22. e5 {This sharp counterattack is probably his best option.} Bxe5 23. Ne4 {Here black has no really powerful attacking moves. Komodo Human suggests the following line...} Qe7 24. Bc3 Bxc3 25. Naxc3 Rbd8 26. Re1 Ng7 27. Qc1 Kh7 28. gxf4 Nf5 29. Ng3 Nd4 30. Nd5 Qf7 31. Nxc7 Qxc7 {and neither side can claim an advantage.}) 22... f3 23. Bxf3 (23. Bh1 Qh4 {leaves white helpless...} 24. Bxf3 (24. Nd5 Qxg4+ 25. Bg2 Qxg2#) 24... Be5 25. Bf4 Bxf4 26. Re1 Bxh2+ 27. Kf1 Qh3+ 28. Ke2 Qxf3+ 29. Kd2 Qf4+ 30. Kc2 Bxg4 31. Qd2 Qxd2+ 32. Kxd2 Rxf2+ 33. Re2 Bf4+ 34. Ke1 Rxe2+ 35. Nxe2 Bxe2 36. Kxe2) 23... Qh4 24. Kg2 Nf4+ 25. Bxf4 Rxf4 26. Be2 Be5 27. h3 Rbf8 {0-1 White resigned. The sequel is too gruesome to contemplate.} (27... Rbf8 28. Bf3 Rxf3 29. Qxf3 Rxf3 30. Kxf3 Qxh3+ 31. Ke2 Bxg4+ 32. Kd2 Qxf1) 0-1

Philip Physick Randolph

    While on the subject of forgotten Philadelphia players, today’s post features another one from long ago, Philip Physick Randolph (October 26, 1824 – May 5, 1869) who at the time of his unexpected death was considered one of the country’s most distinguished players. 

    It was in 1846 that the 22-year old Randolph, after having just finished his collegiate studies, became known. At that time he played against Charles Vezin, the subject of the previous post.

    Randolph was known for his positional play characterized by patient and thorough analysis. 

    In 1847, along with another Philadelphia player of renown, Benjamin Tilghman, he organized the correspondence match against Boston in which the previous post’s game was played. 

    In 1856 he participated in a correspondence match against New York which was won by Philadelphia. Then in the fall of 1858 he took an active part in a telegraph match against New York. After this match Randolph stopped playing competitive chess, probably for health reasons, but continued to follow the game.

    At the time of his death the London Times claimed that Randolph was one of the three greatest players in the world. How and why they made that statement is unknown. There is little information available on Randolph and I could locate only two of his games. 

    Randolph was not only a recognized master player, but a well regarded member of Philadelphia society who was known for his intelligence, gentle manner and modest character. 

    He was the grandson of the “father of American surgery” Dr. Philip S. Physick, and son of Dr. Physick’s daughter Sally and her husband Dr. Jacob Randolph. 

    Dr. Philip S. Physick purchased Laurel Hill Mansion in Pgiladelphia in 1828 to use as a summer retreat and later bequeathed the house to his daughter Sally Randolph in 1837, when it became known as the Randolph Mansion. 

    The chessplayer Philip Randolph, who died in the mansion, was its last resident. He never married and was buried at Christ Church Burial Ground in Philadelphia. The newspaper death notice stated that relatives and male friends were invited to attend the funeral at his mother’s residence. 

    After he died his widowed mother, Sally, sold the mansion to the city of Philadelphia. In 1870, the city demolished its barn, outbuildings, and farmhouse, yet the mansion now known as Laurel Hill Mansion still stands. 

 

[Event "Philadelphia"] [Site "Philadelphia, PA USA"] [Date "1847.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Philip Randolph"] [Black "Charles Vezin"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C39"] [Annotator "Stockfish 16"] [PlyCount "51"] [EventDate "1847.??.??"] {C39: King's Gambit Accepted} 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 { This is the most popular, the main alternative being 3.Bc4. Black had two main approaches:1) attempt to hold the P with ...g5 and 2) return the P in order to facilitate his development.} g5 {[%mdl 32] The Classical Variation arises after 3.Nf3 g5. White's main choices are 4.h4 and 4.Bc4} (3... Nf6 4. Bc4 d5 5. exd5 Bd6 6. d4 Nh5 7. O-O Qh4 8. Qe1+ Qxe1 9. Rxe1+) 4. h4 (4. Bc4 g4 {An alternative is 4...Bg7} 5. O-O gxf3 6. Qxf3 Qf6 {Here white usually plays 7... e5 although 7.d3 is super-solid.}) 4... g4 5. Ne5 {5.Ng5 (the Allgaier Gambit) intending 5...h6 6.Nxf7 id very rsky amd is considered risky and unsound. The text is the Kieseritzky Gambit which is considered the main line; it was popularized by Lionel Kieseritzky in the 1840s and used by Wilhelm Steinitz and much later Spassky used it to beat Fischer.} h5 {The main alternative is 5. ..Nf6, but the text is satisfactory.} 6. Bc4 Nh6 {Black can satisfactorily defend the P with 6...Rh7, but the text move is also good.} 7. d4 d6 {White should now simply retreat with 8.Nd3 which results in equal chances. Instead, he embarks on a risky and unsoumd sacrifice, but one which also has some potential.} 8. Nxf7 Nxf7 9. Bxf7+ (9. Bxf4 {is about as good.} Qe7 {White has two playable moves: 10.Bxf7+ followed bu O-O and 10.Nc3 followed by Nd5. In either case black holds the advantage.}) 9... Kxf7 10. Bxf4 Bh6 11. O-O { Black's K is exposed, but white does not have anu way of getting at it, so black has the better position.} Kg7 {He could also have exchanged the Bs first. } 12. Nc3 {Perhaps defending the h-Pawn with 12.Qe1 would have been just a bit safer.} Be6 (12... Qxh4 {There was no reason to have avoided this. After} 13. g3 Qd8 {black has simply picked up a free P.}) 13. d5 Bf7 (13... Bxf4 {allows white to equalize after} 14. Rxf4 Bf7 15. Qd4+ Kg8 16. e5 dxe5 {He must play this.} 17. Qxe5 Nd7 18. Qf5 {with equal chances that could lead to a draw if the players are willing...} Qe7 19. Re4 Qd8 20. Rf4 Qe7 {with a repitition.}) 14. Qd4+ Kg8 15. e5 {This position contains a trap if black is careless.} dxe5 (15... Qxh4 16. Bxh6 Rxh6 17. Qf4 Rh7 18. e6 {If the B moves white mates on f8} Qe7 19. Ne4 (19. exf7+ {is less effective.} Rxf7 20. Qh6 Rh7 21. Qe6+ Qxe6 22. dxe6 Nc6 23. Nd5 {White is clearly better, but 19.Ne4 is even stronger.}) 19... Bg6 20. Nf6+ Kh8 21. Qg5 Qg7 22. Rae1 {and white is winning.}) 16. Bxe5 Rh7 17. Ne4 {This threatens to win with Nf6+.} Bg7 {[%mdl 8192] This is a blunder that should have lost at once.} (17... Nd7 {is the correct defense after which black holds on to his advantage. For example...} 18. Rae1 Bg6 {White has no effective continuation.}) 18. Ng5 {After this white has equalized, but he has missed a golden opportunity.} (18. Bxg7 Rxg7 19. Nf6+ Kh8 20. Qf4 Rg6 21. Qe5 Qf8 22. Rf5 {Black has no option but to play} Rxf6 23. Qxf6+ Qg7 24. Qxf7 Qxf7 25. Rxf7 {and white is winning.}) 18... Bxe5 {[%mdl 8192] ...and loses.} (18... Qxd5 {is a completely different story; the position is completely equal.} 19. Qf2 {Better than trading Qs} Bxe5 {Threatening ...Bd4} 20. Rad1 {Black is now compelled to surrender his Q, but after} Nc6 (20... Qxa2 21. Qf5 Kf8 22. Qxh7 Bg7 23. Qxh5 {mates in 4} Ke8 24. Rfe1+ Be5 25. Rxe5+ Kf8 26. Qh8+ Bg8 27. Qh6# ) 21. Rxd5 Bxd5 22. Nxh7 Bd4 23. Nf6+ Kg7 24. Nxd5 Bxf2+ 25. Rxf2 Re8 26. Nxc7 Re7 27. Nd5 g3 28. Rf5 Re1+ 29. Rf1 Re4 {a draw would be a reasonable conclusion.}) 19. Qe4 Rg7 20. Rxf7 Rxf7 21. Nxf7 Kxf7 {White is down two pieces, but black's extra material is useless.} 22. Qh7+ {Taking the B would also win.} Ke8 {The K has no hiding place and all his pieces are just bystanders.} 23. Qg8+ Ke7 24. Qe6+ Kf8 25. Rf1+ Kg7 26. Rf7+ {Black resigned. It's mate in 2} 1-0