Monday, August 10, 2020

Gerbec was Wrong!

Dr. J. Hannak wrote the well known book Emanuel Lasker, the Life of a Chess Master that was published in 1952. Hannak was described by Fred Reinfeld as “...a distinguished Viennese authority on the game” and back in the 1930s (at least) he was one of the co-editors of Wiener Schachzeitung.  He had also written, again according to Reinfeld, a fine book on Steinitz, but I wasn’t able to find anything on it.

In the May 1937 issue of Deutsche Schachzeitung, Hannak published an article by Theodor Gerbec of Austria (1887 - 1946) titled Is This Progress? in which, in rather heated terms, Gerbec assailed the style of the young GMs of the day.

Gerbec was an interesting fellow, to say the least. He was also a co-editor of the Deutsche Schachzeitung and he had his ideas on Aryan vs. Jewish chess. Gerbec was also anti-American and found the Jewish American GM Reuben Fine a handy target. He also had a strong dislike for Salo Flohr who later emigrated to the Soviet Union, but at the time was still living in Czechoslovakia. 

Gerbec wrote, "Pure safety chess is pretty much the worst thing that has ever been played on the 64 squares." Chess as played by those two was unnatural and and Gerbec knew where it came from. "It seems that this style comes from America. It's the same sober, boring style that builds the tasteless skyscrapers and mechanizes the whole life and, what is the main thing, brings success. The same compulsion that forces American life into the path of speculation. But speculative chess is the last thing we need and it will never be progress." 

Hannak called the claim preposterous and wondered if Gerbec had seen any of Fine’s and Flohr’s games; thye were they main object of Gerbec’s disdain. Reinfeld described Gerbec as “a German writer whose mediocre understanding of the game prevented him from liking a game unless it was full of bing-bang-biff combinations.” 

In the article Gerbec reproached the modern style for its poverty of ideas and claimed the young players had a style that was “completely lacking in any spirit of initiative...all they do is wait and wait until their opponent loses patience, makes a slight strategical mistake and then they are slowly crushed with mathematical certainty.” 

Gerbec claimed the outstanding representative of this tendency was Salo Flohr. He observed that Flohr had at his disposal an enormously developed technique and acknowledged that occasionally “we find combinations in Flohr's games...but these are of a purely technical nature and not to be confused with the combinations of a Marshall, a Spielmann or an Alekhine.” 

Gerbec found it even more depressing that recently there had appeared another representative of this system who was “even duller than Flohr.” That was Reuben Fine who, according to Gerbec, didn’t strive for an advantage...but played a waiting game from the very first move. 

Also among Gerbec’s complaints was the fact that Flohr never opened a tournament game with any other move other than 1.d4 or 1.c4. And Fine, he claimed, was even more cautious: he played only 1.c4 and then 2.Nf3 and only then 3.d4. According to Gerbec, Fine did this “else his opponent might adopt the enterprising Budapest Defense or the Albin Counter Gambit.” He added that “this style signifies nothing more than the Americanization of chess, the sterile mechanical spirit of which the skyscraper is the ultimate manifestation.” 

Hannak was critical of the article and probably correctly claimed that “it would be a waste of time to attempt to convince Herr Gerbec that he is wrong” and Reinfeld agreed. 

The year also saw the tragic story of Dr. Robert. B. Griffith (August 19, 1876 – May 30, 1937) who was a former University of Pennsylvania Chess Champion and a noted player, having at one time won games against, among others, Emanuel Lasker and Pillsbury. 

Dr. Griffith retired from chess for a period of twenty years or so while establishing a practice in Hollywood where he was the personal physician to Mary Pickford and Charlie Chaplin; he also performed plastic surgery. 

At one time an actor named William H. Scott sued Dr. Griffith for $100,000, or about $1.8 million today. Scott claimed Dr. Griffith had operated on his nose and had mangled it to such an extent that he was no longer able to get film work. A judge ruled that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of Dr. Griffith. 

In another case, Dorothy Higgins, a New York stage player, filed suit for $5,000 ($90,000 today) against Dr.Griffith alleging an operation he performed on her nose to make it photograph well caused it to increase in size and made her voice sound like she had a cold. 

Then Minnie Chaplin, wife of film star Syd Chaplin, claimed she came from under Dr. Griffith’s knife disfigured and permanently marred. Dr. Griffith claimed the mangled nose was due to her refusal to follow instructions and not to his carelessness and negligence. She, too, wanted $100,000. 

Poor Dr. Griffith. Getting sued for allegedly botching nose jobs wasn’t his worst luck. That came on May 30, 1937 when he died in an automobile accident as a passenger in a car driven by Herman Steiner. The two were on their way back to Hollywood from the annual North-South match when Steiner hit another car head-on. Griffith was killed outright while the driver of the other car was critically injured.

About 5,500 miles away over in Ostend, Belgium, 1937 was was a good year for Swiss master Henri Grob. There were no Elo ratings in those days, but Chessmetrics assigns Grob a rating of 2474 in 1937 which places him number 172 in the world. That year Reuben Fine was assigned a rating of 2676 (6th in the world) and Paul Keres’ rating is listed as 2713 (8th in the world). Remember, both Fine and Keres were among the world’s elite and in 1938 they shared first place at the legendary AVRO tournament. And yet there was the unheralded Grob, who beat both of them, taking first place on tiebreaks. 


One of the most famous and instructive games of the tournament was played between Paul Keres and Reuben Fine. Controlling the center is a key opening principle, but it has advantages in the middlegame and endgame, too. 

In this game, the players come out of the opening in a position where it is very difficult to determine the correct strategy and the play of both players was clever, but in the end it was Keres’ control of the center that enabled his K-side attack to succeed. It’s also rife with clever tactics.

Paul Keres - Reuben Fine

Result: 1-0

Site: Ostend

Date: 1937.04.11 

Queen's Gambit Declined: Semi-Tarrasch

[...] 1.♘f3 d5 2.d4 ♘f6 3.c4 e6 4.♘c3 c5 5.cxd5 ♘xd5 6.e4 ♘xc3 7.bxc3 cxd4 8.cxd4 ♗b4 The exchange of the dark squared Bs helps black because each exchange, as a rule, diminishes the strength of white's P-center and increases the importance of black's Q-side P-majority. 9.♗d2 ♗xd2 10.♕xd2 A common position in the Semi-Tarrasch. White controls the center while black aims for an endgame where he can take advantage of his Q-side majority. 10...O-O 11.♗c4 White's strategy is to play d4-d5 at the appropriate moment and, also, to conduct a K-side attack. Sometimes he can combine these two ideas and use the open a2-g8 diagonal as part of the attack. 11...♘d7 This move allows the N to participate in the defense. The more popular 11...Nc6 places pressure on the center, but eventually the N will be chased away when white advances the d-Pawn. 12.O-O b6 Now the question for white is where to place his Rs. It seems natual that one should go on the c-file, but Keres assesses that his chances lie in a K-side attack combined with a push in the center. Therefore, to place a R on the c-file would be wrong because it would eventually be exchanged. Instead, he places his Rs on d1 and e1 where they can be used in the attack. 13.♖ad1 ♗b7 14.♖fe1 ♖c8 15.♗b3 ♘f6 Fine's strategy is that once the P advances to d5 it can easily be blockaded and attacked. Meanwhile, . ..Nf6 is an active continuation in that it targets e4 and at the same time keeps an eye on d5. The purely defensive strategy would have been to play his R to e8 then play ...Nf8. 16.♕f4 ♕c7 Hoping to trade Qs, but Keres needs the Q as part of his planned attack. 17.♕h4
17.♕xc7 ♖xc7 18.d5 exd5 19.exd5 is equal as in Mareco,S (2655)-Mastrovasilis,A (2524)/Dubai 2017.
17...♖fd8 This logical move is a mistake. Both players and a couple of annotators missed the fly in the ointment.
17...h6 This move assures black of equality. 18.d5 exd5 19.e5 ♘e4 20.♗xd5 ♗xd5 21.♖xd5 ♘c3 22.♖d6 ♕c4 23.♕xc4 ♖xc4 24.♖d7 a5 and Drygalov,A (2477)-Perov,G (2196)/St Petersburg 2018 was eventually drawn.
17...♘xe4 18.♖xe4 ♗xe4 19.♕xe4 ♕c6 20.♕g4 The two pieces almost always favor the attacker. Advice...never trade the R for two pieces (except maybe in the ending). Stockfish won five Shootout games with white from this position.
18.♖e3 The immediate advance of the d-Pawn fails, so Keres plans to double Rs on the e-file. Here in The Art of Attack, Vladimir Vukovic has a long note about why 18.Re3 is incorrect from the strategic point of view and asserts that the correct move is 28.e5. However, the whole question is moot because as CJS Purdy pointed out years ago, strategic considerations are meaningless if there is a good tactic available, and here there is.
18.d5 This is inconclusive... 18...exd5 19.e5 ♘e4 20.e6 fxe6 21.♘d4 ♕f7 22.♘xe6 ♕xe6 23.♖xe4 equals
18.♘g5 This neat little tactic gives white a strong attack. The N can't be allowed to stay on g5 because of the threat of e5, so... 18...h6 19.♘xe6 fxe6 20.♗xe6 ♔h8 21.♗xc8 ♖xc8 22.f3 Here the R bests the two pieces thanks to the extra two Ps and control of the center.
18...b5 Black not only prepares the advance of his Q-side Ps, but he also wants to place his Q on b6 where it pressures d4. It still might have been worthwhile to consider 18...h6 19.♖de1 19.Ng5 leads to the same line as in the note to the last move and so it appears to have been better than this. 19...a5 Some annotators evaluated this position incorrectly and claimed an advantage for white here, but the engines clearly favor black because he now has his Q-side counterattack underway. I think Keres was well aware of the situation because he takes time to address the advance of black's Ps and also switches to the advance of his own d-Pawn. 20.a4 b4 Better was 20...bxa4! Now the initiative slips through black's fingers. 21.d5 After black captures, white will play d5 and then play Ng5 with a strong attack. 21...exd5 22.e5 ♘d7 Black develops problems after this, so better was 22...Ne4 as recommended by Keres.
22...♘e4 23.♖xe4 dxe4 24.♘g5 one annotator suggested that this gives white a winning attack, but it actually loses after 24...h6 25.♗xf7 (25.♘xf7 ♗d5 26.♘xd8 ♗xb3) 25...♔h8 26.♗e6 ♖f8 27.♗xc8 ♖xc8 28.♘xe4 ♕xe5
22...♘e4 23.e6 As Vukovic points out this move recommended by Keres draws after 23...fxe6 (23...♖f8 24.e7 ♖fe8 25.♖xe4 dxe4 26.♘g5 etc.) 24.♖xe4 dxe4 25.♗xe6 ♔h8 26.♘g5 h6 27.♘f7 ♔h7 28.♘g5 etc.
23.♘g5 While it might not have been a bad idea for black to have played ...h6 at some point to prevent this move, it wasn't critical to have done so, but now it is! 23...♘f8 And it's with this move that Fine loses the game.
23...h6 Saves the game. 24.e6 hxg5 25.exf7 ♔xf7 26.♖e7 ♔g8 27.♕xg5 ♕c3 28.♗xd5 ♗xd5 29.♕xd5 ♔h8 and white should take the draw with 30.Qh5+
24.♘xh7 Decisive...or nearly so. 24...♘xh7 This give the Q and R access to his K.
24...♘g6 offers some faint hope. 25.♕h5 ♘f4 26.♕g4 ♘e6 27.♘f6 ♔f8 and white is better but he still has to find a way to demonstrate the win.
25.♖h3 ♕c1 26.♕xh7 ♔f8 27.♖he3
27.♖d1 Fine would have loved to have seen this. After 27...♕g5 28.e6 ♖d6 29.exf7 ♔xf7 30.♖g3 ♕h6 at least here black isn't dead lost.
27...d4 28.♕h8 ♔e7 29.♕xg7 ♖f8 30.♕f6 White plans e6 30...♔e8 31.e6 Fine resigned.
31.e6 ♕xe3 32.exf7 ♔d7 33.fxe3 ♖c6 34.♕g7 d3 35.♕xf8 ♖c8 36.♕xc8 ♗xc8 37.f8=♕ d2 38.♖f1 d1=♕ 39.♖xd1 ♔c6 40.♕xc8 ♔b6 41.♖d6 ♔a7 42.♖a6#
Powered by Aquarium

No comments:

Post a Comment