 |
| Mott-Smith vs. Denker |
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle headlined that the Nazi High Command was calling on Hitler to quit the war and 2,500 bombers had blasted industrial targets in Germany. On the other side of the world 100 bombers had pummeled the island of Kyushu for two hours in support for the invasion of Okinawa.
Also that day, the Manhattan Chess Club met the Marshall Chess Club at the Manhattan club's quarters in a team match in the annual Metropolitan League.
As in the previous year's match, the champion Manhattans won by the smallest possible margin.
Despite the loss of their beloved mentor, Frank Marshall who had passed away in November, 1944, the visitors mustered strong team on the top four boards, but they were no match for Manhattan's top four.
For Manhattan, Arnold Denker won a fascinating game from K.O. Mott-Smith; Robert Willman secured a crushing bind in the opening which he never relaxed; Manhattan Club Champion Albert Pinkus drew an uneventful game with Anthony Santasiere.
Marshall's only win came when Reuben Fine scored a well-deserved victory against Alex Kevitz who had been making a good comeback after a long absence from chess.
On the lower boards, the Marshall team held their own. In the end, the Manhattan club retained its title of Metropolitan League Champion.
The following game between K. O. Mott-Smith and U. S. Champion Arnold S. Denker was one of the decisive games of the match. According to Mott-Smith, who annotated the game in Chess Review, he lost the game due to an opening blunder. He claimed that Denker tried to exploit his advantage too impetuously and was forced to sacrifice a Knight for two Pawns in an attack which looked stronger than it was.
Then Mott-Smith's 22nd move permitted a forced win which Denker overlooked, as he adopted a continuation which should not have lead to no decisive result.
Mott-Smith explained that a "psychological quirk" on his part again handed Denker the advantage after which he (Mottt-Smith) fell apart. Undoubtedly, Denker would have had a different view of the game...Stockfish would, too. Check it out!
Kenneth Ormsby (K.O.) Mott-Smith (1902–1960) was co-chairman of the American Contract Bridge League's Laws Commission, editor of their bulletin from 1935–36, a contributor to The Bridge World and a writer and cryptographer. During World War II, he served as chief instructor for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in the training of cryptographers and analysts. He wrote or co-wrote more than 29 books on games and served as games consultant for the Association of American Playing Card Manufacturers.
[Event "Met League Match, New York City"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1945.03.31"]
[Round "?"]
[White "K.O. Mott-Smith (Marshall)"]
[Black "A.S. Denker (Manhattan)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A50"]
[Annotator "Stockfish 15"]
[PlyCount "78"]
[EventDate "1945.??.??"]
[SourceVersionDate "2022.10.07"]
{Queen's Fianchetto Defense} 1. c4 {Mott-Smith's favorite opening; he liked
its versatility.} Nf6 2. Nf3 b6 3. g3 Bb7 4. Bg2 g6 {Mott-Smith was critical
of this unexpected move thinking it lead to a cramped position. Not a
particularly good move, he said. In his book The Road To Chess Improvement, GM
Alex Yermolinsky devoted a chapter to the double fianchetto and showed that it
is quite playable. He also made an instructive comment concerning the openings
when he said not too many games are going to be decided by a memory contest.
Most theoretical variations end up with an "unclear" assessment meaning they
are playable by BOTH sides. And, the game's outcome is mostly going to be
decided by a player's middlegame skills.} 5. O-O Bg7 6. Nc3 O-O 7. d4 {[%mdl
32]} c5 {After this white does get the advantage: more space and black's B on
b7 is rather useless. Correct is 7...Ne4!. White has a choice of 8.Nxe4, 8.Qc2
and 8.Be3. All are playable.} 8. d5 d6 {My database has xx games that reached
this position; White scored +22 -5 =9; not very promising!} 9. Rb1 {This move
turns out to be rather pointless, but it does no serious harm to white's
position. Much better would have been 9.e4} a6 10. a4 Nbd7 11. b3 {Another
rather pointless move. Again 11.e4 would have been a good choice.} Ne8 12. Ne4
{Mott-Smith blamed this move on an hallucination and claimed after the correct
12.Qc2 Denker would have had his troubles. His observations were based on
faulty analysis. In this position white's advantage is minimal, but he is
correct in that 12.Qc2 would have been slightly better. The correct followup
would be 13.e4} e5 {Now black has the better game because this move and ...f5
"cripple white's K-side Ps forever." So said Mott-Smith. Actually, white is
slightly better here. The position would have been equal after 12...e6} 13. g4
{According to Mott-Smith "a makeshift device" and an attempt to fish in
troubled waters. He also added that his adversary was not lacking in that
piscatorial talent. OK, I had to look up that word. Piscatorial means relating
to fish, fishing, or fishermen. In any case, even after this wild move the
chances of both side in this position are adjudged equal. White's best plan to
keep a slight edge would have been Qc2, Nc3 and e4.} Ndf6 14. Nxf6+ Nxf6 15. h3
{Mott-Smith stated that now black can infiltrate at will into white's position
and he suggested ...Ne8, ...Bc8 and ...f5. Komodo evaluates the position as
equal and suggests several reasonable, if quiet, alternatives.} Ne4 {Instead,
Denker, "the great exponent of tank warfare...thrusts in an armoured spearhead,
" said Mott-Mith. That's a poetic, but accurate, way of putting it because
Denker wasn't the kind of player to just sit back and do nothing. He once
played an unsound sacrifice against Reshevsky and after the game when
Reshevsky asked him why he played it, Denker's answer was, "It looked good."}
16. Qc2 f5 17. h4 {"Which the white army prepares to pinch off" wrote
Mott-Smith. A more solid way to oust the N would have been for white to
retreat his N to either e1 or h2 threatening Bxe4 and so necessitating the N's
retreat to f6.} Bc8 18. g5 {Black's N is precariously posted on e4 and it can
be picked off with Kh2. Ng1 and f3, hence black's next move. In fact, that's
not the case at all as black can actually improve its position should white
try that lengthy maneuver.} f4 (18... b5 19. Kh2 b4 20. Ng1 Nc3 {Black is
better.}) (18... b5 {If white wants to mix it up he can now play 19,b4?!, but
a better, and safer, plan is} 19. Bb2 b4 20. Nh2 {but black is doing well after
} h6 21. Bxe4 (21. f3 Ng3 {Black is considerably better.}) 21... fxe4 22. Bc1
hxg5 23. Bxg5 Bf6 {and black can olny claim to be slightly better.}) 19. Nh2 {
Forcing black to sacrifice the N. Mott-Smith claimed that in provoking the
sacrifice he was interested to see how Denker would succeed in carrying out
his attack. Mott-Smith's "instinct" told him his position could be defended.
At least in that respect he was correct.} Nxg5 20. hxg5 Qxg5 (20... Bf5 {
was also playable.} 21. Be4 Qxg5+ 22. Kh1 Qh4 {Here, too, white's defensive
sources should prove adequate.}) 21. Kh1 Qh4 22. b4 {White does not have time
for this Q-side demonstration. Correct was 22.Be4 when anything could happen.}
Rf5 {According to Mott-Smith, Denker is bluffing with this move and he should
have played 22... g5 with a forced win.} (22... g5 {is the best move, but it
is hardly a forced win! For example...} 23. Be4 g4 24. Rg1 g3 25. Rg2 gxf2 {
Curiously, 25...gxh2 gives white the advantage because black has no way to
continue his attack. In this position black has a sustained initiative, but
nothing decisive; with careful play white has defensive resources.}) 23. Bf3
Rf6 24. Rg1 {Aberration! This line of play, giving up the exchange and leaving
black with a R+2Ps for two pieces plus the attack and no worries should not
have been considered for a moment; nor would it have been, except that having
been presented with a tempo, he felt the urge to make use of it. What price
the primrose path! So explained Mott-Smith. Eloquent, but the move he played
does not lose...it does, however, give black the initiative. After the better
24.Be4 the attack and defense would have been balanced.} g5 {Denker attacks.}
25. Qd1 {This move should have resulted in black gaining the upper hand.} (25.
Rg2 {yields a position evaluated at 0.00!} Bf5 26. Be4 Bh3 27. Kg1 (27. Rg1 {
is a loser.} Rh6 28. f3 Bf5 29. e3 Bxe4 30. fxe4 g4 {with a winning attack.})
27... Bxg2 28. Bxg2 g4 29. Qe4 {and white is hanging on.}) 25... Rh6 (25...
Qxh2+ {would lose.} 26. Kxh2 Rh6+ 27. Bh5 {The saving move.} (27. Kg2 Bh3+ 28.
Kh1 Bf1+ 29. Bh5 Rxh5#) 27... Rxh5+ 28. Kg2 Bh3+ 29. Kf3 e4+ 30. Kxe4 Re8+ 31.
Kf3 {and the K is safe and black does not have nearly enough compensation for
the Q.}) 26. Rg2 Bf5 {This is an inaccuracy.} (26... Bh3 {remains equal.} 27.
Qg1 Bxg2+ 28. Qxg2) 27. Rb3 {[%mdl 8192] Self immolation! Strangely enough,
Mott-Smith foresaw what was coming. By way of explanation he gave an example
from contract bridge, which is meaningless to non-bridge players. He added a
lot of pitter-patter that basically said playing one serious game of chess a
year was hardly adequate preparation for taking on the U. S. Champion. He
correctly stated that 27.e4 was correct.} (27. e4 Bh3 28. Qg1 Bxg2+ 29. Qxg2 {
And there is no way to continue the attack. Materially the situation is that
white has B+N vs R+2Ps. This is the type of position which Arthur Bisguier
stated he felt he could win with either color assuming that he was the
stronger player.}) 27... e4 {[%mdl 32] The barrage of Ps will prove calamitous
for white.} 28. Qg1 exf3 29. Rxg5 Rg6 30. Rxg6 hxg6 {Also playable was 30...
Bxg6} 31. bxc5 {Pointless, but he is lost anyway.} (31. Rxf3 Be4) (31. exf3 Bc2
32. Ra3 cxb4 33. Ra2 Bf5 {is hopeless.}) 31... fxe2 32. Bd2 Bd4 {In face of
the threat of ...Be4+ Mott-Smith wrote that in a tournament game he would
cheerfully have resigned, but in a team match he felt that hr needed to play
on.} 33. Qg2 {Black can win in a variety of way and how he does so is a matter
of taste.} Bxc5 34. Kg1 Re8 35. Nf3 Qg3 36. Be1 Bh3 37. Qxg3 fxg3 38. Rb1 a5
39. Rc1 g5 {White resigned. Not a perfect game, but entertaining.} 0-1
No comments:
Post a Comment