Openings

     Back in 2012 I did a brief post on observational learning and in it I mentioned how Alex Yermolinsky in The Road to Chess Improvement wrote that his favorite method of teaching was by example and by playing over lots of GM games it could translate in to improvement because you would learn pattern recognition and how to play openings, etc. 
     Then, while browsing through some old tournament games I came across the game below and noticed how far my opponent and I managed to get into the book lines in the French Winawer even though I had never read a book on it...can't speak for my opponent. 
     Shortly after that I read an article by GM Greg Serper in which he stated his deep belief that the best way to learn openings is to analyze good games played by great players. This way not only will you improve your general level of chess, but also learn specific opening ideas. 
     Bent Larsen said in his book of selected games when describing one of his biggest chess achievements (Amsterdam 1964) that while most of the participants were preparing by researching the latest novelties of GM Boleslavsky (who was one of the best theoreticians of that time), he was studying games of Greco and Philidor! 
     A lot of amateur players get too caught up in opening theory and it harms their general development. Don't buy a repertoire book about a specific opening, but get one that gives an overview of everything with the general ideas. Then play over master games with the openings you want to play. That way you'll get a sense for the middlegames and endings that are likely to occur. 
     One of the opening I used to play was the French, Winawer Variation (because that was one of Botvinnik's favorites and his One Hundred Selected Games was one of my favorite books. The following old OTB game from back in my tournament playing days shows what can happen. The first 13 moves showed up in my (expanded) Fritz 12 opening book. What that let's me know is that even if you've never studied a book on a particular opening, if you play over enough games with it, something will stick and you'll be able to play it fairly well even without having tried to memorize lines. Your opponent probably hasn't studied the same lines so won't know the best moves anyway. In that case, as soon as he leaves the book you're on your own. 
     I have told the anecdote before about the time I played a young opponent who was blitzing out his opening moves almost instantly while I was using much more time. Eventually, somewhere around move 15 or so, he went into a long think and I knew we we at the end of his book knowledge. It only took him another couple of moves before he made a game losing blunder. In the post mortem he was spouting analysis and when we got to the point where I had deviated from his memorized line, he was very critical of the move I had played. When I asked him why it was bad all he could say was it wasn't what Bobby Fischer had played in that position. My reply was that if it was so bad why couldn't he refute it? No answer. 

Recommended for further consideration: 
IM Greg Shahade on Opening Books 
Musings 

Ernest E. Colman

     One site I was recently viewing listed 20 variations of the Two Knights Defense and buried in the list was the Colman Variation (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Qf3 Rb8). 

     This variation has one of the most interesting histories of any opening. Its inventor, Ernest Eugene Colman, even had an entire book written about it: Surviving Changi: E.E. Colman - a Chess Biography by Olimpiu G. Urcan.  If your interested you can by the book used on Amazon for $2,797 which seems a bit pricey to me. For some modern examples of this variation visit the Red Hot Pawn page HERE. 
     During the Japanese occupation of Singapore (1942-1945) Colman was interned at Changi prison. Today Changi is a planning area located in the East Region of Singapore. Also located in Changi is Singapore's largest prison, Changi Prison. It became infamous as a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp during the occupation of Singapore in World War II. Changi Prison continues to be Singapore's oldest operating internment facility, now in the form of the new Changi Prison Complex. 
     Following the fall of Singapore in February 1942, the Japanese military detained about 3,000 civilians in Changi Prison, which was built to house only 600 prisoners. The Japanese used the British Army's Selarang Barracks near the prison as a prisoner of war camp to house some 50,000 Allied soldiers, predominantly British and Australian; from 1943, Dutch civilians were brought over by the Japanese from the islands in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). POWs were in fact rarely, if ever, held in the civilian prison, but in the UK, Australia, The Netherlands and elsewhere, the name "Changi" became synonymous with the POW camp nearby. 
     About 850 POWs died during their internment in Changi, a relatively low rate compared to the overall death rate of 27 percent for POWs in Japanese camps. Allied POWs, mainly Australians, built a chapel at the prison in 1944 using simple tools and found materials. Stanley Warren of the 15th Regiment, Royal Regiment of Artillery painted a series of murals at the chapel. Another British POW, Sgt. Harry Stodgen built a Christian cross out of a used artillery shell.  The prisoners of war also established an education program nicknamed the Changi University. 
     The prison also contained the headquarters of the Kempeitai, the Japanese military police. The Kempeitai tortured prisoners there, who they suspected were spies.
      After the war, the prison was used to hold former Japanese staff officers, Kempeitai, police, and guards from concentration camps for trial. Executions were conducted in the inner yard where three gallows were erected. British soldiers were stationed there as prison guards.  Poetic justice.  
     Eventually the chapel was dismantled and shipped to Australia, while the cross was sent to the UK. The chapel was reconstructed in 1988, and is now located at the Royal Military College, Duntroon, Canberra.  Memorial.
     Before the War, Colman, a civil servant, was Singapore's top chess player and leading organizer. He reorganized the Singapore Chess Club and was its President for decades. He saw chess and soccer as a way to bridge the gap between the various races in Singapore. 
     Colman was in Changi as a civilian internee and was remembered for his exemplary conduct. While interred there he taught chess to his fellow inmates as a way to keep their mind off their hardships and even wrote a secret chess manual which was smuggled from camp to camp.  His book was in two parts; the first chronicled his life and times while the second contained many games he played.
     Colman himself suggested the his innovation (8...Rb8) be named “the Wimbledon Variation” for reasons that are a bit puzzling. He also suggested that the variation be named after fellow internee who helped with the analysis, Dr.Yeoh Bok Choon. 
     Dr. Yeoh Bok Choon, who died in 1983, was also an interesting fellow; the only time I ever heard of him was in the introduction of a small tournament book written by Harry Golombek.
     After the war he spent time in England doing post graduate studies. By the 1960s he was the State Surgeon for the southern Malaysian state of Johor, a neighbor of Singapore. He was an avid orchid grower and promoter who believed orchids benefited from having an occasional beer. He was an avid chess organizer throughout his career. 
     Colman (born 1878) was originally a South West Londoner. In 1903 in a correspondence team match he played on the same team as Reginald Saunderson who was accused of being Jack the Ripper. 
     After the War, Colman went to Wimbledon and passed away in Roehampton in 1964. He is buried in Gap Road Cemetery not far from Henry Bird's final resting place. 
     During his three years in Changi organized chess among the fellow internees, and with them analyzed his innovation in the Two Knight's Defense. It wasn't until after the war that he got to test it in serious competition when he used against opponents in the London and Surrey leagues. 
     Playing through Colman's games reveals some that are truly quite interesting. For example, his game against Jacobs at Tunbridge Wells in 1911 featured quadrupled Pawns. You'll also enjoy his attack against Esser in the below game. 
     It's hard to say exactly how good Colman was, but in 1911 Colman played Frank Marshall in a three game match for a small stake in Tunbridge Wells. Marshall won +2 -1 =0, but by accounts Marshall was somewhat lucky when in an interesting position Colman, who was short of time, blundered and lost. 
     In tournament play Colman tied for 9-10th in the Hamburg 1910 chess tournament, tied for 6-7th at Oxford 1910, took 10th at London 1910, shared 3rd at Tunbridge Wells 1911, tied for 10-11th at London 1919, and took 7th at Margate 1923.

Chasing the Initiative

     According to Wikipedia, the initiative belongs to the player who can make threats that cannot be ignored. He thus puts his opponent in the position of having to use his turns responding to threats rather than making his own. A player with the initiative will often seek to maneuver his pieces into more and more advantageous positions as he launches successive attacks. The player who lacks the initiative may seek to regain it through counterattack. 
     Everybody knows that you can't win by just marking time, you have DO something. For a long time it was believed that having the first move automatically gave white the advantage while black had to play to equalize. Thanks mostly to investigation and practice by leading Soviet players of years gone by it became the norm for both white and black to fight for the initiative.
     In modern practice you won't find a lot of QGD Orthodox Defenses even though in Capablanca's day it was just about all you did see. Even the great Alekhine had a low opinion of moves like 1...g3 for black. It wasn't until the 1950s that Soviet players began playing the King's Indian, for example, and they proved that black had a lot of opportunities for active counterplay that enabled him to seize the initiative for himself. The Sicilian also became a potent weapon for black for the same reason. 
     Today black is no longer content playing to neutralize white's initiative by exchanging and simplifying; he fights for the initiative and it's this fight that is the modern criterion for determining the worth of any opening system.
     Sacrifices for the initiative are common and in many cases your opponent isn't forced to play any particular moves or follow a specific line. These positional sacrifices don't depend on exact calculation; they depend on intuition and experience and recognizing similar patterns we have seen before. See also the post Playing d5 Against the Gruenfeld.
     However, it should be pointed out that the struggle for the initiative doesn't mean you must sacrifice something! Many times a strong POSITIONAL move is all it takes to gain the initiative. 
     In those cases where there is a possibility of attacking, how does one arrive at that conclusion? For example, the realization that there may be a good chance that a K-side attack will be successful is first based on general considerations. It's after conducting a general reconnaissance that one can get down to calculating variations. 
     Back in the old days gambits were played to attack the King and with the mindset that the thing to do was accept everything that was offered; defensive technique was often very feeble. 
     With the advent of modern positional play things changed. Defense improved and the goal was to seek active resistance and launch a counterattack. One result was that gambits became less common although at the time Steinitz was propounding his positional theories Mikhail Chigorin remained successful using gambits. In his match with Steinitz, Chigorin scored +14 -6 =5 using gambits. How did he do it? He did it, not by going all out for attacks on the King, but instead, he played for the initiative...long term pressure based on a lead in development, more space, control of the center. 
     Alekhine was also famous for his strategy, yes, strategy, of sacrificing a Pawn for the initiative. It's interesting to note that GM Alex Yermolinsky plays a lot of gambit lines because early in his career he tried pure positional chess, but it didn't give the results he wanted. He credited Soviet GM Mark Tsetlin with teaching him the “single most important thing” (Yermo's words) and that was the value of the initiative. Up until that time Yermolinsky had regarded the initiative a being a reward for correct positional play. 
     In fact, Yermolinsky wrote that the number of Pawns is just another positional factor that must be taken into account along with all other factors, adding that with a Pawn sacrifice you give a little and you get a little. He observed that when you sacrifice you must be patient and not expect immediate returns. When Alekhine annotated his game against Fahrni played in Mannheim, 1914 he wrote that if Fahrni, who had accepted a Pawn sacrifice, had played a different 8th move then white would have been able to gradually strengthen his position. 
     There is still a risk in playing a gambit, the opponent may find a successful defense and one's initiative peters out. But, as David Bronstein observed, you can't just strive for a game with no danger of loss. “You have to look for double-edged action. Given the present day level of technique, it is impossible to beat a strong opponent if you do not allow him any counter chances.” Bronstein went on to point out that in the process you do have to try and ensure that your chances are superior to your opponent's and the position suits your tastes and style. 
     In the following game Geller shows us what the initiative is and how to use it. 
 

Defending Is Harder Than Attacking

     There have been some famous tournaments held st Carlsbad: 1907, 1911, 1923 and 1929. The 1907 event was important because it featured a number of younger players facing off against a strong group of more established Masters. The time control was 30 moves in two hours, followed by 15 moves per hour and there was a provision that forbade agreed draws before move 45 without the permission of the tournament director. 
     Going into the last round Rubinstein was leading by a whole point ahead of Maroczy which meant he only need a draw to clinch first. There's a story, most likely apocryphal, that before the game Wolf promised Maroczy he'd help him win first place by beating Rubinstein. However, after about 10 moves it was clear Wolf would take a draw, but Rubinstein quickly built up a crushing attack. When the winning continuation became obvious, Rubinstein forced a draw, explaining, "Against Wolf I draw when I want to, not when he wants to!" Georg Marco wrote a book on the tournament and claimed Rubinstein simply missed the win and all he needed was a draw anyway. 
     As for Maroczy, he was in second a full point behind Rubinstein and had white against Janowsky whom he defeated in a nice game that featured Bs of opposite colors. Leonhardt was in third a full point behind Maroczy who was closely pursued by Nimzovich and Schlechter who were a half point behind him. Schlechter beat Tartakower when the latter completely misplayed the ending. 

Final standings: 
1) Rubinstein 15.0 
2) Maroczy 14.5 
3) Leonhardt 13.5 
4-5) Nimzovich and Schlechter 12.5 
6) Vidmar 12.0 
7-8) Teichmann and Duras 11.5 
9) Salwe 11.0 
10) Wolf 10.5 
11-12) Marshall and Dus-Chotimirsky 10.0 
13) Spielmann 9.5 
14) Tartakower 9.0 
15) Janowski 8.5 
16-18) Berger, Chigorin and Mieses 7.5 
19) Olland 6.5 
20) Cohn 5.0 
21) Johner 4.5 

     In his book The Art of Sacrifice in Chess, Spielmann gives his game against Janowski as an example of what he called a vacating sacrifice and explained,” the object of a vacating sacrifice is to clear a certain square for a certain piece.” In this case the vacating sacrifice was his 19.d6 which vacated d5 for a N which supported his R on e7. 
     In order to justify his play he gave some pretty superficial analysis and made some misleading statements. That was common before chess engines made us all GMs as long as we're armed with out laptops. As usual, none of that really matters; he was teaching concepts. Additionally, it proves the point that it's a lot harder to defend than attack. Very often when you're attacking, if you make a mistake the consequences are likely to be less severe than if you are defending. Besides that, the game is a lot of fun to play over! 

Korchnoi - Early Years

     Things were difficult for the ten year old Korchnoi in Leningrad during the winter of 1941-42. It was cold and there was no firewood, the water supply and sewers didn't work and the trains weren't running. He often had to carry two buckets about a mile to fetch water from a frozen water hole. 
     That's because the Nazis had invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941 and surrounded the city in an extended siege beginning that September. In following months, the city sought to establish supply lines from the Soviet interior and evacuate its citizens, often using a hazardous ice road across Lake Ladoga. It wasn't until January 1943 that a land corridor was created and the Red Army finally managed to drive off the Germans the following year. Altogether, the siege lasted nearly 900 days and resulted in the deaths of more than half of the city's population (somewhere between 400,000 and 1-1/2 million). 
     It wasn't until the fall of 1942 that the schools reopened and Korchnoi restarted the fifth grade, but he was not an especially good student. Even though the blockade had been broken it wasn't until the end of 1943 that things began to improve to the point that children were encouraged to enroll in the Pioneer's Palace, a nationwide government sponsored youth club where children talented in sports, music, art, chess, etc. could develop their talent. 
     Korchnoi, who had been taught chess by his father, attended with his friend where their instructor, a Candidate Master named Model, a former trainer of Botvinnik, didn't offer much in the way of instruction, but showed them studies and organized tournaments. At the time he was also interested in music and poetry, but those faded as he concentrated on chess. By the war's end he was studying under a master named Batuyev and later Vladimir Zak.  
     In 1947, Korchnoi won the Junior Championship of the USSR which was held in Leningrad and shared the title in 1948 when it was held in at Tallinn, Estonia.
     In 1951, he earned the Soviet Master title, but not honestly. In 1951 more than 500,000 participants registered all over Russia for the preliminaries of the Chigorin memorial. In the final, held in Leningrad, Smyslov won first prize. Their individual game was drawn. 
     In the last round Korchnoi needed a win, but was paired against an experienced master and the game was adjourned in a dead drawn position. Because Korchnoi was a promising local player who had a number of supporters, including the organizers, they put pressure on his opponent by threatening not to pay him his prize money, unless he threw the game to Korchnoi when play resumed; he complied with the request by discovering a way to lose. Korchnoi admitted that he was aware of what was going on and in his youth laughed at his opponent's predicament, but when he looked back it was an incident he regretted. 
     It was because of this incident that the All Union Rating Committee, after checking the quality of games before awarding a higher title, rejected his bid for the Master title. His success did, however, allow him to be admitted to a semi-final for the next USSR Championship where managed to gain the Master title. 

Leningrad 1951 Finals:
1) Smyslov 10.0-3.0 
2-3) Taimanov and Aronin 8.5-4.5 
4) Simagin 8.0-5.0 
5-7) Kopylov, Korchnoi and Tolush 7.5-5.5 
8) Estrin 6.0-7.0 
9-10) Bivshev and Shamkovich 5.5-7.5 
11-12) Klaman and Stolyar 5.0-8.0 
13) Kamishov 4.0-9.0 
14) Lutikov 2.5-10.5 
Vladimir Alatotsev was also entered, but lost to Taimanov, Bivshev, Shamkovich and Lutikov and withdrew, so his games did not count. 

     I like the following game; it doesn't contain any flashy tactics but it's instructive.  Aronin's little slip at move 13 doesn't look all that bad, but it allowed Korchnoi to obtain a small, but lasting advantage. And, when Aronin played it safe at move 22 it seems his fate was sealed. 
     Aronin (July 1920 - October 1982) was a meteorologist by profession and an IM. He played in eight USSR Championships which in those days were stronger than many international tournaments. His best finish was a tie for 2nd–4th places in 1950 at Moscow. 
    Very little is known about Aronin who never played outside the Soviet Union mostly because of Soviet chess politics. David Bronstein felt the Aronin, a player with a safe, positional style, should have been a Grandmaster.  Based on limited data Chessmetrics puts his rating at 2674 in 1952. 
     Aronin was scheduled to play in the 1952 Interzonal Tournament in Stockholm, but was replaced by a high-ranking member of the USSR Chess Federation, Alexander Kotov. 
     Actually, it turned out to be a good move for the Soviets, if not for Aronin. Kotov went undefeated and finished first ahead of Taimanov and Petrosian (both of whom were also undefeated) by three full points. 
     It was apparent the five Soviet players had colluded to draw all of games against each other and they took the top five places. As a result, the FIDE decided to include the next three non-Soviet players in the Zurich Candidates Tournament: Gideon Stahlberg, Laszlo Szabo Svetozar Gligoric. Kotov bombed in the Candidates Tournament, finishing in 8th place. 

A Stunning Rook Lift by Averbakh

     In 1956 Dresden in East Germany must have been a dreary place; even some of the war damage had not been repaired. 
     It was only three years earlier that an uprising in East Germany started with a strike by East Berlin construction workers on June 16, 1953. It turned into a widespread uprising against the German Democratic Republic government the next day. 
     The revolt involved more than one million people in about 700 towns and cities. The uprising in East Berlin was violently suppressed by the Group of Soviet Forces tanks. Newspapers blamed it on the influence of American popular culture on German youth. The prominence of American films and music in both East and West Berlin. American films of the era like The Wild One and Rebel Without a Cause, featuring movie stars Marlon Brando and James Dean, were viewed by the East German government as romanticizing public disobedience and rebellion, as well as encouraging violent crime. Continued occurrences of crime and uprisings by German youths would eventually lead to the decision to begin construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961. 

Dresden in 1956

     The infamous Stasi prison Bautzen was less than 40 miles east of Dresden. The prison saw a total of 2,350 prisoners pass through its gates between 1956 and 1989 and it was the only prison in Communist East Germany where the feared secret police had free reign. 
     Under Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev the Second Five-Year Plan was instituted. The plan focused on technological progress with its intention to develop nuclear energy. The government increased industrial production quotas by 55 percent and the plan committed East Germany to accelerated efforts toward agricultural collectivization and nationalization. By 1958–59 quotas were increased for private farmers and teams were sent to villages in an effort to encourage voluntary collectivization. In November and December 1959 some law-breaking farmers were arrested. 
     With this backdrop an international chess tournament was held in Dresden from February 26-March 21, 1956. The tournament gave some promising new players from behind the Iron Curtain a chance at some first-class competition.
     Soviet players Yuri Averbakh and Ratmir Kholmov dominated. Romanian Victor Ciocaltea (January 16, 1932 – September 10, 1983) was in the running, but fell behind by drawing his last four games. He defeated Kholmov in their game. Ciocaltea was awarded the IM title the following year. He had won the Romanian championship in 1952 and was to go on to win it several more times: 1959, 1961, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1975, and 1979. He played for Romania in eleven Chess Olympiads from 1956 to 1982. 
     Averbakh is well known, but Kholmov less so. Ratmir Kholmov (May 13, 1925 – February 18, 2006 ) won many international tournaments in Eastern Europe during his career and tied for the Soviet Championship title in 1963, but lost the playoff. Kholmov was not well known in the West, since he never competed there during his career peak, being confined to events in socialist countries. His chess results were impressive, so this may have been for security reasons, as Kholmov had been a wartime sailor. He was one of the strongest Soviet players from the mid-1950s well into the 1970s. He was awarded the GM title in 1960. 
     Wolfgang Uhlmann (March 29, 1935) who was to become East Germany's most prominent GM was an accountant by profession. Uhlmann's father taught him chess at the age of 11 at their home in Dresden and he progressed to the title of German Youth Champion in 1951. By 1956 he was an International Master and by 1959, a Grandmaster. He won the East German championship eleven times from 1954 to 1986. 
     Bulgarian Nikola Padevsky (May 29, 1933) became National Champion in 1954, going on to win it in 1955, 1962 and 1964.   He was awarded the IM title in 1957 and the GM title in 1964. Padevsky played in the World Student Team Championship six times (every year from 1954 through 1959). He was a corporate lawyer by profession. 
     Istvan Bilek (August 11,1932 – March 20, 2010) was a Hungarian GM (awarded in 1962) and three-time Hungarian champion.   He qualified for the interzonals in 1962 and 1964. 
     Bogdan Sliwa (February 4, 1922 – May 16, 2003) was a Polish master. He won the championship of Poland six times. In 1946, he won the first Polish Chess Championship after World War II. FIDE awarded Sliwa the International Master title in 1953, and the Honorary Grandmaster title in 1987. 

1-2) Averbakh and Kholmov 12.0-3.0 
3) Ciocaltea 10.5-4.5 
4) Pachman 9.0-6.0 
5) Uhlmann 8.5-6.5 
6-7) Padevsky and Bilek 8.0-7.0 
8-10) Sliwa, Fuchs and Dittmann 1 7.5-7.5 
11) Muehlberg 6.5-8.5 
12) Sefc 6.0-9.0 
13-14) Sterner and Golz 4.5-10.5 
15-16) Andersen and Trajkovic 4.0-11.0 

    Usually when we think about an attack on the flank, we think of a Pawn storm, but in the following game Averbakh conducts his K-side attack with pieces alone, all the Ps in front of his K being unmoved. 
     The lift of his a1R on move 10 is particularly noteworthy. Nine moves later it slid over to h3, one move before he began his winning sacrificial assault. His opponent was Reinhart Fuchs (September 28, 1934 – December 16, 2017), from East Berlin who was awarded the IM title in 1962. He was East German champion in 1953 and 1956. 

Reshevsky – Gligorich Match 1952

     In March of 1952, Samuel Reshevsky was still enjoying the prime of his career and he had just defeated Miguel Najdorf +8 -4 =6 in a match that was unofficially called "The Match for the Championship of the Free World". The first eight games were played in New York, games 9 through 13 were played in Mexico City and games 14 through 18 were played in San Salvador. 
     Svetozar Gligorich was an up-and-coming star who was returning home after having won by a half point over Spain's Arturo Pomar in a tournament held in Hollywood. Both players were undefeated, but Pomar had the misfortune of being held to a draw by local California master Ray Martin. 
     Arthur Dake of Portland, Oregon shared 4th-5th places with Lionel Joyner of Canada and Long Beach, California. Dake lost one game, to Joyner, who also upset Isaac Kashdan. But, Joyner's losses to Gligorich, Pomar and Herman Steiner were too many to gain a better spot. 
     James B. Cross, an ex-US junior champion from Glendale, California finished 7th with seven draws. Isaac Kashdan, then living in Tujunga, California showed his lack of practice and finished in a dismal 7th place with a score of 4-5. 
     Walter Pafnutieff of San Francisco, Ray Martin of Santa Monica (who nicked Pomar for a draw) and Sonja Graf of Los Angeles rounded out the field. Graf lost all her games, but one; she managed to draw with Dake. 
     The event was Steiner's idea and co-sponsored by Mrs. Piatigorsky and Philip McKenna. 
     The match between Reshevsky and Gligorich was played at the Manhattan Chess Club from June 2nd to June 22nd, 1952 and was closely contested. Below are the highlights with the winner in bold. 

1. Reshevsky vs Gligorich (King's Indian) 
Reshevsky won a nice game in which switched his attack from Q-side to K-side. 
2. Gligorich vs Reshevsky (Ruy Lopez) 
The game was adjourned at move 42 with both players having a R and 5 Ps. The players agreed to a draw when Gligorich's sealed move was opened. 
3. Reshevsky vs Gligorich (Queen's Gambit Declined) 
A grandmaster draw was agreed after 28 uneventful moves. 
4. Gligorich vs Reshevsky (Ruy Lopez) 
This game was a hard fought minor piece ending with Gligorich having two Ns against Rehevsky's N and bad B. The five-hour session was adjourned after 44 moves and a draw was agreed without further play.
5. Reshevsky vs Gligorich (Queen's Gambit Declined) 
A nicely played game by Reshevsky where he saw deeply into the position. Things looked even until the ending when his two Bs triumphed over Gligorich's two Ns 
6. Gligorich vs Reshevsky (Ruy Lopez) 
A marathon 85-move game. The game was adjourned after five hours of play and upon resumption, they dueled it out for another five and a half hours. Reshevsky had an extra P, but could not make any progress. 
7. Reshevsky vs Gligorich (Dutch Stonewall) 
Reshevsky was near winning when he made a horrible blunder in time pressure and lost a piece. 
8. Gligorich vs Reshevsky (Nimzo-Indian) 
A drawn position reached after 19 moves, but they played on for another 14 moves before giving it up as hopelessly drawn. 
9. Reshevsky vs Gligorich (Queen's Gambit Declined) 
Reshevsky played his favorite Exchange Variation and there was nothing Gligorich could do except agree to the draw after 20 moves. 
10. Gligorich vs Reshevsky (Nimzo-Indian) 
Gligorich was in the difficult position of having to win, which he very nearly managed to do, in order to tie the match, but at least he had white. The result was a 73 move game that featured an N and P ending where Gligorich was a P up, but it wasn't enough to win. 

     The following game is the first game. I don't know if it qualifies as a positional masterpiece or not, but some of the positions seemed to have had Stockfish flummoxed.