Play the Elephant Gambit!

In 1988 this gambit got its international name from The Elephant Gambit by Jensen, Purser and Pape.  Shortly after publication of the book, the authors organized the Elephant Gambit World Tournament (correspondence) which was won by Ernst Rasmussen, an expert, from Washington State.

Recommended book:

      The opening itself dates back to the time of Staunton.  Black ignores the attack on his e-Pawn and immediately tries to seize the initiative.  While the resulting positions are quite sharp, it's generally considered unsound because if White plays accurately Black does not get sufficient compensation for his scarificed P.  But, of course we all know that often White won't play accurately (at least at the level most of us play at) with the result that Black's chances are excellent;  at least they are if he is a good tactician.  If your tactics stink, I'd avoid it.

      Just for fun, I tried it recently in a Blitz game which I played with zero knowledge of any analysis; the result was that I was left a P down but managed to draw anyway.  Things quickly got a little too messy for my taste, but after Qs were traded things settled down; it wasn’t so bad if you don’t mind being a P down with no compensation.

Anon - Tartajubow

Blitz 10m

[Houdini 1.5 x64 (10s)]

[C40: Latvian Gambit]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5 e4 4.Qe2 Nf6 5.d3 Qxd5 [5...Be7 6.dxe4 0–0 7.Nc3 Re8 8.Bd2 b5 9.Qxb5 Na6 10.Nd4 Nxe4 11.Nxe4 Bf6 12.Ne6 fxe6 13.Nxf6+ gxf6 14.0–0–0 exd5 15.Bc3 c5 1–0 (15) Kotronias,V (2590)-Pandavos,P (2360) Peristeri 1993] 6.Nbd2 Be7N [6...Nc6 7.Nxe4 (7.dxe4 Qh5 8.Qb5 Bc5 9.Nb3 (9.e5 Nd7 10.e6 fxe6 11.Nb3 a6 12.Qc4 Be7 13.Be2 Nb6 14.Qe4 Qf5 15.Qxf5 exf5 16.0–0 0–0 17.Bf4 Nd5 18.Bc4 Be6 19.Bg5 Bf7 20.Rad1 Rad8 21.Bxe7 Ndxe7 22.Bxf7+ Kxf7 23.Ng5+ Kg8 Unzicker,W (2525)-Heuer,V (2200) Tallinn 1977 1–0 (39)) 9...Nxe4 10.Be3 Bb4+ 11.c3 Qxb5 12.Bxb5 Bd6 13.Na5 a6 14.Bxc6+ bxc6 15.Nxc6 Bd7 16.Na5 Rb8 17.Nc4 Be7 18.0–0–0 Be6 19.Na5 Bxa2 20.Nc6 Ra8 21.Rhe1 Bd6 Aveskulov,V (2532)-Kalinichev,A (2403) Tula 2008 1–0 (49)) 7...Be6 ½–½ (7) Seeman,T (2422)-Kalinitschew,A Tallinn 2006] 7.dxe4 Qc6 8.e5 Nd5 9.Nb3 0–0 10.c3 Bg4 [10...Rd8 11.h4=] 11.Qe4 f5?! [11...Qd7 12.Bc4 Nb6 13.Bd3± (13.Qxb7? Nxc4 14.Nbd4 c6 15.Qxd7 Nxd7–+) ] 12.exf6 [12.Qc4 Qd7 Black has to keep the Qs on if he has any hope of counterplay. 13.Be2±] 12...Nxf6 13.Qxc6 [13.Qxe7? Re8; 13.Bc4+! Kh8 14.Qe2] 13...Nxc6 [13...bxc6 14.Bc4+ Kh8 15.Ng5±] and the game was eventually drawn.

 

One of the leading exponents of the EG is Philip Corbin, an FM from Barbados.  In the following game he uses it to defeat the much higher rated IM Tadej Sakelsek of Slovenia.

 



Magnus Carlsen

      One of Carlsen’s (b. 1990) great strengths is his broad opening repertoire.  These days at Carlsen’s level, the modern player has to know everything, like a computer. At 16, Carlsen had by then already been a GM for a couple of years, played in his first FIDE World Cup tournament, and achieved 60th place in the world rankings.

      By then it was by clear that Carlsen was a greatly gifted player with a wide range of skills. Carlsen grew in the new chess computer age and the question was would he ever become the world’s number one player. According to Norwegian GM Agdestein, Carlsen tried to know everything, like a computer.
      Carlsen was brought up in a family and coaching environment that acted both as a support for the development of his chess skills and as a protection against any undue pressures that might threaten to disturb normal schooling and family life.  Carlsen's grew up in a disciplined but enjoyable chess-playing environment. This balance was achieved through a regime of light coaching that aimed primarily at facilitating his ability to develop his own skills and regular play in many tournaments.
      In a New in Chess interview immediately after his son had become the world's youngest grandmaster, Magnus's father, Henrik, said, "Everything has gone quicker than we expected ... so far Magnus has enjoyed everything he has done [and] I'd hate to see him lose that joy [in the game]." In the same New in Chess interview Magnus said, "I like open positions with small tactics in them ... threatening and threatening, when I have the initiative ... maybe sacrifice some pawns."
       In March 2004, at the very strong Aeroflot Open, in Moscow Kasparov's former coach, Alexander Nikitin, expressed the view that Carlsen's promise, at 13, could only be compared to that of a young Kasparov. Agdestein commented on Carlsen’s exceptional memory. "Magnus's memory is incredible." After a training session in 2004, Peter Heine Nielsen observed that Carlsen didn't take notes; he just remembered things.
      Carlsen progressed well after gaining the GM title, but he still had a lot of work before he reached the very top level. His rating was high enough to obtain an invitation to the 2004 knock-out world championship, but he was no match for one of the favorites, Levon Aronian, and lost to him in the first round. His result, in the B Group, at Wijk aan Zee 2005, was good but far from outstanding.  However, Carlsen was still only 14 years-old.
      His results began to improve from about the middle of 2005 and by the end of the year he finished 10th in the knock-out World Cup event. This result gained him a qualification place in the next round of world championship Candidates' matches and a 2625 FIDE rating.
      In 2006, no less an authority than Viktor Korchnoi, in an article in New in Chess on the new generation, placed Carlsen, Nakamura and a player named Pentala Harikrishna as among the most promising.  Korchnoi was looking for players with a boundless love of chess as an art, an effort to play in an unconventional manner ... searching for and finding fresh, brilliant ideas and creativity (as opposed to what he described as computer and hack work.  Korchnoi rated Carlsen's "fighting personality" the highest.
      According to Jan Timman, in 2008, in New in Chess, "Carlsen is a strikingly all-round player [who] plays many different types of games and seems to feel at home in all of them."
       Despite Korchnoi’s railing against computers, it has been observed that part of Carlsen’s success is because he is a child of the computer age. He has absorbed a tremendous amount of information that older players couldn't hope to match without the aid of computers.  Anand believes computers do not mean the end for creativity and gifted players like Carlsen (and Anand, himself) play in ways that make them different. Jan  Timman said he thinks Carlsen is at his best in technical positions but at the same time he exhibits deep insight, brilliant tactical ability and demonstrates total commitment and passion.

Magnus Carlsen’s Fansite

Wendell John Lutes

      Lutes is an American bibliophile and chess openings editor.  Born in Indianapolis, Indiana, on 2 January 1938 he contracted Osgood-Schlatter's Disease at age eight and during his long convalescence his grandfather taught him how to play chess.
      Lutes was a Neurological Respiratory Therapist by profession but is best known by chess players as, the way Lutes put it, a student of the "Apostle of Aggression", the late Weaver W. Adams of East Orange, New Jersey, and later S.A. Popel during the late 1950s.  Lutes was known for his exploration of openings of questionable repute.
     His best OTB rating was 2245 after winning the 1961 Indiana Championship and the 1966 Pennsylvania State Open Championship.  Lutes also won the Indianapolis City Championship many times, the Columbus, Ohio Championship, and the Springfield, Illinois Championship. While studying at the Mayo Clinic in 1979 and 1980 Lutes gave up OTB chess and only rarely returned due to his job requirements.
      Lutes authored nine books on the openings which are of the rather romantic variety and are better played OTB than in correspondence play. Lutes became known worldwide for his exhaustive research in chess and his two best known books are Compendium of the King's Gambit and Petroff Defense: Cochrane Gambit.
      About 15 or 20 years ago I entered a correspondence tournament with the CCLA and was pleased to find Lutes among my opponents.  Unfortunately, after a few moves he sent me a post card saying that due to health reasons he was unable to continue.
     The following game is typical of Lutes uncompromising style.

To Everyone:

...and thank you for reading this Blog!

The T's

How Did Masters Get There?

      I recently saw a discussion where they question was asked of titled players exactly what they did to reach 2200.  The answers were interesting.

      Most people on chess forums recommend studying tactics, a scant few say positional play, some endings and just about all ‘class’ players study openings. Most of the people giving this advice are class players themselves. A few years ago there was one popular poster on a forum who gave all kinds of advice on how to improve; anybody (including well respected authors and master players) who disagreed with him was frankly told they did not know what they were talking about. He did succeed in getting his rating from about 1400 to the low 1700s, but when he could no longer play in lower sections and started meeting 1700-1800s he dropped back to 1500 or so.  After bouncing back and forth for a year, he announced he was quitting chess and was never heard from again.  So much for his advice.  Two years of following his own advice got him a hundred points, but he enjoyed two years of fame as the guru of the 1400s on the site.  So, what did the masters themselves say?
      WGM Natalia Pogonina said evaluate your games (by solving tests or with a coach) and find the weakest spot. Eliminate it, then proceed to the next one. This scheme works for anyone, no matter how high or low the level.  This is similar to advice given by Botvinnik in 100 Selected Games.  One thing I have noticed is that many very strong players aren’t very good at explaining what they know.  Somehow they seem to have subconsciously absorbed the information and their advancement was simply too rapid for them to consciously know exactly how they did it.  As one person pointed out, learning is different from understanding. 
       One big issue was the value of books by popular author Jeremy Silman; most people will say his books are very good, but…Silman's books make you feel like you understand the concepts he is teaching, but it is applying those concepts that is the hard part.  Many years ago while in the military I read and reread Pachman’s Modern Chess Strategy and felt I understood the concepts he taught.  In my first tournament game after my discharge, I got into a position where I tried to apply the old Bishops vs. Knights concept and things were progressing quite well.  I managed to block the center and had a good outpost for my Knight against his bad Bishop.  All according to my understanding of the concept…but the problem was my opponent had engineered a mating attack against my King.
      Silman’s books have long been on the best seller lists and many people give the advice to read them. However, one National Master commented that he had never heard another master make the claim that they read Silman's books and became a master.  In his opinion the books by the old classical authors are just as effective.  This master observed that Silman’s most famous book, How to Reassess Your Chess,  is just sales hype although he did admit that is is probably good enough to get some players to 2000.  Of course most players would be more than happy to get to 2000-plus!! He said that he never heard a master say they loved Silman’s books.
      In order to get to 2200, this master  said he played through 3 unannotated games a day for 10 years, solved tactical exercises too numerous to counts, read dozens of chess books.  This method has been advocated by both CJS Purdy and Kenneth Smith.
      Another National Master advised selecting openings that allow you to reach the types of middlegames where you understand the ideas.  He wrote that he jumped from the 1600s to the 1800s after he learned some openings and started applying the middlegame patterns that came from them. He advanced from the 1800s to master after he learned openings that suited his playing strengths.  He didn’t say so, but this sounds like Pogonina’s advice that you have to identify your weaknesses and work to eliminate them.  I think this process would require absorbing a lot of knowledge on all phases of the game.
      After reading the replies from 2200-rated players it seems no one method worked for all of them, but the general drift I got was that there was no one particular book that was the magic bullet.  They all seem to have absorbed information from various sources and then learned how to apply what they knew.  It’s the latter part, applying what you know, that is the hard part and, apparently, the most difficult thing to teach.

Another Pet Peeve

       This is another non-chess post, but it really sticks in my craw the way local television news channels sensationalize news.
       When I tune in to the local news I want to hear news not about American Idol, or whatever other stupid ‘reality’ television show that appears on the local network.  I don’t care who wins Americal Idol or the X-Factor.  These are television programs for entertainment purposes...not news. These ‘news’ events and sensationalized stories don't belong on the local evening news.  I understand that often there’s not much going on locally so reporters have to report juicy stories and because they are in competition with other stations in the same city, the juicier the better.
       Sensational headlines are chosen in order to catch people’s attention so they are going over the top with every story to make you watch them and not their rivals. This doesn’t seem very professional to me.
       Then there is the weather. Every time there is a storm approaching, the media blows it way out of proportion and sends people scurrying to the stores for milk, bread, batteries, plywood, and generators. This is dangerous. After a while people become numb to the warnings and start ignoring them.
       Years ago I had a private pilot’s license and the FAA Flight Service Stations got to the point that when you called them for a weather briefing, if conditions were expected to be anything less than absolutely perfect, they ended the briefing with the recommendation that if you were not flying by instruments, don’t make the trip.  Most pilots ignored them.
       I really dislike those talking heads that pop up before the evening news and yell, “Snow is coming!  How much will we get?  I’ll tell you at 11:00.”  Come 11 o’clock, after a lot of teasing, you finally get some weather person telling you they are expecting a half an inch in the snow belt. 

       For the last couple of days our local weather people have been constantly babbling about a winter storm approaching complete with big headlines on their website “WINTER WEATHER IN AREA” and “WINTER STORM WARNING.”  I have to tell you, it is pretty crappy out there as I write this.  There is a big blob of snowy weather that when seen on radar appears to be centered right over my house and covers most of the NE United States. 

 

 

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

A WINTER STORM WARNING IS ISSUED WHEN SEVERE WINTER WEATHER IS

EXPECTED. HEAVY SNOW AND/OR ICE WILL CAUSE HAZARDOUS DRIVING

CONDITIONS. IF YOU WILL BE TRAVELING IN THE WARNING AREA YOU

SHOULD CHOOSE AN ALTERNATE ROUTE IF POSSIBLE... OR YOU SHOULD USE

EXTREME CAUTION IF TRAVEL IS UNAVOIDABLE. STAY TUNED TO NOAA

WEATHER RADIO FOR FURTHER DETAILS OR UPDATES.

      The way they were talking, it sounded like the wind was going to be bad enough to blow the hair off a dog. It is a little windy, but not enough to damage anything unless you consider it messed up my hair pretty bad when I was pumping gas this morning to be damage.  It’s 35 degrees with a light, wet snow.  It’s supposed to clear out by tomorrow morning.  Sure, it’s a crappy day, but in this part of the country where we are near lake Erie this situation hardly rates as a big snow or bitter cold. 

     They like to play into people’s fears and that upsets me.

A New "World Champion"

      The new 2010 Lechenicher SchachServer “World Champion” is LSS Senior Master Alex Bubir from Ukraine.  He won the title on Sonneborn-Berger tie breaks over LSS Email Master François Caire of Canada.  In this event Bubir scored +3 -1 =6 plus picked up an additional 4 points on forfeit.

       Bubir finished second in the 2005 tournament and his son Sergei won the 2008 finals. Caire seems to have actually had better results, scoring +4 -1 =6 (plus 3 forfeit win), but lost his individual game to Bubir.
       Bubir’s ICCF rating is 2553; he does not appear to have an FIDE rating.

1-2 Alex Bubir (2457) 10.0

1-2 Francois Caire (2475) 10.0

3-5 Atilla Mesaros (2501 9.0

3-5 Hermann Hartl (2483) 9.0

3-5 Sergei Bubir (2471) 9.0

6-7 Ulrich Haug (2411) 8.5

6-7 Vladimir Tasic (2574) 8.5

8 Peter Duas (2421) 8.0

9-12 Peter Schuster (2407) 7.5

9-12 Bjoern Holzhauer (2225) 7.5

9-12 Juan Contreras (2309) 7.5

9-12 Gordon Evans (2235) 7.5

Three players withdrew so I have not listed their 'results.'
 

An Interesting Position

As White I reached this position on chessdotcom; Black to play.

 

      Obviously Black is threatened with the capture of his f-Pawn and my h-Pawn could be a threat, so what should he do?

       Black panicked and played 38…Nxe5? and after 39.dxe5 Rxc3+ 40.Kd2 Rc2+ 41.Kd1 Rc4 42.Rxf7+ he eventually lost.  However, there was no need to panic.  I won’t go into a lot of analysis, but engine analysis shows that 38...Rh2 going after the h-Pawn straightway leads to a win for White as does both 38...Ke8 and 38...Rxc3.  Still, after any of these moves the road to victory seems an arduous one and I’m not sure I would have found the way.
       What was interesting was the defense 38...Bf5! Everyone who thinks I would have found 39.Rxf5! raise your hand….What?...Nobody?  You are right; I would have played 39.Bg7 and after 39…Rxc3 40.Kd2 Ra3 41.h6 Ra2+ 42.Kc3 Ra3+ it’s only a draw.

The best line runs: 39.Rxf5! exf5 40.Kxd3 Rh2 41.Nh7 Rh3+ 42.Kd2 Rxh5 43.Bg5+ f6 44.Bxf6+ Kf7 45.Ng5+

      And now, according to the engines, White has an easy win.  Maybe if you’re rated high enough, but for me it looks like White has a difficult technical win.

      I don’t have a moral to this but just thought it was an interesting position.

Meet the Modern Correpondence Master...

Processing Power



Boris

 When chess engines first appeared on the scene, they were terrible. The first dedicated chess computer I had back in the late 1970s was “Boris.” The computer ran on an 8-bit microprocessor with only 2.5 KiB ROM and and 256 byte RAM. It cost me a princely sum: $300. In today’s dollars that was a little over $1000…hey, I had a good paying job and wasn’t married, so I spent money on anything that struck my fancy…Boris, cars, flying airplanes…traveling all over the East Coast playing in chess tournaments, etc. Boris was an amazing piece of equipment that played at the 1200-1400 level. I still have the wooden box it was housed in sitting on the dresser to hold my wallet, keys, watch etc.
       By the 1990s humans and computers were rivals. IBM’s Deep Blue thumped reigning world champion Kasparov and things kept getting better, or worse, depending on your point of view. These days GMs (and a lot of lower-rated players) use engines utilize the processing power of today’s powerful, and much cheaper, computers to help them prepare.
      In the early days engines did not give very good analysis, but they were really good for the compilation of databases. It was nice not having to keep scoresheets in shoeboxes and not having to keep track of correspondence games on postal chess recorder albums. In the early days some people were actually advertising in Chess Life that they would research openings and compile a database then mail it to you on a floppy disk...for a small fee, of course.
      These day’s databases are key to preparing for tournament play and there are endgame databases that contain analyses of endgame positions and optimal moves in each possible position. Engines are also used by strong players to search for opening ideas. Personally, I don’t know that this is any worse than in the old days when top level players had a gaggle of GM assistants doing the same thing, except today the whole process is a lot faster. Some players, even average players, are deeply into technology while others abhor their use.
      Some players even have gone so far as to build their own computers designed to handle chess-playing programs. Today’s top players, mostly very young, are products of the digital age and for them they tend to be comfortable with using high-tech aids to help them prepare and hone their skills. It apparently works well; just look at how strong 10-12 year olds are these days.
      Top IMs and GMs start weeks or months before a tournament and once they know who their opponents are going to be they start gathering information from the databases about the openings those players like to use. Then they begin analyzing openings commonly used by their opponents with the hope of finding a novelty. They try to predict all the possible moves and eventually come up with a report on what to expect. Usually they’ll also use their laptop to connect via Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) to their computer back home. And that’s not all: some even have backup laptops that run engines and database in case of Internet outages. What this means, at least at the very top level, is that the GM must memorize 500-1000 moves. Guys like Nakamura can then recite all that stuff back without looking at the board. Memorizing all that stuff proves that most of us will never be a GM; most of us can’t even remember our favorite opening more than a very few moves deep.
      Of course, controversy over whether the use of computers constitutes “cheating” or makes players lazy or somehow destroys the game is still around; probably always will be. But the fact remains that today’s players are better because of computers and they’re achieving more at a younger age. Fischer was considered an anomaly when he earned the GM title at 15. Today, if you aren’t a GM by the age of 14 or 15, you probably won’t be. I remember my first ever tournament...the state junior championship where, at age 15, I was one of the youngest participants! Talent will always matter, but technology is helping talented players learn faster and better.
      Still, I’m not sure I like it. Ignorance was bliss.

Want a Good Chuckle?

 

   What can I say about this game?

Fischer's First US Championship

       It was assumed that Fischer would at some point reach grandmaster but would he become better than his Evans, Robert and Donald Byrne or Bisguier?  Or how would he stack up against his contemporaries: William Lombardy and Raymond Weinstein? Few people thought he would be that good.
       1956 had seen his introduction to top level competition in the 3rd Lessing Rosenwald Invitational in New York. In that event Fischer lost four games; three of them badly. The following summer Fischer drew Bisguier, who had mauled him in the Rosenwald, and thereby nosed out Bisguier the defending U.S. Open and U.S. Invitational champion, for the U.S. Open title. Interestingly, Fischer won the next 13 games in a row against Bisguier.
      1957 was the 100th anniversary of the First American Congress, and like Paul Morphy, Fischer was to become the dominating champion. Every year there had been doubts as to whether there would be a championship that year. Financial crises and poor organization were the causes. The USCF only had 2000 members, so money was scarce.
      Fortunately a small group of wealthy men, collectively known as the American Chess Foundation kept the three year championship cycle going. They promised they would choose the best players for small, topflight events and finance them. As a result three strong Rosenwald invitational tournaments and three Matches were held.
      Reshevsky won two of the tournaments, finishing third in the other behind Evans and Bisguier, and defeating Lombardy, Bisguier and Donald Byrne in the matches. It was obvious from these events that Reshevsky was far superior to everyone else: He never lost more than one game in each event.
      Somewhat reluctantly the USCF agreed to let the fourth Rosenwald be designated as the 10th U.S. championship. This was especially fortunate because the tournament also served as a FIDE zonal where the first two finishers would qualify.
      Fischer had played a lot during 1956 and 1957 giving simultaneous exhibitions, and winning the 1957 U.S. Open and losing a two-game match to former world champion Max Euwe but nobody expected him to do well in the Rosenwald. Bisguier declared Reshevsky was favorite and almost everyone agreed with him. Evans was also considered a contender as were Lombardy and Robert Byrne. Unfortunately Byrne declined his invitation.
      Fischer started out this championship with a crushing defeat of Arthur Feuerstein, a 22-year-old computer programmer in the first round.  Then he narrowly escape defeat against Herbert Seidman, then battled Reshevsky to a draw. Two points out of three was not a bad start, but then things changed.
      He defeated Sidney Bernstein and Arthur Bisguier and was a half point behind Reshevsky with a score of 4-1. There followed a game that could have gone either way against Hans Berliner but ended in a draw. But then came a whirlwind of victories: James T. Sherwin, George Kramer Edmar Mednis William Lombardy Attilio DiCamillo all went down in defeat.
     During Fischer's streak Reshevsky had been defeated by Sherwin and so was trailing Fischer by a half point. To win the tournament Reshevsky needed a last-round win over William Lombardy, who was battling for third behind Sherwin.
     Fischer had White Abe Turner. Turner was an old blitz partner of Fischer and nobody expected Fischer to put much effort into the game. In the last round Fischer did what everyone expected he would and something would never do again in his career: he drew with Turner in 18 moves! After the game he went to the analysis room and played 5-minute games.
     What his draw with Turner meant was that a Reshevsky win would mean a tie for first place while any other result would give Fischer a clear first. Fortunately for Fischer Lombardy played such a great game against Reshevsky that he won the brilliancy prize and so Fischer was the champion.
     At that time in his career, Fischer did not have the ego he was soon to develop. When asked, “Does this make you the best player in the United States?” Fischer replied, "No, one tournament doesn't mean much," he said. "Maybe Reshevsky .... "

Final Standings:  1. Fischer 10.5 2. Reshevsky 9.5 3. Sherwin 9.0 4. Lombardy 7.5 5. Berliner 7.0 6-8. Denker 6.5 6-8. Feuerstein 6.5 6-8. Mednis 6.5 9. Seidman 6.0 10-11. Bernstein 5.0 10-11. Bisguier 5.0 12-13. DiCamillo 4.5 12-13. Turner 4.5 14. Kramer 3.0

First US Championship Tournament - 1936

In December 1935, Frank Marshll resigned as U.S. champion and urged the adoption of regularly scheduled tournaments to choose his successors. It wasn’t certain that a tournament was a good idea though.  How many players would be willing to compete for the $600 (abour $9700 in today’s purchasing power) first prize?  Most of the players had jobs of some sort: Kashdan was an insurance salesman as was Horowitz who was also editor of the magazine Chess Review.  There were also a host of other problems that would have to be answered by somebody: how to select the players…there was no rating system in effect and perhaps most important, how would it be financed?
       There existed at that time a lot of new players making a name for themselves plus several players were capable of winning a strong championship tournament: Isaac Kashdan, Samuel Reshevsky, Reuben Fine, Arthur Dake, Arnold Denker, I.A. Horowitz and Herman Steiner were the main contenders, but veterans Edward Lasker  (50 years old) and Abraham Kupchick (44 years old) were also still very strong.
       Kashdan was the favorite of Chess Review which opined, "none can boast of as imposing a record as Isaac Kashdan."  It made sense; Kashdan had played in 11 international tournaments, scoring four first-places and five seconds and he led the U.S. Olympic team four times.  In Olympic play Kashdan had an incredible score: 40 wins, 20 draws and 4 losses.  And, there was talk that he could be a challenger to Alekhine for the World Championship.  Kashdan had played Alekhine seven times, losing one game and drawing the rest…pretty impressive.
       Reuben Fine, on the other hand, had played in only one international tournament: Hastings, just three months before the championship tournament, but he had scored a brilliant first there. Fine had also won the very strong Marshall Chess Club Championship three times and the Western Open once.
      However, despite the reputations of Kashdan and Fine, Reshevsky was the favorite.  He had been the best-known player in the country since his highly publicized tours as a nine-year-old chess prodigy after his family brought him from Poland in 1920.
       Reshevsky had been in retirement while he graduated from college with a degree in accounting. After college and before starting his business career, Reshevsky had won the 1934 State Championship in Syracuse in 1934 ahead of both Kashdan and Fine.  Then in 1935 he finished first at Margate, England, ahead of Capablanca. Later in 1936 at the great international tournament in Nottingham, he had tied for 3rd-5th with Fine and Euwe behind Capablanca and Botvinnik.
       The organizers planned for a large number of entries, to be split into preliminary round robins from which there would be eight qualifiers for the 16-man finals. The eight qualifiers would meet eight seeded players - Reshevsky, Fine, Dake, Kashdan, Kupchik, Steiner, Horowitz and Alexander Kevitz ( the Manhattan Chess Club Champion.)  But, they did not get enough entries.  They ended up dropping the entry fee from $10 to $5.  Remember that in 1936 dollars $10 was the equivalent of $160 dollars today and few people had that kind of money.
       Dropping the EF proved successful and 48 players entered.  Because most of the best players were from New York, that’s where the tournament was held.  Eleven of the finalists were from New York as were most of the players. The Illinois State Champion Samuel Factor, Harold Morton from Boston and the New England Champion, Weaver W. Adams also managed to qualify.
      Two New York players, George N. Treysman and Albert C. Simonson, qualified.  What was interesting about Treysman (at the ripe old age of 55) was that he had never played in a tournament before! Treysman was a professional coffeehouse player, earning dimes at speed, offhand and odds games wherever he could find someone willing to play.  Simonson was the youngest player in the tournament; he played a lot at the Manhattan Chess Club where he was recognized as one of the best bridge and backgammon players in New York City.
       Then there was Arthur Dake.  At first it appeared that Dake was going to finish clear first. Dake, a Portland, Oregon master, had earned an international reputation when he achieved the best score (13 wins, 5 draws, no losses) at the Olympiad team tournament the previous year in Warsaw.   Dake had also defeated Herman Steiner in a match for the Pacific Coast Championship a few months before. By Round 9 Dake had scored five wins and four draws, with no losses, and seemed to be headed for first place.
      As for Reshevsky, he started with a win and a draw in the first two rounds but then he blundered badly against Sidney Bernstein and lost in round 3 and was completely outplayed by Horowitz in Round 4. After this disastrous start Reshevsky went on a rampage and won nine and drew only one in the next ten games.  In the meantime, Fine had played nine draws and Dake finally collapsed, scoring only tewo points in the last six games. Dake’s collapse started with a loss to Reshevksy in a long ending. Almost as remarkable as Reshevsky’ surge was that of Simonson. He defeated Morton, Fine, Bernstein, Horowitz, Denker and Milton Hanauer all in a row. Going into the final round the standing were: Reshevsky and Simonson 11, Treysman 10.5 and Fine 9.5. 
       In the final round Fine and Reshevsky, both having Black, played cautiously.  Reshevsky out-maneuvered Kupchik and  while Fine easily outplayed was Treysman's risky opening; 

1. Reshevsky

2. Simonson

3-4. Fine

3-4. Treysman

5. Kashdan

6-7. Dake

6-7. Kupchik

8-9 A. Kevitz

8-9. Horowitz

10. Factor 

11-12. Denker

11-12. Steiner

13. Bernstein

14. Hanauer

15-16. Adams

15-16. Morton

Frank Marshall and the US Championship

      Frank Marshall was the best American player of his day. The thing about Marshall was he thoroughly enjoyed his status as Champion.  Players of that era were not like players of today; today’s players see chess as a way to make a living and chess is all about the money.   To Frank Marshall the title was part of his personality; he used to sign his name, Frank Marshall, United States Chess Champion.

      Born in New York City on August 10, 1877, his family moved to Montreal when Marshall was eight years old.   After learning the moves from his father, it took him "quite a long time" before he won a game.  Marshall said that from the very first he was an attacking player and that he always liked a wide open game with the goal of mating his opponent.
      Eventually Marshal faced stiffer competition at the Montreal coffeehouses and eventually joined the Montreal Chess Club where he had the opportunity to develop his style.  Marshall claimed that from the age of ten until long after he had retired that he played at least one game a day and took a pocket set to bed with him in case he got any inspirations.
     After establishing himself as a force in international competition and the strongest native-born player then active in America, he went to Kentucky in 1909 and defeated Jackson W. Showalter. There had been some confusion over who the actual champion was after Pillsbury’s death in 1906, but the Marshall vs. Showalter match failed to settle the question. The confusion was a result of a dispute among players as to whether or not the title of U.S. Champion belonged to Jose Capablanca. Many argued, “How could the Cuba-born Capablanca be considered Pillsbury's successor?”
      Marshall was 22 when he gained a tie for third at the Paris international in 1900 when he finished behind world champion Emanuel Lasker and Pillsbury and where he defeated both of them in the event.  Marshall scored his greatest success by winning the Cambridge Springs ahead of Lasker, Pillsbury and several strong European and American masters.
      But by the time Pillsbury's death Capablanca had come to New York to attend college and quickly established himself as a very strong player.  The two best players in the US were clearly Marshall and Capablanca.
      As a result a match was arranged. Capablanca later recalled: "Marshall was disposed to play in this case where he naturally discounted his victory. How far he was wrong, the result proved."  In the match held in 1909, Capablanca routed Marshall, winning eight games, losing only one and drawing seven.
      The match had been for stakes only but the New York State Association had complicated matters by sanctioning the event as being for the U.S. championship.  Their reasoning was that since Marshall was the champion, then the match must be for the championship.
      But after the match Marshall argued that the Capablanca could not hold the U.S. title because he was not a United States citizen.  Capablanca had been living in New York for more than three years and he gave every indication that he was going to remain in the US, stating that he planned to apply for US citizenship.
       In the American Chess Bulletin Capablanca stated,  "I am the undisputed champion of Cuba, and last spring I beat Marshall by the score of 8 to1. Mr. Marshall has the greatest reputation and the best score in tournaments of any living chess player in the U.S.A., and is therefore considered everywhere as the strongest representative of the United States .... Therefore, I consider myself the champion of America, and stand ready to defend my tide within a year against any American of the U.S.A. or anywhere else, for a side bet of at least $1,000, United States currency. Under these circumstances the question whether I am a citizen of the U.S.A. or not has nothing to do with the matter under consideration." Actually, Capablanca was never champion of Cuba.  
      It took a lawyer to sort out the facts and they chose the well-know Walter Penn Shipley. Shipley reasoned the real U.S. champion was…Jackson W. Showalter!
      He wrote: "If there is any chess champion of the United States, Jackson W Showalter of Kentucky is the holder of the tide. Since he won it he has never declined any challenge and until he does so, neither Marshall, Capablanca nor any other player has a valid claim…to be the American champion one must be an American, either native or naturalized." Shipley concluded, ''And the man he must challenge is Showalter."
      After Shipley’s ruling the New York Chess Association withdrew their support of Capablanca and Marshall quickly took a train to Lexington, Kentucky and challenged Showalter. Capablanca decided not to become American citizen after all and instead accepted a post in the Cuban diplomatic service and a career player representing Cuba.
      As a result of all this legal maneuvering a match for the US championship took place in the Phoenix Hotel in Lexington,during late 1909.  

      The hotel was demolished in 1981 with the intention of building a World Coal Center, but it was never constructed and the Park Plaza which was opened in 1987 was eventually built on the site.

      The stakes were each player put up $500.The match was to consist of 15 games but it was decided after 12 games which took only 14 days to play. Marshall won two of the first three games, drew the other then coasted to victory with seven wins and three draws with Showalter scoring only two wins. Marshall was then officially the US Champion.
      Strangely, after all the brouhaha involved in deciding who the champion really was, after his victory, Marshal almost quit chess!
      He told the British newspaper, the Daily Sketch, in December 1909 that he was retiring. "The game is too absorbing. To play it one must devote to it all of his time. No game in the world calls for such deep study and devotion as chess, and while I love it, there are other things which must occupy my attention. I have private business responsibilities which suffer from the game, so I have quit playing for good."  Fortunately, Marshall did not quit; he played until he died on November 10, 1944.

More Worst Book Candidates

After posting Geoff Chandler’s review of the worst chess book ever I thought it would be fun to consider some other candidates for the title so here are some nominations I discovered around the web.

My candidate is How Not to Play Chess by Znosko-Borovsky. Best advice in the whole book: “Avoid mistakes.”
How to Think Ahead in Chess by Horowitz and Reinfeld. Comments: This book was a complete piece of junk…But really the worst of it was that it gave no clue as to how to approach the game as white if black didn't fall into the extremely passive setup that the book showed as blacks only option against the stonewall. Really pathetic. The person making those comments had many other bad things to say about this book and I agreed with all of them. After reading the book I actually tried the Stonewall and lost a bunch of games; it seemed my opponents would not cooperate by playing the passive and weak defenses like the book showed.

I don't have one particular worst book but anything by Gufeld is junk…you can use his pulp to start a fire.
How to Cheat at Chess by William Hartston. Kids can learn vulgar language in some other activity…but why would any intelligent author post a book containing cursing and other gutter language for kids who want to learn chess? Just flip it open and read five pages, anywhere in it, and you will likely just put it down again, unless vulgarity is your favorite for reading enjoyment. Anything by Bill Wall…nothing to read in Wall's books. No words. Just stupid algebraic notation and a few diagrams.
Chess Course for Beginner's by Batsford. The book has several problems that are cooked …They tried to explain this as an exercise to see if students could pick out the cooked problems.
Raymond Keene must be considered among the top for king of worst books…Keene once was an outstanding author…Eventually, Keene realized there was not much money in producing quality, so he settled for quantity…And Keene is (as always) so overbearing as to be insufferable. Sounds like Keene took the same route as Fred Reinfeld who, early on, wrote some outstanding books.
A First Book of Morphy by Frisco Del Rosario. A LOT of people love this book but it almost made me quit chess.
This Crazy World of Chess by Larry Evans. I bought it because the cover said, "After reading this controversial book, you'll never look at chess the same way again." And from the introduction, "Hang on tight, you're in for a wild romp through the back door of chess." I was expecting some interesting insider stuff but instead got a collection of Evan's crappy newspaper articles. Evans had a strong dislike of FIDE and an ongoing dispute with historian Edward Winter who took aim at Evan’s repeated publishing of facts that weren’t facts at all. As Evan’s once replied to Winter, so what if the facts were wrong…it made a good story.
The Final Theory of Chess by Gary Danielson…several hundred page repertoire in languageless encyclopedic format, produced by a 1700ish player with Fritz.
The Grand Tactics of Chess by Franklin K. Young published in 1897. Young tried to apply military terms (now antiquated) like "Oblique Right" and the "Crochet" to chess. It was gibberish unless you were an army officer who fought in the Civil War.
Chess (Basics, Laws and Terms) by B.K. Chaturvedi. His Preface includes the observation ‘this book starts with the presumption that the reader is totally uninitiated’, but the reader ends with the presumption that it is the author who merits that description.

Any other nominations?