Milner-Barry vs Hagarth

Milner-Barry

  Sir Philip Stuart Milner-Barry KCVO CB OBE (September 20, 1906 – March 25, 1995) was a British player, chess writer, World War II codebreaker and civil servant. During World War II he worked at Bletchley Park and was head of "Hut 6", a section responsible for deciphering messages which had been encrypted using the German Enigma machine. After the war he worked in the Treasury, and later administered the British honors system. 
     A talented chess player, he won the first British Boys' Championship in 1923. He made his international debut at the strong London tournament in 1932 tournament. His best results in international competition were achieved in three straight years at the Margate tournaments from 1937–39, and at Hastings 1938. In all four events he finished just above the middle against strong fields, with performance ratings (as calculated by Chessmetrics) between 2538 and 2565. This places him at a solid International Master standard although he never received this title. 
     He represented England in the Olympiads of 1937, 1939, 1952 and 1956. The 1956 Olympiad trip to Moscow was risky since Britain and the USSR were by then locked into the Cold War and Milner-Barry's wartime codebreaking knowledge would have been of great interest to the Soviets; the fact that Britain had broken German codes on a massive scale was kept secret until 1974 when The Ultra Secret was published. 
     Milner-Barry finished second in the British Chess Championship at Hastings 1953 which was his best result in British Championships. He was president of the British Chess Federation between 1970 and 1973, competed in the British Championship as late as 1978 and was still competing local events into his 80s. George Koltanowski wrote that, "his style was very pleasing to spectators because he was always looking for dangerous continuations and quite often he found them!"
     Michael Haygarth was a regular competitor in the British Championships during the early 1960's. He was a regular in the British Championship from 1959 to 1979, winning it in 1964. Not much is available on Haygarth, but he appears to have retired from chess in the late 1960s, but returned for another ten years after Fischer won the world championship. In the 1974 British it was his defeat of Jonathan Mestel that caused a seven-way tie which was eventually resolved in favor of George Botterill. Haygarth passed away peacefully in the hospital on April 27, 2016 at the age of 81. 
 

Levenfish - Botvinnik Match 1937

At play during the match

     In 1937 Botvinnik declined to play in the Soviet Championship because he was preparing his thesis for his doctorate in electrical engineering. Nevertheless, his refusal to play angered some of his supporters. 
     One such was Alexander Ilyin-Genevsky who was not only a Soviet Master but also one of founders of the Soviet chess school, a chess organizer, an Old-Guard Bolshevik cadre, writer, military organizer, historian and diplomat. Ilyin-Genevsky censured Botvinnik and notified Nikolai Krylenko who sent Botvinnik a telgram in which he threatened to discuss his refusal with the Central Committee. 
     This was no idle threat. At the time the Soviet Union was entering an era of terror.  In his memoirs Botvinnik made light of the 20-minute trials and executions, claiming that the British press was “conducting an intensive anti-Soviet campaign.” But Botvinnik was, according to David Bronstein, “a good Communist” and so given his own high standing in the Soviet Union, Botvinnik could hardly expect him to say otherwise. 
     The fact is that on the day of the Botvinnik-Vidmar game at Nottingham in 1936 there was in the Soviet Union a show trial of 14 high ranking Communist Party members and anti-Stalinist who were found guilty and shot. Near the end of his life in an interview with Dutch GM Gennady Sosonko, Botvinnik said that reports of millions dying in camps was unlikely and many, including some of his friends, actually returned home from them. However, he told another interviewer, Sarah Hurst, that mass repressions did start in 1937 but he was busy with tournaments and his doctoral thesis so he didn't feel any of the effects.
     At the same time a few Party officials Botvinnik had known began disappearing. One in particular was a fellow named Grigory Ordzhonikidze, who had given Botvinnik a car, apparently saw the handwriting on the wall and committed suicide.  Alexander Chevryakov, who had awarded Botvinnik the Badge of Honor in 1936 followed suit and did the same thing. Also, Alexander Kosarev was shot in 1939. 
     On September 10, 1936 one master, Pyotr Izmailov, was arrested for participating in a counterrevolutionary Trotskyist-fascist terrorist organization and on April 28, 1937 he was sentenced to death and shot. He was married to Galina Efimovna Kozmina, who received eight years in Kolyma for being the wife of the enemy of the people. 
     A similar fate was met by other of Botvinnik's opponents. Arvid Kubbel, Mikhail Shebarshin and Vladimir Petrov of Latvia disappeared. Regarding Petrov, he was sentenced to ten years in a corrective labor camp after being arrested in August 1942 under Article 58 for criticizing decreased living standards in Latvia after the Soviet annexation of 1940. Wikipedia states that in 1989 it became known that he had died at Kotlas in 1943 from pneumonia. One time at the US Championship GM Edmar Mednis, who was born in Latvia, was talking about Petrov and when asked whatever happened to him, Mednis replied rather tersely, “The Russians shot him.” 
     According to Leonid Shamkovich it was because Botvinnik knew he was valuable to the Soviets for propaganda purposes and so he could get away with treating people like Krylenko as an equal. 
     So, because Botvinnik wasn't playing in the 1937 championship the rather long of tooth 48-year old Grigory Levenfish who had shared the title with Ilya Rabinovich in 1934 won the title.   Not long afterward Krylenko announced that there was to be a match between Levenfish and Botvinnik. According to Levenfish in his memoirs it was Botvinnik who wanted the match. 
     Levenfish was promised that if he won or drew he would be awarded the coveted title of Soviet Grandmaster. The match would end when someone scored six wins or if the score stood at five wins to five wins. In the latter case, the match would be drawn. Thus, Botvinnik need to score 6-4 to win the match. 
     The match began at 6:30 pm on October 5, 1937 which was the same day the Euwe-Alekhine world championship match started in The Hague. The two opponents hammered away at each other as evidenced by the fact that out of 13 games only 3 were drawn.  Levenfish got off to an early lead, but then Botvinnik fought back and was leading after 9 games by a score of +4 -2 =3. Then Levenfish fought back and after 12 games Botvinnik's lead was a single game with a score of +5 -4 =3. Levenfish's win in the final game tied the match at 6.5 points. 

Botvinnik 1 0 0 ½ ½ 1 1 1 ½ 0 0 1 0  6.5 
Levenfish 0 1 1 ½ ½ 0 0 0 ½ 1 1 0 1  6.5 

Elisaveta Bykova

Bykova in 1982

     There were two Candidates tournaments in 1956, the men's and the women's.  The men's tournament in Amsterdam 1956 was won by Vasily Smyslov who earned the right to challenge Mikhail Botvinnik. As the loser of the Botvinnik - Smyslov World Championship Match in 1954, Smyslov was seeded into the tournament while the other nine were qualified from the Gothenburg Interzonal in 1955. 
1) Smyslov 11.5 
2) Keres 10.0 
3-7 Szabo, Spassky, Petrosian, Bronstein and Geller 9.5 
8-9 Filip and Panno 8.0 
10) Pilnik 5.0   

     The Womens' Candidates Tournament was won by Olga Rubtsova. But, instead of her playing the defending champion Elisaveta Bykova, for some reason FIDE decided that the championship would be decided between the top three female players: Rubtsova, Bykova, and Lyudmila Rudenko, ex-champion and loser of the last title match. 
     The championship tournament was held in Moscow in 1956. The three players each played an 8-game match against each other, with Rubtsova eventually clinching the title to become the fourth women's champion. 
1) Olga Rubtsova 10-6 
2) Elisaveta Bykova 9.5-6.5 
3) Lyudmila Rudenko 4.5-11.5 

     Elisaveta Ivanovna Bykova (November 4, 1913 - March 8, 1989) was the third and fifth Women's World Champion, from 1953 until 1956, and again from 1958 to 1962. She was awarded the title of Woman International Master in 1950, International Master in 1953, and Woman Grandmaster in 1976. Bykova authored three books: Vera Menchik, Soviet women players and the Women’s World Championship. 
     She was born to a peasant family in Bogolyubovo in 1913 and lived in Moscow since 1925. She was taught chess by her older brother. In 1927 she won a school tournament, but for several years after that she didn't play in tournaments, but devoted her time to her studies in high school and the Institute of Economic Planning. 
     When she made her debut in the semi-finals of the USSR Women's Championship in 1935 she finished far down in the standings, but she was determined to improve with persistence and hard work. After graduating from the Institute in 1936 she began serious study of theory and began competing regularly in tournaments. 
     Her first major success was in 1937 when she finished third in the Moscow women's championship and received a second category rating (1875-2000). For a description of the Soviet category rating systems see the article on chessdotcom HERE. She won the tournament the following year. 
     Realizing her need to meet stronger opponents, she began competing in men's tournaments which included Candidate Masters (2125-2250) and as a result moved up to a First Category (2000-2125) rating. 
     During World War Two she was employed in the printing industry and organized Soviet women players in providing recreation for wounded servicemen. Her biggest successes after the war were winning the USSR women's title in 1947, 1948 and 1950 plus the women's championship of Moscow many times. After tying for third in the 1949-1950 women's world championship she was awarded the Master title. 
     In 1953 she met Ludmila Rudenko, the reigning champion, in a 14-game match for the world title. The match had a thrilling finish. Before the last game the score was 7-6 in Bykova's favor which meant that Rudenko could retain her title only if she could win. 
     Bykova came out of the opening with the better game, but got into time trouble and allowed Rudenko to get the advantage. The game was adjourned in a very complicated position in which Rudenko had the better chances. Upon resumption Rudenko played weakly, missing the winning line and then the drawing line and so Bykova became the world champion by winning the match 8-6. Bykova lost the title two years later in the aforementioned women's three-way title match. 
     In 1958 she regained the world championship title by defeating Olga Rubtsova 8.5-5.5 which she held until 1962 when she lost the title to Nona Gaprindashvili. 
     In 1953 Bykova was awarded the Soviet title of Honored Master. The title of Honored Master of Sport was introduced in 1934. It was awarded by the State Committee for Physical Culture and Sport to athletes, including chess players, for outstanding performance. The award was in the form of a badge and certificate. Though normally conferred for life, it was revoked in the case of Alla Kushnir and Viktor Korchnoi following their defection from the Soviet Union. Mark Taimanov also had his award revoked in 1971 following his crushing defeat at the hands of Bobby Fischer, but this was restored in 1991.
     The following game, which has some fascinating hidden tactical possibilities, demonstrates Bykova's powerful attacking play. 
 

Golden Treasury of Chess

     One of my very f1rst chess books was the above titled book by Al Horowitz complete with a Forward by Frank Marshall. The book first came out in 1943 and was reprinted several times. 
     I no longer have the original edition, but the one that was reprinted in 1971. It has 322 games up to Fischer-Spassky, Los Angeles, 1966. The games themselves have a brief and glowing introduction describing how delightful the games is. For example, describing Bird-Mason, New York, 1876: For the beautiful and well sustained conduct of this game, Bird was awarded a silver cup as brilliancy prize. 
     Not all games have diagrams or annotations; those that do have one diagram and scanty notes. Games are by all the greats of the past: Morphy, Blackburne, Steinitz, Marshall, Anderssen, Tarrasch, Lasker, Alekhine, Capablanca, Reti, Botvinik, Tal, Petrosian, Evans, Reshevsky, Fischer and Spassky. There are also games by unknowns: Clerc, Globus, Clemens, Eisenschmidt, Finn, Nugent, Cornell, etc. 
     Horowitz also included in a separate section a collection of his favorite games, and then there is a brief introduction to the games broken down by period: Pre-Morphy, Morphy, Steinitz, Modern, Hypermoderns and Eclectics and finally, Russian Hegemony.
     What I like about the book is that a lot of the games are not found elsewhere...many of them are long forgotten gems that are just fun to play over. Horowitz complied the games for this book over the course of several decades and examined thousands upon thousands of games and included his favorites, but even among those there were nine he enjoyed so much that he set them aside in a separate section in order to attract the reader's attention to them. So, here is one of Horowitz' favorite games from Carlsbad, 1911. 
     The long forgotten Carlsbad 1911 tournament was the second of four well-known international tournaments held in the spa city of Carlsbad (then the Austria-Hungary Empire). The other three tournaments were held in 1907, 1923 and 1929. 
     At this one twenty-six masters were invited to participate in an enormous round-robin tournament where 325 games would be played. Of the top players in the world only two were missing, Emanuel Lasker and Jose Capablanca. Richard Teichmann was the winner a point ahead of Rubinstein and Schlechter. 
     Richard Teichmann has often been referred to as a player who failed to achieve his potential. Vidmar wrote that Teichmann frequently finished fifth because he was comfortable in doing so, and only an “unusual stimulation” could have resulted in him playing as well as he did to win this event. Reinfeld called him phenomenally gifted master, adding that he was greatly handicapped by laziness and the loss of an eye. He was generally found in the middle of the prize list, and won so many fifth prizes that he was nicknamed Richard the Fifth. Emanuel Lasker wrote that Teichmann could easily beat the young crop of masters in a short tournament and in fact was a redoubtable opponent for anyone, but in long events the loss of his right eye always proved too severe a handicap. 
     Anyway, enough of Teichmann. Everybody knows of Spielmann, but few know anything about his opponent in this game, Dus-Chotimirsky. Chessdotcom has a fascinating two part article on him HERE. Of this game, Horowitz wrote: One of the marks of a great master is the ability to conjure up murderous attacks out of seemingly harmless positions. You will like the way that Spielmann commences an unexpected attack at move 22 and drives it home with sledgehammer blows. Every move tells, and Black's helplessness becomes ever more apparent.
 

Winning With the Desprez Opening

     I have posted a few times on this (1.h4) opening even including a win by Bogoljubow. Obviously, the move cannot possibly be good, but in online 15-minutes games I have scored well with it, mostly against players in the 1600-1800 range. Generally speaking my opponents have lost as a result of ruining their position by violating sound opening principles in their effort to immediately refute the move.  But there is no immediate, forceful refutation. 
     If faced with unusual opening moves 1.h4 just play good chess, develop, control the center and don't panic. In fact, after 1.h4 Komodo 10 puts black's advantage at only about one third of a Pawn, so white really isn't conceding all that much. Such a concession might mean a lot among GMs, but in games between amateurs, not so much. 
 

What's the best time to play chess?

     Do you make better decisions in the morning or the evening? That might depend on whether you want a quick decision or an accurate one. Researchers looked at the decision-making behavior of 184 users of the Free Internet Chess Server (FICS) to discover at what time of day players made the best decisions. The study published in the journal Cognition showed that whether you're a morning person or not, the most accurate decision-making happens on the early side of the day between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. You can read the findings on the The Association for Psychological Science site HERE.

Bad Kissengen 1928

     Bad Kissengen 1928 brought together twelve of the best masters of the day. Capablanca was smarting because of his lost world championship match to Alekhine the year before and this was his chance to regain some of his luster. The somewhat surprising winner turned out to be Bogoljubow. Even though he lost his individual game game to Capa in round nine, Bogoljubow still managed to finish first by a full point. Capablanca suffered one defeat at the hands of Spielmann who scored only that one win. 
     After World War One Bogoljubow won many international tournaments: Berlin 1919, Stockholm 1919, Kiel 1921, and Pistyan 1922, a tie for first at Karlsbad (Karlovy Vary) 1923. He won the Soviet championship in 1924 and 1925 and finished first at Breslau 1925 and Moscow 1925. In 1926 he won a tournament in Berlin and then in 1928 he won this event at Bad Kissingen. Plus, he had twice defeated Euwe in matches. As a result it was no wonder that Alekhine chose him as an opponent for world championship matches in 1928 and 1929.
     This following brilliancy prize game between Nimzovich and Marshall demonstrates their clash in styles. For some reason Marshall had little respect for Nimzovich. Perhaps it was due to their different styles. Nimzo was sometimes very dogmatic in his approach with his Hypermodern style and sometimes overlooked tactical blows that allowed his opponents to win brilliantly as the following game illustrtes. Personality-wise, Nimzo was also somewhat arrogant and stuffy. Marshall, on the other hand, was the complete opposite. He cared little for positional nuances of a position and was a gregarious sort who enjoyed kibitzing and analyzing with just about anybody. 
     This event was one of the last tournaments by Tarrasch.  In 1928 he also played in a double round 8-player tournament in Berlin, but after losing three games (to Capa, Tartakower and Rubinstein) he withdrew due to illness and his games were not counted.  Capa won ahead of Nimzovich, Spielmann, Tartakower, Rubinstein and Reti (tied) and Marshall.  Tarrasch died at the age of 71 in 1934.


1) Bogoljubov 8.0 
2) Capablanca 7.0 
3-4) Euwe and Rubinstein 6.5 
5) Nimzovich 6.0 
6) Reti 5.5 
7-9) Tartakower, Marshall and Yates 5.0 
10) Spielmann 4.5 
11) Tarrasch 4.0 
12) Mieses 3.0 
 

Chess Notebooks

    Back in 1986 GM Andrew Soltis wrote an article in Chess Life in which he stated his belief, supported by some of his research, that a player reaches his level of play somewhere around 8 years after learning the game and then improves very little, perhaps not more than 100 Elo points.  But there is hope.  National Master Rolf Wetzell published a book back in 1994 titled Chess Master...at Any Age in which he told how, at the age of 50, went from being a 1700-1800 rated player to achieving his Master rating. One thing he advocated was carrying around handmade flashcards with important positions and brief notes on them. A personal notebook is sort of an expanded version of Wetzell's method.
     All the great masters of the past, and most modern masters, had hand written notebooks and it sounds like a good idea even in this age of computers. I even have some of my old ones that I have not looked at in years.  For whatever reason, you will remember things better using handwritten notes rather than a computer database.  Using a real chess set is probably better than using a computer, too.  Loose-leaf notebooks are a good choice because you can easily add or rearrange pages if you want.  But, why should you keep one what should you put in it?  

     First, coaches always recommend analyzing your games, even casual ones, without using an engine and only then checking you analysis with an engine. So, one notebook could be for game analysis. You could write down your analysis on one side of the page and on the other engine analysis plus any lessons learned, mistakes made, etc. 
     Another notebook could be for studying opening, middle and endgame positions. You could keep notes and analysis to endgame themes, middlegame themes...anything you have studied. 
     When playing over master games most of us do it just for enjoyment, but it's also not a bad idea to try and relate them to your own games by asking yourself what you learned that you could apply to your own games. 
     By dividing your notebook up into sections (K and P, R and P endings, isolated d-Pawn formations, back rank mates, weak square, etc.) you can paste in positions that illustrate that concept, either from your own games or a master game that you found especially instructive.  Diagrams can be made easily enough using just about any chess program and you can cut it out and use a $2 glue stick to paste it into your notebook. 
     Yasser Seirawan claimed to have filled over 30 such notebooks and if you Google "alekhine chess notebook" and click on images, you'll find many pictures of what was in his. You can also visit the a blog about Alekhine's notebooks HERE.

History of Computer Chess Download

     Chess King offers a 339 pdf manual for their Chess King program, but the first 125 pages contain an entertaining account by the popular reviewer of chess programs, Steve Lopez, about computer chess from its birth to the present. Download the manual HERE.

William Winter

     William Winter (September 11, 1898 – December 18, 1955) was one of the more colorful players in British chess history. He won the British Open Championship in 1934 and the British Championship in 1935 and 1936. In his youth he was considered a child prodigy. A student of Tarrasch, his play was characterized by sound strategic play and he was strong enough to have defeated Bronstein, Nimzovich and Vidmar. 
     Poor health and poor tactical play was often his undoing. It was said that while he was strong enough to defeat the best players in the world on occasion, he was never strong enough to be one of them. Although he often played in top level tournaments, he usually finished near the bottom. Harry Golombek described his play as "classic, scientific and sober; away from the board, he was revolutionary, illogically moved by his emotions (he contrived to be both a fervent communist and a staunch patriot) and, more often than not, drunk." 
     In a 1937 article in Chess Review, author Paul Little described Winter' mannerisms over the board. “...(he) sits stooped over the board with one hand on hip and the other propping up his chin. Then, without warning, he will nervously search for a cigarette, abandon his search in the middle of it (wise since English cigarettes are bad), and seize his head in his two hands, twisting it from side to side and lowering his head near the board so that he can have a convenient receptacle if ever his head does come off. Numerous bets are made every BCF Congress that Winter's head will come off.” 
     Winter was a widely respected author of chess books and was a nephew of J. M. Barrie, the creator of Peter Pan. Winter was also a Communist and has the distinction of being the only British Champion to have served time in prison. 
     During World War 1 (July 28, 1941 to November 11, 1918) Winter left his studies, served in the Honourable Artillery Company and was honorably discharged and after the war he returned to Cambridge where he won the university championship. 
     It was claimed that Winter had come under the influence of an older woman and left Cambridge University and his employment to air his Socialistic views. He was charged with making speeches that “inflamed and perverted many people.” So in 1921 Winter, who was an active member of the Communist Party, was sentenced to six months in prison for his seditious speeches. He became known to the police as “a Simple Simon among the Communists.” His appeal was denied. 
     Winter authored one of the great classics of chess literature, Kings of Chess Chess, Championships of the Twentieth Century in which he annotated 50 games that were played in matches for the World Championship starting with the 1907 match between Lasker and Marshall and ending with the 1951 match between Botvinnk and Bronstein. Winter was present when many of the games were were played and he had met all the players involved with the exception of Schlechter, plus he had played many of them in tournaments. Winter expressed some interesting opinions in the book. He wrote that the best played match for the was the 1910 match between Lasker and Schlechter. 

Click on image to enlarge

     In Nottingham 1936 Winter was dead last and was paired against Botvinnik who was in contention for first place and the game ended in a controversy. In the other deciding game, Capablanca succeeded in getting a won game against Bogoljubow, blundered and got into a lost position, but managed to hold the draw and as a result he and Botvinnik tied for first.
     There were rumors flying around before the game that Moscow had instructed the communist Winter to lose to Botvinnik. As the game progressed Botvinnik got into a lost position, but when he played his 38th move he offered a draw. Winter was not 100 percent sure he could win and so accepted the offer causing Alekhine to write in the tournament book that “it was a very premature decision...It is a pity a game of such importance should have remained practically a torso.” 
     Winter explained his decision that if he should lose from the final position, "Having regard to certain allegations which were flying around, a loss would have been disastrous to me." There seems to be a bit of controversy on this issue though. 
     Some claim that it was Winter who offered Botvinnik the draw to advance the cause of Communism and Winter himself suggested this possibility in his notes to this game (which I have not seen) and thus sacrificed his own career. 
     For further reading on Winter please visit Edward Winter's Chess History site.
     Chessmetrics gives Winter's best world ranking as number 23 in the world in 1928 and his highest rating is put at 2589, also in 1928. His best individual performance rating is listed at 2642 in London, 1927 where he finished +4 -4 =3.      
     Here is Winter's fearless win over David Bronstein.