Al Horowitz dissented in his magazine, Chess Review pointing out that Washington had encouraged the continuation of professional sports and that other nations at war, such as Great Britain, had continued holding tournaments.
The USCF relented and the top players agreed (surprise!) to forego appearance fees and guarantees of prize money agreeing to play for modest prizes.
The lineup wasn't a very strong one with only seven real contenders: Reshevsky, Kashdan, Denker, Steiner, Pinkus, Horowitz and Seidman.
The winner should have been Isaac Kashdan.
The tournament was a race between him and Reshevsky, but Kashdan got cheated out of the title.
In the 6th round tournament director, the infamous L. Walter Stephens, incorrectly forfeited Denker after Reshevsky supposedly exceeded the time limit...or did he?
Both players were in time trouble and it has often been reported that Reshevsky's flag fell when Denker made the drawing move and punched the clock. According to the report on the incident in Chess Review they "were using a battered old clock with no flag indicators."
Stephens, standing behind the clock, picked it up and turned it around so that the clocks were facing opposite sides and then, declaring that Denker had exceeded the time limit, ruled him to have forfeited.
When his mistake was pointed out, Stephens refused to change his decision. The spectators demonstrated their disapproval of Stephens' ruling with boos and jeers and Denker filed a protest because Reshevsky was not keeping score. It was all to no avail because his protest was disallowed!
Isaac Kashdan reported on the incident in Chess Review stating that Reshevsky defeated Denker in a drawn position when Denker overstepped the time limit and Stephans' ruling "(caused) a commotion and near riot." Kashdan wrote, "The spectators and officials all (got) a look at the clock which (was) carried about and handled by all and sundry. There (was) a wide divergence of opinion, but the referee (had) ruled and (was) later upheld by the tournament committee."
From beginning to end the tournament was a neck and neck race between Reshevsky and Kashdan. After nine rounds they were tied at 8.5 points apiece! Reshevsky had drawn with Matthew Green in the third round and Kashdan had drawn with Jacob Levin in the fourth. Their scores put them ahead of their closest competitors by two points.
The remaining rounds were a battle between the two. In the tenth round Reshevsky took the lead when Kashdan overlooked what was called a brilliant Queen sacrifice by Herman Steiner and lost. But, then in the next round Reshevsky could only draw against the last place finisher, Herman Halhbohm, a minor master from Chicago.
After finishing his last round game Kashdan had a 12.5-2.5 score. Reshevsky, at 12-3, adjourned his game against Horowitz who had outplayed him and was two Pawns up. But, thanks to opposite colored Bishops and a better placed King, Reshevsky had drawing chances.
Upon resumption Horowitz' 58th move allowed Reshevsky to draw and so tie with Kashdan. In the 14-game playoff Reshevsky took the lead after the fifth game and won the match +6 -2 =3.
The U.S. Women's Championship was held concurrently and, unlike the men's event, it was no contest. May Karff scored 8-0 and outdistanced the second placed finishers, Adele Belcher and Nancy Roos by two points.
I was going take a look at that Kashdan-Steiner game because the "brilliant Queen sacrifice" description caught my eye, but after looking at the game it turned out the Steiner only offered his Q in a won position and Kashdan didn't take it. In fact, Kashdan was forced to surrender his Q two moves later.
Probably the most brilliant game of the tournament was Reshevsky's win by a flurry of tactics over Herbert Seidman. Let's take look at it.
Reshevsky's style was often criticized because it was said he was lucky and that his play was boring. But, as they, good players are always lucky.
As for the boring part, back in 1940 in Meet the Master, Dr. Max Euwe wrote that Reshevsky liked boring positions and then went on to explain that many situations which other masters would abandon as won or drawn were analyzed more correctly by Reshevsky who often discovered numerous hidden possibilities.
Reshevsky's rival, Dr. Reuben Fine, preferred to say that Reshevsky was "the tactician par excellence." Fine explained, "Regardless of the nature of the position, he is rarely prepared to accept any conventional judgment and he will exhaust all his resources before he admits that he is wrong."
Looked at from that viewpoint, Reshevsky's win in the following game was quite typical of his style. Herbert Seidman (1920-1995) was a Senior Master from New York City known for his swashbuckling style. He played several U.S. Championships and took the scalps of many notable players, including Benko, Bisguier, Donald Byrne, Denker, Lombardy, Mednis and Reshevsky. In the U.S. Open in 1974 he defeated the formidable Dutch GM Jan Timman on the black side of a Scandinavian Defense.
A game that I liked (Komodo 14)
[Event "US Championship, NewYork"]
[Site "New York, NY USA"]
[Date "1942.04.10"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Herbert Seidman"]
[Black "Samuel Reshevsky"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C86"]
[Annotator "Stockfish 15"]
[PlyCount "74"]
[EventDate "1942.??.??"]
{Ruy Lopez: Worrall Attack} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7
6. Qe2 {In this, the Worrall Attack, white substitutes 6.Qe2 for 6.Re1. The
idea is to use the Q to support the e-Pawn and play Rd1 to support the advance
of the d-Pawn, although there is not always time for this.} b5 {[%cal Bb7b5,
Bb5b4][%mdl 32]} 7. Bb3 d6 8. a4 Bg4 {[%mdl 32]} 9. c3 O-O 10. h3 {An
important move...it forces black to make up his mind whether the B will go to
the K-side or return to the Q-side or if he should exchange it.} (10. Rd1 {
and Fine recommended} Rb8 11. d4 exd4 12. cxd4 d5 13. e5 Ne4 {which was not
played until 40 years later in Anand,V (2690)-Kamsky,G (2655) Moscow 1992
which continued} 14. axb5 axb5 15. h3 Bh5 16. Be3 Qd7 17. Rc1 Rb6 18. Nc3 {
with equal chances.}) 10... Bh5 {At the time the book move was 10...Bd7, but
Reshevsky was never too concerned with such matters and he instinctively plays
the move that is considered best today. Incidentally, it Stockfish's
recommended move.} 11. Rd1 (11. d3 Na5 12. Bc2 Nd7 13. b4 Nb7 14. g4 Bg6 15. d4
{with equality. Varavin,V (2510)-Yemelin, V (2520) Elista 1994}) 11... b4 {
The tactician, Reshevsky takes the opportunity to create complications.} (11...
d5 {is also acceptable.} 12. d3 (12. exd5 {is a mistake.} Na5 13. Bc2 {and now
black wins with} e4 14. Bxe4 Nxe4 15. Qxe4 Nb3 16. Ra2 Bg6) 12... d4 13. Bg5 h6
14. Bxf6 Bxf6 15. g4 Bg6 16. Bd5 {White is better. Shkuran,D (2383)-Podolsky,A
(2127) Zhovkva UKR 2010}) 12. d4 {Strictly speaking not bad, but more exact
was 12.a5 fixing the black a-Pawn and depriving the N of the important square
a5.} bxc3 {This might look bad, but Reshevsky has seen that the position is
deceptive and he's hoping Seidman will go astray...which he does!} 13. g4 {
This is not really bad, but it is, like his previous move, not good either.
Evidently Seidman was under the impression that he will either win a piece or
secure an overwhelming position. The chances would have been equal after the
better 13.bxc3} Qb8 {Technically 13...Rb8 was better, but his sets a subtle
trap.} (13... Bg6 {This may have been what Seidman was expecting. After} 14.
dxe5 {Things get complicated now and OTB things get dicey for both sides!} Nxe4
15. Nxc3 Nxc3 16. bxc3 Qe8 17. Bd5 Na5 18. Nd4 dxe5 19. Bxa8 exd4 20. Bd5 d3
21. Rxd3 Bxd3 22. Qxd3 {and white, having the initiative, is slightly better.})
14. Bd5 {Into which Seidman falls. To paraphrase Fine, Seidman and his good
position are parted.} (14. Bc4 {is the most accurate.} cxb2 15. Bxb2 Nxg4 16.
hxg4 Bxg4 {This position with its unbalanced material is unclear.}) 14... Nxd5
15. exd5 Bg6 {In the complications Seidman seems to have underestimated this
elementary move.} (15... cxb2 {allows white a slight advantage after} 16. Bxb2
e4 17. Nh2 Bg6 18. dxc6) 16. bxc3 Na5 {Threatening to win a piece with 17...Nb3
} 17. Nbd2 exd4 (17... e4 {was even stronger.} 18. Nxe4 Qb7 19. Re1 Qxd5 20.
Ned2 Rfe8 {Black is better.}) 18. Qxe7 {White finds himself in a very
difficult situation after this.} (18. Nxd4 Re8 19. Qf3 Bg5 20. Nf5 {and black
is only slightly better.}) 18... Re8 {[%mdl 2048] Black is in control.} 19. Qg5
dxc3 20. Nh4 {With this move Seidman embarks upon a desperate adventure.} (20.
Nf1 {is hardly an improvement though.} f6 21. Qf4 Re4 22. Qg3 c2 23. Re1 Rxe1
24. Nxe1 Qb1 25. Nxc2 Qxc2 {Black is winning.}) (20. Nd4 {this is relatively
best.} h6 21. Qf4 cxd2 22. Bxd2 Re4 23. Qf3 Rxd4 24. Bxa5 Rc4 {followed by ...
Bc2 and black's advantage is minimal.}) 20... f6 {Wisely avoiding capturing on
d2.} (20... cxd2 21. Bxd2 Nb3 22. Nxg6 fxg6 (22... hxg6 23. Rab1 {and white is
very close to equalizing thanks to the annoying pin on the N.}) 23. Rab1 Nxd2
24. Qxd2 (24. Rxb8 Nf3+ 25. Kg2 Nxg5 26. Rxe8+ Rxe8 {and white has lost a
piece.}) 24... Qd8 {and black has only a minimal advantage. The heavy pieces
afford white plenty of counterplay.}) 21. Qf4 Bc2 {this is even better than 21.
..cxd2} 22. Nf5 (22. Rf1 {is not much better.} cxd2 23. Qxd2) 22... Bxd1 23.
Ne4 Rxe4 {Nice!} (23... Bc2 {allows white to complicate things with} 24. Nh6+
gxh6 25. Nxf6+ Kh8 (25... Kg7 26. Qxh6+ Kf7 27. Bg5 {and the position is equal.
}) 26. Nxe8 Qxe8 27. Qf6+ Kg8 28. Qxc3 {Black has a decisive advantage.}) 24.
Qxe4 {It should be pointed out that Seidman, while not on Reshevsky's level,
was also a very good tactician and with this move he threatens to win with
Qe6+.} Qe8 (24... Nb3 {A pass to demonstrate white's threat.} 25. Qe6+ Kh8 26.
Bh6 Qf8 27. Bxg7+ Qxg7 28. Nxg7 Kxg7 29. Rxd1 {and white wins.}) 25. Qb4 Nb3 {
...Qe1+ is the strong threat.} 26. Rb1 Nxc1 {This is probably worthy of a
question mark as it lets slip a large portion of black's advantage. The play
of both sides now gets a little inexact and it's quite possible that time
pressure was a factor for both players.} (26... Qe1+ {is crushing as after} 27.
Kg2 Bc2 {white is out of reasonable moves.} 28. Rxb3 Be4+ 29. f3 Qe2+ 30. Kg1
Qd1+ 31. Kh2 Qxf3 {There is no good answer to the threat of mate on g2}) 27.
Rxc1 c2 {Stronger that 27...Bxa4} (27... Bxa4 28. Qxc3 Bd7 29. Qxc7 Bxf5 30.
gxf5 Qh5 31. Qb7 {with drawing chances.}) 28. Qb7 (28. Qc3 {makes black's job
tougher.} Rc8 29. Nd4 Qe5 30. Qe3 {Black is better, but white is still alive.})
28... Qd8 (28... g6 {would have wrapped up the game fairly quickly.} 29. Nd4
Qe1+ 30. Kg2 Rf8 31. Ne6 Bf3+ 32. Kg3 Qxc1) 29. Qb3 Rb8 (29... h5 {results in
a winning R+P ending and was more precise.} 30. Nd4 Rb8 31. Qd3 hxg4 32. Nxc2
Bxc2 33. Qxc2 gxh3 34. Qxc7 Qxc7 35. Rxc7 Rb4 {and wins}) 30. Qa2 {[%mdl 8192]
Missing his last chance.} (30. Qd3 Rb4 31. Nd4 f5 32. Nxc2 Bxc2 33. Qxc2 fxg4
34. h4 Qxh4 35. Qxc7 Rf4 36. Qc8+ Rf8 37. Qe6+ Kh8 38. Qf5 Qd8 39. Qxg4 {
with drawing chances.}) 30... h5 31. Nd4 hxg4 32. hxg4 Qe8 33. Nxc2 Qe2 34. g5
fxg5 (34... Qg4+ {forces mate.} 35. Kf1 Be2+ 36. Ke1 Bc4 37. Qxc4 Qxc4 38. gxf6
Re8+ 39. Ne3 Qxc1+ 40. Ke2 Qb2+ 41. Ke1 Qxf6 42. Ke2 a5 43. Kd3 Qxf2 44. Nd1
Qe2+ 45. Kc3 Qxd1 46. Kb2 Rb8+ 47. Kc3 Rb3+ 48. Kc4 Qd3#) 35. Qa3 Bxc2 36. Qc3
Be4 37. Qxc7 Qg4+ {Facing mate in 2, Seidman resigned.} 0-1
No comments:
Post a Comment