Zandvoort 1936

Paul Keres

     In the summer of 1936, sandwiched between the tournaments at Moscow and Nottingham, an international tournament was organized in Zandvoort, The Netherlands from July 18th to August 1st. 
     Although World Champion Max Euwe was playing, the star turned out to be the 21 year old Reuben Fine who won the tournament undefeated. This win would be the first of many successes for Fine. 
     Fine was younger than his main rival Reshevsky and was considered by some to be even more promising. He had already chalked up a some good results: 2nd at Lodz 1935 behind Tartakower, a plus score on board one at the 1935 Warsaw Olympiad and first ahead of Flohr at Hastings 1935-36. 
     Tartakower had this to say about Fine: “Lately it has become clear that the best tournament players have been Reshevsky and Fine, both avoiding refined opening theory and exhibiting the triumph of common sense over flashes of ‘creativity’. The main subject of discussion in Zandvoort was determining the style of Fine, whose wins are somehow unnoticeable, while he saved his other games with numerous daring salto mortales. The experts were finally able to conclude that Fine's style is based on the lack of one.” 
     At the age of 19, Keres got a chance to prove himself in Zandvoort where he filled in for Botvinnik who had turned down his invitation. Three losses (Euwe, Fine and Maroczy) relegated him to third place. 
     The tournament was held at the Grand Hotel in the seaside resort town of Zandvoort and was the first important international tournament in Holland since 1928 when the amateur world championship was held in The Hague. 
     Euwe was rushed to the tournament by car after his last exam and was hoping to use this tournament to get in shape for the upcoming Nottingham tournament which was to start a few weeks later. Euwe wanted to play like a true world champion at Nottingham and so Zandvoort was important for him. 
     At the same time, Euwe didn’t want his supporters to gets their hopes up and told them. “I am a better match player than a tournament player. I am not pessimistic but not optimistic either. I believe it’s better to warn people whose expectations of me are too high.” 
     The tournament was opened by the mayor of Zandvoort and the press began asking questions about how Euwe had managed to defeat Alekhine and Bogoljubow stated that it was because of Euwe’s youth and greater tactical (!) talent. That was an odd statement because when it came to tactics, with a few exceptions, Euwe never surpassed Alekhine. 
     Fine assumed the lead early on and was never really challenged and was the only player to go through the schedule undefeated, though he had a close call in his game with Euwe. 
     When they met in round 5 Fine got into a horrible position, but Euwe slipped up and only drew. That left Fine a half point ahead which he increased to a full point in round 6 when Euwe made an horrific blunder against Bogoljubow and lost. After that Fine sailed to an undefeated first a full point ahead of Euwe. 
     Asked to explain his blunders against Fine and Bogoljubow, Euwe said, “Tiredness, nothing else.” He went on to state that people expected too much of him. Exams had just finished and he had no chance to prepare and he had no chance to recover from his “extraordinarily tiring time at school.” He also believed that though the tournament helped get back into his stride, it would have been wiser for him not to participate at Zandvoort, but that would have been too much of a disappointment to the organizers. 
     Some have considered that Max Euwe won the world championship by accident and that he was the weakest of all the world champions, but that is unfair. While Euwe may not have dominated his contemporaries, they didn't demonstrate any clear superiority over him, either. He had excellent results prior to defeating Alekhine in 1935 and when he lost the title in 1937 the match was actually quite close until very near the end. 
     The tournament featured some exciting and instructive games and many are worth looking at. One game, Keres vs. Euwe, featured a struggle around the advanced white P on e5 and Euwe’s attack on Keres’ King is well known and was included by Fine in his book The World’s Great Chess Games. Hans Kmoch also used it as an example of levers in Pawn Power In Chess. 

 
     Kere’s opponent in this game was Lodewijk Prins (January 27, 1913 – November 11, 1999). Prins was awarded the IM title in 1950, International Arbiter in 1960 and was awarded the Emeritus GM title in 1982. He was Dutch champion in 1965. Prins was an arbiter and an endgames judge and in his later years he had a problems column, organizing yearly composing competitions. He also was a well respected writer and coauthored several chess books with Euwe. 

 

Charles Vezin of Philadelphia

     A while back I downloaded Google’s digital copy of a Chess In Philadelphia by Reichhelm and Shipley, a brief history of, as the title suggests, chess in Philadelphia illustrated by charts, tables games and problems. It covers the period from 1802 to 1898. 
    The earliest highlights were the first chess book, Chess Made Easy by James Humphreys, was published in 1802 by a Philadelphia bookseller and the arrival of Charles Vezin in 1813.  
     Charles Vezin (1781-April 8, 1853) was born in Osnabruck, Germany. In 1802 at the age of 21 he moved to Bordeaux, France where he served as a clerk for ten years. Fugal living enabled him to save up 1,500 francs and set sail for America in 1812, the first year of the War of 1812, a conflict fought between the United States and the United Kingdom from June 1812 to February 1815. It was fought over British violations of U.S. maritime rights.  
     Johnny Horton (April 30, 1925 – November 5, 1960) was an American country music, honky tonk and rockabilly singer and musician during the 1950s and early 1960s.  He was best known for his international hits beginning with the 1959 single "The Battle of New Orleans", which was awarded the 1960 Grammy Award for Best Country and Western Recording. The song was awarded the Grammy Hall of Fame Award and in 2001 ranked No. 333 of the Recording Industry Association of America's "Songs of the Century". His first No. 1 country song was in 1959, "When It's Springtime in Alaska (It's Forty Below)". 
     With apologies to British readers, here's Horton's song about the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812:

     

     Vezin was sailing on a U.S. vessel that was captured by the British and as a result he spent 3 weeks in an English dungeon. He was then exchanged and finally landed in Baltimore flat broke. 
     He moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania hoping to make a new startand gradually accumulated enough money to enable him to begin a business which he operated until his death importing German, Belgian and French goods. 
     In Philadelphia there were many players of his equal. When Maelzel's Automaton arrived in town in 1827, Vezin practiced by playing against its operator, Wilhelm Schlumberger, with the result that his game improved a great deal. 
     William Schlumberger (1800 – April 1838) was a European master known to have taught Saint-Amant to play chess and to have served as one of the operators of The Turk, a chess-playing machine which was purported to be an automaton. Schlumberger acted as the Turk's director in Europe and in the United States until his death from yellow fever in 1838. 
     The book of the first American chess congress described Schlumberger as a rapid Chess-player, but not particularly strong in the endgame. It also adds some details about his opening repertoire: When the Automaton adhered to its claim of the first move, the game was made a gambit; when the adversary had the move, Schlumberger invariably resorted to Mouret's favorite defence of King's Pawn one—a Boeotian defence, thoroughly understood at the Cafe de la Regence—so often played afterwards by La Bourdonnais, so thoroughly detested by McDonnell In playing end-games, Schlumberger did not come off quite so well: he was sometimes beaten, although very seldom. 
     Very few and rare games of Schlumberger games survived. 
     Vezin possessed great native talent and was equally proficient in all phases of the game. Conservative and cautious, he could when the occasion required play brilliant tactical chess. He died in his home in Philadelphia on April 8, 1853.

     His opponent in the following game, which feature the Classic Bishop Sacrifice, was James Thompson (September 23, 1804 in London - December 2, 1870 in New York) was a master known for forming the New York Chess Club in 1839. He participated in the First American Chess Congress at New York 1857, and lost a match to Paul Morphy (0-3) in the first round. He also lost several other matches to Morphy. He drew a match with Charles D. Mead in 1857, and played several times in New York Chess Club tournaments, losing to Frederic Perrin in 1854, 1857, and 1859, and James A. Leonard in 1860/61. 

     Chessmetrics does not have an estimated rating for Vezin, but Thomson’s is estimated to be in the mid-2500s around 1860. 
     Italian player Gioachino Greco, discovered the Bishop sacrifice on h7 about 400 years ago and so it’s surprising that a player of Thompson’s apparent strength didn’t recognize it as a possibility when he played the horrible 12...Nh8. 
     The Classic Bishop Sacrifice is thoroughly discussed by Jeremy Silman at Chess.com in a three part series: PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 

Play Online Chess

[Event "Philadelphia"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1847.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Charles Vezin"]
[Black "James Thompson"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{C00: French: Unusual White 2nd moves} 1. e4 c5 2. f4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. e5 Nc6
5. c3 {Chess in Philadelphia by Reichhelm and Shipley note that this move was
the old move, but was, at the time of the game, obsolete. Nowadays it is
considered best and is by far the most frequently played.} 5... Be7 6. Bd3
{The book says the modern way would be 6...d4 which is about equal. This line
is so old it doesn't appear in any databases, but Komodo likes 6...Nh6 and
7...O-O } 6... f6 7. Bc2 Nh6 8. d4 O-O 9. O-O Qb6 10. Kh1 fxe5 11. fxe5 Nf7
12. b3 {On his next move black could eliminate all danger and even stand
slightly better with 12...cxd4 13.cxd4 Nb4! which would eliminate white's
dangerous light squared B. Instead he allows the classic B sacrifice.} 12...
Nh8 13. Bxh7+ {...and wins.} 13... Kxh7 14. Ng5+ {If 14...Bxg5 15.Qh5+ Kg8
16.Rxf8+ Kxf8 17.Qxh8+ Kf7 18.Bxg5 as soon as white moves his N, even if
involves a sacrifice, as soon and his R can reach f1 black will be helpless.
after} 14... Kg8 15. Rxf8+ Kxf8 16. Qh5 Bxg5 17. Qxh8+ Kf7 18. Bxg5 {This is
the same position as in the note to move 14.} 18... Qb5 19. Nd2 Kg6 {White
misses a mate in 9, not that it matters: 20.Bh6! gxh6 21. Qg8+ Kf5 22.c4 Nxd4
23.Rf1+ Nf3 24.Rxf3+ Kxe5 25.Qg3+ Kd4 26.Qf4 mate} 20. h4 Qe2 21. Rf1 cxd4
{The prettiest mate is 22.Rf6+ gxf6 23.Qxf6+ Kh5 24.Qf7+ Kg4 25.Qf4+ Kh5
26.g4+ Kg6 27.Qf6+ Kh7 28.Qf7+ Kh8 29.Bf6 mate} 22. Bf6 {Thsi leads to mate in
9 moves.} 22... Qxd2 {Black resigned before white could play 23. Qxg7+ and
24.g4 mate.} 1-0

King's Gambit, Allgaier Gambit

     Johann Baptist Allgaier (June 19, 1763 - January 3, 1823) was a German-Austrian master and theoretician and author of the first chess handbook in German, Neue theoretisch-praktische Anweisung zum Schachspiel published in Vienna in 1795. It was regarded in some parts of Europe as the best text book of the time and was reprinted several times, even after his death; the seventh and final edition was in 1843. 
     Relatively few details of his life are known. Only a few years after his death almost all information concerning his life, including dates of birth and death, were lost. Daniel Fiske traveled to Vienna between 1862 and 1863 and searched the archives of the city for some details about him, but in vain. 
     In 1870 Anton Baron Reissner (a founder of the Wiener Schachgesellschaft and collaborator of the Neue Berliner Schachzeitung) managed to discover some details of Allgaier’s life. Later it was discovered that some information was in memories of Karl Heinrich von Ritters Lang. 
     Allgaier was born in the Duchy of Wurttemberg, his mother tongue was the Swabian dialect. His father was employed at a monastery as a Hofmeister, the person, who, in those days, was in charge of the education of the children of the rich and noble families. Allgaier received a Catholic education and was directed by his father towards the study of theology. 
     Following a trip to Poland he learned chess from a Polish Jew and the game became his main interest at the expense of the study of theology. In 1798, he moved to Vienna and joined the army. 
     Towards the end of 1780, he won a match from which he earned 1500 florins and the reputation of Vienna’s best player. This allowed Allgaier access to the aristocratic circles of the capital where he gave chess lessons. He also became the teacher of the sons and brothers of the Emperor Francis II. 
     Since Allgaier was in the army, he participated in the Napoleonic wars between Austria and France. In 1809, he was employed in a field hospital, where he became ill with chronic asthma. Because of his asthma he was moved to Prague where he became an accountant at the military hospital. He returned to Vienna in 1816 where the Emperor gave him, for health reasons, a modest pension. 
     Always short of money, in order to make some additional, he played chess in the Cafes of Vienna. It was reported that Allgaier's style was brilliant and mainly focused on attacking and when he played, a crowd of spectators gathered.
     Allgaier would accept the challenge of anyone and weaker players also received a short lesson. He also played hidden in the Turk, the chess Automaton in 1809. A game played that year by the Turk against Napoleon is attributed to Allgaier. 
     At the end of December 1822, he was admitted to the military hospital in Vienna and died a few days later of dropsy, an old term for the swelling of soft tissues due to the accumulation of excess water and known today as congestive heart failure. 
     Allgaier was familiar with the writing of Philidor, del Rio, Lolli and Ponziani, but mostly the former; he was later called the German Philidor. He had a particular preference for the K-side P-majority which he believed to be a decisive advantage since it can advance, as Philidor had taught, against the enemy’s castled King. Unlike Philidor, however, he did not think that after 1.e4 e5 the move 2.Nf3 was a mistake. Philidor believed that 2.Nf3 was wrong because it prevents the f2-pawn from advancing and supporting, if needed, the e5-pawn. The pieces, according to Philidor, were better developed behind the pawns and, consequently, the N had to be placed on e2 or f3, but only after the f-pawn was moved to f4. 
     A variation of the King's Gambit is named after Allgaier: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ng5. After 5... h6 white must make a dubious but tricky N sacrifice with 6.Nxf7 which leads to a very tactical game. As with many unsound gambits, it may lead to some nice wins in rapid games (or against lower rated players) because white gets some attacking chances. 
     In 1903, at the gambit tournament held in Vienna the Allgaier Gambit was played 11 times and white scored +0 -8 =3...not good. Between them, Isidor Gunsberg and Georg Marco played the gambit nine times and both got a single draw to show for it. 
     Clearly the gambit is unsound, but in my database in games by players rated under 2200 white scored quite well as black's defense is not quite as easy in practice as the GM game results might suggest. However, if you’re playing a GM, the Allgaier should definitely be avoided. 
     By the end of the 19th century enthusiasm for romantic swashbuckling gambit play had disappeared and to revive interest, in 1903 the Vienna Chess Club sponsored a King’s Gambit tournament in which the moves 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 were mandatory. Albert Rothschild and Leopold Trebitsch provided the financial support. Then World Champion Emanuel Lasker predicted that black would win most of the games and his prediction proved true. White scored +32 -38 =20 
     Once the tournament was underway, the masters who favored positional play found themselves at the mercy of the aggressive tacticians like Chigorin and Marshall. Positional players like Schlechter, Maroczy and Teichmann finished outside the prize list. For Pillsbury this was his last European tournament as his fatal illness was approaching. See my post Pillsbury’s Syphilis  
     Chigorin of St. Petersburg, Russia, the chief living exponent of gambits emerged in first. The fact that Chigorin won didn’t surprise anyone, especially Marshall who wrote in My Fifty Years of Chess, “…coming second to Chigorin was no disgrace, for the old Russian had made a lifelong study of the King’s Gambit and had a deeper knowledge of this intricate opening than has ever been possessed by any other man.” 
     During the course of the tournament the London Sunday Special opined that “there is a tradition among leading tournament players that it is only necessary to comfront Chigorin with 1.d4 and Chigorin resigns.” The magazine then added that it was only necessary to compel his opponents to play and open game and would all resign. The Sunday Special also noted that the chess playing public preferred a “dashing and brilliant player to the patient accumulating of small minutiae” as advocated by Steinitz. 

 The last round game between Chigorin and Teichmann was a forfeit win for Chigorin when Teichmann failed to show up due to illness. 

Play Online Chess

[Event "Vienna Gambit Tournament"]
[Site "Vienna"]
[Date "1903.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Isidor Gunsberg"]
[Black "Carl Schlechter"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{King's Gambit Accepted, Allgaier Gambit} 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4
g4 5. Ng5 {White has far better prospects with 5.Ne5} 5... h6 6. Nxf7 Kxf7
{White has two main choices here: 7.Bc4+ and 7.d4. Statistically he does
better with 7.Bc4+ d5 8.Bxd5+ Ke8 and only now 9.d4} 7. d4 f3 {Better was
7...d5!} 8. gxf3 {In Fecke (2271)-Goessling (2190) Germany 2003 white played
8.Bc4+ d5 9.Bxd5+ Black is considered as having a won position, but in the
game only managed to draw.} 8... d5 {Staking a claim in the center and
preventing Bxc4+ This position was reached three times at Vienna. This game
and Gunsberg-Chigorin in which Gunsberg played 9.e5 and lost in only 23 moves.
The other game was Teichmann-Marco in which white played 9.Bf4...he lost that
game, too.} 9. Be3 Be7 10. e5 {The loss of the h-Pawn in of no importance
because even if 10.h5 the reply is the same.} 10... Bxh4+ 11. Kd2 {White's
position is so bad that the evaluation by Stockfish puts him at an
insurmountable minus of over four Pawns. } 11... c5 {Ripping the guts out of
white's position. Any P exchange by white leaves him wide open.} 12. c3 Nc6
13. Bd3 h5 14. Na3 a6 {Not really necessary as even if the N or B lands on b5
there will be nothing for either piece to do from there as white's position is
already too far gone.} 15. Qg1 g3 16. Qg2 cxd4 17. cxd4 {Black has a good
continuation with 17...Nb4 18.Be2 Bf5} 17... Nh6 18. Rxh4 Qxh4 19. Rh1 Qd8
20. Qxg3 {White is a R down and there are no threats...not even a check on
g6.} 20... Nf5 21. Qf4 Nce7 22. Rg1 Rg8 23. Rg5 Rxg5 24. Qxg5 Qh8 25. f4 Qh6
{Another bad day for the Allgaier.} 0-1

Time!

     I posted on the 1955 Interzonal at Gothenburg (see Boleslavsky’s Hole) earlier this year and mentioned the peculiar case of Yugoslav master Andrija Fuderer when, after a great start, he totally collapsed at the finish. Also, back in 2012 I did a post on Fuderer, but the featured game has, for some reason, disappeared. 
     The following game is one of Fuderer’s games from Gothenburg that was part of his unfortunate collapse, but it features a good tactical finish with a Rook sacrifice by Pachman and the game illustrates the importance of obtaining maximum cooperation of one’s pieces. 
     The character of some positions is determined by features that affect play for a long time (static features), but things like a lead in development, active pieces, the concentration of pieces in on sector of the board (dynamic features) will affect the game for only a short period of time. 
     There are four things that fall into the category of dynamic elements: Lead in development, gain of time at the cost of material, cooperation of pieces and Pawns and positional sacrifices. In those situations every move will determine whether the active side will succeed in taking advantage of his momentary superiority. It’s all about time...neither side can afford to lose any by playing a superfluous move. 
     A word about the Ponziani Opening: The opening was favored by Staunton who wrote in The Chess-Player’s Handbook (1847) that the opening is “so full of interest and variety that it’s omission in many of the leading works on the game is truly unaccountable...it deserves, and if we mistake not, will yet attain a higher place in the category of legitimate openings...” 
     In 1904, Marshall wrote that, "There is no point in White's third move unless Black plays badly. ... White practically surrenders the privilege of the first move." and Graham Burgess called it "a relic from a bygone age, popular neither at top level nor at club level". 
     In Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur, Max Euwe and Walter Meiden wrote, "What should one do with this opening? It is no opening for beginners, because tactics predominate in the play. There are no simple strategic principles to govern the general lines in this opening.” 
     Bruce Pandolfini has said, “Curiously, every great teacher of openings who investigated the Ponziani has concluded that it leads to interesting play and deserves to be played more often. Yet it has never captured the fancy of chess players in general, and it remains to be seen whether the Ponziani is an opening of the past or of the future.” 
    Back in 2013, Magnus Carlsen played it against Pentala Harikrishna at Wijk aan Zee, but GM Evgeny Najer, one of a few high-level GMs who plays the Ponziani, commented, “...it's a bit risky to play...against...Kramnik, but it's completely okay to play...against those made of common clay for you can get some interesting (positions)...” He also added, “...it seems to me we shouldn't be expecting the rise of popularity for Ponziani opening because Black actually has a lot of secure continuations in it." 
     This game is quite a complicated seesaw affair with some rather surprising tactical twists. Especially interesting is the following position in which it's black's move: 

At first glance it looks like black should win easily, but Stockfish evaluates the position at 0.00 and cannot find a win. If you want to look at the position with an engine, here's the FEN:
 r7/P1p2k2/5B2/3qPb2/5Q2/1p3PK1/3p4/R7 b - - 0 43 

Play Online Chess

[Event "Gothenburg Interzonal"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1955.9.21"]
[Round "21"]
[White "Andrija Fuderer"]
[Black "Ludek Pachman"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Ponziani Opening} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. c3 Nf6 4. d4 d5 {One of several
reasonable replies. The others being 4...Nxe4, 4...exd4 and 4...d6.} 5. Bb5
exd4 6. e5 Ne4 7. Nxd4 {Equally good is 7.cxd4.} 7... Bc5 8. O-O O-O 9. Bxc6
bxc6 10. Be3 Bd7 11. Nd2 {In the 1992 German Championship M. Hermann played
11. f3 against R. Schlehoefer (2335) and followed it up with Qc1 and b2-b4 and
the dame was soon drawn.} 11... Nxd2 12. Qxd2 {Although the position is
technically equal, black's chances seem preferable because of the more active
pieces.} 12... Qe7 {According to Stockfish white has a promising P-sacrifice
with 13.Bg5 Qxe5 14. Rfe1 which it evaluates at almost a one P advantage for
white. I wasn't seeing it and so ran a Shootout which resulted in some
interesting play with white scoring +1 -0 =4.} 13. Rfe1 Bb6 14. b4 {So as to
maintain the N on d4. Equally good was 14.f4.} 14... a5 {In view of what
happens a better line was ...Qh4 and ...Rfe8} 15. Bg5 {With this move white
gets a near winning position.} 15... Qe8 16. Bf6 {If black plays 16...gxf6
then after 17.exf6 he is faced with both the loss of his Q and mate.} 16...
h6 17. Re3 {The B is still immune.} 17... Kh7 18. Qd3+ g6 19. Rg3 Bxd4 20.
Qxd4 axb4 21. cxb4 Bf5 {Pachman has managed to hold off on the K-side, but now
faces difficulties on the Q-side.} 22. a4 Qe6 23. Rga3 { Slightly better was
was 23.Rc3 reminding black that his c-Pawn is vulnerable.} 23... Rfb8 {Fuderer
now, perhaps unwisely, switches back to the K-side. It would probably have
been better to continue pressing hsi advantage on the Q-side with moves like
Rc1 and a5.} 24. f3 Qc8 25. g4 Be6 {Fuderer's next move likely was designed to
give his R access to the K-side with the intention of trying to open up files
by the further advance of his K-side Ps. However, as immediately becomes
clear, he needed to play 26.Be7 preventing black's next move.} 26. Kf2 {After
this his advantage evaporates.} 26... Qf8 27. a5 {This move indicates how
completely Fuderer's play collapsed at the end of the tournament! Within the
space of a couple of moves he has transitioned from a nearly won position to a
lost one. With 27.Qc5 Qxc5+ 28.bxc5 he would have remained in the game.}
27... Rxb4 28. Qd3 Qc5+ 29. Kg3 Rb2 {White's K is in some serious danger and
Pachman begins advancing his passed Ps...white is nearly helpless.} 30. Qf1
d4 31. Qd3 Qd5 32. h4 {This is just a gesture...there is no danger to black's
K...or is there?} 32... c5 33. h5 c4 34. hxg6+ fxg6 35. Qf1 d3 { This position
is a pretty straightforward win for black by just advancing his Ps, but
Stockfish likes 35...h5. True, it might be stronger, but black has to see
through some pretty complicated tactics in order to come out ahead. So... the
text move is far better from a human standpoint.} 36. a6 d2 37. Qh1 {Do you
see the mate threat? White threatens 38.Qxh6+ Kxh6 39.Rh1mate. Or 38. Qxh6+
Kg8 39.Qg7mate} 37... h5 {Black could also stymie the threat with 37...Bxg4
38. fxg4 Qh1 and win with his Q-side Ps.} 38. a7 {If 38.gxh5 g5 ends all
white's shenanigans on the K-side.} 38... Rb3 {As baseball player Yogi Berra
once said, "It ain't over until it's overf." A quicker end could have been
had with 38...c3. As played white sneak right back into the game.} 39. Rxb3
cxb3 40. gxh5 Bf5 41. hxg6+ Kxg6 42. Qh4 {Mate is threatened with Qg5+, Qg7+
and Qe7mate} 42... Kf7 {Now the white Q should have stopped on f4 attacking
the B. Amazingly, with the Q on f4 there is no way for black to continue that
gives him any advantage. Seriously! I let Stockfish work on this position
for several minutes and its evaluation was 0.00!!} 43. Qb4 {With the Q on f4
he could have met black's next move with 44.Bg5 shielding the K. If you can,
copy and paste this game into an engine and take a close look at this
position.} 43... Rg8+ 44. Kf4 c5 45. Qb8 {White is right back in the game
unless black finds the one move that leads to mate.} 45... Rg4+ {He does!
It's mate in ten.} 46. fxg4 Qe4+ 47. Kg3 Qxg4+ 48. Kf2 Qf4+ 49. Kg2 Be4+ 50.
Kh3 Qf3+ 51. Kh4 Qf2+ 52. Kg4 Bf3+ 53. Kf4 Be2+ 54. Kg5 Qg3+ 0-1

Comparing Ratings Then And Now

     As Isaac Newton said: If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. 
     Bobby Fischer said: In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorization is enormously powerful. Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get an opening advantage against Capablanca, and especially against the players of the previous century, like Morphy and Steinitz. Maybe they would still be able to outplay the young kid of today. Or maybe not, because nowadays when you get the opening advantage not only do you get the opening advantage, you know how to play, they have so many examples of what to do from this position. It is really deadly, and that is why I don’t like chess any more. 
     Magnus Carlsen likely believes he could defeat Fischer or Tal and he probably could. 
     I have always maintained that today’s top players are better than their predecessors, but what about the rest of us...the Class players? Are they stronger now than 50 years ago? I don’t think so. 
     Compared to average players of yesteryear, we play like we always did and make the same mistakes we always made. As for opening theory, it doesn’t mean much because if one player deviates from the book at move 5 or 6 it becomes a free-for-all and both players will play to their rating whatever that is.  Besides, average players usually a) can't remember a lot of opening moves and b) don't know how to take advantage of it when their opponent deviates from theory.  Let's face it, average players have always played shoddy chess...that's the way we played 50 years ago, the way we play today and the way we will play in the future. 

     I ran across a paper titled Intrinsic Chess Ratings by Regan and Haworth in which they analyzed the games of players of various rating ranges from various time periods with an engine.  You can read what they discovered in their 12-page pdf report HERE.

Szabo Gives A Lesson On Connected Passed Pawns

     Ever since I saw the following game that was played between Gligoric and Szabo in the 10th Olympiad at Helsinki in 1952, it has been a source of fascination. 
     Most players learn early on about the might of united passed Pawns.  Although they also can have their disadvantages, for the one possessing the united passed Pawns it is important to be sure that they cannot be blockaded, so as a rule, the Ps should advance together. i.e. before advancing one of them the advance of the second Pawn needs to be assured. 
     In the following game Gligoric came out of the opening with two connected passed Pawns and his position looked extremely promising, but they were blockaded and never advanced. 
     Pachman’s analysis in Modern Chess Strategy always lead me to believe that it was due to Szabo’s great positional understanding and that Gligoric was positionally lost coming out of the opening. But, as is often the case, when you let modern chess engines take a nice long look at the game, you get a different picture. 
     Stockfish’s analysis indicates that white was not strategically lost from the beginning as suggested by Pachman. In fact, in 1985 the Argentine-Italian GM Carlos Garcia Palermo (born December 2, 1953) repeated the whole line up to move 18 where he found an improvement and went on to win. A year later Polish IM Krzysztof Panczyk also played the same line and he, too, managed to win. 
     Does this mean Pachman’s analysis was worthless. Absolutely not! Pachman was illustrating ideas and that’s what’s important in a book on strategy. 
     See the brief discussion on two united passed Pawns on pages 106-108 in The Logical Approach to Chess by Euwe, Blaine and Rumble HERE. 
     Everybody knows about Gligoric, but Hungary’s Laszlo Szabo (March 19, 1917 – August 8, 1998), a banker by profession, is under-appreciated today. Noted for his aggressive style of play, he startled everyone when he won the 1935 Hungarian Championship at the age of 18, which at that time was considered a remarkable feat; he would go one to win it a total of 9 times. 

Szabo

     At the outbreak of WW2 he was attached to a Forced Labor Unit and later captured by Russian troops who held him as a Prisoner of War. After the war, he returned to chess and played in many major international events and in the post-WW2 era he was also one of the best players in the world. 
     In 1986 Pergamon published My Best Games of Chess by Szabo, but it’ a rare. Szabo himself thought his best agme was against Vasja Pirc at Hastings 1938-39. GM Matthew Sadler analyzed the game HERE.  
     Helsinki was organized by the FIDE as an open team tournament designed to promote chess and took place between August 9 and August 31, 1952. The Olympiad was especially notable for the debut of the Soviet team, who won their first gold medal and went on to completely dominate the Olympiads for the next four decades. In the finals they scored +5 -0 =3 as a team.
     After the tournament, it was generally agreed that the small preliminary and final groups of only 8–9 teams left too much open to chance, since a single blunder would have too big an impact on the final standings. Consequently, FIDE decided that in the future, no final should have less than 12 participants.
     Twenty-five teams entered and were divided into three preliminary groups of eight or nine teams. The top three from each group advanced to Final A. 

Finals: 
1) Soviet Union (Keres, Smyslov, Bronstein, Geller, Boleslavsky, Kotov) 21.0 
2) Argentina (Najdorf, Julio Bolbochán, Eliskases, Pilnik, Rossetto) 19.5 
3) Yugoslavia (Gligoric, Rabar, Trifunovic, Pirc, Fuderer, Milic) 19.0 
4) Czechoslovakia (Filip, Pachman, Šajtar, Kottnauer, Zíta, Pithart) 18.0 
5) United States (Reshevsky, Evans, Robert Byrne, Bisguier, Koltanowski, Berliner) 17.0
6) Hungary (Szabo, Barcza, Szily, Florian, Pogats, Molnar) 16.0 
7) Sweden Stahberg, Stoltz, Lundin, Skold, Johansson, Danielsson) 
8) West Germany (eschner, Schmid, Pfeiffer, Heinicke, Lange, Rellstab) 10.5 
9) Finland (Book, Ojanen, Kaila, Salo, Fred, Niemela) 10.0 

Play Online Chess

[Event "Helsinki Olympiad Prelim"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1952.8.11"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Svetozar Gligoric"]
[Black "Laszlo Szabo"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{E42: Nimzo-Indian: Rubinstein: 4...c Ne2} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4.
e3 {The Rubinstein is the historical main line and the most consistently
popular, but to play it well requires a through positional understanding of
the ideas, structures and plans in the various continuations. Black has three
main moves to choose from: 4...0-0, 4...c5, and 4...b6.} 4... c5 {Black puts
pressure on d4 and leaves open the option of playing ...d5, or ...d6 and
...e5.} 5. Nge2 { This is the Rubinstein Variation proper...white prevents the
doubling of his Ps.} 5... d5 6. a3 {Black can now play to give white an
isolated d-Pawn by 6... Bxc3+ 7.Nxc3 cxd4 8.exd4 dxc4, but at the cost of the
two Bs. Szabo prefers to keep his two Bs.} 6... cxd4 7. exd4 Be7 8. c5
{Gaining space on the Q-side, but this is not without its disadvantages. Safer
was 8.Nf4 intending exchanges on d4 leading to and isolated d-Pawn for both
sides.} 8... O-O 9. b4 b6 10. g3 bxc5 { Which way should white recapture? Not
11.bxc5 because after ... Nc6 and ...Ba6 white's protected passed P is well
blockaded plus black has good piece play.} 11. dxc5 a5 {!! A brilliant
positional move. It gives white two united passed Ps, but they won't be as
dangerous as the look because their advanced position allows them to be easily
blockaded.} 12. Rb1 axb4 13. axb4 {Black himself has a passed P in the center,
but it is going to take a long time to get it moving. His plan is to A)
blockade white's Ps, especially the b-Pawn. So, the N must be brought to b5.
This takes place from moves 13 to 27. B) Black has to advance his own center
Ps which he does from moves 18 to 36).} 13... Nc6 {In analyzing this game
Ludek Pachman says this is playable for tactical reason because white can't
play 14.b5 because black has two good replies: 14... Bxc4 sacrificing the N on
c6 or even better 14...Ne5! and you can't find a good defense for white. Just
one example: 15.Bb2 Bxc5 16.Bg2 Nfg4 with a winning attack. Nevertheless, it
actually allows white to equalize! Correct was 13... Na6! and white still
cannot advance his Ps. After 13...Na6 14.Bg2 Rb8 black has tremendous
pressure.} 14. Bg2 Rb8 {Advancing the b-Pawn is still risky: 15. b5?! Bxc5!
16.bxc5 Rxb1 17.Nxb1 Qb6 with a strong attack, but this may be white's best
option.} 15. Ba3 Bd7 {Better was 15...Ba6 and ...Bc4.} 16. O-O { White can't
play 16.b5 Ne5 17.O-O Qc8 winning a P.} 16... Na7 17. Re1 Ne8 {Both Ns are
joining the fight to control b4. Much weaker was 17...Nb5 18.Nxb5! Bxb5 19.
Nd4 followed by Bb1!! and white overcomes the blockade. Many years later in a
tournament in Luzern in 1985, Garcia Palermo (2520) against Pinter (2540) did
his homework and found the better 18.Nd4 and went on to win.} 18. Bc1 {
Gligoric is following the wrong strategy in trying to lure black into
advancing his center Ps...instead he should be establishing a N on d4.} 18...
Bf6 { Preparing to advance his e-Pawn is the wrong strategy. Correct was
18...Nc7. After this move white should continue 19.Na4! Nc7 20>Nb6 Bb5 21.Nd4
with a monumental struggle centering around white's Ps.} 19. Bf4 e5
{Gligoric's strategy is working. Black should have stuck to his plan of
blockading the b-Pawn with 19...Nd7.} 20. Bd2 d4 21. Nd5 {A better square for
the N was e4.} 21... Bc6 {White can't maintain his N on d4. In addition to his
next move he had two other reasonable tries: 22.Nb6 or what looks even better:
22.Ra1! Bxd5 23. Rxa7! establishing a R on the 7th rank.} 22. Nxf6+ Qxf6 23.
Bxc6 Qxc6 24. f4 f6 25. Qb3+ Kh8 {Obviously white can't play fxe4 giving black
two connected passed Ps in the center, but he can destroy black's P-center by
26.g4!! This move was found by Stockfish. The idea is to make room for the N
to get out of the Rs way: 26...Nb5 27.Ng3 followed by fxe5 and Rxe5. The
outcome of the game turns on white's next mvoe.} 26. Rf1 Nc7 27. Qc4 Nab5 28.
Rbe1 {Having missed the boat on move 26 white's position is now strategically
lost as all hope of advancing his Ps is gone and he now must resort to
regrouping his pieces in an effort to defend against the advance of black's
center Ps.} 28... h6 29. g4 Rbe8 {A tactical error. Correct was 29...e4!
White, for his part, also misses the best reply. After 30.fxe5! fxe5 31.Rxf8+
Rxf8 32.Ng3 (same idea as mentioned in the note to black's 25th move) black
either has to give up the e-Pawn or allow white's Q to reach f7 leaving him
with a huge advantage in either case.} 30. f5 {His final missed chance.}
30... Qd5 31. Qc1 {Trading Qs leaves black with a won ending owing to the
superior position of his pieces.} 31... Kh7 32. Ng3 e4 33. Bf4 e3 34. Qd1 Qc4
{This little move has the point of prevents any possible blockade of his
d-Pawn by Qd3.} 35. h4 {Gligoric has the forlorn hope of a K-side attack, but
it's doomed to failure because black dominates the board.} 35... Nd5 36. g5
d3 37. Qg4 Rg8 {No monkeyshines will be allowed on the g-file!} 38. Nh5 Re4
39. g6+ Kh8 40. Qg3 {Black exceeded the time limit, but he is helpless against
the advance of either black P.} 0-1

Gheorghiu Miscalculates

     London had a great tradition for chess tournaments. It was there that the first international tournament was held in 1851 and subsequent tournaments were held in 1862, 1866, 1883, 1899, 1922, 1927 and 1932. It was also in London that the first international team tournament was held in 1927. 
     After that chess activity declined and wasn’t until 1980 that London began hosting the Phillips and Drew King's Tournament. The Phillips & Drew Kings was a series of tournaments held in London in 1980, 1982 and 1984 and was sponsored by the stockbroker firm Phillips & Drew and the Greater London Council. 
     The 1980 event was the inaugural. The 14-player tournament featured the West's strongest players and the most promising of England's chess talent, including 14 year-old prodigy Nigel Short. You can buy a big photo of Miles playing Short HERE for only $499. 
     The stars included were the dynamic Viktor Korchnoi. Although Karpov was the World Champion, some were referring to Korchnoi as the “vice-champion of the world” because of his great successes in match play at the time. Anthony Miles was, at the time, considered the strongest English player since Staunton.
     There was the super-solid (and super-boring) Ulf Andersson, the solid ex-Soviet Dutch player Sosonko, the resourceful British player Speelman, the attacking Gheorgiu and the explosive Ljubojevic.
     Jan Timman and Gyula Sax both possessed enormous talent and it was going to be interesting to see how they fared. Both the colorful and dangerous Walter Browne and Bent Larsen were there, but they were in bad form. 
     Michael Stean, known for his attacking style, played too many draws, the strong and dangerous John Nunn was sick with a cold throughout the whole tournament and Nigel Short, who had a brilliant result a few months earlier at Hasting, was badly out of form. 
     
After 11 rounds the leaders were: 
1) Andersson 8.0 
2-3) Korchnoi and Sosonko 7.5 
4) Miles 7.0 
5-8) Speelman, Gheorghiu, Ljubojevic and Timman 6.0 

     In round 12, Andersson lost to Miles. Korchnoi, who had an overwhelming position, let Gheroghiu off with a draw. Sosonko suffered his first defeat when he lost to Speelman. Thus going into the last round Miles, Andersson and Korchnoi were all tied with 8.0. Sosonko had 7.5 and Speelman 7. 
     In the last round the large crowd of spectators expected to see a fight for first, but they and the organizers all got cheated when Andersson and Korchnoi played a GM draw that lasted all of 18 moves. Miles and Ljubojevic played an even shorter GM draw; it last only 10 moves. Poor Sosonko lost again, this round to Stean. One can forgive Nunn and Speelman for playing a 14 move draw because it gave Speelman his first GM norm. The only game of any real interest in the last round was Timman’s; he smashed Larsen in 19 moves! View game.
     Timman was very critical of the last round results saying, “They never remember who shares first place; only outright winners earn their place in history.” 

1-3) Miles, Korchnoi and Andersson 8.5 
4-5) Sosonko and Speelman 7.5 
6-8) Timman, Gheorghiu and Ljubojevic 7.0 
9) Sax 6.5 
10-12) Stean, Browne and Larsen 5.5 
13) Nunn 4.5 
14) Short 2.0 

    If you run across the book on the tournament, London 1980: Phillips and Drew Kings Chess Tournament by William Hartston and Stewart Reuben for a reasonable price don’t hesitate to pick it up. 
     One of the more exciting games happened right in round two when Romanian GM Florian Gheorghiu cut loose with some tactics that lead to his getting two minor pieces for a R only to mistakenly give back a piece for a mate that wasn’t there, only a perpetual check. 
     Generally speaking, if you have two minor pieces the essential elements are 1) coordinate your pieces against the Rook and 2) security...it is always good policy to pay particular attention to the general security of your position. 
     Remember that the Rook is adept at picking off stray Pawns, but in the absence of targets it loses a lot of its strength. By the way, this also applies to playing assorted minor pieces against a Queen. 
     The Rook usually comes into its own in the ending and its value increases relative to the other pieces so that winning with two minor pieces against a Rook is often much harder than it would be in the middlegame. See my post concerning two minor pieces vs. R+P HERE. 
     Florin Gheorghiu (born April 6, 1944) is a Romanian GM who lectured in French at Bucharest University; he also speaks English, Russian, German, and Spanish. He was awarded the IM title in 1963 and became Romania's first GM two years later. He was also awarded the title of World Junior Champion (on tie-break) in 1963 at Vrnjacka Banja. 
     Few could rival him in Romania in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. He won the Romanian Championship nine times (the first at age 16) and represented his country in all of the Chess Olympiads between 1962 and 1990, playing first board on ten occasions (1966–1974, 1978–1982, 1988–1990). 
     Ljubomir Ljubojevic (born November 2, 1950) is a Serbian GM who won the Yugoslav Championship in 1977 and 1982. In 1983 he was ranked third in the world, but he never succeeded in reaching the Candidates Tournament stage of the World Championship. He has defeated almost every top GM that was active during his career. 

Play Online Chess

[Event "Phillips & Drew Kings"]
[Site "London ENG"]
[Date "1980.4.11"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Ljubomir Ljubojevic"]
[Black "Florin Gheorghiu"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{B42: Sicilian: Kan Variation: 5 Bd3} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4
a6 5. Bd3 Nf6 6. O-O d6 7. c4 Be7 8. Nc3 O-O 9. Be3 Nbd7 {This position has
appeared in many of Gheorghiu's games. White must decide on which wing he
wishes to concentrate his efforts to increase his space. In either case
black's resources are adequate, but he must play accurately...something
Gheorghiu failed to do in round 6 against Nunn!} 10. Rc1 Re8 11. a3 {An
interesting move. Normally, in this position white will just adapt a wait and
see policy before deciding which side he will play on. But with this move
Ljubojevic appears to be preparing for b2-b4 when in fact he has in mind a
totally different and new idea that does not become clear until move 16.}
11... Bf8 12. Bb1 b6 13. Qe2 Bb7 14. Rfd1 Rc8 15. Bg5 Qc7 16. Ba2 {This is the
point of 11.a3. The B on a2 looks highly artificial, but it deters black from
playing . ..d5, protects the c-Pawn and opens up the possibility of some
tactics along the diagonal.} 16... Qb8 {White can't play 17.f4 because after
17...e5 black would end up with considerable pressure on the e-Pawn.} 17. f3
d5 {The opening up of the position is highly favorable to black and white's B
on a2 proves to be of little value.} 18. Bxf6 Nxf6 19. e5 Nh5 {This hinders
white from protecting his e-Pawn with f4.} 20. g4 {Ljubojevic has overlooked
his opponent's 21st move. Even so, his position is critical and he needed to
try 20.g3.} 20... Nf4 21. Qe3 f6 {There is no satisfactory reply to this move.
If 22.exf6 Bc5 and if 22. Qxf4 fxe5 and in either case black's position is
winning.} 22. cxd5 fxe5 {The N is now firmly supported plus there is always
thew possibility of an annoying pin with ...Bc5.} 23. Nxe6 Rxe6 {Obviously the
R can't be taken because of 24.. .Bc5 pinning the Q.} 24. d6 Bxd6 25. b4 Kh8
26. Bxe6 Nxe6 27. Ne4 Rxc1 28. Rxc1 Nd4 {Black has emerged with two pieces for
the R and has a winning position, but Lujbojevic refuses to roll over and
die.} 29. f4 Be7 30. Rd1 {No point in centralizing black's Q with 30.fxe5.}
30... Qa8 31. Nf2 Bh4 32. fxe5 Nf3+ 33. Kg2 Nxe5+ 34. Kf1 Qf8 35. Rd4 h6 36.
g5 {A great move! It presents black with difficult problems. Black has good
winning chances after 36...Bxf2! The best white has would then be 37.Qxf2
Nf3!! (Allowing the trade od Qs with 37... Qxf2+ would only draw) 38.Rd3 Qf5
and black should win without any great difficulty.} 36... Qf5 {A total
miscalculation based on a planned move that isn't playable!} 37. Rxh4 Qb1+
38. Ke2 Bf3+ 39. Kd2 {The whole point of Gheorghiu's 35...Qf5 was based on his
being able to play 39...Nc4+ forking the K and Q. He just now realized that
c4 is defended by the R. As a result he had to take the perpetual.} 39...
Qb2+ 40. Ke1 Qb1+ 41. Kd2 Qb2+ 42. Ke1 1/2-1/2

Paraphrasing C.S. Lewis

     I’d sooner live among people who don’t cheat at chess than among people who are earnest about not cheating at chess. 
     C.S. Lewis was actually talking about cards, not chess, but after reading about how GM Igors Rausis got caught cheating at a tournament in France, I think I understand what Lewis meant. 
     I don’t follow the latest chess news much, but I couldn’t help but take note of the situation involving Rausis. He has been creating quite a stir because he is in his late 50s and his rating, after having been rated in the 2500s for years, went over 2700... his play wasn’t improving, just his rating. It seems he was taking advantage the 400 point rule in the rating system and was playing lots of weak players to gain under one rating point per game and eventually boosting his rating to over 2600. Nothing new there. 
     Many years ago there was a local player who was always tantalizingly close to a Master rating, but could never quite seem to make it over 2200. His solution: he got a TD certificate from the USCF and started holding crappy little tournaments nobody but low rated players played in. Somehow he always managed to get in a game as a house player in order to prevent a bye. Naturally he beat up on the patzers and picked up a point to two. Once he got to 2202 he quit playing. We used to say he became a Master one point at a time. 
     Decades ago a prisoner in the Virginia State Penitentiary named Claude F. Bloodgood III did the same thing with the USCF system and “qualified” for the US Championship. The difference was Bloodgood supposedly wrote a letter to the USCF demonstrating how the system could be manipulated. The USCF dealt with the problem easily enough...they wiped out Bloodgood’s rating and kicked him out of the USCF. 
     Then there was the odd situation involving Jude Acers. Acers reached a USCF rating of 2399, one point shy of being a Senior Master, by playing matches against unrated players. Supposedly that’s when USCF Executive Director Ed Edmondson then froze Acer’s rating at 2399 until he played in an open tournament. I don’t know if that has been confirmed though. 
     Cheating has involved players conferring while the game was in progress or, before there were ratings, just outright buying and selling games for prizes and titles. Then there was a case of one IM sneaking off to his hotel room to get booked up…as Arthur Bisguier once suspected his opponent of doing. 
     Moving into the electronic age several players have been caught using cell phones or being signaled by accomplices. The latest cheater is Rausis who has been under suspicion for some time now...he was caught red handed using his cell phone while in the toilet. There is even a picture of him seated on the toilet (with the lid down) consulting his cell phone. He signed a confession admitting to everything. He later stated, "I simply lost my mind yesterday. I confirmed the fact of using my phone during the game by written [statement]. What could I say more? ... At least what I committed yesterday is a good lesson, not for me—I played my last game of chess already." 
     According to FIDE director general Emil Sutovsky, Rausis was suspended from the tournament and all materials will be sent to the ethical commission. Sutovsky also said Rausis was reported to French police. 
     The thing that shocked me the most was the published photo of Rausis seated on the toilet consulting his cell phone. GM Kevin Spraggett stated “Privacy issues far out weigh any ethics violations that Rausis might or might not have committed. FIDE should have recognized the difference, but they did not. If Rausis wishes, he could probably launch a criminal case against Garrett and the ‘Fair Play’ Commission.” I have to agree with GM Spraggett...cameras aimed at toilets is just wrong! 
     I don’t know about the laws in France, but in the US if you want to install a security camera in a business or even your home, installing one in a bathroom is a gray area. Public bathrooms can be a place where some pretty heinous crimes are committed, but there are some factors that must be considered: 

1. Cameras Aren’t Allowed in Areas Where People Expect Privacy. If there’s an expectation of privacy in an area, then you can’t have a camera...places like commercial bathrooms and changing rooms. What about your private home? What if you employ a nanny or a maid? Bathrooms are nearly always considered to be places where people can expect privacy and so security cameras aren’t allowed in bathrooms, only outside of them. 
2. Security Cameras Can Be Anywhere With Permission. Anyone can be filmed with their permission. In your home, if you have a security camera in the bathroom, that’s OK, but there must be a warning posted in case someone else uses it. 
3. Security Cameras Are Still Regularly Found in Bathrooms. Some business employees have reported that they’ve found security cameras in bathrooms. And nannies, maids, and even tenants occasionally report that they’ve found security cameras in bathrooms. The whole thing enters a complicated legal area, but cameras are generally considered illegal if the other party is not aware or has not consented to them and the other party has a reasonable expectation of privacy. 

    Ultimately, a security camera in a bathroom is risky and likely to be illegal, especially in public areas, even if a warning is posted. In July of last year a school in England was ordered to remove cameras it had installed in bathrooms in an attempt to curtail incidents of vandalism and bullying. 
     Cameras that also record sound may run afoul of federal wiretapping laws, with or without an otherwise legitimate reason. Years ago my boss installed a camera aimed at the receptionist and the door entering the office so he could see who was coming into the office.  That was OK, but there was a problem.  The camera was mounted over the coffee machine which was no problem in itself, but there was also a microphone on the camera and so the boss could hear what was being said at the coffee pot!  Somebody called the corporate legal department and he was instructed to unhook the microphone.  By the way, it wasn't me that called corporate.  I knew about the microphone and once or twice while at the coffee pot told fellow employees what a great boss we had.  Regardless of the reason for use, employers must let workers know that cameras are being used in the workplace. 
     Seriously, if I am playing in a chess tournament and need to use the bathroom I don’t want the tournament director, or anyone else, watching me tend to business. Maybe the best solution is to hire a bathroom attendant. 

     Here’s an early (and legitimate) Rausis game in which he defeats GM Alexander Shabalov (born September 12-1967) formerly of Latvia and now of the United States. Shabalov studied under former world champion Mikhail Tal, was awarded the IM title in 1989 and his GM title in 1991. About 1992, Shabalov emigrated to the United States with his family and eventually settled in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is known for courting complications and for an uncompromising, attacking style. In the mid to late 1990s his USCF rating was over 2700. Currently it’s 2575 and his play is confined to open events. 

Play Online Chess

[Event "Riga"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1989.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Alexander Shabalov"]
[Black "Igors Rausis"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Sicilian} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7.
Bc4 {This is one of the main lines of the Accelerated Dragon. At this point
the most important black continuations are 7...0-0 and 7...Qa5. White should
not castle Q-side after 7...Qa5, unlike in the Yugoslav Attack.} 7... O-O 8.
Bb3 { Now if black plays 8...d6, white usually plays 9.f3 as in the Yugoslav
Attack. Although, Black often plays 8...a5 or 8...Qa5, after which castling
Q-side can be dangerous, and it is often a better idea for white to castle
K-side.} 8... Ng4 { Seen occasionally, in practice this has not produced
especially impressive results.} 9. Qxg4 {Less good is 9.Nxc6 as the best white
gets is equality after multiple exchanges.} 9... Nxd4 10. Qd1 {It may seem
that withdrawing the Q has resulted in a loss of time, but it's still the best
move if white hopes to retain any chances of developing an attack. If
10.O-O-O Nxb3+ 11.axb3 Qa5 12. Kb1 Bxc3 13.bxc3 Qxc3 black has won a P. White
has some attacking chances with 14.h4 that may allow him to equalize.} 10...
Nxb3 11. axb3 b6 12. Bd4 {Forcing black, one way or another, to compromise his
K's position.} 12... f6 {Here a game between Beshukov,S (2475)-Savchenko,B
(2366)/Krasnodar 2002 continued 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 15. Qd5+ e6 15.Qxa8 Bxc3+ 16.bxc3
and white had a draw, but no more.} 13. h4 {This advance is very promising for
white and is typical Shabalov.} 13... Bb7 14. h5 d5 { In Martin Gonzalez,A
(2435)-Garcia,I/Candas 1992 black played 14...Kf7 and after 15.f5 soon to be
followed by e5 ended up facing a violent attack and losing.} 15. hxg6 hxg6
16. exd5 Bxd5 17. Qg4 {Now black should hunker down on the defense and play
17...Bf7. Instead he ventures on a risky continuation that results in
weakening his K-side.} 17... Bxg2 18. Qxg2 Qxd4 19. Qxg6 Qe5+ 20. Kf1 Qg5
{Realizing that he is positionally at a disadvantage and in some danger on the
K-side, Rausis offers to trade Qs which, of course, Shabalov is unwilling to
do.} 21. Qe4 Rad8 {White could probably survive grabbibg a couple of Ps wiith
22.Qxe7 Rfe8 23.Qxa7 Rd2, but why risk it? Shabalov has a marginal advantage
here and his best move was 22.f4 followed by placing the N on d5. Instead he
embarks on a some faulty maneuvering that allows black too much play.} 22.
Re1 Rf7 23. Re3 f5 24. Qc4 Rd4 25. Qc8+ Bf8 26. Rg1 Rg4 27. Rxg4 fxg4 28. Re4
Qc1+ 29. Kg2 Qxc2 {White should now defend f2 with 30.Re2 after which he
enjoys just a smidgen of an advantage. Instead, he suffered an hallucination
and played...} 30. Rxg4+ {This is not a total disaster; that comes next
move!} 30... Kh7 31. Qc6 {He needed to play 31.Qc4 so that he can threaten
Ra4+. After 31...Qxf2+ 32.Kh1 Qf3+ 33.Kh2 white is hanging in there.} 31...
Qxf2+ {Now if 32.Kh1 Kh8!! clears the way for ...Rh2 with mate to follow.
This would not be so strong if white's Q was sitting on c4.} 32. Kh3 Rf3+ {
Forcing white to surrender his Q.} 0-1

Chess Under Stalin

Stalin's chess set

     Josef Stalin wrote: "Chess players should be in the front ranks of the fighters for the building of socialism for technical mastery and for the rapid and successful fulfillment of the five-year plan." 
     The picture of Stalin's chess set came from the article Visiting Stalin's Sochi Retreat which you can visit HERE.
     Soviet chess has a long history starting with Ivan the Terrible who, according to some accounts, died at the chess board. Peter the Great used to force his guests to play and Lenin was reputed to be an expert. Under Stalin chess became a matter of national prestige. It became a form of of propaganda to show that the Soviet system could accomplish great things. If you ever read The Soviet School of Chess by Kotov and Yudovich, you will remember it’s filled with laudatory remarks about Socialism and the wonderful traits of the Soviet man.
     The Third Moscow International Tournament was held in the summer of 1936. The foreign contingent consisted of Lasker, Capablanca, Flohr, Lilienthal and Eliskases. Of the Soviet players Levenfish represented the old guard with Botvinnik, Ragozin, Riumin and Kan representing the younger generation. 
     The tournament quickly became a race between Botvinnik and Capablanca. This was even though during the tournament Botvinnik claimed to have suffered from the heat and insomnia while Capablanca was bitten by the love bug...he had met the woman who would become his second wife. See Edward Winter's greta article on Capa and his second wife HERE.
     The tournament was a double round affair and Botvinnik lost one of his games against Capablanca (the other being a draw) and that point was Capablanca’s margin of victory. Flohr finished a distant third two and a half points back. The rest of the Soviet contingent fared rather badly. 
     Nikolai Krylenko (May 2, 1885 – July 29, 1938) was a Russian Bolshevik revolutionary and a Soviet politician who served in a variety of posts in the Soviet legal system, rising to become People's Commissar for Justice and Prosecutor General. He was also an ardent chess promoter. 
     He was an exponent of the socialist legal theory that said political considerations, rather than guilt or innocence, should guide the application of punishment. Although a participant in the Show Trials and political repression of the late 1920s and early 1930s, Krylenko himself was ultimately arrested during the Great Purge. Following interrogation and torture by the NKVD, Krylenko confessed to extensive involvement in “wrecking” and anti-Soviet agitation. He was sentenced to death by the Military Collegium of the Soviet Supreme Court in a trial lasting 20 minutes and shot immediately afterward. 
     At the time of the Moscow tournament Krylenko wasn’t especially satisfied with Botvinnik’s play and was even less pleased with the other players. In his foreword to the tournament book, he ripped the Soviet players and insisted that the lessons to be learned were Soviet players needed to drop their conceit, study their games and learn from their numerous mistakes. 

     There is an anecdote about Moscow 1936 that was related years later by Capablanca’s widow. Stalin showed up to watch Capablanca play but hid behind a drapery. Later during the tournament Capa met Stalin and told him that the Soviet players were cheating by losing games on purpose so Botvinnik could keep up. Supposedly Stalin took it good naturedly and promised to take care of the situation; from then on the cheating stopped. Capablanca’s charges of collusion were confirmed in 1946 by Ragozin who participated in both Moscow 1935 and 1936. 
     Lasker, at the age of 67, emerged from retirement to play in this tournament because the Nazis in his native Germany had stolen his home and all his possessions leaving him and his wife destitute. He placed a very respectable sixth. 
     Lasker had always been a friend of Soviet chess, visiting the country four times and was always full of praise for Soviet chess and the Soviet state. So, after the tournament Krylenko invited him to remain in the Soviet Union and secured work for him in the Moscow Academy of Science. To make things appear legitimate Lasker did a little research, but mostly his job was to mentor young Soviet players. 
     Lasker and his wife began the process of acquiring Soviet citizenship. However, in August 1937, Martha and Emanuel Lasker decided to leave the Soviet Union and moved, via the Netherlands, to the United States, first Chicago, then to New York in October 1937. It was the following year that Krylenko got shot. In the United States Lasker tried to support himself by giving chess and bridge lectures and exhibitions. He published one more book in 1940, The Community of the Future, in which he proposed solutions for political problems, including anti-Semitism and unemployment. You can still find the book on the internet if you’re willing to pay $3,250.  
     He died of a kidney infection in New York on January 11, 1941, at the age of 72, as a charity patient at Mount Sinai Hospital and was buried at historic Beth Olom Cemetery, Queens, New York. Further reading...The Last Part of Lasker’s Legacy 
     Also, in 1936 Botvinnik tied with Capablanca at Nottingham. It was a very important victory for the Soviet Union because during the tournament, from August 19 to August 24, in the House of Unions the great show trials of 1936 were taking place. Defendants were tried and found guilty of plotting with Leon Trotsky, murdering Stalin’s personal friend Sergey Kirov and plotting to kill Stalin. They “confessed” and were shot. 
     The British press had been skeptical of the trials and an official at the Soviet embassy told Botvinnik that it was good he finished so well because they could have a reception for the players so something favorable could be written about the Soviet Union. Unfortunately for the Soviets it backfired because the British press only wanted to talk only about the trials. 
     In 1936, with advent of the new Stalin Constitution, socialism officially arrived and the culture, including music, literature, art and chess were expected to properly reflect the changes in a positive light. 

Final standings Moscow 1936
1) Capablanca 13.0 
2) Botvinnik 12.0 
3) Flohr 9.5 
4) Lilienthal 9.0 
5) Ragozin 8.5 
6) Lasker 8.0 
7-10) Levenfish, Eliskases, Kan, Riumin 7.5 

     When analyzing the Lasker-Levenfish game the following position was reached after 32.Kh1: 

     Levenfish started down the wrong path when he played 32...Ba4. The best move was 32...Bxc3! and it’s really worthwhile to set up this position and look at all the possibilities with an engine. In fact, the entire remainder of the game is worth examining with an engine in order to bring out all the latent possibilities. 

Play Online Chess

[Event "Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1936.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Emanuel Lasker"]
[Black "Grigory Levenfish"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{B23: Closed Sicilian: Lines without g3} 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 e6 4. Be2 {
If 4.Bb5 the opening becomes the Grand Prix Attack and if 4.g3 it would be a
normal Closed Variation. Instead Lasker chooses a very acquiescent setup.}
4... d5 5. d3 Nge7 6. Nf3 Nd4 7. O-O Nec6 8. Qd2 {It's hard to suggest an
active plan for white who is now forced to resort to clumsy maneuvering in
order to complete his development. In the meantime though black doesn't seem
to have any weaknesses he can attack.} 8... Be7 9. Bd1 O-O 10. Qf2 a6 11. Re1
Bf6 12. Ne2 dxe4 13. Nexd4 e3 {Levenfish prefers this because after 14...cxd4
he has more space and gains a tempo by attacking the B on e3.} 14. Bxe3 cxd4
15. Bd2 Qd5 16. Qg3 {I thought that instead of his next move black might have
done better developing the B on b7, but it turns out not to be such a good
idea. If 16... b6 17.Ne5! followed by Bf3 and the undefended B on b7 and
pressure on c6 assure white of a slight advantage.} 16... Bd7 17. Ne5 Rfd8
18. c4 {Better was 18. Bf3, but in either case white has come out of the
opening in fairly good shape. } 18... dxc3 19. bxc3 Be8 20. Bc2 {This move may
look passive compared to 20.Bf3, but Lasker places it here because it takes
aim at black's K. Levenfish blunts any potential threats with his next move.}
20... g6 21. d4 Bg7 22. h4 {It's interesting that Stockfish prefers Q-side
play with moves like a4 and Rab1 whereas Lasker sees potential in a K-side
attack.} 22... Rac8 23. Be4 Qd6 24. Rad1 b5 {Black has finally gotten his
Q-side play underway. In the meantime Lasker has gotten his pieces untangled
and has prospects on the K-side. Clearly though black must have the better
prospects here...his K is well defended and white's Q-side is quite weak.}
25. h5 b4 {This P cannot be taken: 26.cxb4? Qxd4+ 27. Qe3 Nxe5 with a winning
advantage.} 26. hxg6 hxg6 {How much potential does white have for a K-side
attack on the h-file? It turns out not much and this move defending c3 leads
to black's advantage. The fact that white doesn't have much in the way of
prospects on the h-file can be seen in the line 27.Kf2 bxc3 28.Bxc3 Nxe5
29.fxe5 Bxe5! 30.dxe5 Qc5+ 31.Qe3 Qxe3+ 32.Kxe3 Rxc3+ which leaves black a
promising ending. Still, this was probably white's best chance.} 27. Re3 bxc3
28. Bxc3 Nxe5 29. fxe5 Bxe5 {Lasker probably overlooked that his R on d1 would
be undefended when he played 27.Re3.} 30. Qh4 {Levenfish's next move is
natural but it allows Lasker to equalize. The coorect line was discovered by
Stockfish: 30...Qb6! 31.Rb1 Bb5! and one way or another black wins the P on d4
but with the important difference that white's position is still under a lot
of pressure and his pieces are discombobulated.} 30... Rxc3 31. Rxc3 Bxd4+
32. Kh1 {So, black has won the d-Pawn here too, but white has strong play on
the d-file. Now, after the correct 32.. .Bxc3 things get really complicated!
After much analysis it was determine that the best line for both sides is
32...Bxc3! 33.Qxd8! Qf8!! From f8 black can likely draw because white's K is
exposed to a series of checks beginning with ...Qh6+} 32... Ba4 33. Rdd3 {Now
after 33...Bxc3 34.Bxg5 fxg6 35. Rxd6 Rxd6 26.Qxa4 and white should win
according to Stockfish, but the position was drawn in Shootouts! It turns out
that if black had played 33...Bxc3 34.Bxg6! fxg6 35.Rxd6 Rxd6 36.Qxa4 black's
R and B are able to hold their own against the Q.} 33... Bb5 34. Bxg6 fxg6
35. Rh3 Qd7 36. Rcg3 {Levenfish now makes a final blunder that costs the game.
After 36...Rf8 all white has is a perpetual after 37.Rxg6+ Kf7 38.Rf3+ Ke8
39.Rxf8+ Kxf8 40.Qf4+ Ke7 41.Qh4+ Kf8 42.Qf4+ Ke7 43.Qh4+ Kf8} 36... Bd3 37.
Rxd3 {It may not be immediately clear how white wins in this position, but
after running several minutes Stockfish discovered a mate in about 35 moves,
so white does have a clear win.} 1-0