Russia vs. Rest of the World 1970

    There were three major USSR/ vs. Rest of the World matches. These matches featuring the best players from the Soviet Union against an elite team representing the rest of the world. They were: 

 

1970 (Belgrade): The Soviets won 20.5-19.5. 

1984 (London): The Soviets won 21-19. 

2002 (Moscow): The Soviets won 52-48. This one was a Rapid format. 

 

    The first match in Belgrade was billed as The Match of the Century and Dr. Max Euwe was the captain of the Rest of the World team.  He was responsible for determining the team’s board order which sounded simple enough...players would be assigned in order of their ratings. But, there was a snag. 

    Fischer, ranked number one, had been in seclusion for two years, but it was possible to get in contact with him and his answer was, “No.” He was then offered an all expense paid trip to Belgrade as an observer and that changed his mind about playing...provided his laundry list of 23 demands ranging from lighting to money were met. 

    Bent Larsen was then informed he’d have to play second board behind Fischer. That put Larsen in a snit, but since nobody actually believed Fischer would show up it was a moot point. 

    Then, when it looked more and more like Fischer would play, Larsen changed his mind and refused to play if Fischer was on first board. An organizer managed to chase him down by phone and Larsen agreed to play, but a few days later changed his mind again; he would not play second board. 

    Organizers then invited Larsen and his wife to visit the match, all expenses paid of course. Once the Larsens arrived in Belgrade organizers tried to persuade him to take second board, but Fischer’s arrival only hardened his resolve not to play. After all, he had won more important tournaments in the last 2-3 years than Fischer had won in his whole career. 

    When asked about the interests of the team, Larsen insisted there wasn’t any team; it was just ten matches of four games. A reporter asked him if that was the case, what difference did it make which board he played on? He didn’t answer. Even the Russians tried to convince him to play, but he still refused to play on board two. 

    Fischer had hinted before he left for Belgrade that he would let Larsen have board one...for a substantial fee. But, then he dropped a bombshell. Larsen could play on board one for nothing! But, there was fly in the ointment. Several weeks before the match the board order had been agreed to so that players would know who their opponent was and get prepared. 

    Euwe’s list had Fischer on board one and now the Rest of the World was purposing a last minute change. When informed of the change the day before the start of the match the Russians disappeared for an hour to discuss it then returned and agreed to the change.    

    Meanwhile, Yugoslav GM Milan Matulovic announced he wasn’t going to play because he was on board 8 behind East German GM Wolfgang Uhlmann. After all, he had better recent results than Uhlmann and had even beaten him in a match. Nobody seemed to care about his threat, so he agreed to play anyway.

 

    The line up of the Russian team wasn’t based on ratings, but on recent results and juggled to insure they were matched against opponents against whom they had good records. 

    For example, Botvinnik was way down on board 8 because his opponent, Matulovic, had a “Botvinnik complex” and had a poor record against him. Likewise, Taimanov on board 7 had a huge plus against Uhlmann. The second round brought gasps, cheers and hand clapping when Larsen went down I flames in the following game.  

[Event "Rest of World vs USSRm Belgrade"] [Site ""] [Date "1970.03.31"] [Round "2"] [White "Bent Larsen"] [Black "Boris Spassky"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "A01"] [Annotator "Stockfish 18"] [PlyCount "34"] [EventDate "1970.03.29"] {A01: Larsen Opening} 1. b3 {Inspired by another great Danish player, Nimzovich, who often played 1.Nf3 and 2.b3, white prepares to fianchetto his B where it will help control the central squares. Fischer played it five times in 1970, winning all five games.} e5 {The most common response, making a grab for the center and limiting the scope of white's B.} 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. c4 {This isn't played very often, but its results are on a par with the much more common 3.e3.} Nf6 4. Nf3 {Real hypermodern stuff, luring the e-Pawn forward.} e4 {Black does best to accept the challenge as either 4...Bc5 or 4...d6 allow white easy equality.} 5. Nd4 Bc5 6. Nxc6 {White's idea here is to get rid of the N and gain control over d4 and e5.} (6. Nf5 O-O 7. e3 d6 8. Ng3 Re8 9. Nc3 {is equal. Aravindh,C (2607)-Zhigalko,S (2572) chess.com INT 2023}) 6... dxc6 { By capturing away from the center Spassky opens up the diagonal for his B. 6... bxc6 would be less effective.} 7. e3 Bf5 8. Qc2 {Black is already better.} Qe7 9. Be2 O-O-O {White is experiencing difficulties. Black has more space and white is unable to play d4. For white, castling K-side would be very risky. Clearly Larsen has not come out of the opening well.} 10. f4 {This is the losing move.} (10. O-O Ng4 11. Bxg4 Bxg4 12. Nc3 f5 13. a3 Qg5 {White's position is lost. For example...} 14. f4 exf3 15. Rf2 f4 16. Ne4 Qg6 {and white has no reasonable moves.}) (10. a3 {at leasty keeps him in the game.} Kb8 {Unlike in the game black has no crushing reply and so must continue in a positional manner.} 11. b4 Bd6 12. c5 Be5 13. Bxe5 Qxe5 14. Nc3 {Black is better and has the initiative after 14...h4}) 10... Ng4 {After this black can win in any number of ways, including a sacrifice on d2 followed by ...Nxe3 which gives him a winning attack. White has absolutely no move that offers any kind of resistance!} 11. g3 {[his further weakens the position if his K, but he really does nit have a good move. Black has at least a half dozen moves that win, but Spassky plays the best one.} h5 {The idea of this is to rip white's guts out with ...h4. Also vicious is 11...Rxd2} (11... Rxd2 12. Qxd2 Nxe3 13. Ba3 Bxa3 14. Nxa3 Ng2+ 15. Kf1 Bh3 16. Nc2 Rd8 17. Qc3 Nxf4+ 18. Kf2 Nd3+ 19. Bxd3 Rxd3 20. Qxg7 e3+ 21. Kf3 e2+ 22. Kf2 Qe4 {and it's pretty obvious white is donr for.}) 12. h3 {There's nothing for white to do but await his fate. He can't even try to run to the Q-side with his K.} (12. Qc3 Nxe3 13. dxe3 Bb4) (12. Kd1 Nxe3+ {wins the Q}) 12... h4 13. hxg4 hxg3 14. Rg1 {Now black could win with the coldblooded 14...Bxe3, but Spassky has a more flashy finish.} Rh1 $3 {[%mdl 512] The crowd of spectators roared and applauded after this move.} (14... Bxe3 15. Nc3 Bf2+ 16. Kd1 Bxg1) 15. Rxh1 {This deflects the R back to h1 and so gains a tempo. |^t also caused the spectators to erupt with cheering and applause.} g2 16. Rf1 Qh4+ 17. Kd1 gxf1=Q+ {White resigned. It's mate in three. What a humiliating debacle for the world team's top board. Accuracy: White = 23%, Black = 94%.} (17... gxf1=Q+ 18. Bxf1 Bxg4+ 19. Kc1 Qe1+ 20. Qd1 Qxd1#) 0-1

Sometimes Less Is More

    In his book The Art of Sacrifice in Chess, the old master of attack, Rudolf Spielmann, game some instructions on the sacrifice of the exchange. 

    Spielmann wrote that the absolute value of the pieces is what form the basis on which most exchanges are made, i.e. Q=9, R=5, B and N and B=3 and P=1. However, it is the relative value that is the decisive factor for positional play and especially for sacrifices. To wit: 

1) The simpler the position, the more the absolute value carries weight. 

2) The more complicated the position, the more the relative value of the pieces gain in importance. 

 

    When it comes to the sacrifice of the exchange it is never an exactly even transaction so you either win the exchange or you lose it. Exchange sacrifices are dependent on specific positional and tactical factors. Spielmann offers the following helpful definitions: 

 

1) Any voluntary loss in material counts as a sacrifice. 

2) The sacrifice of the exchange is when a Rook is given up for a minor piece and a Pawn. 

3) The term sacrificing the exchange when applied to situations where a Rook is given up for a minor piece and two Pawns is incorrect; it should be wins two Pawns for the exchange. 

4) The sacrifice of the exchange can serve any purpose. It can be a sacrifice for: 

    a) Development 

    b) An obstructive sacrifice, a sacrifice intended to blockade a square, file, rank or diagonal. 

    c) A sacrifice designed to expose the opponent's King. 

 

    In all cases, the sacrifice of the exchange is designed to improve the position of the minor pieces. Here is a case in point taken from the game Spielmann vs. Tarrasch that was played in Carlsbad 1923. 

    Spielmann gave this game in his classic The Art of Sacrifice in Chess. A great attacker and sacrificial player, in this book he classified various tactical motifs, but as with almost all of those old books from pre-engine days, analytical errors abound in the examples. Still, there is a lot to be learned from the book. 

 

    Even if his evaluations and play in the following game are not always correct, they worked against the great Tarrasch which says something...we can learn ideas from them and maybe use theme in our own games.

  

[Event "Carlsbad"] [Site "Karlsbad CSR"] [Date "1923.05.06"] [Round "?"] [White "Rudolf Spielmann"] [Black "Siegbert Tarrasch"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C30"] [Annotator "Stockfish 18"] [PlyCount "61"] [EventDate "1923.04.28"] {C30: King's Gambit Declined} 1. e4 e5 2. f4 Bc5 {Statistically, at least in my database, this move produces much poorer results for black than accepting the game. White has a lot of ways to counter this move and many times black will end up with a much worse position than if he had accepted it. If black wants to decline the gambit then the Falkbeer (2...d5) is a better choice. The idea is that the B prevents white from castling.} 3. Nf3 (3. fxe5 {This is a trap that loses for white.} Qh4+ 4. g3 Qxe4+) 3... d6 4. c3 {Other options are 4.Nc3 and 4.Bc4, but the text is considered slightly better.} Bg4 {This pin is somewhat annoying and the method white uses here to counteract it originated with Frank Marshall.} 5. fxe5 dxe5 6. Qa4+ {Equally good is 6.Bc4} Bd7 7. Qc2 Nc6 8. b4 {Black's next move is forced. 8...Bd6 is necessary to prevent white from winning the e-Pawn.} Bd6 9. Bc4 {Now 9.b5 isn't so effective.} (9. b5 Na5 10. d4 {1-0 (41)} c6 {Black has full equality.}) 9... Nf6 10. d3 Ne7 11. O-O Ng6 12. Be3 {This permits black to obtain counterplay so 12.a4 would have been more precise.} b5 13. Bb3 a5 14. a3 axb4 15. cxb4 {Black's Q-side advance has succeeded in forcing white to play this which has resulted in black achieving full equality.} O-O 16. Nc3 c6 17. h3 Qe7 18. Ne2 Bb8 {The purpose of this move is to exchange Bs after ... Ba7 in the hope of establishing a N on f5, but the maneuver is somewhat labored.} 19. Kh2 Ba7 20. Bg5 h6 21. Bxf6 Qxf6 22. Nfd4 Qd6 23. Nf5 Bxf5 $1 24. Rxf5 Nf4 25. Rf1 {Up to this point black has defended himself ably and picked up a positional advantage in the better P-formation because white's Ps on a3 and d3 are backward and may become weak. For his part white has built up strong pressure on the f-file which Tarrasch seems to underestimate. (Spielmann) Actually, white's last move gives black a slight advantage, but he must play accurately because the slightest slip will give white tactical chances. It doesn't matter how great a positional advantage you have, miss a tactical shot and the positional advantage means nothing!} (25. Nxf4 {This is the correct move.} exf4 26. e5 Qd7 27. Rxf7 Rxf7 28. e6 Qd6 29. exf7+ Kf8 {and the chances are equal.}) 25... g6 {Here Spielmann makes the incorrect claim that it would be better to decline white's offer of the exchange implied by his last move and that black had little choice but to play 25...Ne6. The text move "wins" the exchange at the cost of enabling white's attack, hitherto directed only against f7, to spread over the whole K-side. (Spielmann)} (25... Ne6 {This move does result in an equal position so Spielmann is correct in that claim.} 26. Qa2 Rae8 {with equal chances.}) 26. R1xf4 {This is white's best move, but it is black who has a slight advantage.} exf4 27. e5 {Black can claim a slight advantage here... provided he finds the best moves...it is this difficult task that makes the games of great attackers like Spielmann, Nezhmetdinov, Tal and others so entertaining...in the complications their opponents often went astray.} Qe7 ( 27... Qc7 {was a little more accurate.} 28. Rf6 Kh8 29. Qc3 Be3 30. Rxc6 Qd8 31. Rf6 (31. e6+ Kh7 32. exf7 {would be a bad mistake.} f3 33. Ng3 Qg5 34. Qf6 Rxa3 {with a winning attack.}) 31... Qe7 32. Nxf4 Rxa3 {Black is slightly better.}) 28. Rf6 {Spielmann has completely misjudged the position, not only did he do so during the game, he did so when he wrote the book! He wrote - "The powerful establishment of the R on this square is the point of the sacrifice. There are now many threats, above all 29. d4 and only then capture at g6 by either the R or Q. True, Black remains with two Rs for the Q, but his K-side is so critically weakened that successful defense is, in the long run, impossible. Yet this would be better than the defense which Black actually selects." That's all wrong as any engine will tell you. Stockfish puts black's advantage at nearly 3 Pawns.} (28. Qxc6 {This move, not mentioned by Spielmann, would have drawn which is white's best course.}) 28... Kg7 {[%mdl 8192] The critical position! Spielmann makes no comment on this move, but it is the one that costs black the game. It's not the only losing move available to black thought. However, he also has a winner.} (28... Qxe5 $2 {loses after} 29. Rxg6+ Kh7 (29... Kh8 30. Rxh6+ Kg8 31. d4) 30. d4) (28... Kh8 $3 {and black is winning.} 29. Qc3 Be3 {White is the exchange down and there is no good way he can conjure up any kind of an attack.} 30. Qxc6 Qxe5 {is winning for clack.}) 29. d4 {Now white wins quickly.} Bxd4 30. Bxf7 Bxe5 31. Qxg6+ {Black resigned, It's mate next move.} 1-0

Bushwhacked by Arthur Maas

    Although sometimes associated with the Netherlands due to his participation in European tournaments, Arthur James Mass (1857-1933, 76 years old) was described as "thoroughly English". That’s because he was. Although he died in Hyeres, Var, France, where he spent his later years, he was born in Southwark, a district of London, England.

    Maas was primarily active in the late 1800s and early 1900s. While not a top level player (Chessmetrics estimates his highest rating to have been 2317 in 1932) he participated in several notable international events. 

    At the age of 18 Maas won both the junior and senior handicap events at the City of London Chess Club. In the senior final, he defeated the established master W. Norwood Potter while receiving odds of Pawn and move. 

    Maas’ obituary described him as, “an astonishingly good player in his early days...Maas will always be remembered as the donor of the Philidor Cup and he ran at his own expense four contests for it at Hyeres, whilst a fifth was undertaken by the Nice chess club, who are now the owners of the trophy.” 

     In this game Maas’ opponent makes a routine move that established a N outpost on e5 and offers to ease his defense by exchanging a piece...normally a good idea, but Instead he got bushwhacked.  

 

[Event "Thornton Heath CC - Clapham CC m"] [Site ""] [Date "1911.01.04"] [Round "?"] [White "A. Howell"] [Black "Arthur J. Maas"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "D53"] [Annotator "Stockfish 18"] [PlyCount "50"] [EventDate "1911.??.??"] [Source "(London) Globe, "] {D53: Queen's Gambit Declined} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 Ne4 {This results in simplification, but in practical play it does not serve him any better than the usual 5...h6} 6. Bxe7 Qxe7 7. cxd5 Nxc3 8. bxc3 exd5 9. Bd3 {9.Qb3 presents black with the problem of how to effectively develop his B. .} (9. Qb3 c6 10. Bd3 O-O 11. Ne2 Nd7 12. O-O {with a compfortable game. Korchnoi,V (2650)-Pfleger,H (2520) Bath 1973}) 9... Nd7 10. Nf3 O-O 11. O-O Nf6 12. Rc1 Bg4 13. h3 Bh5 14. Re1 Ne4 15. c4 c6 16. c5 {So far the play of both sides has left nothing to criticize, but this move takes the pressure off the center and allows black to commence operations on the K-side. As a result white cannot do anything on the Q-side. Even so, his position has no weaknesses so he should have no trouble defending himself.} f5 17. Be2 f4 18. Qb3 Rae8 {Here white can play just about any reasonable move, for example 19. exf4, and he would be OK. However, his next move, which looks good because the N occupies the usually good post on e5 and, at the same time, offers to exchange anoher piece, looks logical. Butm the move contains a fatal flaw.} 19. Ne5 {[%mdl 8192] This move exposes the f2 sqaure to an attack which Maas conducts with great vim.} Qh4 {Alert play! Black has a decisuve advantage.} 20. Bxh5 {There is not a single move that will save white.} (20. f3 Qf2+ 21. Kh1 Ng3+ 22. Kh2 Nxe2) 20... Qxf2+ 21. Kh2 Rxe5 {[%mdl 512] Very nice! One of the protectors of f3 is eliminated.} 22. dxe5 f3 23. Bxf3 {Black has a forced mate. } Rxf3 {Black mates.} 24. Qxb7 Rxh3+ {[%mdl 512]} 25. Kxh3 Qg3# {A brilliant finish by Maas.} 0-1

Play the Fred?!

    Jalo Aatos Fred (1917-2003) was a Finnish player, two-time Finnish Champion (1947 & 1955) and the Olympiad individual bronze medal winner in 1964. His main claim to fame is the Fred Defense, a questionable (some prefer the term aggressive) response to 1.e4 where black plays 1...f5 with the aim of surprising white. 

    The Fred is most often seen in online Blitz games where even a few very strong players have given it a try. In the following over the board game black never even got a sniff of equality. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Event "Challengers Tmt, Hastings"] [Site ""] [Date "2004.01.05"] [Round "9"] [White "Arne Hagesaether"] [Black "Charles Linford"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B00"] [WhiteElo "2058"] [BlackElo "2179"] [Annotator "Stockfish 18"] [PlyCount "63"] [EventDate ""] [EventType ""] [EventRounds ""] [EventCountry ""] [Source ""] [SourceVersion ""] [SourceVersionDate ""] [SourceQuality ""] {Fred Defense} 1. e4 f5 {My database has ober 2.000 games, most in Blitz events, where the Fred was played and it’s surprising that by far white’s most popular move is 2.d4 whicj only gives him a 50-50 chance of winning! The next most popular move is 2.Nf6 which produces about the same results.} 2. exf5 {This is white's best reply (58% wins, 42% losses).} Nf6 {Best.} (2... Nh6 { This is not a good idea. After} 3. Qh5+ Nf7 4. Nf3 e6 5. Ne5 Qf6 6. Qxf7+ Qxf7 7. Nxf7 Kxf7 8. fxe6+ dxe6 {It's probably going to be a long game, but wjite is a P up and black has no winning chances.}) 3. Be2 {The threat is 4.Bh5+} (3. g4 {is interesting.} h6 4. Nf3 d5 5. Ne5 e6 6. Ng6 {White is a bit better.}) ( 3. d4 {This is probably white's best reply. Engine analysis runs} d5 4. Bd3 c5 5. c3 {With a solid centerand a P up.}) 3... h5 (3... d6 4. Bh5+ Nxh5 5. Qxh5+ Kd7 {White does not have a forced win, but nobody would want to play black's position.}) 4. Nf3 d5 5. Nh4 Bd7 6. d4 {Black has not made any glaring errors, but white already has a strategically won positio.} Qc8 {A feeble attempt at getting the ( back.} 7. Bd3 c5 8. c3 cxd4 9. cxd4 Nc6 10. Be3 {White need not be in any hurry to play Ng6. He first completes hi development.} Qc7 11. Nc3 Qb6 12. Qd2 Nb4 13. O-O Nxd3 14. Qxd3 Rc8 15. Rfc1 {One is tempted to say wrong R, but it really doesn't matter which one he places pn c1.} Kf7 {Black has little choice. He either has to move something or resign. White is now ready to proceed with the gutting of his opponent.} 16. Ng6 Rg8 17. Ne5+ Ke8 18. Nxd7 Kxd7 19. Na4 {[%mdl 32] A piece with a future!} Qb4 20. Nc5+ Ke8 21. Ne6 Rxc1+ 22. Rxc1 Rh8 {To repeat... he either has to move something or resign. } 23. Qc2 Kf7 24. Ng5+ Kg8 25. Qc8 {Threatening Qe6#} Qb6 26. Rc7 {Black resigned. There is no point in cntinuing.} Nh7 27. Ne6 Qxb2 28. Rxe7 Qa1+ 29. Bc1 Qxc1+ (29... Qxa2 30. Rxg7#) 30. Qxc1 Bxe7 31. Qc8+ Nf8 32. Qxb7 {and so forth.} 1-0

The Aggressive f-Pawn Advance

    Ludek Pachman (1924-2003) won the 1957 Czechoslovak Championship that was held in Prague. Pachman was a dominant figure in Czechoslovak chess during this era and was known for his strong international performance, including victory in the 1957 Dublin Zonal tournament. 

    Few people realize how strong Pachman was during the late 1950s. (n their December 1959 rating list Chess metrics rates him at 2695 placing him at #15 in the world. That put him in a group with names like David Bronstein, Bobby Fischer, Lazslo Szabo, Miguel Najdorf and Samuel Reshevsky. Mikhail Botvinnik (2797) and Pail Keres (2772) lead the list. 

    Remember these ratings do not compare to those of today! Ratings measure statistical performance against opponents, not absolute strength. A good example of this point was made in the 1970s by  Claude F. Bloodgoo III (1937-2001), a petty criminal who was serving a life sentence in the Virginia State Penitentiary for murdering his mother. 

    Bloodgood was of about Expert (200-2199) strength, but he pumped up his rating to over 2700 when he manipulated the rating system by creating a rated pool of fellow prisoners and submitted fake tournaments. 

    In the process of winning the ‘57 Czech Championship Pachman played the following instructive game that illustrates the motif of advancing the f-Pawn which can be either a high-risk or a high-reward tactical and positional idea that is used to break open the center or launch a K-side attack. 

     In the King's Indian Defense the advance of the f-Pawn is a common aggressive strategy that initiates a Pawn storm against the opponent's castled King.  

[Event "Czech Champ, Prague"] [Site ""] [Date "1957.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Ludek Pachman"] [Black "Jiri Kopriva"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "E94"] [Annotator "Stockfish 18"] [PlyCount "77"] [EventDate "1957.??.??"] {E94: King's Indian: Classical} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Be2 O-O 6. Nf3 e5 7. O-O {This is the classical system.} c6 {Black has multiple options here. Besides the text he can also play 7...Nbd7 or the interesting 7.. .Na6.} 8. Re1 {An old move. Other options are 8.Be3 and 8.d5} Qe7 {Frequently seen is 8...Nbd7} 9. Bf1 {Another old move which really serves to purpose.} Bg4 10. d5 $1 c5 11. h3 {Emphasizing the point that black's 9th move was harmless and he should have played 9...Nbd7. Of course he does not want to trade it foe the N so he has to undevelop it woth 11...Bc8 or go back to d7 where it takes that square away fron the N. As a result of black's less than accurate opening play white already has a considerable advantage.} Bd7 12. a3 a5 13. Bd2 Na6 14. Rb1 b6 15. g3 {Over the last several moves operations on the Q-side have come to a standoff. Consequently, both sides turn their attention to the other side and utilize the motif of advancing their f-Pawn. This advance proves to be more difficult for black. Where is black's N on a3 going to find employment?} h6 (15... Ne8 {Clearing the way for the advance of the f-Pawn.} 16. g4 f5 17. exf5 gxf5 18. Bd3 fxg4 19. Ng5 Nf6 20. hxg4 {White's pieces are aggressively placed agaosnt and the shaky position of black's K.}) 16. Nh4 Kh7 17. Kh2 $18 Ng8 18. Bd3 {This is additional preparation for the advance of the f-Pawn. Pachman judged its immediate advance to be premature.} f6 (18... Rab8 {This attept to generaye play on the Q-side can be ignored by white.} 19. Rg1 Nc7 20. a4 {Black is stopped cold.}) 19. f4 {After this a casual glance at the position may give the impression that black s defenses on the K-side will hold, but, in fact, white is winning.} Qd8 20. f5 g5 {With the P-formation locked up it may look like black has succeeded in defending himself, but watch how Packman opens up the position.} 21. Ng6 Rf7 22. h4 Be8 23. Rh1 Rb7 {Black's pieces are horribly limitde in mobility.} 24. Kg2 {Preparing to open the h-file.} Bxg6 25. fxg6+ Kxg6 26. hxg5 fxg5 {Now the obvious way to continue the attack is 27.Qh5+. In his analysis Pachman concluded that black would get some very good defensive possibilities. After a 30 minute analysis by Stockfish white had a decisive advantage, but there was no forced win, so in principle Pachman was correct.} 27. Be2 {This is a surprising move because it blocks the Qs path to the K-side, but even though it leads to a winning position because 17.Qh5+ gets complicated the text is a bit more clear. As played in the game the B comes into play and the position of black;s K remains very unsafe.} Kh7 (27... Nf6 {prevents Bh6+ but white has} 28. Bg4 {Od courde black will not willing exchange his N which aids in the defense.} Nc7 { Prevents Be6} 29. Qf3 Kf7 (29... Qe7 30. Bxg5 Kf7 (30... hxg5 {30...Kf7 4.96} 31. Bh5+ Nxh5 32. Qxh5+ {mate next move.}) 31. Bxh6 {White has a winning attack against the nude black K.}) 30. Rbf1 Qe7 31. Be6+ Nxe6 32. dxe6+ Qxe6 33. Nd5 {wins the N.}) 28. Bg4 Nc7 {Even though this N aids the defense by covering e6 white's pieces are so well coordinated that black no longer has any defense.} 29. Bf5+ Kh8 30. Qh5 Ne8 31. Rh2 (31. Bxg5 {Pachman saw this, but concluded that his way was even stronger. Technically there is not that much difference between the two moves, but practically speaking Pachman was correct.} Nef6 32. Qh4 Qe7 33. Rbf1 Rf8 {Strategically white is winning, but there is no clear path to a breakthrough/}) 31... Bf6 32. Qg6 Rg7 (32... Raa7 { was a smidgen better.} 33. Rxh6+ Nxh6 34. Qxh6+ Kg8 35. Be6+ Rf7 36. Rf1 Bg7 37. Qg6 {White has a decisive advantage.}) 33. Rxh6+ Nxh6 34. Qxh6+ Kg8 35. Be6+ Kf8 36. Rf1 {This pin concludes the game. White wants to mate with Bxg5.} Raa7 37. Bxg5 Raf7 38. Nb5 {Well played! Of course he could have played 38. Bxf6, but black is now out of reasonable moves.} Ke7 39. Rxf6 {Black resigned. The pim decides the game. A very strong performance by Pachman.} (39. Rxf6 Nxf6 40. Bxf6+ Rxf6 41. Qxg7+ Ke8 42. Nc7+) 1-0

Black Scores Against the Isolated d-Pawn

  In this game we see the other side of the Isolated d-Pawn...black wins.

 

 

 

 

[Event "Offerspill Invitational, Oslo"] [Site ""] [Date "2020.06.10"] [Round "?"] [White "Aleksander Fossan"] [Black "Kristian Holm"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "D40"] [Annotator "Stockfish 18"] [PlyCount "82"] [EventDate "2020.06.10"] {D40: Queen's Gambit Declined: Semi-Tarrasch} 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 cxd5 4. c4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 6. Nf3 Be7 7. Bd3 dxc4 8. Bxc4 O-O 9. O-O Nc6 10. a3 b6 11. Re1 Bb7 12. Qd3 Rc8 {Note the similarities between this position and the Szabo - van Seters game in the previous post.} 13. Ba2 {This is the thematic move where white intends to set up the battery of Q+B on the b1-h7 diagonal. White has also tried 13.Bg5 but it has been considerably less successful.} h6 14. Be3 Bd6 15. Rad1 Ne7 {[%mdl 32] Black is preparing a solid blockade of the d-Pawn. While white's position is solid he has little prospects of launching a successful K-side attack.} 16. Ne5 Ned5 17. Bd2 (17. Bb1 {is not playable.} Nxc3 18. bxc3 Be4 19. Qd2 Bxb1 20. Rxb1 Ne4 {wins the c-Pawn.}) 17... Re8 { White has what would probably be better options tan what he now plays/} 18. Qh3 {While this move cannot be classified as a mistake it allows black to change the P-formation and put white on the defensive.} (18. Nxd5 Nxd5 19. Bb1 f5 20. g4 {with some attacking prospects although black should be able to defend himself.}) (18. f4 a6 19. f5 {Black has no real way of securing an advantage and the chances are equal.}) 18... Nxc3 19. bxc3 {Although it is only temporary this, the Isolated Pawn Pair, is another typical P-formation. Ir generally arises, as it does here, from a N blockading an Isolated d-Pawn is exchanged. Often the Ps on c3 and d4 are a serious weakness if the opponent can blockade the c-Pawn and attack it. It also offers the opponent a spatial advantage in the Q-side. Additionally, the isolated a-Pawn is weak.} Ne4 { This is far better than grabbing the a-Pawn and risk getting skinned alive.} ( 19... Bxa3 20. Bxh6 gxh6 21. Re3 h5 22. Qg3+ Kf8 23. Qf4 Ke7 24. d5 Bd6 25. Rf3 Bxe5 26. Qxe5 Nxd5 27. Qxh5 Rf8 28. c4 Nf6 29. Rxf6 Qxd1+ 30. Qxd1 Kxf6 { White's Q has a chance of prevailing against the two Rs.}) 20. Bb1 {It would probably have been better to have tried to advance the f-Pawn f4- and f5 which is more active than this B retreat which offers few prospects in this position. } Nxd2 21. Rxd2 Bxe5 {Taking on a3 would greatly enhance white's prospects.} ( 21... Bxa3 22. Qd3 {Completely justifying his 20th move.} f5 23. Ra2 Qe7 24. g4 {and white has seized the initiative!}) 22. Rxe5 Qd6 {After this all of the defects of the Isolated Pawn Pair are clearly seen.} 23. Qd3 Qxa3 {It's still wrong to grab the a-Pawn! Fortunately for black his opponent misses the chance to equalize.} (23... Qc6 {Threatens mate and wins the P on c3.} 24. f3 Qxc3 { and black is winning.}) 24. Qh7+ Kf8 {How does white meet the threat of ... Qc1+?} 25. Rde2 {[%mdl 8192] Not this way!} (25. Rd1 Rxc3 26. Qh8+ Ke7 27. Qxg7 Kd8 (27... Rc1 {is a tactucal blunder...} 28. Rxe6+ Kxe6 29. Qxh6+ Kd7 30. Bf5+ Kc7 31. Rxc1+ {White is winning.}) 28. Qf6+ Qe7 29. Qxh6 {White is better.}) ( 25. Rd1 Qxc3 {This is the correct cpature, but white is equal after} 26. Qh8+ Ke7 27. Qxg7 Bd5 {White threatened to sacrifice his R on e6.} 28. Bg6 {White's Q, R and B working togeyjer assure him of at least equality.}) 25... Rxc3 26. Qh8+ Ke7 27. Qxg7 Rc1+ 28. Re1 Rxe1+ 29. Rxe1 Qa5 30. Rd1 (30. Re3 {Ublike in the previous variations white can't get his pieces coordinated because after} Qg5 {white has to exchange Qs and the ending is clearly lost.}) 30... Qg5 31. Qxg5+ hxg5 {[%mdl 4096] The material is equal, but black demonstrates that the ending is a clear win for him because of white's weak Ps.} 32. f3 Kd6 {Both Ks approach the center.} 33. Kf2 Rc8 34. Be4 Bd5 35. Rb1 f5 36. Bd3 Rc3 37. Ke2 Ra3 38. Rb2 Ra4 39. f4 gxf4 (39... Bxg2 40. Kf2 Bd5 41. fxg5 Rxd4 {is also winning.}) 40. h4 Rxd4 41. h5 {The P poses no threat.} f3+ {[%mdl 512] White resigned. Instructive play by Holm. Also, kudos to Fossan for realizing the ending was lost.} (41... f3+ 42. Kf2 Rh4 43. gxf3 Rh2+ 44. Kg3 Rxb2 45. h6 { Black to play and win.} f4+ (45... e5 {also works.} 46. Bxf5 Bg8 47. h7 Bxh7 48. Bxh7 a5 {and wins.}) 46. Kh3 e5 47. h7 Be6+ 48. Kh4 Rh2+ 49. Kg5 a5 {etc.}) 0-1

A Lesson on the Isolated d-Pawn

 

    There are a couple of advantages to studying the Isolate dd-Pawn- formation. It can occur in a whole gaggle of openings (QGD-Semi-Tarrasch, English-Symmetrical Variation, Caro-Kann-Panov Attack and Exchange Variation, Sicilian-Alapin and Alekhine Defense-2P’s Attack to name a few. 

    There is Isolated Knowledge or Specialization which is what GM Lev Alburt calls it when you choose one position and analyze it exhaustively. He advises that this will allow you to gain mastery over an important position so that you can play it confidently from either side. Such specialization also will increase your general chess knowledge and allow you to become acquainted with similar P-structure themes. 

    Alburt also advises that this will increase you pattern recognition and tactical skills which allows you to take strategy and tactics from known positions and apply them to similar situations. 

    Many players, especially older players who grew up on Nimzovich, assume that the Isolated d-Pawn, like any isolated Pawn is weak and should be avoided. That’s not true. In the 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi Candidates Match black had and Isolated d-Pawn in seven games without a loss. 

    The most common occurrence of this P-formation has it opposed by a P on e6 as in the following diagram: 

 

    A study of the ending shows that the P-structure is unfavorable for white. However, the middlegame is much more complicated. The isolated P can, in certain circumstances, attain a dynamic strength when the piece placement is favorable. In some cases the Isolated d-Pawn can be sacrificed by advancing it. 

    In other cases the Pawn supplies two good bases of operation for a N on c5, especially when black has played …a6 and …b4 in order to develop his B at b7. The other good N outpost is e5. From e5 the N can help to work up an attack against the K and if black drives it away with …f6 his K-side becomes weak. 

`The following guidelines will be helpful in determining the correct handling of positions with an Isolated d-Pawn. 

 

White: 

1. Avoid any great simplification 

2. Post pieces to allow the advance d5 at a suitable moment or to force black to tie up his pieces preventing the advance. 

3. Occupy e5 with a N and attack K-side or operate on the c-file. 

 

Black: 

1. Advance of the d-Pawn must be prevented. This can best be done by posting a N on d5 (or less preferable, a B) 

2. Post pieces (e.g. …Nc6 and …Bf6 to tie white’s pieces to the defense of the d-Pawn

3. Seek simplification and play for the ending.

 

[Event "Hilversum"] [Site ""] [Date "1947.08.06"] [Round "?"] [White "Laszlo Szabo"] [Black "Frits van Seters"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "E56"] [Annotator "Stockfish 18"] [PlyCount "51"] [EventDate "1947.??.??"] { E57: Nimzo-Indian: Rubinstein} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 c5 5. Bd3 d5 6. Nf3 O-O 7. O-O Nc6 8. a3 cxd4 9. exd4 dxc4 10. Bxc4 {Along the way to this position there have been a great many possible move selections for both players.} Be7 {Here it is worth noting the importance of the P on a3. On one hand it prevents the blockading of the d-Pawn by ...Nb5-d5 and at the same time iy prepares for white to play Qd3 which, in conjunction with the moves Bg5 and Ba2-b1 can be used to launch a K-side attack. Another possible setup of the white pieces which Nimzovich recommended is Qe2, Be3, Rfd1 and Rac1. In that case white first develops all his pieces and waits for a suitable moment before beginning his attack. However, experience has shown that white has better prospects if he plays as Szabo did in this game because a speedy attack against the black K is more effective.} 11. Re1 b6 {According to Czech GM, author and theorist Ludek Pachman 11... a6 is less advisable, but later theory has proven black’s resources are adequate.} 12. Qd3 {Although white does not play it in this game, this move prepares for a potential Q+B battery with the B on b1.} Bb7 13. Bg5 { Pachman gives this move a ? saying that black underestimates the danger that the aggressive placement of white’s pieces presents, thinking he has sufficient time to complete his development undisturbed.} Rc8 14. Rad1 { This is a critical position for black. His best options are 14...Nd5 (Pachman's recommended move) or to play 14...h6 forcing white to make a decision of where to retreat the B (e3 or h4). In either case the position remains equal.} Qc7 {This move is not good and black immediately finds himself in difficulty.} (14... Re8 {This rather poor move shows just how precarious black's position is.} 15. h4 g6 16. d5 Nxd5 17. Bxd5 exd5 18. Nxd5 Bxg5 19. hxg5 Rxe1+ 20. Rxe1 Qf8 21. Nf6+ Kh8 22. Qd7 Ba8 23. Qh3 h5 24. g4 {1-0 Ribli, Z (2570)-Wells,P (2530) Szeged 1997}) 15. Ba2 $16 Rfd8 {Black's position may look pretty solid, but white is practically winning in this position.} 16. h3 { The reason for this move is that it forestalls any tactical complications that could arise from black playing ... Ng4} (16. Qe2 Re8 17. Bxf6 Bxf6 18. d5 Na5 19. dxe6 fxe6 20. Nb5 Qc2 21. Bxe6+ Kf8 22. Ne5 Bxe5 23. Qxe5 {1-0 Scarella,E (2330)-Leitao,R (2445) Mar del Plata 1996}) 16... Rd7 {Black is continuing to play in a much too routine fashion. He is now preparing to double R’s and put pressure on white’s d-Pawn, but the move allows white the desired breakthrough 16... h6 would have at least allowed him some hope.} (16... h6 17. Bh4 Nh5 {White has two good options here. One is the thematic 16.Bb1, but even stronger appears to be} 18. d5 Bxh4 19. Nxh4 Ne7 20. d6 Qc6 21. Re4 Nf6 22. Rd4 {with an excllent position.}) 17. d5 {This central breakthrough quickly decides the game.} Nxd5 18. Bxd5 Qd8 {This is a plausible movem but 18...h6 would have enabled him to hang on because the potential for complications is enormous!} 19. Qe4 {From the human point of view this is, as Pachman said, the decisive maneuver. Residing in my database was an old analysis of this game using what at the time was one of the best engines available (Houdini 1.03a w32) analyzing with 2 threads at 6 seconds per move. The analysis lead to some positions with difficult piece combinations. Needless to say, Stockfish 18 deatroyed the analysis.} (19. Bxe7 {This is the engine's esoteric line which no human would consider.} Qxe7 20. Qb5 Rdd8 (20... Rcd8 21. Bxc6 Rxd1 22. Rxd1 Rxd1+ 23. Nxd1 Bc8 {and white is two pieces up!}) 21. Be4 Qc7 22. Qe2 h6 23. Nb5 Qb8 24. Rxd8+ Rxd8 25. Rc1 Na5 26. Bxb7 Nxb7 27. Nbd4 {and white has won a N for a P and has a technically won game.}) 19... exd5 {This falls in with white's plan and results in a quick end.} (19... Bxg5 {is, by far, the best practical chance.} 20. Nxg5 Qxg5 {Now white is forced to find the onlt winning move.} 21. Bxe6 Rxd1 22. Bxc8 Ne5 23. Bxb7 Nf3+ 24. Qxf3 Rxe1+ 25. Kh2 Re6 { White has a B+N vs. a R which theoretically is winning, but practically things would not be so clear!}) 20. Nxd5 {White is clearly winning.} Bxg5 {Just one move too late.} 21. Nxg5 {Szabo finishes up with sledgehammer blows.} g6 22. Qh4 h5 23. Nf6+ {[%mdl 512]} Qxf6 24. Rxd7 Nd8 25. Re8+ Kg7 26. Rxf7+ {[%mdl 512] Black resigned. Nice finish!} (26. Rxf7+ Nxf7 27. Ne6+ {wins the Q.}) 1-0

Dobbs Ferry

    Dobbs Ferry is an historic village situated on the Hudson River and located approximately 20 miles north of Midtown Manhattan. A rather unique chess tournament was held there in the summer of 189. 

    It was originally announced as a handicap tournament with 3 classes, with odds of Pawn and Move given to players one class down and odds of a Knight given to players two classes down from their opponent. Exactly how the classes were determined is not known. When the tournament was actually played Edward Behr alone was assigned a fourth class. 

    Each player played four opponents in the first four rounds, and then the top six players met in a fifth round. That explains why the bottom four players only played four games. 

 

    The winner of the following game was the amazing Harold M. Phillips (1874-1967), a lawyer by profession, whose tournament carer spanned 70 years. 

    In 1903, he won Manhattan Chess Club Championship. He was the organizer and director of the great 1924 New York tournament and played third board for United States in the 1930 Olympiad held in Hamburg. He served President of the Manhattan Chess Club in the 1930s, President of the Marshall Chess Club, and President of the Intercollegiate Chess League. 

    His opponent was James Hanha, (1840-1923). Major Hanham was born in Woodville, Mississippi and died in New York City at the afe of 83.. Despite his Southern origins, he fought for the side of the Union during the Civil War where he saw action at Fort Pickens and Baton Rouge. After the Civil War, he moved to Manhattan. He is best remember for the Hanham Variation of the Philidor Defense.

 

[Event "Dobbs Ferry, New York"] [Site ""] [Date "1898.07.02"] [Round "1"] [White "Harold Phillips"] [Black "James Hanham"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C41"] [Annotator "Stockfish 18"] [PlyCount "67"] [EventDate "1898.??.??"] {C41: Philidor Defence} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nd7 {Originally known as the Lord Variation, this move was reintroduced by Hanham in a tournament in New York in 1889. Black gets a constricted game tjst requires considerable patience to handle. His plan is to support the e-Pawn, thus holding the center. White has more freedom, but will have difficulty in breaking through.} 4. Bc4 c6 {This is no opening for the careless. This move is necessary to prevent white from getting a N on d5 and at the same time it prepares ...Qc7 which supports the center. On the minus side black's d-Pawn is left backward.} (4... Ngf6 {This routine move runs into} 5. dxe5 Nxe5 (5... dxe5 6. Ng5 {wins}) 6. Nxe5 dxe5 7. Bxf7+) 5. Bb3 {Apparently played with the idea of delay black's intended advance ...b5 and ...a5, but most often white castles.} (5. Ng5 Nh6 6. a4 exd4 7. O-O Ne5 8. Bb3 Be7 9. f4 Ng6 10. Qxd4 O-O 11. Nf3 {with an actice position, but black's K is solidly defended. Pavasovic,D (2502)-Oll,L (2630) Nova Gorica 1999}) 5... Be7 6. Be3 {Gaining space with 6.c4 was a good alternative.} Ngf6 $11 7. Nc3 O-O 8. Qd3 {A better alternative was 7.a4 after which black would have no good way to advance on the Q-side and he would have to wait for white's attack to develop.} b5 {[%mdl 32]} 9. Ne2 (9. dxe5 { was better.} Nxe5 10. Nxe5 dxe5 11. Qxd8 Rxd8 12. f3 {with a bprong position that offers equal chances.}) 9... a6 {Too slow. More active would have been 9.. .exd4 and 10...c5} 10. O-O {This allows black to seize the initiative. White should have initiated multiple exchanges on e5.} c5 {Well played.} 11. dxc5 dxc5 {Correct was 11...Nxc5} 12. c4 b4 {The struggle will now be for possession of the open file and each side will try to place a N on an outpost.} 13. Rfd1 Qc7 $15 14. Ng3 Nb6 15. Qe2 a5 {[%mdl 32]} 16. Bc2 a4 {These pawns are not as dangerous as they look because there is no way for black to force an opening. However, the Ps do serve to keep white's pieces constricted and black has more mobility.} 17. b3 {An old note claimed this is unnecessary because white should not have touched this side, but played om the K-side as he does later. Engines disagree and recommend Phillips' move.} a3 {The same old source called this a grave positional error because having the stronger P-formation, it wpu;d have been in nlack's interest to open lines by exchanging Ps. The recommended move here is 17...Re8 with a slight advantage, That said, the annotator was correct in pointing out that now black has given up all his prospects and is soon forced to take defensive measures.} 18. Nh4 g6 {It's important to keep the N out of f5.} 19. Bh6 Re8 20. h3 {This prevents ... Bg4 and, also, the attack on the B on h6 by ...Ng4. This B becomes very annoying later and black has to weaken his position to exchange it.} Ng4 { Black plays ...Ng4 anyway, but this move, apparently an endeavor to force exchanges, is not a good idea. 20...Bb7 and ...Rad8 keeps a slight advanage. From this point on Phillips' play is very energetic.} 21. hxg4 Bxh4 22. Nf1 { [%mdl 32] Watch this N; it will end up on a strong square.} Re6 {Threatening .. .g5 trapping the B.} 23. g5 {After this it's the black B that is in danger because white threatens 24.g3} f6 {The weakening mentioned in the note at move 20.} 24. Qd2 (24. gxf6 {was a bit better.} Bxf6 25. Ne3 Re8 26. Rd2 Bg7 27. Bxg7 Kxg7 28. Rad1 {White is better.}) 24... Bxg5 25. Bxg5 fxg5 26. Qxg5 { White now has his Q in the game.} Bd7 27. Ne3 {White's advantage is that his N and Rs have more activity. With the Q side blocked, black's N looks particularly out of place.} Rf8 28. Rd3 Nc8 29. Rad1 Nd6 {[%mdl 8192] Black has tried to improve the position of his N, but the endeavor proves unsuccessful. Just a bit better would have been 29...Bc6 so as to br able to exchange the N when it goes to d5. In that case te N would find a good square on f5.} 30. Nd5 {The N is now very strongly placed and black no defense to the numerous threats.} Qb8 31. Ne7+ Kg7 $2 {There is no place to hide.} (31... Kf7 {This attempt to run is no better.} 32. Qh4 Rh8 33. f4 exf4 (33... Qd8 34. f5 Rf6 35. Nd5 {snags the R.}) 34. e5 Rxe7 35. Rxd6 {wins}) 32. Nf5+ {[%mdl 512] Very pretty.} Rxf5 (32... Nxf5 33. exf5 Rxf5 34. Rxd7+ Rf7 35. Rxf7+ Kxf7 36. Qh6 Qg8 37. Be4 {and there is no defense to Bd5}) 33. exf5 Rf6 34. Rxd6 { [%mdl 512] A brilliant finish. White has a mate no matter which way black recaptures/} (34. Rxd6 Rxd6 35. Qe7+ Kg8 36. Rxd6 Qe8 37. Qg5 e4 38. fxg6 hxg6 39. Rxg6+ Qxg6 40. Qxg6+ Kf8 41. Qd6+ Ke8 42. Bxe4 Kd8 43. Bc6 Ke8 44. Qxd7+ Kf8 45. Be4 Kg8 46. Qe7 Kh8 47. Qf8#) 1-0

A Perfect Game by Euwe!

  

    Max Euwe is an unappreciated World Champion. He was an amateur player balancing his mathematics career with chess and he had a short reign, plus his style lacked the aggressiveness of his contemporaries. 

    Euwe has wrongly been labeled as a boring, purely positional player. However, he was an elite positional strategist and a brilliant tactician. As an author he wrote over 70 books on chess theory. I read a couple and found then dry and boring. 

    I met Euwe in 1959 and found him to be a refined and kind gentleman who signed his autograph for me writing, “I wish you good luck with chess interest. Sincerely, M. Euwe.” 

 

    In the following game Thomas, who had what was probably the best tournament of his career, made what appears to be an insignificant mistake at move 16, but Euwe shows how a world class player can jump all over such a move! What’s truly amazing about this game is that when doing an analysis with the Fritz GUI and Stockfish 18 Euwe was assigned an accuracy score of a perfect 100%. 

 

Jesse Stapp In a Controversy

    USCF Master Emeritus Jesse W. Stapp (1900-1974) of Dallas, Texas was primarily active in the Southwest during the mid-1900s. He was a two-time champion of the Southwest Open, winning the title in 1937 and 1943. The Master Emeritus title was awarded to players who had maintained a high level of play over many years prior to the rating system being established. 

    In the 1940 U.S. Open in Dallas, Stapp was involved in an amusing incident concerning what happens if you announce mate, but your flag falls.  The incident occurred in the Preliminary Section III from which today's game iss taken. In the Chess Review article the players’ names were not mention, but in a New York Times article they were identified as Stapp and Harold Burdge. 

    Stapp, following an archaic practice, announced mate in 3, but didn’t punch his clock and his flag fell whereupon Burdge claimed the game on time. However, in what appears to have been a show of sportsmanship, they agreed to a draw. But, then the tournament director intervened and ruled that Burdge was the winner. His reasoning was that the game affected who qualified for the finals. 

 

    When the TD changed the result Burdge qualified while Stapp tied for third with Rev. Howard Ohman. They were to play a one game play-off for a spot in the finals. It appears that an upset Stapp withdrew from the tournament because his name does not appear in the crosstable for either the Consolation or Class A tournaments that were held for the non-qualifiers. Ohman and Burdge? Ohman (2.5-6.5) tied with Prof. Arpad Elo for places 7-8. Burdge finished last with 2 points. 

    The TD was correct in ruling that the time forfeit took precedence over whatever the situation was on the board. But...did he have the right to override the player’s decision to agree to a draw? Or, can their agreement be considered as having “fixed” the result? 

    Stapp’s opponent in this games was Dr. Bella Rosa (1905-1977), a Hungarian born concert pianist, composer and professor of music theory at several southwestern United States universities, bit primarily at the University of Tulsa in Oklahoma. He didn’t learn how to play chess until he was 34 years old, but he won the North Texas Championship in 1940 and in 1942 and 1048 he tied for first in the Southwestern Open. He was a 12-time Oklahoma State Champion, and in 1952 won the Tenth Grand National Correspondence tournament. 

 

[Event "US Open. Prelim 3, Dallas"] [Site "Dallas, TX USA"] [Date "1940.08.21"] [Round "5"] [White "Bela Rozsa"] [Black "Jesse W. Stapp"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B44"] [Annotator "Stockfish 18"] [PlyCount "80"] [EventDate "1940.??.??"] {B44: Sicilian: Taimanov} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e6 {One of the ideas of this, the Taimanov Variation is to develop the B to b4 or c5. Tje most popular line is for white can prevent this by 5.Nb5} 5. Bb5 {Highly unusual, but not bad.} (5. Nb5 d6 {Otherwise white plays Nd6+. White can now choose the Maroczy Bind with 6.c4 oy play 6.Bf4}) 5... Qb6 (5... a6 6. Nxc6 bxc6 7. Bd3 Nf6 8. O-O d5 9. e5 Nd7 10. Re1 {with equal chances.}) 6. Bxc6 dxc6 {Recapturing with the other P is equally good.} 7. O-O e5 8. Nf3 Qc7 9. Bd2 f6 {Normally such a move would be frowned upon, but here it strengthens the center and white has no way of taking advantage of the weakened K-side.} 10. Bc3 Be6 {Now a good plan for whiye is 11.Qe2 and 12.Rd1} 11. b3 Bd6 12. Qe2 Ne7 13. Nbd2 Ng6 14. Rfe1 {This serves no purpose. 14.Nc4 hoping to gain the teo Bs was a better idea. Black would simply retreat woth 14...Be7 with appoximate equality.} Qf7 15. Kh1 Bc7 16. a4 Nf4 17. Qf1 {While white has been dawdling Stapp has been getting refy to launch a K-side attack.} g5 18. Ng1 {This prevents ...Bh3} (18. g3 {This attempt to drive out the pesky N is met by} Bh3 19. Qc4 (19. Qg1 {is much, much worse.} Bg2+) 19... Qxc4 20. bxc4 Ne6 {Black is better.}) 18... h5 19. g3 Ng6 20. h3 O-O-O 21. a5 {This is as far as white's Q-side play gets!} f5 {The situation on the K-side is critical for white.} 22. exf5 Qxf5 23. Re3 g4 24. h4 Bd5+ {Rather than grab a P with ... Qxc2 Stapp keeps hammering at the K.} 25. Kh2 Rhf8 26. f3 Qd7 {This is an OK move.} (26... Nxh4 {is a knockout punch.} 27. Bb4 (27. gxh4 Qf4+ 28. Kh1 Qxe3) 27... Qg5 28. Rae1 Nf5 {Keep attacking!} 29. Bxf8 h4 30. Bc5 hxg3+ 31. Kg2 Nh4+ 32. Kh1 Rh8 33. R1e2 Nxf3+ {etc.}) 27. Qe2 gxf3 28. Ndxf3 e4 29. Ng5 Nxh4 30. Nxe4 Nf5 31. Nf6 Rxf6 32. Bxf6 Nxe3 33. Qxe3 {Somehow white seems to have survived the attack and the material is equal, but his position is dead lost because, as Stapp demonstrates, the attack isn't really over!} Re8 34. Qd3 Qg4 35. Ra4 Qe6 36. Bh4 Qe1 {Now it's clear that white's K 1s cornered.} 37. Qf5+ Kb8 {Nate is looming and white has no defense.} 38. Rd4 Re2+ $1 {[%mdl 512]} 39. Nxe2 Qxe2+ 40. Kh3 Qg2# {A mignificent game by Stapp.} 0-1

Impressive Win By Aleksanders Liepnieks

    Here is a game by Aleksanders Liepnieks who was mentioned in a previous post on Tal. He defeats USCF Life Master Walter Cunningham (1943-2010, 66 years old) who was the youngest Master in the country in the late 1950s. He was a psychology Ph.D. and professor at the University of Florida for 30 years. 

 

 

 

 

[Event "US Open, Lincoln, Nebraska"] [Site ""] [Date "1969.08.19"] [Round "?"] [White "Aleksandrs Liepnieks"] [Black "Walter Cunningham"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A46"] [WhiteElo "2051"] [BlackElo "2187"] [Annotator "Stockfish 18"] [PlyCount "83"] [EventDate "1969.08.10"] {E67: King's Indian: Fianchetto Variation} 1. Nf3 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 g6 4. g3 { his is a different animal from the usual K-Ondian. Ny fiachettoing the B white prioritizes K safety and exerts long term pressure on the Q-side and, at the same time neutralizing Black's typical K-side P-storm.} Bg7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O Nbd7 7. Nc3 c6 8. d5 cxd5 9. cxd5 Nc5 10. Nd4 Bd7 {Two more common moves are 10...a5 and 10....Qb6} 11. h3 a5 12. a4 Qc8 {The Q is not especially well placed here.} (12... Qb6 13. e3 Ne8 14. Ra3 Nc7 15. Re1 N7a6 16. Bf1 Nb4 { Black is slightly better. Habibi,A (2190)-Mah,K (2170) Budapest HUN 1995}) 13. Kh2 h5 {This results in a loosening of black's K-side that he will soon regret. Better would have been 13...Nh5} 14. Bg5 Re8 15. e4 Nh7 {The N is not very well placed here. A better plan was to attack white's center with 15...e6} 16. Be3 Qd8 17. Rb1 Rb8 18. f4 h4 {This K-side demonstration has no prospects of success, but it's hard to suggest a constructive plan for black as his counterplay on the Q-side has been stifled. 18...e6 is still his best chance.} 19. g4 {This is not bad, but calling black's bluff and opening up lines on the K-side with 19.gxh4 was even better.} Na6 {Much too passive. Again, his best chance is to look for play in the center with either 19...e6 or even 19...e5} 20. Qd2 e5 {A consistant followup to his last move would have been 20...Nc5. Now the N remains stuck out of play on a6.} 21. dxe6 $1 fxe6 22. Ndb5 Bxb5 23. Nxb5 {None of black's pieces are actively placed and his Ps are weak...white gas a decisive advantage. Liepnieks has no trouble demonstarting the win.} e5 24. f5 Re7 (24... gxf5 {is also hopeless.} 25. exf5 Bf6 26. Nxd6 e4 27. Qd5+ Kg7 28. Nxe8+ Qxe8 29. g5 Nxg5 30. Bxg5 Bxg5 31. f6+ Kh6 32. f7 Qf8 33. Qe6+) 25. fxg6 Nf6 26. Qxd6 {Excanging Qs in no way offers relief from the onslaught. } Rd7 (26... Qxd6 27. Nxd6 Ne8 28. Nf5 Rc7 29. Bb6 Rc2 30. Rfc1 Re2 31. Kh1 { Besides being two (s down black is running out of reasonable moves.}) 27. Qe6+ Kh8 28. Bg5 Nc5 29. Qf5 Nxa4 30. Bxf6 Bxf6 {Black has regained a P, but Liepnieks come up with a powerful move.} 31. Rbd1 {[%mdl 512]} Nc5 (31... Rxd1 {allows a mate in 3.} 32. Qh5+ Kg8 33. Qh7+ Kf8 34. Qf7#) 32. Rxd7 Qxd7 33. Qxf6+ {And so white has won a piece. The game is over.} Kg8 34. Qf7+ Qxf7 35. Rxf7 Nd3 36. b3 Nf4 37. Bf1 Nxg6 38. Bc4 Kh8 39. Bd5 Rc8 40. Rc7 Ra8 41. Bxb7 Rf8 42. Rc8 {Black resigned. An extremely well played game by Liepnieks.} 1-0

An Early Tal Game

    Mikail Tal (1936-1992) was World Champion from 1960 to 1961 and in 1961 I purchased a slim book of his games, The Chess Psychologist World Champion Tal. The book’s author was Alexander Liepnieks (1908–1973) a prominent Latvian-American chess author, editor, and organizer known for his contributions to chess literature and his personal connection to World Champion Tal. 

    He is most famous for authoring the aforementioned book on Tal. Liepnieks (pronounced leep-nyecks) was originally from Riga where he served as the editor of a Latvian chess magazine which gave him unique access to Tal's personal game notes. 

    After leaving Latvia, he eventually settled in Lincoln, Nebraska, where he remained a lifelong promoter of the game and active member of the chess community until his death in 1973. 

    Liepnieks was a strong player who participated in major international tournaments, including Carlsbad in 1923 and 1929. He was many times the champion of Lincoln and the state champion in 1954, 1956 and 1961.

    His book on Tal was important because, as he wrote in the introduction, it was the first definitive collection of Tal's best games published in either English or German and at the time he was unaware of any book on Tal in Russian. He noted that he was able to follow Tal's own analyses and comments in Russian and Latvian in his annotations. 

    This game is a bit unusual because it doesn’t have any of Tal’s flashy tactics. Instead, we see him playing solid chess that simply overcame his opponent who appears to have mode no major errors. 

 

[Event "World Student Team Chp, Uppsala"] [Site ""] [Date "1956.04.10"] [Round "?"] [White "Mikhail Tal (USSR)"] [Black "Borislav Ivkov (Yugoslavia)"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C97"] [Annotator "Stockfoah 18"] [PlyCount "65"] [EventDate "1956.04.05"] {C97: Closed Ruy Lopez: Chigorin Defense} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 {This is the Strong Point variation. Its main idea is to hold the P at e5 as a strong point. White now has two important continuations: 6. Re1 and 6.Qe2. In practice both are equally good. There is a third continuation that's playablem but a bit risky: 6.Bxc6} 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d6 9. h3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4 Qc7 12. Nbd2 Bd7 13. Nf1 Rfe8 14. Ne3 g6 { So far this has all been theory. Tal's next move has been rarely played. White usually plays 15.dxe5 or 15.Bd2} 15. b4 cxb4 16. cxb4 Nc4 (16... Nc6 {would be wrong because after} 17. Bb2 Rac8 18. Bb3 {white has good development.}) 17. Nxc4 bxc4 {This position has been reached before and white usually playes 18. Bd2, but Tal wants to place his B on c3 and the text is designed to prevent black fron playing ...c3} 18. Re3 Bf8 (18... c3 19. Rb1 Rac8 20. Rb3 {and white is slightly better.}) 19. Bb2 Bh6 (19... Bg7 {is more solid.} 20. d5 a5 21. bxa5 Qxa5 {with approximate equality. Bogdanovic,R-Janosevic,D Sombor 1957} ) 20. Ra3 {Threatening 21.dxe5 dxe5 22.Ra5} Qb7 (20... Kh8 {A pass to show the threat.} 21. dxe5 dxe5 22. Ra5 {Threatening Rc5} Bf8 23. Nxe5 c3 24. Bc1 Rxe5 25. Bf4 Bd6 26. Qd4 Re6 27. e5 {with the advantage.}) 21. dxe5 Qxb4 22. Qd4 { Ivkov likely expected 22.Rb1 which is equally good.} (22. Rb1 dxe5 23. g4 { with the initiative.}) 22... Nh5 {After this black;s game collapses.} (22... Rab8 {keeps him in the game.} 23. Rb1 dxe5 24. Nxe5 c3 25. Qxb4 Rxb4 26. Nxd7 Nxd7 27. Bxc3 Rxb1+ 28. Bxb1 Rc8 29. Bb2 {with equal chances.}) 23. exd6 { A note in the book says the temptation to play 23,e6 would lead to an even game, but the analysis that was given was totally wrong.} (23. e6 {This is whoye's strongest move.} Bg7 24. exf7+ Kxf7 25. Ng5+ {Even 25.Qd5+ as in the note would win.} (25. Qd5+ Ke7 26. Bxg7 Nxg7 {Material is equal, but the far reaching eye of Stockfish gives white a nearly 3 P advantage.}) 25... Kg8 26. Qd5+ Be6 27. Nxe6 Bxb2 28. Nc7+ Kh8 29. Nxe8 Rxe8 30. Ra4 Qb5 31. Rb1 Qxd5 32. exd5 {White is up the exchange.}) 23... Bg7 24. e5 Bc6 {A bit better would have been 24...Nf4} 25. Re3 Bxf3 26. Bc3 {White is clearly winning.} (26. Rxf3 Bxe5 {and it's black who has the advantage, White's best practical chance is to give up the Q.} 27. Rb3 (27. Qxe5 Rxe5 28. Bxe5 Qd2 {The material imbalance R+2Bs vs, Q+N makes for a difficult game for both sides though black must be considered a bit better.}) 27... Qxb3 $17) (26. gxf3 {is playable.} Nf4 27. Bc3 Ne6 28. Qh4 {White is only a P up, but has a winning attack.}) 26... Qb5 27. gxf3 Rad8 28. f4 Re6 29. Rb1 Qc6 {and the idea ...Rexd6 leaves Black hopeful.} 30. Rb6 Qc8 31. Bd1 Bh6 32. Bxh5 gxh5 33. f5 {Black resigned, Playing on would be a waste of time.} (33. f5 h4 34. Rf3 Bg5 35. fxe6 fxe6 36. Qe4 Rd7 37. Qc6 Qxc6 38. Rxc6 Bd8 39. Rxc4 {etc.}) 1-0

Free Fred Reinfeld Books

  

    The Hathi Trust digital library has thousands of book you can download and quite a large number of old chess books, but searchig through them can be a chore. 

    HERE is a list of books authored or edited ans revised by Reinfeld; seven are chess books. Of course they are all in Descriptive Notation. Reinfeld had a reputation for cranking out potboilers, but that was only after he found out they made him more money than writing good books. Actually, some of his earlier books were quite good.

Has Stockfish Solved Chess?

I am not much into playing over engine vs. engine games, but this video from GothamChess is entertaining.