The answer is, I suppose, it depends. In the case of opening books, the ideas may not have changed, but engines will sometimes alter the evaluation of individual moves.
In practice though I don’t think it matters much. Below the Master level (or perhaps even the VERY strong Master level) the players don’t follow published analysis very far anyway...sometimes only 5-6 moves.
Also, for non-Masters even a huge opening plus can be frittered away.
Also, some popular openings of today were unknown way back when and many once popular openings are now obsolete. Consequently, in the old books comments on the openings must generally be looked at with a jaundiced eye.
Many books on middlegame strategy hold up better and are still useful. Tactics are another matter because they can be iffy. Often those old books were cranked out out without a lot of analytic effort and they didn’t have the benefit of an all-seeing engine. Also, in may cases the games were annotated based on the result. Everything the winner did was praised and everything the loser did was criticized.
 |
| Spielmann |
However, for non-Masters and those of us for whom the improvement ship has sailed, the games in those old books are a source of enjoyment. The following game is one such.
It was played in 1934 in a tournament in Sopron, a city in Hungary on the Austrian border. The tournament itself has been long forgotten and few games survive. The event was won by Rudolf Spielmann and Erno Gereben finished second. The other players were Pal Rethy, I. Csath, Antonio Sacconi, Arpad Vajda, Laszlo Szabo, Immo Fuss, Kornel Havasi and Ernst Gruenfeld, but I was unable to locate the final standings.
The game appears in Spielmann’s book, The Art of Sacrifice in Chess. Rudolf Spielmann (1883-1942, 59 years old) was born in Vienna, Austria. His chess persona was the exact opposite of his personality away from the board. He loved complex positions and tactics.
Being Jewish, he fled Nazi Germany and in 1939 went to Sweden. His death is something of a mystery. According to his close relatives he locked himself in his room and was later found starved to death.
 |
| Gereben |
Another version says that he suffered from am illness similar to Parkinson's disease which rapidly became worse at the end of his life. Parkinson’s disease is a disorder of the central nervous system that affects movement. It often starts with a tremor in one hand. Other symptoms are slow movement, stiffness, and loss of balance. There are, however, several other conditions that can mimic Parkinson’s.
Another source stated that he was admitted to the hospital and he died there. The source adds that the official cause of death was high blood pressure and a condition in which the heart muscle becomes fibrous.
His opponent was Erno Gereben (1908-1988), a Hungarian-Swiss Master whose career extended from the mid-1920s to the late 1970s. He was born in Sopron, where this tournament was played. Due to the Hungarian revolution in 1956, Gereben emigrated to Switzerland. He was awarded the IM title in 1950.
As for the game itself, like the game in the preceding post, it represents the evils of having not castled in an open position. Spielmann’s sacrifice lead to an attack against the exposed King whose defending pieces were largely undeveloped and somewhat scattered left him with excellent attacking chances. As is often the case, the defender was not up to the task of defending which is often harder than attacking. As for Spielmann’s notes in the book, let’s just say he didn’t have Stockfish and leave it at that.
Shootouts are mentioned in the analysis. As a reminder, this is a feature in the Fritz program in which an engine play out the rest of the game. It’s useful to test different engines by letting them play out a tactical, strategic or endgame position at different depths, but it’s also useful for analysis purposes to see what the potential outcome might be.
[Event "Sopron"]
[Site "Sopron HUN"]
[Date "1934.09.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Erno Gereben"]
[Black "Rudolf Spielmann"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D94"]
[Annotator "Stockfish 16"]
[PlyCount "70"]
[EventDate "1934.??.??"]
{D95: Gruenfeld Defense} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 {Although played as far
back as 1855, this defense only became popular after Ernst Gruenfeld began
playing it in 1922.} 4. e3 {White has the possibility of 4.cxd5 which gives
him an imposing Pawn center which black will try to attack. The move played is
usually a quiet backwater variation.} Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Bd2 c6 7. Qb3 b6 {
At the time this game was played black usually played 7...dxc4, but Spielmann
thought this move was probably better, Today black usually plays 7...e6. There
is not much difference between any of the moves.} 8. cxd5 cxd5 9. Rc1 {Simpler
9 B-K2 and 10 0-0} Bb7 10. Ne5 Nfd7 11. Nxd7 {Spielmann was critical of this
move because it gives away two tempi and his recommendation was 11.f4. He
wrote that because black has gained two tempi, it is not far fetched for him
to think of sacrificing his d-Pawn in order to gain still more tempi. He
reminded reader that in open positions, three tempi are approximately worth a
Pawn. What does Stockfish say? The text results in equality, but 11.f4 gives
white a slight advantage.} (11. f4 Nxe5 12. fxe5 f6 13. exf6 Bxf6 14. Bb5 Nc6
15. Qxd5+ Qxd5 16. Nxd5 {with a slight advantage.}) 11... Nxd7 {Playable was
11...Qxd7. Instead, black offers a P for development, Spielmann wrote that
either acceptance of the sacrifice, or its refusal by an indifferent move, was
too dangerous for White. And this was the basis of the subsequent sacrifice
which was already under consideration when he played 11...Nxd7} 12. f4 {
A defensive Pawn move, when his development is backward-. According to
Spielmann this means the loss of another tempo, so black has already gained
three tempi. This advantage, it is true, cannot be utilized in what is at
present a close position. The following preventive sacrifice, however, opens
up all lines at one stroke. Stockfish's suggested move is 12.f4 and its
evaluation is 0.00.} e5 {This gets a ? from Stockfish which recommends either
12...Nf6 or 12...Rc8 with equality. After the text black is technically just a
P down.} 13. fxe5 Nxe5 {This violent P breakthrough is the idea behind the P
sacrifice! Since black is already at a disadvantage this sacrifice is probably
the best practical choice.} 14. dxe5 d4 {With this move black creates oopen
lines for his attack. Spielmann wrote the following: "The sacrifice of the N
cannot be vindicated by analysis and it would possibly hav3 been refuted in a
correspondence game. But in a contest over the board and with a time limit of
eighteen moves an hour, it would nearly always win through." In that he is
quite correct because a mistake by a defender is often more serious than a
mistake by the attacker. Technically white's advantage is about two Ps. Black
could play 14...Bxe5, but he must play ...d4 anyway now is the best time to
play it.} 15. Nd1 {After this most of white's advantage disappears.} (15. exd4
{keeps a clear advantage.} Qxd4 16. Ne2 Qxe5 17. Bc3 {Materially white has a N
vs.a P and there is no way for black to take advantage of the position of
white's K in the center.}) 15... Bxe5 16. e4 {In order to close at least one
of the center files. But this costs a P, so that black will already have two
Ps for his piece and his attack remains just as strong. As correctly stated by
Spielmann.} Bxe4 17. Nf2 Bd5 18. Qh3 {According to Spielmann white guards his
g-Pawn in order to be able to develop his B. Unfortunately it further lessens
white's advantage.} (18. Bc4 {develops a piece and keeps a slight advantage.
Practically though calculating the best line and evaluationg the position OTB
seems nearly impossible.} Bxg2 19. Rg1 Bb7 20. Kd1 Qf6 21. Ng4 Bf3+ 22. Be2
Bxg4 23. Rxg4 Bxh2 24. Qh3 Be5 25. Bd3 Qe6 26. Bc4 Qf5 27. Rh4 Qxh3 28. Rxh3 {
According to Fritz and Stockfish white is clearly better...clearly?!}) 18...
Qe7 {Naturally much stronger than capturing the a-Pawn.} (18... Bxa2 19. Bd3
Rc8 20. O-O Rxc1 21. Rxc1 {White is better.}) 19. Be2 {Spielmann called this
the decisive mistake, but it actually results in equalit, He was correct in
that the best defense is 19.Kd1 and white maintains only a slight advantage.}
d3 {A sacrifice that gains space and after black's next move white is
prevented from castling.} 20. Nxd3 Rfe8 21. Kf1 {[%mdl 8192] White is in a
difficult position, but after this his position can be considered lost.} (21.
O-O Bd4+ 22. Kh1 Qxe2 {is obviously bad.}) (21. Qe3 {looks ;ike a dangerous
place to put the Q, but it's the best defense.} Qh4+ 22. g3 Bxg3+ 23. Qxg3
Qxg3+ 24. hxg3 Bxh1 25. Kf2 {with unclear complications. In Shootouts from
this position white scored +1 -0 =4}) 21... Bxb2 {[%mdl 512] This is the best
by far.} (21... Rad8 22. Qe3 Qb7 23. Nxe5 Bxg2+ 24. Kg1 Bxh1 25. Bf3 Bxf3 26.
Qxf3 Qxf3 27. Nxf3 {Again, the position us unclear, vut in Shootouts white
scored +0 -3 =2}) 22. Re1 Qf6+ 23. Nf2 {There is hardly anything else.} Bd4 24.
Qg3 Re4 {[%mdl 128] This is a mistake that went unnoticed in Spielmann's book.
Against the correct defense black's advantage would be minimal/} (24... Rxe2 {
There is no need to get fancy.} 25. Kxe2 Bxf2 26. Qf4 Qxf4 27. Bxf4 Bxe1 28.
Rxe1) (24... Re5 {keeps a winning position. After} 25. Bc3 (25. Rc1 Bxf2 {wins}
26. Qxf2 Rf5) 25... Bxc3 26. Qxc3 Rae8 27. Qc2 b5 28. h4 Bc4 29. g4 Rxe2 30.
Rxe2 Rxe2 {and wins}) 25. h4 {[%mdl 8192]} (25. Rc1 $17 {was the crucial
defense.} Rae8 26. Bf3 R4e7 27. h4 Be3 28. Bxe3 Rxe3 29. Ng4 Qb2 30. Nxe3 Qxc1+
31. Nd1 Bxf3 32. Qxf3 Rd8 33. Kf2 {and in practical play white might be able
to draw. In Shootouts white scored +0 -3 =2}) 25... Rae8 26. Bb5 Rxe1+ 27. Bxe1
Re3 {Best. He could also have won with 27...Rxe1+, but this winds up the game,
too.} (27... Rxe1+ 28. Kxe1 Bxf2+ 29. Qxf2 Qa1+ 30. Kd2 Qxh1 {with a long
ending in view.}) 28. Qg5 Rxe1+ $1 {[%mdl 512]} 29. Kxe1 Qxf2+ 30. Kd1 Bxg2 31.
Re1 Bf3+ 32. Be2 Bc3 33. Bxf3 Qxf3+ 34. Kc2 Bxe1 35. Qd8+ Kg7 {White resigned}
0-1
