Random Posts

Thursday, December 2, 2021

Henry Gross. a Later California Master

Henry Gross
     Way back in 1928 Henry Gross (1907 - 1987), a lawyer by profession, tied for first with A.J. Fink in the California State Championship, but lost the single game playoff. He won the championship in 1952 and the next year finished second behind Herman Steiner. 
     Because of his tie for first in the state championship, as a college senior in 1929, Gross was appointed the freshman coach of the University of California Chess Club; he was already making a name for himself in the California chess world at the age of 20. 
     Gross was from San Francisco and played at the famous Mechanics' Institute, but after passing the bar exam he got married, started a family and gave up chess for a period of ten years or so. After his divorce he married a woman who was bridge player and she had no objections to Gross' hanging out at the chess club, which in many cases also happened to be where the bridge club met. 
     When WWII ended Gross returned to the game and helped form the Golden Gate Chess Club in San Francisco. As one of the California State Chess Federation's first presidents Gross was an active supporter of chess organizations in California and he personally donated $1,000 (over $9,000 today) to help finance the 1961 US Open that was held in San Francisco. 
     The Pan-American tournament in Hollywood in 1954 was an exciting event with the lead changing hands from round to round. At the end of four rounds, Bisguier, Evans, Steiner and Rossolimo were tied at 4-0. In the fifth round Rossolimo took the lead. 
     After tenth round it was a tie at 8-2 between Bisguier, Evans, Rossolimo and Pomar who had steadily been climbing. Round 11 saw Evans and Pomar tied at 9-2, but both of them lost ground in the last three rounds and in the end it was Arthur Bisguier who prevailed.

     There was also a Rapid Transit event that was won by Larry Evans, with a 19-2 score. He lost one game to second place finisher Louis Spinner who scored 18.5. Sherwin was third with 18.0.
     On the June 1954 USCF rating list Henry Gross was a Master with a 2314 rating. In those days the classifications were Grandmaster (rated over 2700) of which there was only one: Samuel Reshevsky. Senior Master (2500-2699). They were: Donald Byrne, Robert Byrne, Arnold Denker, George Kramer and Nicolas Rossolimo.
     There were 36 Masters (2300-2499) on the list. Experts (2200-2199) were also rated separately form the Class players. In 
     the following game Gross defeated Saul Yarmak (born Dec 18, 1933) who won the US Junior Championship in 1953. The following year, 1954, Yarmak, by then a US Army Private, tied for 3rd-4th in the US Junior Championship. 
Saul Yarmak

     Arthur Bisguier didn't like Yarmak. In The Art of Bisguier, Vol. 1, he wrote that when they met in the 1954 Pan-Am, Yarmak showed neither Bisguier, who was the reigning US Champion, nor the other strong masters any respect. Bisguier called him an “egomaniac" and a "braggart who liked to criticize other players.” As a result, Bisguier offered Yarmak a side bet at 20 to 1 with draw odds that he (Bisguier) would win. Bisguier, playing Black, made good on his bet and won in 27 moves. Yarmak was rated an Expert at 2176 at the time.

Henry Gross - Saul Yarmak

Result: 1-0

Site: Hollywood, CA USA

Date: 1954

Pirc Defense

[...] 1.e4 d6 The Pirc Defense (pronounced Peerts) is characterized by 1...d6 and 2...Nf6, followed by ...g6 and ...Bg7, while allowing white to establish a P-center, usually with Ps on d4 and e4. It differs from the Modern Defense (aka the Robatsch Defense) primarily in that in the Modern black delays developing his N to f6. The delay in attacking white's P on e4 gives white the option of blunting the g7 Bishop with c2–c3. There are numerous transpositional possibilities between the two. 2.f4 Rare and also inferior to the usual 2.d4 which statistically gives white far better chances. 2...♘f6 3.e5 This gives the game a Alekhine Defense-like flavor. It's not bad, but far more usual is 3.Nc3 3...dxe5
3...♗g4 4.♗e2 ♗xe2 5.♕xe2 ♘fd7 6.♘f3 e6 7.d4 and white is slightly better. Fier,A (2490)-Crosa,M (2386) Sao Paulo 2006
3...♘fd7 4.♘f3 c5 5.c3 dxe5 6.fxe5 ♘c6 7.e6 fxe6 Oltean,D (2361)-Nita,L (2206) Olanesti ROM 2013. In this unbalanced position the chances are about equal.
4.fxe5 ♗g4 This move turns out to be to black's disadvantage.
4...♘d5 results in equality. 5.♘f3 c5 6.♗b5+ ♗d7 7.♗xd7+ ♕xd7 with equal chances. Mellado Trivino,J (2460)-Hamed,A (2320) Tanta City EGY 1998.
5.♗e2 ♗xe2 6.♕xe2 ♘d5 7.d4 e6 8.♘f3 c5 9.O-O ♗e7 10.c4 ♘b6 The N is not especially well placed here.
10...♘b4 is an interesting alternative. 11.a3 ♘4c6 12.d5 exd5 13.cxd5 ♕xd5 14.♘c3 ♘d4 15.♘xd4 ♕xd4+ 16.♗e3 ♕xe5 with an equal position.
11.♗e3
11.dxc5 ♗xc5+ 12.♔h1 O-O 13.♘c3 and white stands well owing to his spatial advantage, Q-side P-majority and open files for his Rs.
11...♘c6 12.dxc5 ♘d7 13.♘c3 Black faces an interesting problem. Which P should he take? 13...♘dxe5 Not this one! The e-Pawn, being a center P, seems logical, but there is a fly in the ointment as Gross will demonstrate.
13...♗xc5 is correct. Then after 14.♗xc5 ♘xc5 15.♘b5 O-O 16.♘d6 ♕b6 17.♔h1 White can only claim a minimal advantage. Black's plan will be to undermine the N by playing ...f6 at some point.
14.♖ad1 ♕a5 15.♘xe5 ♘xe5 16.♗d4 ♘c6 17.♗xg7 This move exposes the fly! 17...♕xc5+
17...♖g8 This was best, but even so, black is practically lost here, too. 18.♗f6 ♗xf6 19.♕f2 ♖g7 20.♕xf6 ♕xc5+ 21.♖f2 ♕e5 22.♘e4 ♕xf6 23.♘xf6+ ♔f8 24.♖d7 White has a dominating position.
18.♔h1 There is no way to avoid white's strong threat of Ne4. 18...♖g8 19.♘e4 ♕a5 20.♗c3 Black is now completely lost as the Q has no place to go. 20...♕c7 21.♖xf7 Qh5 would kill now.
21.♕h5 also packs a strong punch. 21...♖g6 22.♖xf7 ♖d8 (22...♔xf7 23.♕xh7+ ♔f8 24.♕xg6 mates in 6) 23.♖df1 ♔d7 24.♕xh7 and wins
21...♖d8 (21...♔xf7 22.♕h5+ ♖g6 23.♕xh7+ ♔f8 24.♕xg6) 22.♖df1 Aiming for Nf6+. 22...♔d7 23.♘f6+ ♔c8 24.♘xg8 ♖xg8 25.♕xe6+ ♕d7 26.♕xd7+ ♔xd7 27.♖xh7 ♔d6 28.b4 ♖g4 29.b5 Black resigned.
Powered by Aquarium

Wednesday, December 1, 2021

Dr. Walter Lovegrove, An Early California Master

     Dr. Walter R. Lovegrove, was a Master Emeritus when he died at the age of 86 in San Francisco on July 18, 1956. For over 60 years he was one of San Francisco's leading players. 
     In Dr. Lovegrove's heyday, California, while it had an active chess community, was not exactly a hotbed of chess activity. In December of 1854 the first meeting of the famous Mechanics' Institute Chess Club was held. In 1857, Selim Franklin of San Francisco was on the planning and rules committee for the first American Congress in New York that won by Paul Morphy. In 1858, a California Chess Congress was held in San Francisco. The winner was Franklin, who won a gold watch.
     In the mid to late 1800s several prominent players did visit the state. In July 1884, Johann Zukertort spent a month in San Francisco playing chess. That year Joseph Redding won three games from Zukertort at the Mechanics' Institute and proclaimed himself champion of the Pacific Coast. In 1885, the Golden Gate Chess Club was formed in San Francisco. 
Joseph Redding

     Walter R. Lovegrove (1869-1956) was born on October 24, 1869. He learned the game at the age of 16 by studying the article on chess in the Encyclopedia Britannica. During the period 1886-1890 he strengthened his game by playing at the Mechanics' Institute Chess Club in San Francisco, finally becoming so strong that, in one tournament he gave odds to all the other contestants, yet still won the tournament. 
     After Pillsbury's success at Hastings in 1895 a meeting was held in January, 1896 in Chicago and the Pillsbury National Correspondence Chess Association (PCAA) was organized. 
     The PCCA only had 50 members and in 1897 they began their first correspondence tournament, the Grand National. Dr. Otto Meyer of Richmond, Virginia was the winner. The club struggled until late 1905 or early 1906 when all of a sudden the tournaments stopped for unknown reasons. Dr. Lovegrove was the winner of the final Pillsbury National Correspondence Tournament.
     When Max Judd visited San Francisco, Lovegrove won six games out of seven from him in casual play. Jackson W. Showalter also visited San Francisco and they played about 30 casual games of which Lovegrove won about a dozen. 
     In 1893 Lovegrove visited Los Angeles, where he met and pummeled Samuel Lipschutz (1863-1905) by a score of 32-2. It should be mentioned that by that time Lipschutz was in very frail health and afflicted by tuberculosis. He had left New York several times for health reasons, principally staying briefly in Santa Fe, New Mexico in 1893 before relocating to Los Angeles where he lived from 1893 to 1995. In 1904 he relocated again, this time to Florida and the same year he traveled to Hamburg, Germany for treatment, where he had a series of operations but did not survive the treatment. 
     It's interesting that in the 1940’s one of Isaac Kashdan's children had serious health problems which resulted in a move to California because of its better climate. The move put Kashdan far away from the center of chess activity which was mostly in New York City. 
     During the early 1900s local players at the Mechanics' Institute used to raise money for exhibition games for stakes between visiting masters and Lovegrove. In December of 1902, the world champion, Emanuel Lasker, visited San Francisco, and played an exhibition game against Lovegrove. Lasker tried to win a drawn game and lost in a problem-like ending. 
     In April, 1904, Lovegrove won an exhibition game from Pillsbury. It was a wild game in which Pillsbury started a fatal Pawn-grabbing spree that allowed Lovegrove to obtain a crushing K-side attack.. Pillsbury was very upset over losing, especially after the game was published. 
     In 1912, Dr. Lovegrove played the Dutch Master Louis Van Vliet in London for allegedly for a shilling a game. Lovegrove won the only game they played and so was richer by a shilling (about $7-8, almost $200 today!). Also, in Paris in 1912, Lovegrove beat the Parisian Master Jean Taubenhaus, 10-1. 
     Then one day in San Francisco in 1913, Lovegrove held his own against the touring Boris Kostic. Vienna, 1922, was the site of two games between Lovegrove and Tartakower and they each won a game. 

     In the following game, after a slow beginning, Lovegrove takes out the nefarious Norman T. Whitaker in the 24th Western Championship held at the Mechanics' Institute in San Francisco in 1923 in grand style.

Walter R. Lovegrove - Norman T. Whitaker

Result: 1-0

Site: Western Championship, San Francisco

Date: 1923.07.30

Ruy Lopez

[...] 1.e4 e5 2.♘f3 ♘c6 3.♗b5 d6 The Old Steinitz Defense is solid but passive and cramped. Although the favorite of Steinitz and often played by defensive players Lasker, Capablanca, and occasionally Smyslov, it fell into disuse after World War I because of its passivity. 4.d3 White's most direct approach is 4.d4 while 4.c3 and 4.0-0 remain viable alternatives. 4...f5 5.c3 ♘f6
5...fxe4 6.dxe4 ♘f6 7.♕e2 ♗e6 8.♘g5 ♗g8 9.♗c4 ♕d7 10.♗xg8 ♖xg8 black is only slightly better. Mudrak,J (2323)-Biolek,R (2449)/Czech Republic 2012
6.♘bd2 ♗e7 7.♕e2
7.b4 did not work out well after 7...O-O 8.♕b3+ ♔h8 9.♘g5 ♕e8 10.♗c4 ♕g6 Black has a promising attack. Bibiloni,J (2233)-Frank,M (2032) /Villa Ballester 2003
7...a6 8.♗xc6+ bxc6 9.O-O a5 10.♖e1 fxe4 11.dxe4 Better was 11.Nxe4 11...♘d7 12.♘f1 ♘c5 13.♕c2 ♗g4 14.♘3d2 O-O 15.b4 Seeking play on the Q-side. 15...♘e6 16.♘c4 axb4 17.♘ce3 ♗h5 18.cxb4 ♘d4 Black has manages to emerge from the opening with the more active position. 19.♕c4+ ♗f7 20.♕d3 ♖xa2 21.♖xa2 ♗xa2 22.♗b2 ♗h4 23.♘g3 (23.♗xd4 loses outright. 23...♗xf2+ 24.♔h1 ♗xe1 25.♗c3) 23...♕f6
23...♗f6 consolidating his position was another option. After 24.♗xd4 exd4 25.♘ef5 ♗f7 (25...c5 26.bxc5 dxc5 27.♕c2 ♗e6 28.♕xc5 equals) 26.♘xd4 c5 27.♘c6 (27.bxc5 dxc5 wins) 27...♕a8 28.b5 black stands slightly better.
24.♖f1 c5 25.bxc5 dxc5 26.♘gf5 ♗e6 27.♘g4
27.g3 is an interesting alternative 27...♗g5 28.f4 exf4 29.gxf4 ♗h4 30.♘xd4 cxd4 31.♗xd4 With an unclear position. In Shootouts all five games were drawn.
27...♕g5 28.♘xe5 ♘xf5
Weaker is 28...♗xf5 29.♗xd4 Better than 29.exf5 29...♗e6 (29...cxd4 loses... 30.♕c4+ ♔h8 31.♘f7+ ♖xf7 32.♕xf7 h6 33.exf5) 30.♗c3 and white has equalized.
29.♘f3 ♕g4 Whitaker's aggressive play is unwarranted. Consolidation was called for.
29...♕d8 30.♕xd8 ♗xd8 31.exf5 ♗xf5 And black is better. In Shootouts white scored +0 -2 =3
30.h3 ♕f4 31.♗e5 ♕h6 32.exf5 ♖xf5 33.♗xc7 ♗e7 34.♖e1 ♖f6 35.♘e5 Lovegrove has put up a manly defense and reached a position in which his pieces have become active and black's c-Pawn is a target, not a danger to white. 35...♖f8 This is a gross oversight that loses the game!
35...c4 allows black to put up stiff resistance. 36.♘xc4 ♕h4 37.♗g3 ♕xc4 38.♕xc4 ♗xc4 39.♖xe7 with a likely draw.
36.♘g4 An excellent move! 36...♗xg4 37.♕c4+ Another excellent move!
37.hxg4 is a bad alternative 37...♕f6 38.♕e2 ♖f7 with equal chances. Five Shootouts were drawn,
37...♔h8 38.♖xe7 A third excellent move! (38.♕xg4 is impossible 38...♗d6 39.♗xd6 ♕xd6 equals.)
38.hxg4 is also a bad choice. 38...♕d2 39.♕e2 ♕xe2 40.♖xe2 ♗f6 equals.
38...♗h5 (38...♗xh3 39.♕f7 ♕f6 40.♕xf6 gxf6 41.gxh3 with a won ending.) 39.♗e5 ♖g8 40.♕h4 Equally good was capturing the c-Pawn. 40...♕c1+ 41.♔h2 ♖e8
41...h6 doesn't improve anything because white has a mate in 9. 42.f4 ♕e3 43.♕xh5 ♕xe5 44.♕xe5 c4 45.f5 ♔h7 46.f6 c3 47.♕f5+ ♔h8 48.fxg7+ ♖xg7 49.♕f8+ ♔h7 50.♕xg7#
42.♖xe8+ ♗xe8 43.♕e7 It's mate in 4 so Whitaker resigned. (43.♕e7 ♕f4+ 44.♗xf4 h5 45.♗e5 ♗f7 46.♕xf7 mates next move.)
Powered by Aquarium

Tuesday, November 30, 2021

More On Exchange Sacrifices

     Here is some more on the sacrifice of the exchange based on instructions from that master of attack, Rudolf Spielmann. 
     Spielmann observed that the absolute values are what form the basis on which most exchanges are made, i.e. Q= 9, R=5, B and N = 3 and P=1. However, it is the relative value that is the decisive factor for positional play and especially for sacrifices. To wit: 
 
1) The simpler the position, the more the absolute value carries weight. 
2) The more complicated the position, the more the relative value of the pieces gain in importance. 
 
     When it comes to the sacrifice of the exchange it is never an exactly even transaction so you either win the exchange or you lose it. Exchange sacrifices are dependent on specific positional and tactical factors. 
 
Spielmann offers the following helpful definitions: 
 
1) Any voluntary loss in material counts as a sacrifice. 
2) The sacrifice of the exchange is when a Rook is given up for a minor piece and a Pawn. 
3) The term sacrificing the exchange when applied to situations where a Rook is given up for a minor piece and two Pawns is incorrect; it should be wins two Pawns for the exchange. 
4) The sacrifice of the exchange can serve any purpose. It can be a sacrifice for: 
     a) Development 
     b) An obstructive sacrifice, a sacrifice intended to blockade a square, file, rank or diagonal. 
     c) A sacrifice designed to expose the opponent's King. 
 
     In all cases, the sacrifice of the exchange is designed to improve the position of the minor pieces. 
     Here is a case in point taken from the game Spielmann vs. Tarrasch that was played in Carlsbad 1923. Spielmann gave this game in his classic The Art of Sacrifice in Chess. A great attacker and sacrificial player, in this book he classified various tactical motifs, but as with almost all of those old books from pre-engine days, analytical errors abound in the examples. Still, there is a lot to be learned from the book and even if his evaluations and play in the following game were not always correct, they worked against the great Tarrasch which says something...we can learn ideas from them and maybe use theme in our own games.

Rudolf Spielmann - Siegbert Tarrasch

Result: 1-0

Site: Carlsbad

Date: 1923

King's Gambit Declined

[...] 1.e4 e5 2.f4 ♗c5 Statistically, at least in my database, this move produces much poorer results for black than accepting the game. White has a lot of ways to counter this move and many times black will end up with a much worse position than if he had accepted it. If black wants to decline the gambit then the Falkbeer (2...d5) is a better choice. The idea is that the B prevents white from castling. 3.♘f3
3.fxe5 Is a trap that loses for white. 3...♕h4+ 4.g3 (4.♔e2 ♕xe4#) 4...♕xe4+ wins the R.
3...d6 4.c3 Other options are 4.Nc3 and 4.Bc4, but the text is considered slightly better. 4...♗g4 This pin is somewhat annoying and the method white uses here to counteract it originated with Frank Marshall. 5.fxe5 dxe5 6.♕a4+ ♗d7 7.♕c2 ♘c6 8.b4 This is the point as black's next move is forced. 8...♗d6 Necessary, else 9 P-N5 wins the King Pawn.
8...♗b6 9.b5 ♘a5
9...♘ce7 is much worse because after 10.♘xe5 ♘f6 11.a4 white's position is even better than after 9...Na5
10.♘xe5 winning the e-Pawn.
9.♗c4
9.b5 isn't so effective now as seen in Huschenbeth,N (2532)-Azarov,S (2635)/Greensboro USA 2014 9...♘a5 10.d4 and now black could have equalized with 10...c6. Instead he played the much weaker 10...♕e7 and white got the upper hand after 11.♗d3 f5 12.♗g5 ♘f6 13.♘bd2 h6 14.♗xf6 gxf6 15.O-O
9.♘a3 does not give white much. 9...f5 10.d3 ♘f6 11.♘c4 O-O 12.a4 a6 13.♗e2 h6 14.O-O is equal. Bakhtiari Kish,M (2056)-Dilanyan,G (2296)/Erevan 2016(21)
9...♘f6 10.d3 ♘e7
10...h6 11.O-O O-O 12.a4 a6 13.♘bd2 b5 14.♗b3 equals. Popovych,O (2305)-De Lange, D (2210)/Gausdal 1982
10...♕e7 11.O-O O-O-O 12.a4 a5 13.b5 gave white a huge advantage in Bronstein,D-Panov,V/Moscow 1947
11.O-O ♘g6 12.♗e3 This permits black to obtain counterplay. 12.a4 was correct. 12...b5 13.♗b3 a5 14.a3 axb4 15.cxb4 Black's Q-side advance has succeeded in forcing white to play this which has resulted in black achieving full equality. 15...O-O
15...♗xb4 is refuted by 16.♗xf7+ ♔xf7 17.♕b3+ ♔e8 18.♕xb4 Although the material is equal white is much better.
16.♘c3 c6 17.h3 ♕e7 18.♘e2 ♗b8 The purpose of this move is to exchange Bs after ...Ba7 in the hope of establishing a N on f5, but the maneuver is somewhat labored. The immediate 18...Nh5 was simpler. 19.♔h2 ♗a7 20.♗g5 h6 21.♗xf6 ♕xf6 22.♘fd4 ♕d6 23.♘f5 ♗xf5 24.♖xf5 ♘f4 25.♖f1 Up to this point black has defended himself ably and picked up a positional advantage in the better P-formation because white's Ps on a3 and d3 are backward and may become weak. For his part white has built up strong pressure on the f-file which Tarrasch seems to underestimate. (Spielmann) Actually, white's last move gives black a slight advantage, but he must play accurately because the slightest slip will give white tactical chances. It doesn't matter how great a positional advantage you have, miss a tactical shot and the positional advantage means nothing!
25.♘xf4 was correct. Then after 25...exf4 26.e5 ♕d4 27.♖f1 ♖ad8 28.♖5xf4 ♕xe5 29.g3 the chances would be about even as black must guard against the attack on f7.
25...g6 Her Spielmann makes the incorrect claim that it would be better to decline white's offer of the exchange implied by his last move and that black had little choice but to play 25...Ne6. The text move "wins" the exchange at the cost of enabling white's attack, hitherto directed only against f7, to spread over the whole K-side. (Spielmann)
25...♘e6 This move does result in an equal position so Spielmann is correct in that claim. 26.♕a2 ♖ae8 is completely equal.
26.♖1xf4 exf4 27.e5 Black can claim a slight advantage here...provided he finds the best moves...it is this difficult task that makes the games of great attackers like Spielmann, Nezhmetdinov, Tal and others so entertaining...in the complications their opponents often went astray. 27...♕e7
27...♕c7 With this move black would have kept his small advantage in hand. 28.♖f6 ♔h8 (28...♕xe5 A poisoned P! 29.♖xg6+ ♔h7 30.d4 wins) 29.♕c3 ♗e3 30.♖xc6 ♕d8 and black is doing OK.
28.♖f6 Spielmann has completely misjudged the position, not only did he do so during the game, he did so when he wrote the book! He wrote - "The powerful establishment of the R on this square is the point of the sacrifice. There are now many threats, above all 29.d4 and only then capture at g6 by either the R or Q. True, Black remains with two Rs for the Q, but his K-side is so critically weakened that successful defense is, in the long run, impossible. Yet this would be better than the defense which Bback actually selects." That's all wrong as any engine will tell you. Stockfish puts black's advantage at nearly 4 Ps, Komodo about one P while the ancient Fritz 5.32 puts it at about 3/4 of a P.
28.♕xc6 This move, unmentioned by Spielmann, would have drawn which is white's best course. 28...gxf5 29.♕g6+ ♔h8 30.♕xh6+ ♔g8 31.♕g6+ ♔h8 32.♕h6+ ♔g8 33.♕g6+ ♔h8 34.♕h6+
28...♔g7 I won't even bother quoting Spielmann here because his note is so far from reality! However, this is the losing move after which Stockfish evaluates the position as being almost 6 Ps in white's favor which is, obviously, a clear win.
28...♔h8 is another story...black is winning! 29.♕c3
29.♕xc6 ♕xe5 30.♖xf4 ♖ae8 This is even better than taking the N. Black has a won game in either case.
29...♗e3 The sacrifice on g6 is no longer a threat. 30.♖xg6 fxg6 31.e6+ ♔g8 32.♕xc6 ♖xa3 and the game is practically over.
29.d4 And now it's true...white is winning. 29...♗xd4 Tricky! Of course, white cannot capture the B at once. 30.♗xf7
30.♘xd4 White must leave the B alone! 30...♕xe5 There is nothing white can do. His best line is 31.♖xf7+ ♖xf7 32.♗xf7 f3+ 33.♔h1 fxg2+ 34.♔xg2 ♔xf7 35.♕xc6 ♖d8 36.♘f3 He needs the N to defend his K. 36...♕e2+ 37.♔g3 ♖d3 and all white has left is some meaningless checks.
30...♗xe5 This allows a mate in two, but he was lost anyway.
30...♖xf7 31.♕xg6+ ♔f8 32.♘xd4 ♖xf6 33.exf6 ♕f7 34.♕xh6+ ♔e8 35.♘f3 ♕f8
35...♖xa3 36.♘g5 ♕f8 37.♕g6+ ♔d7 38.♕f5+ and wins...the K has no safe retreat.
36.♕g6+ ♕f7 37.♕e4+ ♔d8 38.♕xc6 White has a won ending. For example... 38...♖xa3 39.♘e5 ♕h7 40.♕d6+ ♔c8 41.f7 forces mate in 11 moves.
31.♕xg6+ Facing mate next move, Tarrasch resigned. An entertaining game!
Powered by Aquarium