ShashChess Revisited, Komodo and Stockfish

     I didn't realize it but back in 2018 I did a review of SashChess and considered it "interesting." 

     SashChess is based on Stockfish. The difference is that this engine is an attempt to apply Alexander Shashin's theory based on his book Best Play: A New Method For Discovering The Strongest Move that was published in 2013.Read book review HERE

     In the book physicist and master Alexander Shashin breaks down the position into mathematical ratios that compare the elements of material, mobility, safety and space which, supposedly, leads you to the proper plan and the right mental attitude in light of what’s happening on the board. Based on the games of three world champions with distinctive playing styles (Tal, Capablanca, and Petrosian) and backed up by personal and computer-aided analysis, Shashin attempts to form guidelines to help make decisions in different situations, including those too wild and murky to provide clear-cut conclusions. 

     SashChess is based on Stockfish and the book. Depending on the position the engine has algorithms modeled after the play of Tal, Capablanca and Petrosian as well as "mixed," so it plays differently, based on the type of position it is analyzing. Additionally, the engine has a GoldDigger mode in which it favors depth over the pruning of variations. In this mode it is supposed to be able to uncover hidden possibilities although it loses slightly in playing strength. It also means it will require more thinking time. I should mention that this mode does not seem suitable for auto-analysis in Fritz (or the tactical analysis as it's called in ChessBase 16) nor is it good for use in engine speed tournaments because it is slower. 

     It's this GoldDigger mode that I was interested in for correspondence play. As a test I entered an event on Lechenicher SchachServer where engine use is allowed. My opponents were all in the 2100 range and one had an ICCF title. 

     Of course, there was no way of knowing what engines they were using or how much time they were allowing engines to think before selecting their move, but I suspect that Stockfish was the norm and since most moved fairly quickly I assume their engine "thinking" time was not especially long. For my part, all games were played in the GoldDigger mode and the minimum engine thinking time on three cores was five minutes, sometimes 15-30 minutes. 

     My main observation was that there was little difference between SashChess' moves and those of whatever engines my opponents were using because in none of the games did they make a move that was totally unexpected. All of the games were uneventful draws. 

     So, while SashChess is a most interesting concept, in my opinion it did not seem to offer any real advantage over Stockfish 15 which is still my preferred engine for analysis. 

     Speaking of engines, I also have Komodo 14 which I seldom use, but for those that are interested you can download Komodo 13 free from their site HERE. The claim is that Komodo's advantage over brute force engines is its positional style of play and the fact that it relies on positional evaluation over depth. This means that "when most engines can't find a good plan, Komodo can seemingly create something out of nothing." 

     Komodo 14 also has different "personalities" the names of which are self-explanatory: aggressive, defensive, active, positional, endgame, beginner and human. The idea is to simulate different styles.  The ChessBase site gives an example...say if you think the position offers enough attacking potential to warrant playing for a win then  you can switch to the aggressive mode, etc. I think this sounds like sales hype or may it's something similar to SashChess' different modes. Testing it out on Lechenicher SchachServer is not something I want to bother with.

     All that said, on the CCLR 40/15 rating list there is not all that much difference between Stockfish, Komodo Dragon and SashChess! If you are interested you can download SashChess HERE

Apostle of Aggression

     That's how Chess Review described Weaver Adams after his victory in the 1948 U.S. Open that was held in Baltimore, Maryland. 

     The US Open of 1948 started the day before my third birthday, but I was unaware of it. Some other events in July that I was unaware of were Idlewild International Airport (today John F. Kennedy) opened in Queens, New York and pinball machines and other gaming devices were banned in New York City. The Berlin Airlift was taking place and, for reasons that I cannot begin to explain, The Woody Woodpecker Song by Kay Kyser and His Orchestra topped the Billboard singles charts.

     Only once before had the 47-year old Weaver Adams scored a major success and that was in 1945 when he won first prize at Ventnor City in New Jersey.

    In this US Open, Adams showed his aggressive nature when, after a second round loss and a third round draw, he was far off the pace, but came from behind to take first prize when he fought off a determined challenge by Olaf Ulvestad in the last round. 

     Max Pavey was the hard luck player; he missed possible wins against Adams (they drew) and Ulvestad (he lost) and had at least a draw against Kashdan (also a loss). That's a possible 2.5 points he left on the table...enough for a clear first. In the event the excellent showing of young players Robert Steinmeyer and Arthur Bisguier was a promising sign. 

     Adams success was remarkable because he frequently found himself playing against his own analysis, most of which was published for everyone to see. Such faithful adherence to his own theories made Adams' career a difficult one because he really was one to practice what he preached. 

     Adams made only one foray into the international tournament (Hastings 1950-51) and it was a disaster. He finished in 9th place with a +2 -6 =1 score in no small part because everybody knew what he was going to play. His iconoclastic theories just wouldn't hold up in actual play.

[Event "US Open, Baltimore"] [Site "?"] [Date "1948.07.12"] [Round "?"] [White "Weaver W. Adams"] [Black "Anthony Santasiere"] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "61"] [EventDate "1948.07.05"] {Caro-Kann: Advance Variation} 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 {For a long time this was regarded as inferior for many years for no other reason than the way in which Capablanca crushed Nimzovich at New York 1927. But, it was revived by Tal and later Alexei Shirov and Nigel Short.} Bf5 {The other main continuation is 3...c5.} 4. Bd3 Bxd3 5. Qxd3 e6 6. Ne2 {[%mdl 32]} Qb6 7. f4 {This appears to be as least as good as the alternatives 7.c3, 7.Nd2 and 7.a4} g6 { Santasiere takes precautions against the advance of white's f-Pawn, but Adams opts to play it anyway.} 8. g4 c5 {Black is doing well here as white is facing some difficulty in getting his pieces out.} 9. f5 {Aggressive, but that's about all you can say for it.} cxd4 10. fxe6 Qxe6 {Not a bad move by any means. Engines prefer 10...fxe6, but it results in complications galore.} 11. Nxd4 Qd7 {A wimpy retreat. Larry Evans once criticized Santasiere for talking like a Romantic, but he didn't have any games to back up his bravado.} 12. Qe2 Be7 13. e6 fxe6 14. Nxe6 {Better than taking with the Q. White wants to keeps pieces on the board.} Nc6 15. O-O {Now white has the upper hand.} Nf6 16. Bh6 { [%mdl 2048]} Ne4 {It would have been safer to play 16...Kf7 and if 17.Ng5+ Kg8 even though the R on h8 would be imprisoned.} 17. Ng7+ Kd8 18. Nc3 {Black should now continue with 18...Nxc3 with approximate equality.} Nd4 {Black's centralized pieces coupled with white's exposed K appear to assure him of superiority, but, in fact, his position is lost.} 19. Qg2 {More precise was 19. Qd3} Rc8 20. Rad1 {Another slightly imprecise move, but even so, white still remains much better.} (20. Nxe4 dxe4 21. Qxe4 Rxc2 {and white is winning after} 22. Ne6+) 20... Rxc3 {As good as anything else!} 21. bxc3 {[%mdl 32]} Nb5 22. c4 Nbc3 23. cxd5 Bc5+ {It finally looks like black has an attack, but it's an illusion.} 24. Kh1 Nxd1 (24... Nf2+ {This was no better.} 25. Rxf2 Nxd1 26. Ne6+ Kc8 27. Re2 {White's only a P ahead, but is winning. How is that so?} Nf2+ 28. Kg1 Ne4+ 29. Be3 Bxe3+ 30. Rxe3 Nd6 31. Qg3 Nc4 32. Rb3 Re8 33. Qf4 Nd6 34. Re3 b5 {White wants to play c4} 35. a4 a6 36. axb5 axb5 37. Ra3 Rxe6 (37... Kb8 38. Ra6) 38. Qd4 Re1+ 39. Kf2 Rc1 40. Ra8+ Kc7 41. Qc5+ {mate next move}) 25. Qxe4 Nf2+ 26. Rxf2 {[%mdl 512] Putting an end to any hopes black has of counterattacking.} Bxf2 27. Qe5 {The threat is Bg5+. Compare this position to the one after 18...Nd4...black center gas completely disappeared.} Qxg4 28. Ne6+ {White mates.} ({Weaker is} 28. Qb8+ Ke7 29. Qxb7+ Kd6 30. Ne8+ Rxe8 $18) 28... Kd7 29. Qc7+ Ke8 30. Ng7+ Kf8 31. Nf5+ {Very precise and aggressive play by Adams.} 1-0

A Crackerjack Game By Tal

     Merriam-Webster defines "crackerjack" as either a candied popcorn confection or a person or thing of marked excellence. Today's game is an example of the latter definition. 

     The Botvinnik-Tal match of 1960 was played in Moscow in the spring of 1960 and what a match it was! There was the famous 6th game in which Tal, right after the opening, sacrificed a Knight. Yasser Seirawan explains the game on YouTube HERE...check it out!

     In that game Tal was pacing back and forth on the stage and when Botvinnik's clock showed only a few minutes left the arbiters Stahlberg and Golombek had to move the game backstage because the spectators were so excited and noisy! Botvinnik's efforts at refuting the sacrifice were in vain...Tal won the game, and in spite of Botvinnik's stubborn resistance, he went on to win the match. 

     The match was from March 15 to May 7, 1960, and after 21 games, and at the age of 23, Mikhail Tal became the 8th World Champion. 

 

     Tal often sacrificed material for the initiative and those intuitive sacrifices created complications that were often difficult, if not impossible, to solve over the board. Post-game analysis, and these days analysis with engines, may find flaws, but who cares?! 

     In the following game, for the second game in a row, Botvinnik lost when he played what was considered a gross blunder.

     This game (the 7th) featured a Caro-Kann and the same variation that was played in the fifth game, but this time Botvinnik adopted a line that led to an exchange of Queens. Tal could have avoided doing so, but at the expense of incurring a weak center Pawn. 

     The main feature of this game is that it's an example of two minor pieces against a Rook. Examination of the notes by Hans Kmoch and Peter Griffiths, a strong British master who was active from the 1960s until 1989, shows that their notes contained errors, but they were written before today's powerful engines. What is more important is that they both pointed out some practical guidelines that it's important to be aware of. 

     If you are interested in general principles on two minor pieces against a Rook then you might want to check out Larry Kaufmann's excellent article on page 6 in the March 1999 issue of Chess Life. If your not interested in principles, just play over the game for enjoyment. 

 

[Event "World Championship Match, Moscow"] [Site "?"] [Date "1960.03.29"] [Round "7"] [White "Mikhail Tal"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B18"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "103"] [EventDate "1960.??.??"] {Caro-Kann} 1. e4 c6 {Tal wrote that there was no reason to suppose that Botvinnik would change his tactics which, in four out of six games, had given him a playable game and so the Caro-Kann was his most suitable choice.} 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Bf5 5. Ng3 Bg6 6. N1e2 Nd7 {This move prepares ...e5. More cautious is 6...e6 as played in game 5. After that game Tal had considered the possibility of sacrificing a N on e6 should they reach the same position again. Probably Botvinnik had also given it some thought and so he played a different line. In any case, Botvinnik took 12 minutes to decide to play this move which gives white a slight edge and indicates he had some concerns about what course to take.} (6... e6 {This is safer.} 7. h4 h6 8. Nf4 Bh7 9. Bc4 Nf6 10. Qe2 Bd6 11. Be3 Nbd7 12. Ngh5 Nxh5 13. Nxh5 Rg8 {with equality. The game was eventually drawn. Tal-Botvinnik, 5th game.}) 7. h4 (7. Nf4 {allows black easy equality after} e5 8. Nxg6 hxg6 9. dxe5 {and black can play either 9...Nxe5 or 9...Qa5+ and 10...Qxe5+}) 7... h6 8. Nf4 Bh7 9. Bc4 (9. Bd3 {This would diminish some of the value of the break ...e5, but black continue as usual with ...e6, ...Ngf6, etc} Bxd3 10. Qxd3 e6 11. Bd2 Ngf6 { equals}) 9... e5 {Tal wrote that black doesn't have much choice and this move is practically forced. Tal was still speaking of the possibility of a N sacrifice on e6.} (9... e6 10. c3 Ngf6 11. O-O Nb6 12. Bb3 Nbd5 13. Nxd5 Nxd5 { is equal. Mamedov,R (2667)-Kovchan,A (2563) Aix-les-Bains FRA 2011}) (9... Ngf6 {is favorable to white.} 10. O-O e6 {Had they reached this position Tal thought the sacrifice on e6 would decide the game.} (10... Nb6 {is safer, but not quite satisfactory.} 11. Bb3 a5 12. a3 a4 13. Ba2 e6 14. Re1 {White has the better prospects. Sedina,E (2320)-Zelcic,R (2460) Turin 1994}) 11. Nxe6 fxe6 12. Re1 Bg8 13. Bxe6 Bxe6 14. Rxe6+ Kf7 15. Qe2 {Actually, here the position is equal, but it's the kind Tal liked and Botvinnik disdained.}) 10. Qe2 {Tal was already thinking about the ending and believed he would have a slight advantage in it.} (10. Nd3 {is an interesting possibility suggested by Tal.} exd4 11. O-O Qxh4 12. Re1+ Be7 13. Qf3 Ngf6 14. Bf4 Nb6 15. Bd6 O-O { A most interesting position. White is slightly better after 16.Bxe7} 16. Bxf7+ {This is not quite correct.} (16. Bxe7 Nxc4 17. Bxf8 Rxf8 {and white has a R vs B+2Ps}) 16... Rxf7 17. Rxe7 Rxe7 18. Bxe7 Nbd5 19. Re1 {and black is better. }) 10... Qe7 11. dxe5 Qxe5 12. Be3 Bc5 13. Bxc5 Qxe2+ 14. Kxe2 Nxc5 15. Rhe1 Nf6 16. b4 {When Tal annotated this game he completely forgot that he had played this opening before! Against Illivitsky he played the equally good 16. Kf1+} (16. Kf1+ Kf8 17. b4 Nce4 18. Nxe4 Bxe4 19. Bd3 Bxd3+ 20. Nxd3 g5 21. Re5 gxh4 22. Rae1 Re8 23. Rxe8+ Nxe8 {Draw agreed. Mikhail Tal-Georgy Ilivitsky Riga 1955}) 16... Ncd7 17. Kf1+ Kf8 18. Bb3 g5 {After this move Botvinnik had used an hour and 20 minutes for 18 moves and Tahl only half that time! Botvinnik has achieved an active position, but the clock is now going to be a factor.} 19. hxg5 hxg5 20. Nh3 Rg8 21. Red1 {White has some initiative and and in order to maintain it he wants to keep as many pieces on the board as possible and this move avoids the exchange of Rs on the e-file.} a5 22. bxa5 { This is white's best chance as the separation of Q-side Ps is not serious.} Rxa5 23. Rd6 Ke7 24. Rad1 Re5 {Kmoch claimed that this move was not the best and his next move permitted a simple but beautiful tactical sequence with two temporary sacrifices of the exchange. Soviet Maste Vasily Panov agreed. Neither Stockfish 15 nor Komodo 12 find any fault with the move and evaluate the position as equal.} 25. Nh5 {A pretty and trappy move but no it's really threat. All that Tal has achieved so far is equality as he has no tangible advantage. [However, Botvinnik is beginning to get into time pressure. Actually, a more solid continuation for white would have been to reposition a N witn Ng1-e2} Bg6 {The general consensus of opinion (for example Hans Kmoch and Peter Griffiths) claimed that with this move Botvinnik walked into the trap. Kmoch suggested the idea of dislodging the N with 25...Bf5(!) or even 25. ..Rg6 was playable. The text, while it results in equality, allows Tal to force an extremely sharp and interesting ending which also takes advantage of Botvinnik's time pressure not to mention that Botvinnik found positions in which he was forced to walk a tightrope distasteful.} (25... Bf5 {This results in a sharp position after} 26. Nxf6 Nxf6 27. Nxg5 Rxg5 28. f4 {with equal chances.}) (25... Rg6 {is tamer and white has a number of options. One is} 26. Nxf6 Nxf6 27. R6d2 (27. Nxg5 {doesn't work.} Rexg5 {with a decisve advantage.}) 27... g4 28. Nf4 Rh6 29. Kg1 Bf5 {Here, too, the chances are even.}) 26. Rxd7+ {The results in white getting two pieces vs. a R. While technically the result is equal chances, in view of Botvinnik's time pressure and the fact that he disliked these types of unclear position, Tals' choice is absolutely the correct one.} (26. Nxf6 {is the safer course...too wimpy for Tal.} Nxf6 27. f3 Bf5 28. Nxg5 Rxg5 29. f4 Ne4 (29... Bg4 {is also playable.} 30. fxg5 Ne8 31. R6d4 Bxd1 32. Rxd1 Rxg5) 30. fxe5 Nxd6 31. exd6+ Kd7) 26... Nxd7 27. Rxd7+ Kxd7 {The R comes into its own in the ending so that winning with two minor pieces against a R is much harder here than it would be in the middlegame. At this point, in his book on endings, Griffiths stated that Botvinnik has walked into a trap that lost two Ns for a R, but "lost" is probably too strong. That said, the resulting position is harder for black to handle and so the position certinly favors Tal.} 28. Nf6+ {[%mdl 32]} Kd6 29. Nxg8 {Tal's problem here is that his pieces are scattered and are not working together. If you have the two minor pieces the essential points to remember are 1) coordinate them and 2) security; a R on the rampage can do a lot of damage.} Rc5 30. Nh6 f6 (30... Bxc2 {would be a mistake because after} 31. Nxf7+ (31. Bxc2 Rxc2 {and the outcome is not clear.}) 31... Ke7 32. Nfxg5 {and the two passed Ps are likely more than the R cn handle.}) 31. Ng4 {Kmoch wrote that white has a winning advantage, but the technical difficulties he has makes the task difficult. That's wrong; white does not have a winning advantage; in fact, he has no advantage at all. In 5 Shootuts white scored 5 draws.} Bxc2 {Eliminating as many Ps as possible is the best way of putting up resistance.} 32. Nxf6 Bxb3 33. axb3 {And now Ne4+ would win.} (33. Ne4+ {is tempting, but it doesn't lead to anything.} Kd5 34. Nxc5 Bc4+ 35. Ke1 Kxc5 36. Nxg5 Bxa2 {draws. For example. ..} 37. Kd2 b5 38. g4 Kd5 39. f4 Bb1 40. Kc1 Bg6 41. Nf3 Ke4 42. Ne5 Be8 43. Kc2 Kxf4 44. Nd3+ Kxg4 45. Kc3 Kf5 46. Kd4 Ke6 47. Kc5 Kd7 48. Nb4 Kc7 49. Na6+ Kb7 50. Nb4 Bd7 51. Nc2 Ka6 52. Nb4+ Ka5 53. Na2 Bf5 54. Nb4 Be4 55. Na2 Ka6 56. Nb4+ Kb7 57. Na2 Ka7 58. Nb4 Bd5 59. Nc2 Ka6 60. Nb4+ Ka5 61. Nc2 Ka4 62. Nb4 Be4 63. Na2 Kb3 64. Nb4 Ka3 65. Na6 Kb3 66. Nb8 Bg2 67. Na6 {black can make no progress.}) 33... Rb5 {Well played! The the fact that white can't defend his Q-side Ps looks ominous!} 34. Nxg5 {Now white's Ns are now excellently placed to escort the Ps.} Rxb3 {[%mdl 8192] A surprising error by Botvinnik a this capture loses without much of a fight a fight. He had to prevent white from promoting a P.} (34... Rxg5 {loses quickly after} 35. Ne4+ Kd5 36. Nxg5) (34... Ke5 {The K.s presence on the K-side is absolutely vital for the defense.} 35. Nfe4 Rxb3 {Five Shootouts from this position were drawn.} ) 35. f4 {Thanks to the absence of black's K this P practically marches through.} Rb1+ {Although it matters little because black is lost, this aids white by enabling him to activate his K.} (35... Rb5 {Puts up a tougher defense, but in the end white is able to force the win. There are many variations, but here is just one example...} 36. Nfe4+ Ke7 37. g4 c5 38. f5 c4 39. f6+ Kf8 40. Nh7+ Kg8 41. f7+ Kxf7 42. Nd6+ Kg6 43. Nxb5 Kxh7 44. Kf2 Kg6 45. Kf3 Kg5 46. Kg3 b6 47. Nc3 Kg6 48. Kf4 Kf6 49. g5+ Kg6 50. Kg4 Kg7 51. Kf5 Kf7 52. g6+ Kg7 53. Kg5 Kf8 54. Kf6 Kg8 55. g7 {and it's a mate in 4.} Kh7 56. Nd5 (56. Kf7 Kh6 57. g8=Q) 56... c3 57. Ne7 c2 58. g8=Q+) 36. Ke2 Rb2+ 37. Kf3 Rb3+ 38. Kg4 Rb2 39. g3 b5 {Black advances this P because it's the more distant one.} 40. Nfe4+ Kd5 41. f5 b4 42. f6 Ra2 43. f7 Ra8 44. Nh7 {A nice finishing touch.} b3 (44... Kxe4 {At first glance, this seems to win, but that's not the case.} 45. Nf6+ Ke3 46. Ne8 {and the f-Pawn queens.}) 45. Nd2 b2 46. Kf3 {This is the only move that wins!} (46. f8=Q Rxf8 47. Nxf8 Kd4 { Watch this...} 48. Kf5 Kd3 49. Nb1 Kc2 {White has to take the draw with 50. Na3+ so as to keep b1 covered.} 50. Na3+ Kb3 (50... Kc1 {loses} 51. Nd7 { and black has no way of avoiding the loss.}) 51. Nb1 {etc.}) (46. Kf5 {This doesn't work either.} Kd4 47. Nb1 (47. g4 {loses} Kd3 48. Nb1 Kc2 49. f8=Q Rxf8+ 50. Nxf8 Kxb1 {and the P queens}) 47... Kd3 48. f8=Q Rxf8+ 49. Nxf8 Kc2 50. Na3+) 46... Kd4 47. Ke2 {White's K guarding the N makes all the difference. } c5 48. f8=Q Rxf8 49. Nxf8 c4 {Black's Ps are nothing more than a harmless demonstration.} 50. Ne6+ Kd5 51. Nf4+ Kd4 52. Nb1 {The Ps are stopped and black can't get to the g-Pawn. An amazing game by Tal and theoretically correct or not his 26.Rxd7 was a crackerjack move that was largely responsible for winning the game.} (52. Nb1 Ke4 (52... Ke5 53. Kf3) 53. Kf2 Kf5 54. Kf3) 1-0

An Unknown (slightly flawed) Masterpiece by Charles Kalme

     Karlis Ivars Kalme was the Latvian name of a player better known as Charles Kalme (November 15, 1939 – March 20, 2002), a Latvian American master and a mathematician. 

     Kalme was born in Riga and at the conclusion of World War II what was left of his family fled Latvia and for six years lived in a Displaced persons camp in Germany before finally arriving in Philadelphia in 1951. 

     After the war, the western Allies established DP camps in the Allied-occupied zones of Germany, Austria and Italy. The first inhabitants were concentration camp survivors who had been liberated by the Allies on German soil. 

     Especially at the beginning, conditions in the camps were difficult and the occupants found themselves still living behind barbed wire and subsisting on inadequate amounts of food with shortages of clothing, medicine and supplies. 

     In the camps Jews sometimes lived alongside anti-Semites and Nazis. As a result, Jews were transferred to separate camps where conditions were somewhat better. All of the camps were closed by 1950, except for Fohrenwald in the American zone. It was one of the largest camps and remained operative until 1957. 

     Kalme's first major success came in 1955 when he became the youngest player to win the US Junior Championship, held in Lincoln, Nebraska. Chess Life described the 15-year old Kalme as "a handsome unassuming youth from Philadelphia."

    His 9-1 score showed a striking superiority over a field of 25 players that included three Experts (2000-2199) and four Class A (1800-1999) players. In those days even an Expert's rating was quite high and achieving one was an admirable feat. His rating was 2186. Other top finishers were Larry Remlinger (a distant second with a score of 7.5-2.5), Robert Cross (7-3), Ronald Gross and Andris Staklis (both 6-4). 

     Kalme lost one game, to Robert Cross (1925-1993), the 1948 California Champion who was also a champion correspondence player 

     As a side note, the tournament was held in mid-July in the Lincoln YMCA which was air conditioned and that was especially welcome because there was a 100 degree heat wave that hit the city. Chess Life gave TD Alexander Liepnicks praise because he directed the tournament which was a Swiss event, something new at at time. And, the rules were considered complicated because the pairings were based on USCF ratings which changed from round to round depending on the game results!

     In addition to chess Kalme also became a master of contract bridge. He sometimes played as a partner of Michael Lawrence, who was a member of the world champion bridge team, the Dallas Aces. 

     Kalme, who held the IM title, received a Ph.D. degree in mathematics from New York University in 1967, and became a professor of mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley and later at University of Southern California.

     When Latvia restored its independence in 1991 from the Soviet Union, Kalme returned to Latvia, where he worked on a National Strategy for Bringing Computer Literacy to Latvian Schools. He died there in 2002. 

      The following thriller is an almost unknown slightly flawed masterpiece that he played against a player known only as Nedora in a Philadelphia City League match in 1953. 

[Event "Philadelphia City League"] [Site "?"] [Date "1953.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Nedora"] [Black "Kalme"] [Result "0-1"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "80"] [SourceVersionDate "2022.08.26"] {French Defense, Winawar Variation} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 {The pin forces white to resolve the central tension.} 4. e5 {White normally clarifies the central situation...for the moment...in this way. The move gains space and he hopes to show that black's B is misplaced...it isn't.} c5 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 {White has doubled Ps which form the basis for black's counterplay,but, at the same time, they strengthen white's center. White also has the semi-open b-file, a space advantage and the potential for a K-side attack because black has traded off his dark-square Bishop. If he can survice, black's P-formation is favorable.} Ne7 7. Bd3 {White has far better chances of success with the sharp 7.Qg4} c4 {Black leaves the book which offers 7...Qa4 and 7...Nbc6 as the only two options.} 8. Be2 Qa5 9. Bd2 Qa4 (9... Nbc6 {transposes into Remizov,Y (2385)-Aitbayev,A (2475) lichess.org INT 2021 which continued} 10. h4 Bd7 11. h5 h6 12. f4 O-O-O 13. Nh3 g6 14. O-O Rdg8 {with equal chances.}) 10. Nh3 {White had somewhat better chances with 10.h4} Bd7 11. O-O Nbc6 12. f4 O-O-O {Black's K will be perfectly safe here and white's K-side maneuver has come to naught.} 13. Ng5 Rdf8 14. Qb1 f6 {This jab at the center gives black the initiative.} 15. Nf3 (15. exf6 {is quite inferior as after} gxf6 16. Nf3 Nf5 {Black has a promising position.}) 15... Nf5 16. Qb2 h5 {Something has gone awry for white...it's black with the makings of a K-side attack while white's prospects of successfully attacking black's K down the b-file are slim. } 17. Rab1 b6 18. Ne1 {White is curiously helpless when it comes to finding a promising plan.} h4 19. Bg4 Nce7 20. Qb4 Rh6 21. Bxf5 {Perhaps he should have played 21.Bh3 to stop the advance of the h-Pawn.} Qxb4 22. Rxb4 Nxf5 23. a4 Rfh8 24. Nf3 {Now it's time for a tactical display by the 14-year old Kalme.} Ng3 {[%mdl 512]} 25. Rfb1 {Taking the N allows mate.} g5 {[%mdl 8192] This seemingly logical move (it rips open the K-side) is seriously flawed. Correct was 25...Ne4} (25... Ne4 26. Ra1 {Supporting the advance of the a-Pawn.} Rg6 { which black can ignore.} 27. a5 b5 {and black still has his K-side attack while white is left with nothing but trying to defend against it.}) 26. Be1 ( 26. fxg5 {This counter-intuitive move salvages the game!} fxg5 27. Nxg5 Nf5 28. a5 {Black's P on h4 renders the Rs impotent while white's Rs are poised to rip black's guts out!} b5 29. Nf7 {White picks up the exchange which should prove sufficient.}) 26... Ne4 27. exf6 g4 {Thanks to his slip at move 25 Kalme has allowed his opponent back into the game.} (27... gxf4 {This was even better.} 28. Ne5 Rxf6 29. a5 b5 30. Nxd7 Kxd7 31. Rxb5 Nd6 {with a small advantage.}) 28. Ne5 Rxf6 29. Nxd7 {[%mdl 8192] White counters with a slip of his own... this time Kalme isn't going to let him get away.} (29. a5 {fully equalizes.} b5 30. Nxd7 Kxd7 31. Rxb5 {with equal chances.} Nd6 32. Rb8 Rfh6 33. h3 Rxb8 34. Rxb8 gxh3 35. gxh3 {etc.}) 29... Kxd7 30. a5 Rxf4 31. axb6 a5 {The difference here compared toi the position in the previous note is that white's Rs can't operate on the b-file.} 32. Ra4 (32. R4b2 g3 33. b7 Rf1+ 34. Kxf1 gxh2 { and the P queens.}) 32... g3 33. b7 (33. h3 Rhf8 {would cost white heavy plastic as he is forced to play} 34. Bxg3 hxg3 35. Raa1 Nxc3 36. Re1 Rf2 { and all of white's hope is gone.}) 33... Rf1+ {[%mdl 512] The game is over.} 34. Kxf1 gxh2 35. Ke2 h1=Q 36. b8=Q Rxb8 37. Rxb8 {All that's left is for white to figure out how to deliver the mate.} Qxg2+ 38. Kd1 Qf3+ {Black mates.} 39. Kc1 Qf4+ 40. Kd1 Qxb8 {Black has a mate in 11 moves. With the one exception, Kalme's play was very precise.} (40... Qxb8 {Stockfish 15:} 41. Bxh4 Qb1+ 42. Ke2 Qxc2+ 43. Kf3 Qd1+ 44. Ke3 Qd3+ 45. Kf4 Qf1+ 46. Ke3 Qh3+ 47. Ke2 Qxh4 48. Kd1 Qf2 49. Ra2 Qxa2 50. Kc1 Kd6 51. Kd1 Qd2#) 0-1

An Unsound Q-Sac and a Psychology Lesson

 

     Some time back I posted about the joys of playing the Borg Defense (1...g5) in Blitz games on the Internet. I like it because it often leaves opponents bewildered. 

     In the following game at move 11, thanks to some weak play by my opponent, I had a winning game. That's when I decided that just for fun I'd sacrifice my Queen and end up with a B+N+2Ps vs a Q and a position that Stockfish says is losing by about three Ps. That was OK though because I wasn't playing Stockfish and I had what looked to me like a position that white would find difficult to crack.

     The whole idea of giving up the Queen was to complicate, confuse, muddle, jumble, garble, blur, obscure, make unclear, cloud and obfuscate...all that stuff just to make the game more interesting. 

     For some reason on Chess Hotel where opponents are anonymous, when some players get a lost game they leave the site. I don't understand this. Why not just resign and seek another game? 

     There's a psychological reason. According to one article I read, a person who exaggerates their chances at anything will often fly into a rage when they do not achieve the results they hoped for. Actually, it's not out of the ordinary to find people so competitive that their behavior upon losing borders on being unhealthy. 

     According to the article, a bad loser's action can be traced back to childhood. Often they were not corrected when they were kids and reached the point where they were unable to control themselves after they lost a game. This lack of discipline continues into adult life...they are immature. 

     Bad losers often have low self-esteem and are often highly critical of themselves. They lack confidence and more often than not see themselves as inadequate, underappreciated and undervalued and in turn, they tend to try and overcompensate. This can make them irrational and unapproachable. 

     They can also be envious and in real life and they will sometimes try to find ways to sabotage your efforts if it means they will lose or look bad. They don't care about the consequences and ultimately don't care about friendships because they are so self-centered. They may even resort to force if they feel it's necessary. 

     Bad losers blame everyone but themselves for failure because to them any failure, no matter how small, is a big deal. It might just be a friendly anonymous chess game online, but to them, it is a symbol of asserting their dominance. Their opponent is the object of their rage because their opponent has obtained something that is, in their mind, rightfully theirs...victory. 

     Bad losers never hide their disgust and disappointment...they don't hesitate to let you know how upset they are. And, in an attempt to alleviate the stress of feeling like a loser they will attempt to demean opponents via insults. Like one of my opponents who when he was losing kept spewing out profanity. When I didn't answer, he kept sending longer and longer vulgar messages.

     On Chess Hotel when a player abandons a game you are given the win shortly after they leave so it's not a big deal. More annoying are the losers who don't leave, they just let their time run out. After a few minutes I usually send them a message like, "Take your time; I am watching television while we play." It sometimes infuriates them to the point the leave the game. On to the game... 

[Event "Blitz Game, Chess Hotel"] [Site "?"] [Date "2022.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Volodya"] [Black "Tartajubow"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B00"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "44"] {Borg Defense} 1. e4 g5 2. d4 {This is almost always played.} Bg7 {Daring white to take the P. I don't think it's a good idea to do so because black gets good play. The safe and solid 3.Nc3 may be better.} 3. Bxg5 c5 {The threats black generates against the b- and d-Pawns in this line often seems to befuddle folks.} 4. c3 cxd4 5. Bc4 {Not a bad idea; white develops.} (5. cxd4 Qb6 {attacks both the b- and d-Pawns but things should still work out to white's advantage.} 6. Ne2 Qxb2 7. Nbc3 Bxd4 8. Rc1 (8. Nxd4 Qxc3+ 9. Ke2 { and black is at least equal.}) 8... Bxc3+ 9. Nxc3 Nc6 10. Bc4 {and white has development that compensates for his two P minus according to both Stockfish and Komodo 14.}) 5... Qb6 (5... Qa5 6. Bd2 Qb6 {does not look so good as 5... Qb5} (6... dxc3 7. Nxc3 {white is better.})) 6. Ne2 {But at this point letting black capture the b-Pawn is not such a good idea. Preserving the P with 6.Qe2 was better.} Qxb2 {Black is at least equal after this. White has a reasonable try here with 7.Qb3 to exchange Qs and drastically reduce black's attacking chances.} 7. Nd2 {This is not really a mistake, but the black P on c3 will create problems for white.} dxc3 8. Rb1 {[%mdl 8192] This is a serious tactical oversight.} (8. Nb3 c2 9. Qd3 Nc6 10. Rc1 Ne5 11. Qxc2 Qxc2 12. Rxc2 Nxc4 13. Rxc4 {and black can only claim to be slightly better.}) 8... cxd2+ ( 8... c2 {This packs an even bigger wallop.} 9. Rxb2 cxd1=R+ 10. Kxd1 Bxb2 { and being a R and P ahead, black wins.}) 9. Kf1 {Better, but not by much, was 9.Bxd2} (9. Bxd2 {is the only way for White.} Qe5 10. Qc1) 9... Qe5 10. Bxd2 Qxe4 11. Rb4 {The threat is Bxf7+} Qxc4 {[%mdl 8192] The easy way was 11...Qc6, but this is more challenging.} 12. Rxc4 {I have a B+N+2Ps for the Q and according to Komodo 14 a slightly over two P disadvantage.} Nc6 13. Nf4 d6 14. h3 Bd7 15. Nd5 Rc8 16. Qb1 e6 17. Ne3 {Somewhat preferrable would have been 17. Bc3 inviting the trade of black's active B.} d5 18. Ra4 {This places the R out of play; he should ahve retreated to c1. Now his advantage has shrunk to about half a P!} Nf6 {Interesting. Engines think I should have played 18...b6, but frown on his next move. At least 18...Nf6 is a developing move.} 19. Qxb7 (19. Bc3 {keeps a slight advantage after} O-O 20. Rg4 e5 21. Nf5 Bxf5 22. Rxg7+ Kxg7 23. Qxf5 {White is only slightly better.}) 19... Ne4 (19... Rb8 {was a bit better.} 20. Qa6 Rb1+ 21. Be1 O-O {Black is actually better here.}) 20. Be1 { [%mdl 8192] This feeble move loses at once.} (20. Rxe4 {Forceful and good.} dxe4 21. Kg1 Rb8 22. Qa6 O-O 23. Kh2 {Getting the R into play. White now has a Q vs R+B+P and can only claim a very slight advantage and the win would not be a foregone conclusion.}) 20... Rb8 21. Qa6 (21. Qc7 Be5 {wins the Q}) 21... Nc5 22. Qe2 Nxa4 {White resigned, but even though the engine evaluation puts him 3. 5 Ps to the bad, he can still make a fight of it.} (22... Nxa4 23. Nxd5 O-O 24. Nf4 Nd4 25. Qd1 Rb2 {White has a very passive position while black's are very active, but white isn't playing Stockfish or Komodo either!}) 0-1

A Bright Day For Smyslov

     As mentioned in the previous post, I think Vasily Smyslov (March 24, 1921 - March 27, 2010) is greatly under-appreciated as a player. Besides being an 8-time candidate for the World Championship and holder of the title in 1957-58, he tied for first place in the Soviet Championship twice (1949, 1955), won 17 Olympiad medals, won ten gold medals in the European Team Championships, and he also had great longevity, remaining active and a dangerous opponent well after the age of sixty. 

     Among the books in my library is his My Best Games of Chess 1935-1957. Smyslov's original book contained games only up to 1951. My copy is the 1958 edition translated and edited by Peter H. Clarke, who (unfortunately) felt it necessary to eliminate 11 games from the original work while adding 18 later games "for balance." 

     After posting one of Smyslov's miserable losses to Botvinnik in their 1958 World Championship match, let's go back to their 1954 tied match and watch Smyslov absolutely crush Botvinnik. 

 

 

In this match there were 14 decisive games, 12 of the first 16, including a streak of 8 decisive results in a row! 

[Event "World Championship Match, Moscow"] [Site "?"] [Date "1954.04.03"] [Round "9"] [White "Vasily Smyslov"] [Black "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C18"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "49"] [EventDate "1954.??.??"] 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 c5 5. a3 Ba5 6. b4 cxd4 7. Qg4 {This is the most aggressive continuation. In the 1st and 3rd games Smyslov played 7.Ng5 but didn't get any advantage.} Ne7 (7... Kf8 {gives white a dangerous attack.} 8. Nb5 {White gets the initiative.} (8. bxa5 dxc3 9. Nf3 Ne7 10. Bd3 Nd7 11. Qb4 Qc7 12. O-O {Unzicker,W (2592)-Botvinnik,M (2702) Amsterdam 1954. White is better, but despite Botvinnik's subsequent poor play Unzicker could only manage a draw.}) 8... Bb6 9. Nf3 Nc6 10. Bb2) 8. bxa5 {This is the only try for an advantage.} (8. Qxg7 Rg8 9. Qxh7 Bc7 10. Nb5 a6 11. Nxc7+ (11. Nxd4 { is less good.} Bxe5 12. Ngf3 {and now in Estrin-Khasin, Moscow Championship 1953 black could have gotten the better game with 12...Bf6}) 11... Qxc7 12. Ne2 Qxe5 {with plenty of play.}) (8. Nb5 {leads to no more than equality after} Bc7 9. Nf3 Ng6 10. Bd3 Nc6) 8... dxc3 9. Qxg7 Rg8 10. Qxh7 Nd7 {Bringing another piece over to defend the K. Smyslov is already threatening to launch a formidable K-side attack by Nf3-g5 etc.} 11. Nf3 Nf8 {This is not very good. 11...Qc8 tying white down to the defense of his e-Pawn was better.} 12. Qd3 Qxa5 13. h4 {secures g5 and, given the opportunity, the further advance of the h-Pawn is a real possibility. Smyslov has already built up a position that's on the verge of being decisive. This seems unimaginable against Botvinnik.} Bd7 14. Bg5 {White would also have a good position after 14.Ng5, but developing the B on g5 is better.} (14. Ng5 Ba4 15. Rh3 Nd7 16. f4 {with good attacking possibilities.}) 14... Rc8 15. Nd4 {Centralizing the N is quite logical, but the all seeing Stockfish prefers 15.Rb1 and then 16.Qd4. Smyslov's move is perfectly OK though.} Nf5 16. Rb1 {Very nice. White does not want to exchange the light squared Bs and so prevents ...Bb5.} Rc4 {Botvinnik should have contented himself with the docile 16...b6, but instead he plans to sacrifice the exchange in the hopes of obtaining some play.} (16... b6 17. g4 Nxd4 18. Qxd4 Qxa3 {Even though he is a P up and has a passed a-Pawn white is still better because he has good attacking possibilities. White scored 5 out of 5 in Shootouts from this position, but they were long games and securing the win could prove quite tricky.}) 17. Nxf5 exf5 (17... Re4+ {loses at once because of the nifty...} 18. Qxe4 dxe4 19. Nd6#) 18. Rxb7 Re4+ {Botvinnik's intention was to play 18...Rxg5, but it is hardly much better.} (18... Rxg5 19. hxg5 Qxa3 20. Rb8+ Ke7 21. Qxd5 Re4+ 22. Be2 Qc1+ 23. Qd1 Qxd1+ 24. Kxd1 {and white is winning.}) (18... Qxa3 {is also insufficient.} 19. Rb8+ Rc8 20. Rxc8+ Bxc8 21. Qxd5 Qa1+ 22. Qd1 {here, too, white is winning.}) 19. Qxe4 dxe4 20. Rb8+ Bc8 21. Bb5+ Qxb5 22. Rxb5 Ne6 23. Bf6 {The advance of the h-Pawn quickly decides the outcome.} Rxg2 24. h5 Ba6 25. h6 {Botvinnik resigned. Forceful play by Smyslov!} 1-0

Smyslov's Most Horrible Moment

     Last night was dreadful. Scattered heavy rain with thunder and lightening, a tornado which fortunately did not touch down, isolated flooding of streets and homes and a nearby river overflowing its banks were the order of the evening. 

     We were blessed that except for a brief period of heavy downpour the bad stuff missed us, but only by a very few miles. After the storm passed a couple of hours before sunset a beautiful double rainbow appeared that lasted for about half an hour. 

     This morning as I drink my coffee and work on this post my sympathy is extended to those who are left with a messy cleanup and have destroyed cars and damaged homes. I know because in the past we suffered a catastrophic flood that put us out of our home for a couple of weeks and did over $20,000 damage, not including the loss of my car which was sitting in three feet of water. 

     Vasily Smyslov (1921 - 2010) was a Candidate for the World Championship on eight occasions (1948, 1950, 1953, 1956, 1959, 1965, 1983, and 1985), played three world championship matches and held the title from 1957 to 1958. 

     The 1954 World Championship match between Botvinnik and Smyslov was drawn 12–12, meaning Botvinnik retained the world title. Smyslov won the Candidates' Tournament at Amsterdam in 1956 and then went on to defeat Botvinnik by a score of 12.5-9.5 in 1957. 

     Botvinnik exercised his right to a rematch, and the following year won the title back with a score of 12.5-10.5. Smyslov later said his health suffered during the return match, as he came down with pneumonia, but he also acknowledged that Botvinnik had prepared very thoroughly. 

     Botvinnik started with three straight wins and was never in any danger of losing the match. After 14 games Botvinnik was leading with a score of 9-5 when, in a favorable position after 55 moves and only to two moves to make in three minutes to reach adjournment, he became so absorbed that he was surprised when the referee, Gideon Stahlberg, informed him that he had forfeited in time.

     Game 18 was critical. After 17 games Botvinnik was leading 10-7. If he won he would be up four games with six games left. If he lost his lead would be two games and Smyslov would have had some hope. 

     As it turned out Botvinnik missed a brilliant win then Smyslov returned the favor, but things got even worse; he repeatedly missed the best moves. After this game his hopes of salvaging the match were zero. 

 

     It's interesting to note that in their three world championship matches Smyslov held a slim edge: +18 -17 =34, but history gives preference to Botvinnik. 

     Personally, I think Smyslov was the better of the two and his games are more enjoyable to play over. Smyslov was primarily a positional player, but many of his games were fantastic attacking games and he was also an endgame virtuoso. You can read an interesting short article on Smyslov at ChessBase HERE. 

 

[Event "World Championship Match, Moscow"] [Site "?"] [Date "1958.04.19"] [Round "18"] [White "Mikhail Botvinnik"] [Black "Vasily Smyslov"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A16"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "147"] [EventDate "1958.??.??"] {English Opening} 1. c4 {The English was a favorite of Botvinnik.} Nf6 2. Nc3 d5 (2... g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. d3 {Became known as the Botvinnik System in which white obtains good piece play and a center spatial advantage.}) 3. cxd5 Nxd5 4. g3 g6 5. Bg2 Nxc3 6. bxc3 Bg7 7. Qb3 {A departure from Games 14 and 16 in which Botvinnik played the more modern 7.Rb1. The text move threatens 8.Bxb7, but the Q will exposed to possible attack.} Nc6 {In the other games Smyslov played 7...Nd7 which is satisfactory because 8.Bxb7 loses to 8...Rb8. With the text move Smyslov is seeking complications.} 8. Nf3 O-O 9. O-O Na5 10. Qc2 c5 11. d3 Bf5 {The threat is 12...c4 and ...cxd3 which would leave white with weak Ps in the center.} 12. e4 {This meets the threat but his center ends up vulnerable. A safer continuation is 12.Nh4 followed by ...Rb1} Bd7 13. Bg5 {White hopes to provoke black into weakening his Ps with ...h6 or . ..f6} Rc8 14. Qd2 Bb5 15. Rfd1 Ba4 16. Re1 f6 17. Bh6 {This P offer is more active than the quiet retreat to e3.} Bxh6 18. Qxh6 Qxd3 {Smyslov accepts the challenge, but 18...e5 may have been safer.} 19. e5 {Intending to play on the e-file. If allowed he will play 20.exf6 exf6 21.Re7 which explains black's next move.} Nc6 (19... Qxc3 {would be a serious error.} 20. Rac1 Qb2 21. exf6 Qxf6 {Otherwise white has Re7} 22. Ng5 Qg7 (22... Qxf2+ 23. Kh1 Rf7 24. Rf1 { wins}) 23. Bd5+ Kh8 24. Qxg7+ Kxg7 25. Ne6+ Kh8 26. Nxf8 Rxf8 27. Rxc5 { and white is winning.}) (19... Rce8 {This is the best move challenging white on the e-file. The continuation might be} 20. Re3 Qf5 21. Rae1 Qh5 22. Qxh5 gxh5 {with equal chances.}) 20. Re3 Qc2 21. exf6 exf6 (21... Rxf6 {loses to} 22. Ng5 Qxf2+ 23. Kh1 Rf7 24. Rf3) 22. Rae1 Rcd8 {[%mdl 8192] Both playesr have overlooked the fact that white has a clear win after this move.} (22... Qxa2 {fails...} 23. Bh3 Rcd8 24. Be6+) (22... Ne5 {This would keep white's advantage to a minimum.} 23. Nxe5 fxe5 24. Bd5+ Kh8 25. f4 (25. Rxe5 Qxf2+ 26. Kh1 Rce8 {White's attack is over and black is left a P up.}) 25... Bc6 26. c4 { White is slightly better.}) 23. Bh3 {White can still claim the advantage after this, but 23.Nd4 wraps it up!} (23. Nd4 cxd4 24. Bd5+ {leads to mate} Kh8 ( 24... Rxd5 25. Re8) 25. Re7 Nxe7 26. Rxe7 {Black can only delay, but not prevent, mate.}) 23... Ne5 {By blocking the e-file black has succeeded in repelling white's attack.} 24. Nxe5 fxe5 25. f4 {Botvinnik is still seeking play on the e-file, but it allows Smyslov to seize the initiative.} (25. Be6+ Kh8 {Eliminating the threat to his f-Pawn.} 26. f3 Rde8 27. Bd5 {with an equal position.}) 25... Bc6 {[%mdl 2048] White must now prevent ...Rf7. White is under pressure.} (25... Rd2 {looks threatening, but it allows mate.} 26. Rxe5 Rdd8 (26... Rxh2 27. Be6+ Rf7 28. Bxf7+ Kxf7 29. Re7+ {mate next move.}) 27. Re7 Rf7 28. Rxf7 {black cannot avert mate.}) 26. Qg5 {[%mdl 8192] This move ought to have lost immediately. It's shocking that the two best players in the world missed the refutation of this move.} (26. Rxe5 Qxc3 27. Bg2 Qd4+ 28. Kh1 Qd6 29. Bxc6 Qxc6+ 30. Kg1 Qf6 31. f5 (31. Rxc5 Qd4+) 31... Rd7 32. Rxc5 { Black is only marginally better.}) 26... Rde8 {Smyslov proceeds as he intended, but misses the win.} (26... Rd2 {There is no answer to this.} 27. Be6+ Rf7 { He gets mated after 27.Kg7 28.Qe7+} 28. Qh4 Rg2+ 29. Kh1 Rxh2+ {mate next move} ) 27. Rxe5 Qxc3 28. Rxe8 {This next move is much weaker than trading off the Rs with 28...Rxe8} Bxe8 (28... Rxe8 29. Rxe8+ Bxe8 30. Be6+ Kf8 {Black has what should prove to be a won ending.}) 29. Qe5 Qxe5 30. Rxe5 {[%mdl 4096]} b6 {White's active R compensates for his P minus.} 31. Re7 a5 32. Rb7 {Better was 32.Be6 first} Rf6 {It's interesting that in annotating this game Hans Kmoch was critical of this move claiming that it throws away whatever advantage black had. He recommended that black play 32...b5. That's the exact opposite of what Stockfish claims as it gives 32...Rf6 an exclamation mark.} 33. Rb8 Kf7 34. Kf2 Rd6 35. Ke3 Ba4 {It's surpring that an endgame player of Smyslov's caliber missed the winning line here. Kmoch makes no mention of it either.} ( 35... c4 36. Bf1 c3 37. Bd3 {With his K cut off from the defense white is helpless.} Bd7 38. Rb7 b5 {with a decisive advantage.}) 36. Rb7+ Kg8 37. Rb8+ Kg7 38. Rb7+ Kg8 39. Rb8+ Kf7 40. Rb7+ Kf8 41. Rxh7 c4 {The difference between this position and the one in the note to move 35 is that black's K is also cut off and white's R is more active and he, too, has a P-majority that black will have to reckon with.} 42. Rc7 b5 43. Ke4 b4 (43... Rd2 {is the main alternative, but it's no better and things get quite tactical.} 44. Ke5 Rxa2 45. Kf6 b4 46. Rh7 Kg8 47. Rg7+ Kh8 (47... Kf8 48. Be6 {mate next move.}) 48. Be6 Rxh2 49. Rc7 Rd2 (49... c3 50. Rc8+ {mates in 5}) 50. f5 Bd7 (50... gxf5 51. Rc8+ Kh7 52. Bxf5+ Kh6 53. Rh8#) 51. Bxd7 Rd6+ 52. Kf7 {mates in 8...} g5 53. f6 Kh7 54. Ke7 Kg6 55. Kxd6 Kxf6 56. g4 Kf7 57. Ke5 Ke7 58. Be6+ Kf8 59. Kf6 c3 60. Rc8#) 44. Rxc4 Rd2 45. Ke5 Rxa2 46. Rc8+ {Now with 46...Ke7 black can hold the draw.} Be8 {[%mdl 8192]} 47. Bd7 {Black is in Zugzwang.} Re2+ 48. Kf6 {White id winning.} g5 49. fxg5 (49. Rxe8+ {obviously loses.} Rxe8 50. Bxe8 Kxe8 51. Kxg5 b3) 49... Rf2+ 50. Ke5 Re2+ 51. Kf4 b3 {Black loses a piece after 51...Rf2+ 52.Ke3} 52. Rb8 b2 53. Bxe8 Rxe8 54. Rxb2 a4 55. Ra2 Ra8 56. Ra3 {White has a sure win, but a quick one.} Kf7 57. h4 Kg6 58. Ke4 Kh5 59. Kd4 Rd8+ 60. Kc4 Re8 61. Kd5 Rd8+ 62. Ke5 Ra8 63. Kd5 Rd8+ 64. Kc5 Rb8 65. Rxa4 Rb3 66. Kd6 Rxg3 {A visit to the SHredder endgame tablebase web site reveals that after Botvinnik's next move he has a win in 30 moves.} 67. Ke7 Rb3 68. Ra6 Rb7+ 69. Kf6 Rb4 70. Rd6 Ra4 (70... Rxh4 {runs into} 71. Kf5 {and there is no way to avoid Rh6#}) (70... Kxh4 71. g6 {is an obvious win}) 71. Re6 Rb4 72. Kf7 Rb7+ 73. Re7 Rb4 {This the move as given in Chess Review's June 1958 issue. Some databases give the continuation 73...Rb5 74.Kg7 1-0} 74. Kg7 {Smyslov resigned. Black must lose eventually.} (74. Kg7 {Play might continue.} Re4 75. Rf7 Rg4 76. Rf5 Rf4 77. Rf8 Ra4 78. Rh8+ Kg4 79. g6 Rb4 80. Kh7 Kg3 81. h5 Rb7+ 82. g7 Kh2 83. Rf8 Re7 84. Kg6 Kg1 85. h6 Re6+ 86. Kh7 Re7 87. Kh8 Re1 88. g8=Q+ {It's mate in 4}) 1-0

Two Unknowns Grapple

 

     Browsing the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle of 1884 uncovered the following game played at the Manhattan Chess Club that the magazine described as "a brilliant little partie". 

     I was unable to locate any information on J.J. Merian. I did, however discover several men named Eno, but was not able to determine which one was the member of the Manhattan CC who played black. 

     The most famous, or rather infamous, Eno was John C. Eno who took over management of the Second National Bank upon the death the former manager and proceeded to embezzle about $4 million. 

     On June 1, 1884, he was captured, along with a Catholic priest, one Father Ducey, in Quebec, as they were about to depart on a steamer for England. Eno remained in Canada for nine years, returning to New York only when it was certain that the indictment against him would be quashed. 

     Eno's father died in 1898, leaving him an inheritance which was soon gone. When John Eno died in June, 1916, all he left was debts, but he never spent time in jail and never paid a dime in restitution. 

     His father, Amos Richards Eno (1810-1898) was for a time a clerk in a dry-goods store and among his friends and fellow clerks at that time were E. D. Morgan, who eventually became Governor of New York and Junius S. Morgan who became a banker. 

     In the spring of 1833, Eno (the father) established himself in the wholesale dry-goods business in New York; the firm was dissolved in 1850 and he then began investing in real estate on a large scale.    

     Besides Amos and his larcenous son John, he also had, in addition to two daughters, sons Amos F., Henry (a doctor) and William. So, who played the black pieces? 

     It wasn't son John the crook because he was on the lam in Canada. That leaves daddy Amos or sons Amos or Henry. Who knows? Was the game really brilliant? The answer to that can be determined. Take a look.

 

 

[Event "Manhattan Chess Club"] [Site "?"] [Date "1884.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Merian"] [Black "Eno"] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "77"] {Sicilian: Kalashnikov Variation} 1. e4 c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. Nxd4 e5 { The Kalashnikov Variation (sometimes known as the Neo-Sveshnikov) is a close relative of the Sveshnikov Variation (4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5). The move 4...e5 has a long history; La Bourdonnais used it in his matches against McDonnell in 1834 and it was also popular for a short time in the 1940s. These earlier games focused on the Lowenthal Variation with 4...e5 5.Nb5 a6 6.Nd6+ Bxd6 7. Qxd6 Qf6, but the variation fell out of favor when it was determined that white has the advantage. Then the late 1980s 4...e5 was revived with the intention of meeting 5.Nb5 with 5...d6: this is the Kalashnikov Variation proper.} 5. Nb5 {This is the main move, buying time by threatening to play the N to d6.} d6 {Black accepts a backward P and weakens d5 but gains time by chasing the N.} 6. Bc4 {White's main options are 6.c4, 6.N1c3 or 6.Be3. While the text is rarely played there is nothing wrong with it.} a6 (6... Be6 { should be considered.} 7. Bxe6 fxe6 8. Qh5+ g6 9. Qg4 Qd7 10. Bg5 a6 11. N5a3 b5 12. c3 {equals. Vallejo Pons,F (2635)-Shirov,A (2699) Ayamonte 2002}) 7. N5c3 h6 {Too cautious says a note in the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle.} (7... Be6 8. Bb3 (8. Nd5 Rc8 (8... b5 9. Bb3 Nf6 10. Bg5 Nd4 11. Nbc3 a5 12. Nxf6+ gxf6 13. Be3 Nxb3 14. axb3 {White is better. Hajbok,R (2366)-Pavel,S (2087) Calimanesti ROM 2013}) 9. Nbc3 Be7 10. Be3 b5 11. Bb3 Bg5 12. Bb6 Qd7 13. O-O { White is slightly better. Yemelin,V (2380)-Sukhorukov,A (2300) Orel 1992}) 8... Nf6 9. Bg5 h6 10. Bxf6 Qxf6 11. Nd5 Bxd5 12. Bxd5 Be7 13. Nc3 O-O 14. O-O { White is slightly better. Milu,R (2410)-Sekularac,P (2220) Nice FRA 1993 1-0 (44)}) (7... Nf6 {This is black's best because after} 8. Bg5 Be7 9. Bxf6 Bxf6 { he has full equality.}) 8. O-O {Also good was 8.Nd5} Nf6 {White is slightly better.} 9. f4 {But not after this move. Correct was 9.Nd5} b5 {Better was 9... exf4 and 10...Ne5} 10. Bd5 Qb6+ (10... Nxd5 {is inferior because after} 11. Nxd5 Ne7 12. Nbc3 b4 13. Be3 {white is slightly better and black must not fall for} bxc3 14. Bb6 cxb2 (14... Qd7 15. Nc7+) 15. Rb1 Nxd5 16. Bxd8 Ne3 17. Qd3 Nxf1 18. Bc7 {White has much the better game}) 11. Kh1 Bb7 12. Qe1 Be7 (12... Nxd5 {is still wrong.} 13. exd5 Ne7 14. fxe5 dxe5 15. Qxe5 {with the better game.}) 13. Be3 Qc7 14. Nd2 {White would have done better with the aggressive 14.Qg3} O-O 15. f5 Nd4 16. Rc1 b4 (16... Nxd5 {is a serious mistake.} 17. Nxd5 Bxd5 18. exd5 Qd8 (18... b4 19. c3 bxc3 20. bxc3 Nb5 21. f6 Bxf6 22. Rxf6 gxf6 23. Bxh6 {and wins}) 19. c3 {and the N is trapped.}) 17. Ne2 {This give black a huge advantage.} (17. Bxb7 bxc3 18. bxc3 Nxc2 19. Rxc2 Qxb7 20. Qe2 {and black's advantage is minimal.}) 17... Nxe2 (17... Nxd5 {only equalizes.} 18. exd5 Nxe2 19. Qxe2) 18. Qxe2 Nxd5 {Another mistake!} (18... Bxd5 $19 19. exd5 Nxd5 {should prove decisive.}) 19. exd5 Bxd5 {Black's best defensive chance is 19...f6} 20. Bxh6 {An imprecise continuation.} (20. f6 {packed a harder punch.} Bxf6 21. Rxf6 gxf6 22. Bxh6 {and wins.}) 20... gxh6 21. f6 {White wants to mate with Qg4+.} Kh8 22. Qe3 {[%mdl 128]} Bxg2+ {This shot was not available in the line given in the note to move 20.} 23. Kxg2 (23. Kg1 {was the only way to keep the balance.} Qc5 24. Qxc5 dxc5 25. Kxg2 {with equal chances.}) 23... Rg8+ {There is absolutely no reason for black to lose this position!} 24. Kf2 { [%mdl 32]} Rg6 {[%mdl 8192] Why did he allow white to capture the B?!} (24... Bf8 {leaves black better after} 25. Rg1 Qa7 26. Nc4 Qxe3+ 27. Nxe3) 25. fxe7 Qxe7 {Thanks to black having lost a piece now there is absolutely no reason for white not to win!} 26. Nf3 f5 27. Rg1 {[%mdl 32]} f4 28. Qe4 Qa7+ 29. Ke2 Rf6 30. c4 Re8 {There is no point in quibbling about moves that might be a tad better; black is lost.} 31. c5 dxc5 32. Rg6 Qh7 33. Rcg1 c4 34. Kf1 c3 35. bxc3 bxc3 36. Nxe5 Rd6 {This allows a nice mate, but he was lost anyway.} 37. Rxd6 Qxe4 38. Rxh6+ Qh7 39. Nf7# {Auto-annotation with Stockfish assigns white a Weighted Error Value of 0.71 and black 1.02. Hardly what the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle described as "a brilliant little partie." What a difference today's engines make!} 1-0

Half a Dozen Passed Pawns!!!

     Awesome, fascinating, unbelievable and marvelous are a few words that spring to mind when describing the following game in which Denis Victor Mardle (August 9, 1929 - July 31, 2000, 70 years old), a well known British player, amassed an array of six (!) passed Pawns in his defeat of British stalwart Robert Wade. 

     Mardel contracted polio at the age of 15 and was badly disabled for the rest of his life, walking with crutches and leg braces. 

     He took part in several British Championships from 1951 to 1965, with a best finish of =7th in 1957. Some of his best performances were in the Stevenson Memorial tournament held at Bognor Regis where he shared first place with Gereben in 1959, ahead of Karaklaic, Wade, Cafferty and Pritchard. 

     In 1964, he finished clear first ahead of a strong field that included Golombek, Karaklaic, Mestrovic, Rellstab, Hartston, Keene and Basman with the excellent score of 9.5-1.5. He participated in the Hastings Premier in 1964-65, but managed only two draws out of nine games. After playing in the 1965 British Championship in which he scored +4 -4 =3 he gave up major OTB activity but still played some correspondence chess. 

     Mardle had a distinguished career as a cryptanalyst after he was recruited during WWII by British master C. H. O'D. Alexander at an Oxford-Cambridge match. At the time Alexander was head of the cryptanalysis division of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), an intelligence and security organization responsible for providing intelligence information to the government and armed forces of the United Kingdom In 1969, Mardle directed the Mathematics Research Group before being promoted to chief mathematician in 1973. In 1982 he was appointed head of the cryptanalysis division, and was awarded the CBE in 1988. 

     During the 1953 British Championship Mardle met Barbara Lally (1920-1972), who was taking part in that year's British Ladies' Championship and they were married in 1954. After her death he married again. His second wife's daughter wrote an account of the last years of his life which was published in The Lincolnshire Post-Polio Information Newsletter in 2000. You can read the article HERE.

[Event "Stevenson Memorial, Bognor Regis"] [Site "?"] [Date "1959.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Robert G. Wade"] [Black "Denis V. Mardle"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "E97"] [Annotator "Stockfiah 15"] [PlyCount "96"] [SourceVersionDate "2022.08.16"] {King's Indian: Classical Main Line} 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d6 3. c4 g6 4. Nc3 Bg7 5. e4 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. b4 a5 10. Ba3 axb4 11. Bxb4 Nd7 12. Nd2 {So far this is all book, but here white usually continues 12.a4} f5 13. Nb3 b6 14. a4 Nc5 15. Bxc5 bxc5 16. f3 Bh6 17. Qd3 Kh8 18. Nb5 (18. a5 Ra6 19. Nb5 Ng8 20. g3 Nf6 21. Rf2 Kg7 22. Nc3 fxe4 23. fxe4 Bh3 {with equal chances. Kaabi,M (2365)-Kahn,E (2350) Budapest 1995}) 18... Bd7 19. a5 Ra6 20. Ra2 Ng8 21. Qc3 Bf4 22. g3 {So far black has had a clear initiative, but is next move should have allowed white to gain the advantage.} Qg5 {The simple retreat 22... Bh6 was correct.} 23. Kh1 {Forcing black to sacrifice the B.} (23. Nxc7 { is not nearly as good because after} Bxg3 24. hxg3 Qxg3+ 25. Kh1 Ra7 {black has equalized.}) 23... Bxg3 (23... Be3 {is forcefully met by} 24. f4 Bd4 25. Qxd4 cxd4 26. fxg5 {and white is a piece ahead.}) 24. hxg3 {Not bad, but 24. Rg1 was even better.} (24. Rg1 f4 25. Nxc7 Ra7 26. Nb5 Qh5 {Threatening ...Qh2# } 27. Bd1 Bxb5 28. cxb5 {and white has a decisive advantage.}) 24... Qxg3 ( 24... f4 {was somewhat better.} 25. Bd1 fxg3 26. Kg2 Rf4 27. Rh1 {etc.}) 25. f4 {25.Nxc7 would be a mistake because after 25...Qh3+ black gets a threefold repitition.} Qh4+ 26. Kg2 Nf6 {[%mdl 32] White has a nearly won position here after 27.Qe1 beating back black's attack. Instead, he makes a move that looks plausible, but turns out to be a serious error. At least that's the way Stockfish looks at it. From the human standpoint things are not nearly so clear!} 27. Rh1 (27. Qe1 Qh6 28. fxe5 Nxe4 29. Bf3 dxe5 {and white is "clearly winning." Indeed, in Shootouts white scored 5 out of 5, but here's is the winning procedure at 21 plies...it wouldn't be so easy for a human.} 30. Bxe4 fxe4 31. Rxf8+ Qxf8 32. Nd2 c6 33. Nc3 cxd5 34. Nxd5 Qf5 35. Nxe4 Qg4+ 36. Ng3 Qg5 37. Qe3 Qxe3 38. Nxe3 h5 39. Ne4 Bc6 40. Nd5 Ba8 41. Kg1 Kg7 42. Nxc5 Ra7 43. Ne6+ Kh7 44. a6 Kh6 45. Nec7 Bc6 46. Nb5 Rd7 47. a7 h4 48. a8=Q Bxa8 49. Rxa8 e4 50. Nbc3 e3 51. Nxe3 Rc7 52. Ncd5 Rc6 53. Kf2 h3 54. Ra1 h2 55. Rh1 Ra6 56. Kg2 Kh5 57. Kg3 g5 {[%eval 734,21] [%wdl 1000,0,0]} 58. Rxh2+ Kg6 59. c5 Kf7 60. Rf2+ Kg7 61. Nf5+ Kf7 62. c6 Ra1 63. Nfe3+ Ke6 64. Rc2 Rg1+ 65. Kh2 Ra1 66. c7 Ra8 67. c8=Q+ Rxc8 68. Rxc8 Kd6 69. Rc4 Ke6 70. Kg3 Kd6 71. Rc7 Ke5 72. Kf3 Kd4 73. Rc4+ Ke5 74. Kg4 Kd6 75. Kxg5 Ke6 76. Rc6+ Ke5 77. Nf4 {Stockfish 15:} Ke4 78. Nf5 Kf3 79. Rc2 Ke4 80. Rf2 Ke5 81. Re2#) 27... Qxf4 28. Qf3 (28. Nxc7 {is still unsatisfactory.} Ra7 29. Nb5 Nxe4 {with the advantage.}) (28. Qc1 {offering a draw was a good idea.} fxe4 (28... Qxc1 29. Rxc1 Rc8 {was acceptable if black wants to play on although here white is slightly better.}) 29. Rf1 Qh4 30. Rh1 {draws}) 28... Qg5+ 29. Qg3 Qxg3+ 30. Kxg3 Nxe4+ 31. Kg2 { A truly unique position. Amazing! Black's best move is now 31...Rc8} c6 { This looks good. but it should have allowed whit to salvage the game.} 32. dxc6 (32. Nxd6 {was better.} Nxd6 33. Nxc5 Ra7 34. Nxd7 Rxd7 35. dxc6 Rc7 36. Rb1 Rxc6 37. a6 Ra8 38. a7 Rcc8 39. Ra5 Re8 40. c5 Nc8 {This position offers equal chances.} 41. Rb8 Nxa7 42. Rxe8+ Rxe8 43. Rxa7 Rc8 44. Ra5 Rc7 45. Bc4 { The position is evaluated at 0.00, but that is not the same thing as a draw... at least not in this position!}) 32... Bxc6 33. Bf3 Rb8 34. Nd2 {[%mdl 8192] This gets a big thumbs down from Stockfish.} (34. Rha1 Kg7 35. Kg1 Nc3 36. Nxc3 Bxf3 37. Nd2 Bc6 38. Rb1 {And this position is also evaluated at 0.00!}) 34... Nxd2 35. Bxc6 Nxc4 {This is the only correct move. 35...Rxc6 36.Rxd2 is allegedly equal.} 36. Bd7 d5 {[%mdl 32] Six passed Ps...they can't be stopped, but Wade gives it a try. The rest of the game received some minor tweaking by Stockfish, but the outcome is not in doubt.} 37. Nc3 Ne3+ 38. Kf3 d4 39. Bb5 Ra7 40. Rb1 g5 41. Bc6 e4+ 42. Ke2 Rxb1 43. Nxb1 Nc4 44. a6 Ne5 45. Nd2 { [%mdl 8192]} c4 {[%mdl 32]} 46. Ra4 d3+ {Black is clearly winning.} 47. Ke3 c3 48. Nc4 f4+ {Wade resigned.} 0-1

Vintage Alekhine

     Playing over Alekhine's games is still an enjoyable experience because he played exceptional fighting games and conjured up attacks seemingly out of thin air. 

      His annotations frequently contain glaring errors and his attacks weren't always sound, but who cares? Humans can't calculate like Stockfish; they make mistakes in their calculations, they suffer from fatigue, etc. 

      When reading old chess books, which often have mistakes in analysis, the important thing to remember is that the general principles they contain can be of great value to the practical player. 

     The following game was played in a 1st category tournament in Moscow in October. In December Alekhine scored another triumph when he cleaned house in the Moscow City Championship with a score of 11.5-0.5!    

 

     This game demonstrates the importance of the Pawn center and how an attack can develop from it. In the complications Alekhine reached a position where his superiority was evident: he controlled the center and his opponent's pieces were all huddled together trying to defend his King. Then he made a tactical error! Not one that lost the game, but one that should have allowed Zubarev to at least equalize...but he, also, missed the correct continuation and Alekhine finished him off with a couple of crushing blows.

 

[Event "1st Category tournament. Moscow"] [Site "?"] [Date "1915.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Alexander Alekhine"] [Black "Nikolay Zubarev"] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "51"] [EventDate "1915.??.??"] {Nimzo-Indian: Classical} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Qc2 {This is the Classical Variation. The idea is that in the event of ...Bxc3 white can recapture Qxc3 avoiding doubled Ps and the Q keeps an eye on e4.} b6 {This game was played pre-Nimzovich and this move is a major concession because it allows white to push e2-e4. Good moves are 4...O-O and 4...d5} 5. e4 Bb7 6. Bd3 (6. e5 {is also good. After} Bxc3+ 7. Qxc3 Ne4 8. Qe3 f5 9. Bd3 (9. f3 Qh4+ { black is better}) (9. exf6 Qxf6 {favors black}) 9... O-O 10. Ne2 {white has a favorable position.}) 6... Bxc3+ {In this line white can't avoid the doubled Ps because recapturing with the Q koses the e-Pawn.} 7. bxc3 d6 8. Ne2 { Not 8.Nf3 blocking f-Pawn.} (8. f4 {This bold move was also playable!} e5 9. Nf3 Nbd7 10. fxe5 dxe5 11. Bg5 {with an excellent position.}) 8... Nbd7 { Hoping that at some point he can play ...e5} 9. O-O O-O (9... Qe7 10. f4 e5 ( 10... O-O-O {in Virkud,A (2027)-Amrayeva,A (2191) Porto Carras GRE 2015 black got away with this risky move.} 11. a4 {Correct was 11...e5!} a5 12. Ng3 g6 13. Rf3 h5 {and black succeeded in launching a decisive K-side attack.}) 11. Ng3 g6 12. c5 exd4 13. c6 Bxc6 14. cxd4 Nb8 15. f5 Nfd7 16. d5 Bb7 17. Qxc7 Ba6 18. Bxa6 Nxa6 19. Qb7 {Black resigned. Horvath,J (2525)-Fokin,S (2365) Budapest 1990}) (9... e5 {It's too soon to play this because after} 10. f4 O-O 11. Ng3 { white has the better prospects as any capture by black with the f-Pawn has disadvantages.}) 10. f4 h6 11. Ng3 {Good, but Euwe's 11.e5 dislodging the N first was even better.} (11. e5 Ne8 12. Ng3 c5 13. Qe2 Qh4 14. f5 cxd4 15. Rf4 Qd8 16. cxd4 dxe5 17. dxe5 Nc7 18. Rg4 Qe7 19. Rxg7+ {Black resigned. Euwe, M-Colle,E Amsterdam 1928}) 11... Qe7 12. Qe2 Rae8 {Black is in a very difficult situation here. The two games in the notes, Horvath-Fokin and Euwe-Colle, already hint at the truth of the statement.} (12... e5 {The move black hoped to play meets with disaster.} 13. Nf5 Qd8 14. fxe5 dxe5 15. Qe3 { Threatening to sacrifice the N and there is nothing black can do about it!} Kh8 (15... Kh7 16. Nxg7) 16. Nxg7 Ng8 17. Nf5 Qg5 18. Qh3 Qg6 19. Bxh6 Nxh6 20. Nxh6 {and white is winning.}) 13. Ba3 {An excellent place for the B.} c5 { Blocking the Bs diagonal.} 14. Rae1 {This centralizing move brings his last piece into play. The immediate 14.e5 was also playable.} Kh8 {As good a move as any.} (14... cxd4 {Only opens up the diagonal for white's B.} 15. e5 dxc3 16. Bxd6) 15. d5 {Not the best, but it's good enough.} (15. e5 Ng8 {Shoring up h6.} 16. Bc1 f5 17. exf6 Ndxf6 18. Bg6 Rd8 19. d5 e5 20. Nf5 {White has a winning attack. Just one example...} Qc7 21. Nh4 Ne7 22. g4 Qd7 23. g5 Qg4+ 24. Qxg4 Nxg4 25. h3 hxg5 26. fxg5 {the N is trapped.}) 15... Ng8 16. e5 {This is a serious tactical mistake that loses a little material and should have allowed black to equalize.. It was necessary to first bring the B on a3 back into play with 16.Bc1} g6 {[%mdl 8192] Zubarev returns the favor. While this move may preclude the possibility of white playing f4-f5 it further weakens the K's position.} (16... dxe5 {equalizes} 17. fxe5 exd5 18. cxd5 Bxd5 { and in the ensuing complications black can hold his own.} 19. Bc1 (19. Bb1 Nxe5 20. Qc2 f5 21. Nxf5 Qg5 22. Ng3 {with equal chances.}) 19... Nxe5 20. Qh5 { does not lead to any things and black is two Ps u}) 17. Qd2 {A positional move that gets the Q out of the way of the R on e1 and so makes dxe6 a real threat.} exd5 (17... a6 {This is a pass to demonstrate the dxe6 threat.} 18. dxe6 Qxe6 19. f5 {Crushing!} (19. exd6 Qxd6 {is good for black.}) 19... gxf5 20. Bxf5 Qe7 21. exd6 Qd8 22. Bc1 Rxe1 23. Qxe1 Re8 24. Qd1 Ndf6 25. Bf4 {white is winning.} Bc8 26. Bxh6 Nxh6 27. Bxc8 Qxc8 28. Rxf6) (17... dxe5 18. fxe5 f5 19. exf6 Rxf6 20. Rxf6 Qxf6 21. Ne4 {White is clearly better.}) 18. cxd5 dxe5 (18... Bxd5 19. Bb5 Bb7 20. exd6 {and white is winning.}) 19. c4 Kh7 {With nothing much to do, black gets his K off the dangerous long diagonal.} 20. Bb2 Ngf6 21. fxe5 { [%mdl 32]} Ng4 22. e6 Qh4 {White has a mate in 14!} 23. Rxf7+ {Very characteristic of the vintage Alekhine.} Rxf7 (23... Kg8 {also leads to his getting mated in a pretty way.} 24. Rg7+ Kh8 25. Rxg6+ Ndf6 26. Rxg4 Qxg4 27. Qxh6+ Kg8 28. Bxf6 Rxf6 29. Bh7+ Kh8 30. Bg6+ Kg8 31. Qh7+ Kf8 32. e7+ Rxe7 33. Qh8#) 24. Bxg6+ {[%mdl 512]} Kxg6 25. Qd3+ Kg5 26. Bc1+ {Black resigned as mate follows.} (26. Bc1+ Kf6 27. Qf5+ Kg7 28. Qxf7+ Kh8 29. Qxe8+ Kh7 30. Qxd7+ Kh8 31. Bb2+ Nf6 32. e7 Qd4+ 33. Bxd4 cxd4 34. e8=Q+ Ng8 35. Qxg8+ Kxg8 36. Re8#) 1-0

A Late Night Movie, Plumbing and Chess

     Yesterday morning consisted of a Chick-fil-A breakfast followed by a ten minute repair job on a toilet that wouldn't stop running. Ten minutes, that is, if you are a plumber or a home handyman. If you're neither, it's an all morning job.

     Maybe it took so long because it was a short night and I was tired...I get up at 6am regardless. It was a short night because we stayed up until midnight watching Pawn Sacrifice on television.

     The movie is rated 7 out of 10 stars and Rotten Tomatoes may have called it "fantastic", but I think real chess players would rate it lower. 

     Spassky called the movie "weak" and said that it had "no intrigue." He added he that the film misrepresented how and why he agreed to continue the match after Fischer failed to show up for the second game. 

     Anatoly Karpov said, “Maybe the film is not bad for the popularization of chess, but its content is terrible. There are many inaccuracies. The chess positions are simply idiotic. The film is quite budgetary, so take a chess consultant, pay him a fee, he will correct your position. And then there the diagonal from left to right is white. You are making a film about world champions, and such bloopers, for me as a professional, are terrible." 

     The New York Times review was probably on point. "Pity any ardent chess fans who go to this movie; they’ll be pounding the walls over the differences between Mr. Zwick’s depiction and reality, and will no doubt be irked that the film doesn’t dwell much on the actual chess playing. But this isn’t a chess movie, it isn’t a biopic, and it isn’t a documentary. (For that, see “Bobby Fischer Against the World,” a very good 2011 treatment from HBO.) It’s a dramatization, one aimed at a general audience." 

     The afternoon was spent napping and then playing a few games on Chess Hotel, the following of which was the pick of the litter. That isn't saying much, but it was a lot of fun. 

 

[Event "Chess Hotel"] [Site "?"] [Date "2022.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Guest"] [Black "Tartajubow"] [Result "0-1"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "62"] [EventDate "2022.??.??"] {Irregular Defense} 1. d4 Nf6 2. e3 e5 {I often play the Fajarowicz variation of the Budapest (2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ne4) even though it's not considered very good. When an opponent crosses my plans with this move which has happened several times by those apparently wanting to play the Colle, I have played this dreadful move several times.} 3. c3 (3. dxe5 {This is, of course, the only move worth considering.} Ne4 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. c3 d5 6. exd6 Bxd6 7. Qc2 Bf5 8. Bd3 Qe7 {Guest-Tartajubow Chess Hotel 2019. Black has no real compensation for the P.}) 3... e4 {Assuring that white is going to be horribly cramped.} 4. f4 { This is awful. He should have played 4.c4 even though it involves a lost tempo. At least he would have had some freedom.} d5 5. Nd2 Bg4 {Stockfish likes 5... Ng4 attacking the e-Pawn and forcing white to misplace his N on b3.} 6. Be2 { I was happy to see this move, voluntarily exchanging his good B.} (6. Qb3 { This is his best chance.} Nc6 7. Qxb7 Bd7 8. Qa6 (8. Bb5 Rb8 9. Qa6 Rxb5 10. Qxb5 Nxd4 {wins for black.}) 8... Rb8 9. Nb3 Ng4 10. Qe2 {Black has sufficient compensation for the P.} (10. h3 Qh4+ {wins})) 6... Bxe2 7. Nxe2 Bd6 8. O-O O-O 9. c4 c6 10. b3 Nbd7 {In spite of white's rather poor play in the opening black cannot boast of anything more than being slightly better.} 11. a4 Qc7 { I realized this is rather pointless, but couldn't think of anything else to do. } (11... Ng4 {is the engine way.} 12. Nb1 h5 13. h3 Nh6 14. Qe1 g6 15. Ba3 Bxa3 16. Nxa3 Nf5 {and black is slightly better.}) 12. c5 {White is playing to gain space on the Q-side. Stockfish can't make up its mind between 12.Nb1 and 12.h3. } Nxc5 {[%mdl 8192] White has a decisive advantage says Stockfish. I knew this wasn't good, but it was an 8-minute + 2 seconds per move game and rather than the passive 12...Be7 with near equality I wanted to complicate things.} 13. dxc5 Bxc5 14. Nb1 {Too passive. 14.Nd4 was better. No matter...white still has a huge advantage.} Qb6 {The engine wants me to play 14...Re8. Why, I don't know. At least with the text I am threatening the e-Pawn.} 15. Nd4 a5 {I didn't want my Q driven back.} 16. Ba3 {With the elimination of my B all attacking chances disappear.} Bxd4 {This assures me of at least one advanced passed P...for whatever that might be worth.} 17. exd4 (17. Bxf8 {would actually lose.} Bxa1 18. Bd6 Qxe3+ 19. Kh1 Re8 {and those center Ps will be decisive.}) (17. Qxd4 {A really swell move as it pretty much forces the exchange of Qs} Qxd4 18. exd4 {and black has two Ps for a piece, but that is not enough compensation in this position.}) 17... Rfe8 18. Bc5 Qc7 19. g4 { While this is not fatal, it creates a weakness on the K-side that allows black plenty of counterplay. Simply 19.Nc3 keeps white's winning position.} b6 { Much better was 19...e3. After the text white is better, but not winning.} ( 19... e3 20. Nc3 Ne4 21. Nxe4 Rxe4 {with a completely equal game.}) 20. Ba3 e3 21. Qe2 {A better way of stopping the advance of the P was 21.Ra2} h5 22. g5 ( 22. gxh5 b5 (22... Nxh5 23. f5 Nf6 24. Nc3 {and white is better.}) 23. axb5 cxb5 24. Bc1 {White must deal with the e-Pawn.} (24. Qxb5 e2 25. Re1 Qxf4 { and black is winning.} 26. Ra2 (26. Nc3 Qxd4+ 27. Kg2 Qxc3) 26... Rab8 27. Qd3 Re3 {etc}) 24... Re4 {with complications and equal chances.}) 22... Ng4 23. Rf3 {Better was 23.Nc3 getting the N and R into play.} Re4 {[%mdl 2048] Attacking the f-Pawn; I thought the attack on the d-Pawn was incidental.} 24. Nc3 {Now this is wrong! He must tend to the defense of his K-side.} (24. h3 Rxd4 (24... Nf2 25. Nc3 Rxf4 26. Rxe3 {favors white.}) 25. hxg4 Re8 26. Rxe3 Rxe3 27. Qxe3 Re4 { Amazing! White is two pieces up, but with the R and N out of play black stands better.} 28. Qc1 Qc8 29. Qd1 Qe6 30. Nd2 Rxf4 {Black threatens mate beginning with ...Qe6+} 31. Qe1 Qxg4+ 32. Kh2 Qxg5 33. Be7 f6 34. Kh3 {to prevent ...Rh4# } Rd4 35. Qe6+ Kh7 36. Nf3 Qg4+ 37. Qxg4 hxg4+ 38. Kg3 gxf3 {and the B might have difficulty coping with all of black's Ps.}) 24... Rxf4 {Wrong P because it allows white to ease his position with exchanges. After 24...Rxd4 white would be pretty much helpless.} 25. Raf1 Rxd4 26. Rxf7 Qxf7 {Relying heavily on my extra pieces seemed like a good decision, but it actually leaves white (according to Stockfish) with a decisive advantage. Keeping the Q with 26... Qe6 would have kept white's advantage at a minimum.} 27. Rxf7 Kxf7 28. Nd1 {This attack on the P is fruitless.} (28. h3 {wins the N.} Nf2 29. Qxh5+ Kg8 30. g6 {and the threst of Qh7# leaves black with no way out.} c5 31. Nxd5 Rd1+ 32. Kg2 e2 33. Qh7+ Kf8 34. Qh8#) 28... Re8 {This threatens to win with ...Rd2 and black is right black in the game.} 29. Bb2 {[%mdl 8192] He should not have allowed the R to go to e2!} (29. h3 Rd2 30. Qe1 Nh2 31. Kh1 Nf3 32. Qf1 Rh2#) ( 29. Bc1 {keeps the chances equal.} Rde4 30. h3 R8e5 31. g6+ (31. hxg4 Rxg4+ 32. Kh2 Rexg5 {wins. For example...} 33. Qf3+ Ke6 34. Bxe3 Rh4+ 35. Qh3+ Rgg4 36. Bxb6 Rxh3+ 37. Kxh3 Rb4) 31... Kxg6 32. Nc3 Rf4 33. Qd3+ Kf6 34. Ne2 Nf2 35. Qc2 Nxh3+ 36. Kh2 c5 37. Bb2 d4 38. Kxh3 {Stockfish evaluates the position at 0.00. It's unclear and anything could happen.}) 29... Rd2 {After this white is lost. After a promising start a combination of passive play and using too much time has been his undoing.} 30. Qf3+ Kg8 {Now there is simply no way to deal with the coming ...e2} 31. h3 e2 {White resigned} (31... e2 32. Ne3 e1=Q+ 33. Nf1 Rf2 34. Qd3 Rxf1+ 35. Qxf1 Qg3+ 36. Qg2 Re1#) 0-1