As noted in the previous post, under Stalin in April of 1935, the age of legal responsibility was lowered to 12 years old which meant that children over the age of 12 could be treated like adults and exiled or executed if they were deemed to be guilty of crimes against the state.
In the book Soviet Criminal Justice Under Stalin by Peter H. Solomon and published by Cambridge University Press, it appears that the source I used which stated children could be executed was incorrect. The book states that the source of the allegation about the death penalty was the memoir of Alexander Orlov, a high ranking official of the political police. Police apparently used it as a threat when conducting interviews.
In any case, the reason for lowering the age of responsibility was that many children had been orphaned, abandoned or separated from home during Stalin’s collectivization campaigns and famines of 1932 and 1934 with the resultant epidemic of homeless children. Moscow was their favorite destination and many of them managed to ride the trains to the city. The result was the police, courts and children’s homes were overwhelmed when police made regular sweeps to round up homeless kids and put them in state run institutions ostensibly for adoption. The problem was that conditions in the homes were abysmal and at least half of the kids ran away.
In 1932 at a huge cost the Moscow police cleared the streets of over 15,000 homeless children between the ages of 12 and 17. And in 1933 a police dragnet scooped up nearly 28,000 kids.
These kids were homeless, had no money and were outcasts so they often resorted to crime to the point that in 1934 papers were reporting concerns about the soaring crime rates among this group.
Criminal youth gangs were terrorizing local markets and the public was blaming everybody in the government, the police, the courts and educators. Most of the arrests were made for theft and Soviet authorities singled out “socially dangerous” classes...the kids who came from rural, non-collective farms or city kids whose parents either didn’t work or were not professionals.
One result of repeated arrests was that these youths were simply being recycled through children’s homes where, as is frequently the case, they were educating each other in the fine art of everything from grab and run thefts to murder. At the time there were legal restrictions against prosecuting youth under 17 as adults and all the police could do was deposit them at one of the youth centers.
This lead to a series of changes in the law in 1935 that gave the NKVD sweeping powers to deal with homeless and criminal children. The changes involving lowering the age of responsibility was the result of an edict issued by Stalin himself. The edict sent all kids to regular courts, subjected them to adult punishment and, also, established criminal responsibility for adults who enticed children into crime.
Reducing the age of criminal accountability from 16 to 12 essentially brought the children’s homes under control of the NKVD and they established labor camps for juvenile criminals. In fact, being homeless was considered a crime in itself. Further reading...Angel Factories
Authorities were alarmed when they discovered that of the children in those labor camps, a little over half lived with both of their working parents and were not from the so called socially dangerous class. How to explain this?
Authorities linked youth crimes to anti-Soviet thinking and that had to be taken seriously. At one time the crime of “Hooliganism” involved insulting people and “rambunctious” behavior, but now it also included organized violence and assaults with weapons, murder, rape, banditry and counter-revolutionary activity.
Random Posts
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Monday, July 15, 2019
Sozin Attacks Like A Mad Dog
A lot of the games are by lesser known Russian players. In choosing them Chernev examined thousands of games and selected games based on variety (26 different players), modern (meaning between 1925 and 1946) and reasonably short (the average was 30 moves per game). Additionally, Chernev selected the games because their brilliancy made them enjoyable to play over.
When I came across the following game played by Veniamin Sozin (1896–1956) against somebody named Nekrasov at Moscow, 1931 I was impressed with Sozin’s Queen sacrifice which netted him four pieces for his Q. All of his pieces were aimed at black’s K and there was nothing black could do to defend himself.
Chernev’s book, and all the other databases I checked, only list the game as being played in Moscow, but the wonderful site Rusbase 1913-1994 shows that it was played in one of the sections of the semi-finals of the USSR Championship:
1-2) Sozin and Lisitsyn 6.5
3-4) Verlinsky and Podolny 6.0
5) Yuriv 5.0
6) Nekrasov 4.5
7) Kaspersky 4.0
8) Ratner 3.0
I wonder if Kaspersky Anti-Vitus is named after the guy who finished 7th?! Searching for the identity of Neksarov turned up a bunch of Russians named Nekrasov, not all of them chess players. There is a Wikipedia article on Nikolay Nekrasov, a Russian poet, writer, critic and publisher, but he’s not our man. This fellow was born in 1821 and died in 1878.
In his delightful book, For Friends & Colleagues: Volume 1: Profession - Chess Coach, Mark Dvoretsky mentions a player named Neksarov during the 1980s, who was a coach of several younger players including Ivanchuk, but there’s no way of knowing if it’s the same guy. However, I found mention of a Nikloai Nekrasov in a Chess.com article that quotes a 1929 article from the Russian chess magazine
A little bit more is known about Veniamin Sozin (1896–1956). He was a Russian master, author, and theoretician who is best known today for his contributions to the Sozin Attack, 6.Bc4 against the Sicilian.
Sozin, an accountant by profession, was an active player during the 1920s and 1930s and competed in four Soviet championships. Following the third Soviet Championship in 1924, in which he finished a creditable ninth with a score of 9.0-8.0, Sozin was awarded the title of Master of Sport.
He contributed many articles to the Moscow magazine Shakhmatny Vestnik and authored two books, Combinations and Traps published in 1929 and What Everyone Should Know about the Endgame which was published in 1931.
The Wikipedia article on Sozin says that he was unable to maintain the level of performance expected from a Master of Sport and was one of several players whose title was revoked in 1935.
In the Soviet Union, the Master title was conferred by the federal government and was connected to the title of Master of Sport. The first chess player to receive the title was Peter Romanovsky in 1934. Only players who featured prominently in the Soviet Chess Championship were considered for the title, and less than 100 awards were made altogether. The majority of the players were eventually FIDE IMS or GMs.
One suspects that given what was going on under Stalin in the Soviet Union during that era that something more than Sozin’s results were behind getting his title revoked.
Here’s an interesting little tidbit...In April of 1935 the age of legal responsibility was lowered to 12 years. This meant that children over the age of 12 could be treated like adults and exiled or executed if they were deemed to be guilty of crimes against the state. And, in December 1935 The Central Committee recognized the Stakhanovite movement and introduced competitions where the most productive workers could be rewarded with rich, quality flats and luxury foods.
[Event "Moscow Semi-Final USSR Championship"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1931.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Veniamin Sozin"]
[Black "Nekrasov"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Sicilian, Nimzovich Variation} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 {The interesting Nimzovich,
or Nimzovich-Rubinstein as it is sometimes called, has similarities with
Alekhine's Defense.} 3. e5 Nd5 4. b3 {The idea of this is that if (or when)
the e-Pawn disappears then the B will be well placed on the long diagonal.
Both 4.c3 and 4.Nc3 are more popular these days.} 4... g6 5. Bb2 Bg7 6. c4
Nc7 7. Nc3 d6 {Equally good was 7...Nc6} 8. exd6 exd6 9. d4 cxd4 10. Nxd4
{Black is left with a weak isolated d-Pawn, but he has a plan to get rid of
it. However, white is clearly better: he has control of the center, his
pieces have more mobility and his Rs will soon control the center files.}
10... O-O 11. Be2 d5 { Eliminating his weak P, but things are more complicated
than that. This move is actually risky because it opens up the game to a
better developed opponent. More prudent would have been either 11...Nc6 or
11...Re8.} 12. cxd5 Nxd5 13. Nxd5 Qxd5 14. O-O Rd8 {Threatening the N on d4
and white can't continue with 15.Nb5 because after 16.Qxd5 (Not 16.Nc7 Qg5!
and white loses a piece) 16... Rxd5 17.Nc7 Bxa1 18.Rxa1 Rc5! 19.Nxa8 and the N
is trapped on a8.} 15. Bc4 {A great move. It may look like black is OK
positionally, but tactically he is facing some serious problems. Now 15...Qc5
16.Qf3 Rf8 17.Rac1 Nc6 18.Qxf7+ nets white a R.} 15... Qe4 16. Re1 {Now black
loses after 16...Rxd4 17.Bxd4 Qg4 (Not 17...Qxd4 18.Re8+) 18.Re8+ Bf8 18.Bc5}
16... Qf4 17. Re7 {Black's next move is a blunder that allows a brilliant
finish. His best try was to defend f7 with 17. ..Rf8. In that case he has
blunted white's tactical threat, but would be left with a position that is
strategically rotten.} 17... Bxd4 18. Rxf7 Bxf2+ {No better was 18...Qxf7}
19. Kh1 Rxd1+ 20. Rxd1 {Black resigns because it's mate in 7 moves: 20...Bd4
21.Rxf4+ Kg7 22.Rf7+ Kh6 23.Rxd4 g5 24.Rd6+ Kh5 25.g4+ Kxg4 26. Be2+ Kh4
27.Rxh7mate} 1-0
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1931.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Veniamin Sozin"]
[Black "Nekrasov"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Sicilian, Nimzovich Variation} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 {The interesting Nimzovich,
or Nimzovich-Rubinstein as it is sometimes called, has similarities with
Alekhine's Defense.} 3. e5 Nd5 4. b3 {The idea of this is that if (or when)
the e-Pawn disappears then the B will be well placed on the long diagonal.
Both 4.c3 and 4.Nc3 are more popular these days.} 4... g6 5. Bb2 Bg7 6. c4
Nc7 7. Nc3 d6 {Equally good was 7...Nc6} 8. exd6 exd6 9. d4 cxd4 10. Nxd4
{Black is left with a weak isolated d-Pawn, but he has a plan to get rid of
it. However, white is clearly better: he has control of the center, his
pieces have more mobility and his Rs will soon control the center files.}
10... O-O 11. Be2 d5 { Eliminating his weak P, but things are more complicated
than that. This move is actually risky because it opens up the game to a
better developed opponent. More prudent would have been either 11...Nc6 or
11...Re8.} 12. cxd5 Nxd5 13. Nxd5 Qxd5 14. O-O Rd8 {Threatening the N on d4
and white can't continue with 15.Nb5 because after 16.Qxd5 (Not 16.Nc7 Qg5!
and white loses a piece) 16... Rxd5 17.Nc7 Bxa1 18.Rxa1 Rc5! 19.Nxa8 and the N
is trapped on a8.} 15. Bc4 {A great move. It may look like black is OK
positionally, but tactically he is facing some serious problems. Now 15...Qc5
16.Qf3 Rf8 17.Rac1 Nc6 18.Qxf7+ nets white a R.} 15... Qe4 16. Re1 {Now black
loses after 16...Rxd4 17.Bxd4 Qg4 (Not 17...Qxd4 18.Re8+) 18.Re8+ Bf8 18.Bc5}
16... Qf4 17. Re7 {Black's next move is a blunder that allows a brilliant
finish. His best try was to defend f7 with 17. ..Rf8. In that case he has
blunted white's tactical threat, but would be left with a position that is
strategically rotten.} 17... Bxd4 18. Rxf7 Bxf2+ {No better was 18...Qxf7}
19. Kh1 Rxd1+ 20. Rxd1 {Black resigns because it's mate in 7 moves: 20...Bd4
21.Rxf4+ Kg7 22.Rf7+ Kh6 23.Rxd4 g5 24.Rd6+ Kh5 25.g4+ Kxg4 26. Be2+ Kh4
27.Rxh7mate} 1-0
Friday, July 12, 2019
Stefano Rosselli del Turco et al
I had begun this post on Rosselli del Turco. His featured game against Znosko-Borovsky was played in a small international tournament in Nice in 1935 and in the course of looking for information on the tournament I came across the interesting story of the winner, Brian P. Rielly.
Reilly (December 12, 1901 - December 29, 1991) did his bio for the Irish Chess Union and you can read it HERE.
The Rosselli Del Turco family are an historic noble family from Florence, Italy. Their origins date back to 1727 and since then the family gained notable wealth and acquired significant properties. It has included some prominent painters starting in the 15th century and in the 19th century the title of Marquis was conferred on the family by the Pope.
Marquis Stefano Rosselli del Turco (July 27, 1877 – August 18, 1947) was an Italian player, chess writer and publisher. He won the Italian championship five times and represented Italy in the Olympiads seven times. Confining his play mostly to Italian tournaments, he participated in only a handful of international events. He was awarded the IM title posthumously in 1950.
Born in Florence, Rosselli del Turco received the title of National Master from the Italian Chess Federation in 1900 and was one of the strongest players of Italy between 1900 and 1930. He was one of the founders of the magazine Italia Schaccistica and wrote for the magazine between 1911 and 1943.
Nice 1931
1) Brian P. Reilly 6.0
2-3) Stefano Rosselli del Turco and Abraham Baratz 5.5
4) Daniel Noteboom 5.0
5-8) Sir George Thomas, Jacques Mieses, Eugene Znosko-Borovsky and Jakob Seitz
9) Arpad Vajda 3.5
10) Marcel Duchamp 1.5
Artist Marcel Duchamp was an avid player and a few years ago Christie’s auctioned a pipe that he presented to George Koltanowski. Christie’s has a nice article on Duchamp and chess you will not want to miss.
Duchamp’s chess, as far as I know, has never been taken seriously, but I did locate THIS book that examines his “activities as a chess player affected his art.” The book also has a selection of 15 of his games selected by Jennifer Shahade.
Chessmetrics puts his highest rating at 2413 on its January, 1930 list. And, on the January, 1931 list Duchamp was in the world’s top 100 players with a 2412 rating. Chessgames.com has 82 of his games dating between 1922 and 1961.
Reilly (December 12, 1901 - December 29, 1991) did his bio for the Irish Chess Union and you can read it HERE.
The Rosselli Del Turco family are an historic noble family from Florence, Italy. Their origins date back to 1727 and since then the family gained notable wealth and acquired significant properties. It has included some prominent painters starting in the 15th century and in the 19th century the title of Marquis was conferred on the family by the Pope.
Marquis Stefano Rosselli del Turco (July 27, 1877 – August 18, 1947) was an Italian player, chess writer and publisher. He won the Italian championship five times and represented Italy in the Olympiads seven times. Confining his play mostly to Italian tournaments, he participated in only a handful of international events. He was awarded the IM title posthumously in 1950.
Born in Florence, Rosselli del Turco received the title of National Master from the Italian Chess Federation in 1900 and was one of the strongest players of Italy between 1900 and 1930. He was one of the founders of the magazine Italia Schaccistica and wrote for the magazine between 1911 and 1943.
Nice 1931
1) Brian P. Reilly 6.0
2-3) Stefano Rosselli del Turco and Abraham Baratz 5.5
4) Daniel Noteboom 5.0
5-8) Sir George Thomas, Jacques Mieses, Eugene Znosko-Borovsky and Jakob Seitz
9) Arpad Vajda 3.5
10) Marcel Duchamp 1.5
Artist Marcel Duchamp was an avid player and a few years ago Christie’s auctioned a pipe that he presented to George Koltanowski. Christie’s has a nice article on Duchamp and chess you will not want to miss.
Duchamp’s chess, as far as I know, has never been taken seriously, but I did locate THIS book that examines his “activities as a chess player affected his art.” The book also has a selection of 15 of his games selected by Jennifer Shahade.
Chessmetrics puts his highest rating at 2413 on its January, 1930 list. And, on the January, 1931 list Duchamp was in the world’s top 100 players with a 2412 rating. Chessgames.com has 82 of his games dating between 1922 and 1961.
[Event "Nice"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1931.3.13"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stefano Rosselli del Turco"]
[Black "Eugene Znosko-Borovsky"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Classical Dutch} 1. d4 f5 {Tarrasch rejected the Dutch as unsound in his 1931
work The Game of Chess, arguing that white should play the Staunton Gambit, 2.
e4.} 2. g3 {The modern way.} 2... Nf6 3. Bg2 e6 {The Leningrad Dutch (3...g6)
is an interesting and dynamic defense with possibilities for both sides. Some
Dutch players go so far as to say it's better than the K-Indian because black
has already made the important move f7-f5 without losing vital tempi with ...
Nf6-Ne8-f5-Nf6.} 4. Nf3 Be7 5. c4 O-O 6. O-O d6 7. Nc3 Nc6 {This seemingly
natural developing move does not work out well for black. He would do much
better with 8...Qe8} 8. d5 exd5 9. cxd5 Nb8 {This redeployment of the N is
very time consuming so he probably should have played 9...Ne5.} 10. Nd4 Na6
11. a3 Nc5 {Unfortunately the Ns occupation of this square is not going to
last long.} 12. Qc2 {Black can't secure the Ns position with ...a5 because
white can still drive it back with Rb1 and b2-b4.} 12... Nh5 13. Bf3 Bf6 14.
e3 {The N can't be taken because after 14...Bxd4 15.exd4 both Ns are under
attack.} 14... g6 15. b4 Na6 {This N has moved five time just to end up on
this useless square... that can't be good.} 16. Nce2 Ng7 {And this N has moved
three times to end up on this miserable square...that can't be good either!}
17. Bb2 Bd7 18. Rac1 Rc8 19. Qb3 Qe7 20. b5 Nb8 21. Rc2 Be8 22. Rfc1 Bf7 {With
23.Ne6 white could have established an overwhelming position as after
23...Bxe6 (He can't allow the N to remain on e6) 24.Bxf6! and 25.dxe6 black
simply cannot meet all of white's threats.} 23. Qa4 {Now if 23...a6 24.Qb4 and
the threat of b6 is too strong, so Znosko-Borovsky decides to let the P go
and, hopefully, find something fo the N to do.} 23... Nd7 24. Qxa7 Ra8 25.
Qxb7 Nc5 {Welcome back, but don't plan on staying long!} 26. Qc6 Rfc8 27.
Rxc5 {Alert play that brings about a quick end. } 27... dxc5 28. Nxf5 Nxf5
29. Bxf6 {Znosko-Borovsky resigned here as his position is completely
helpless. Material: White has a B+3Ps vs R. However, at first glance the
winning procedure may not be obvious, so I am appending the results of s
Shootout using Stockfish at 21 plies.} 29... Qd6 30. Bb2 Qxc6 31. bxc6 Nd6
32. Rxc5 g5 33. Be5 h5 34. Bxd6 cxd6 35. Rc3 Bg6 36. e4 Kf8 37. Bg2 Re8 38.
Nd4 Bxe4 39. Nb5 Bg6 40. Nxd6 {It soon becomes apparent that white's Ps are
too difficult to deal with.} 40... Re1+ 41. Bf1 Ke7 42. Nc4 Bf5 43. d6+ Ke6
44. f3 Ra6 45. d7 Ke7 46. Nd2 Bxd7 47. cxd7 Rd6 48. Kf2 Ra1 49. Re3+ Kxd7 50.
Ne4 Rg6 51. Bb5+ Kd8 52. a4 Re6 53. Rd3+ Kc7 54. Rd7+ Kb6 55. Rd5 Ra2+ 56.
Ke3 Rxh2 57. Rxg5 Re7 58. Kd4 Rf7 59. Nd6 Rc7 60. Rg6 Rh7 61. Nf5+ Kc7 62. f4
Rf2 63. Ke5 { and wins...} 1-0
[Site "?"]
[Date "1931.3.13"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stefano Rosselli del Turco"]
[Black "Eugene Znosko-Borovsky"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Classical Dutch} 1. d4 f5 {Tarrasch rejected the Dutch as unsound in his 1931
work The Game of Chess, arguing that white should play the Staunton Gambit, 2.
e4.} 2. g3 {The modern way.} 2... Nf6 3. Bg2 e6 {The Leningrad Dutch (3...g6)
is an interesting and dynamic defense with possibilities for both sides. Some
Dutch players go so far as to say it's better than the K-Indian because black
has already made the important move f7-f5 without losing vital tempi with ...
Nf6-Ne8-f5-Nf6.} 4. Nf3 Be7 5. c4 O-O 6. O-O d6 7. Nc3 Nc6 {This seemingly
natural developing move does not work out well for black. He would do much
better with 8...Qe8} 8. d5 exd5 9. cxd5 Nb8 {This redeployment of the N is
very time consuming so he probably should have played 9...Ne5.} 10. Nd4 Na6
11. a3 Nc5 {Unfortunately the Ns occupation of this square is not going to
last long.} 12. Qc2 {Black can't secure the Ns position with ...a5 because
white can still drive it back with Rb1 and b2-b4.} 12... Nh5 13. Bf3 Bf6 14.
e3 {The N can't be taken because after 14...Bxd4 15.exd4 both Ns are under
attack.} 14... g6 15. b4 Na6 {This N has moved five time just to end up on
this useless square... that can't be good.} 16. Nce2 Ng7 {And this N has moved
three times to end up on this miserable square...that can't be good either!}
17. Bb2 Bd7 18. Rac1 Rc8 19. Qb3 Qe7 20. b5 Nb8 21. Rc2 Be8 22. Rfc1 Bf7 {With
23.Ne6 white could have established an overwhelming position as after
23...Bxe6 (He can't allow the N to remain on e6) 24.Bxf6! and 25.dxe6 black
simply cannot meet all of white's threats.} 23. Qa4 {Now if 23...a6 24.Qb4 and
the threat of b6 is too strong, so Znosko-Borovsky decides to let the P go
and, hopefully, find something fo the N to do.} 23... Nd7 24. Qxa7 Ra8 25.
Qxb7 Nc5 {Welcome back, but don't plan on staying long!} 26. Qc6 Rfc8 27.
Rxc5 {Alert play that brings about a quick end. } 27... dxc5 28. Nxf5 Nxf5
29. Bxf6 {Znosko-Borovsky resigned here as his position is completely
helpless. Material: White has a B+3Ps vs R. However, at first glance the
winning procedure may not be obvious, so I am appending the results of s
Shootout using Stockfish at 21 plies.} 29... Qd6 30. Bb2 Qxc6 31. bxc6 Nd6
32. Rxc5 g5 33. Be5 h5 34. Bxd6 cxd6 35. Rc3 Bg6 36. e4 Kf8 37. Bg2 Re8 38.
Nd4 Bxe4 39. Nb5 Bg6 40. Nxd6 {It soon becomes apparent that white's Ps are
too difficult to deal with.} 40... Re1+ 41. Bf1 Ke7 42. Nc4 Bf5 43. d6+ Ke6
44. f3 Ra6 45. d7 Ke7 46. Nd2 Bxd7 47. cxd7 Rd6 48. Kf2 Ra1 49. Re3+ Kxd7 50.
Ne4 Rg6 51. Bb5+ Kd8 52. a4 Re6 53. Rd3+ Kc7 54. Rd7+ Kb6 55. Rd5 Ra2+ 56.
Ke3 Rxh2 57. Rxg5 Re7 58. Kd4 Rf7 59. Nd6 Rc7 60. Rg6 Rh7 61. Nf5+ Kc7 62. f4
Rf2 63. Ke5 { and wins...} 1-0
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
Tarrasch Meets the K-Indian
“...I disapprove to the Fianchetto Opening altogether whether it take the form of the double Fianchetto or of the movement of the (g-Pawn) or the (b-Pawn) to make place for the Bishop...One may very properly play (c2-c4) upon the Queen’s Opening, But if the (e-Pawn) be the opening move, to bring the (f-Pawn) into action is more critical, as it exposes the King. For this reason I consider the King’s Gambit thoroughly wrong in principle.”
“The Knight’s Pawns should never be moved in the opening on account of the resultant loosening of the position...I consider the Evans Gambit so correct that I cannot warn you sufficiently against accepting it in a tourney fame. A Pawn up is no equivalent for the attack one is subjected to...I myself am inclined to appraise the correct play of the pieces above that of the Pawns...I never worry much about my unfavorable Pawn position so long as my pieces are rightly posted.” Dr. S. Tarrasch
Indian Defenses weren’t popular in Tarrasch’s day and they were generally frowned upon but that was because they were so poorly played. It wasn’t until the hypermoderns began playing them in the 1920s that they were given serious attention. But, even then it took until the 1940s and 1950s for the Russian players to prove their true worth.
In the following game Tarrasch was 64 years old...ancient for a chess player, but when he met Davidson’s Indian Defense he conducted the attack like a kid. The Dutch player Jacques Davidson (1890-1969) was considered the first Dutch chess professional and was one of the country's strongest players during the 1920s. He finished 1st at Amsterdam 1925 and finished second behind Euwe in the 1921 and 1924 Dutch Championships.
Here, let me mention that Tarrasch’s Best Games of Chess by Fred Reinfeld is a great book! Reinfeld was a great writer when he wanted to be and this book of Tarrasch’s games is superb and filled with masterpieces that will help the careful reader understand basic classical principles.
From March 7th to the 29th, 1926 a great international tournament, organized by Ossip Bernstein, was held at the Grand Hotel Panhas in the Semmering Pass south of Vienna. For the first half Nimzovich and Tartakower lead the field, but towards the finish the lead changing hands until Spielmann emerged as the winner in the best tournament of his career.
One interesting participant was Karl Gilg (January 20, 1901 - December 4, 1981), a German master who as one of the German minority in the newly-formed Czechoslovakia after the end of the First World War. He learned chess at the age of four. He took an active part in Czech chess, representing them in the Olympiads in 1927, 1928 and 1931.
Semmering 1926 was his first major international tournament. Although he finished poorly, he caused a sensation by defeating Alekhine in round three. He went on to participate in numerous international tournaments with modest success. After Czechoslovakia had been occupied by the Germans, Gilg began taking part in the German championships.
Gilg served in the military during World War Two and became a prisoner of War and was held in East Lothian in Scotland. In an article by Alan McGowan in Chess Scotland, Gilg was held in Amisfield Park Camp 243, Haddington, East Lothian, from October 29, 1945 to July 5, 1946. From there he was transferred to Gosford Camp 16 at Aberlady, also in East Lothian, from July 6, 1946 to September 30, 1947. After his release Gilg lived in West Germany where he was a teacher. He was awarded the IM title in 1953.
In case you are wondering why Gilg was held as a POW until late in 1947, two years after the war ended, it was because in the years following World War II large numbers of German civilians and captured soldiers were forced into labor by the Allied forces. In Great Britain they had more than 400,000 prisoners; many of whom had been transferred from POW camps in the US and Canada and many were used as forced labor, as a form of "reparations.”
1) Spielmann 13.0
2) Alekhine 12.5
3) Vidmar 12.0
4-5) Nimzovich and Tartakower 11.5
6-7) Rubinstein and Tarrasch 10.0
8) Reti 9.5
9) Grünfeld 9.0
10) Janowski 8.5
11) Treybal 8.0
12) Vajda 7.5
13) Yates 7.0
14-15) Gilg and Kmoch 6.0
16) Davidson 5.5
17) Michel 4.5
18) Rosselli del Turco 1.0
“The Knight’s Pawns should never be moved in the opening on account of the resultant loosening of the position...I consider the Evans Gambit so correct that I cannot warn you sufficiently against accepting it in a tourney fame. A Pawn up is no equivalent for the attack one is subjected to...I myself am inclined to appraise the correct play of the pieces above that of the Pawns...I never worry much about my unfavorable Pawn position so long as my pieces are rightly posted.” Dr. S. Tarrasch
Indian Defenses weren’t popular in Tarrasch’s day and they were generally frowned upon but that was because they were so poorly played. It wasn’t until the hypermoderns began playing them in the 1920s that they were given serious attention. But, even then it took until the 1940s and 1950s for the Russian players to prove their true worth.
In the following game Tarrasch was 64 years old...ancient for a chess player, but when he met Davidson’s Indian Defense he conducted the attack like a kid. The Dutch player Jacques Davidson (1890-1969) was considered the first Dutch chess professional and was one of the country's strongest players during the 1920s. He finished 1st at Amsterdam 1925 and finished second behind Euwe in the 1921 and 1924 Dutch Championships.
Here, let me mention that Tarrasch’s Best Games of Chess by Fred Reinfeld is a great book! Reinfeld was a great writer when he wanted to be and this book of Tarrasch’s games is superb and filled with masterpieces that will help the careful reader understand basic classical principles.
From March 7th to the 29th, 1926 a great international tournament, organized by Ossip Bernstein, was held at the Grand Hotel Panhas in the Semmering Pass south of Vienna. For the first half Nimzovich and Tartakower lead the field, but towards the finish the lead changing hands until Spielmann emerged as the winner in the best tournament of his career.
One interesting participant was Karl Gilg (January 20, 1901 - December 4, 1981), a German master who as one of the German minority in the newly-formed Czechoslovakia after the end of the First World War. He learned chess at the age of four. He took an active part in Czech chess, representing them in the Olympiads in 1927, 1928 and 1931.
Semmering 1926 was his first major international tournament. Although he finished poorly, he caused a sensation by defeating Alekhine in round three. He went on to participate in numerous international tournaments with modest success. After Czechoslovakia had been occupied by the Germans, Gilg began taking part in the German championships.
Gilg served in the military during World War Two and became a prisoner of War and was held in East Lothian in Scotland. In an article by Alan McGowan in Chess Scotland, Gilg was held in Amisfield Park Camp 243, Haddington, East Lothian, from October 29, 1945 to July 5, 1946. From there he was transferred to Gosford Camp 16 at Aberlady, also in East Lothian, from July 6, 1946 to September 30, 1947. After his release Gilg lived in West Germany where he was a teacher. He was awarded the IM title in 1953.
In case you are wondering why Gilg was held as a POW until late in 1947, two years after the war ended, it was because in the years following World War II large numbers of German civilians and captured soldiers were forced into labor by the Allied forces. In Great Britain they had more than 400,000 prisoners; many of whom had been transferred from POW camps in the US and Canada and many were used as forced labor, as a form of "reparations.”
1) Spielmann 13.0
2) Alekhine 12.5
3) Vidmar 12.0
4-5) Nimzovich and Tartakower 11.5
6-7) Rubinstein and Tarrasch 10.0
8) Reti 9.5
9) Grünfeld 9.0
10) Janowski 8.5
11) Treybal 8.0
12) Vajda 7.5
13) Yates 7.0
14-15) Gilg and Kmoch 6.0
16) Davidson 5.5
17) Michel 4.5
18) Rosselli del Turco 1.0
[Event "Semmering"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1926.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Dr. S. Tarrasch"]
[Black "J. Davidson"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{King's Indian} 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Nc3 {Surprise! White is not obligated
to play c2-c4 against the K-Indian. White intends an aggressive K-side
attack.} 3... Bg7 {The main, I hate to say better, alternatives were 3...d5,
3...d6 or even 3...c5. If 3...d5 white often plays 4.Bf4 (The Barry Attack).
As played black avoids d4 as seen in openings like the Trompowsky or Veresov
so I am calling it a K-Indian, but one where white has avoided playing
c2-c4.} 4. e4 O-O {Best is 4...d5 though also possible is 4...c6. In today's
world this would be met by 5.e5! and after 5...Ne8 white can go for the throat
with 6.h4 or 6.Bf4 or 6.Bc4 or 6.Bg5.} 5. Bg5 h6 {This thoughtless move weakens
his position especially in view of the fact that white hasn't castled. Better
was 5...d6 and ...Nbd7.} 6. Bf4 d6 7. Qd2 Kh7 8. O-O-O {White has excellent
prospects of initiating a K-side attack. Black on the other hand is nowhere
close to launching a counterattack on the Q-side.} 8... a5 {Fred Reinfeld
rightly called this an empty gesture but didn't suggest anything else. Bets
was 8... Bg4 and then ...Nc6! which keeps white's center under pressure.} 9.
Bd3 Na6 { Pointless. Much better was 9...Nc6 but white's position is already
much preferable.} 10. e5 Ng8 {Reinfeld was strangely silent on this awful
move. Black's best chance was ...Nh5 and ...Nb4 trying to simplify.} 11. h4
{White's attack has already reached the point where it is unstoppable.} 11...
Nb4 12. h5 Nxd3+ 13. Qxd3 Bf5 14. hxg6+ fxg6 15. Qe3 {White is threatening
16.Ng6+ followed by 17.f3 and 18.g4 and there's nothing black can do about
it.} 15... h5 16. Ng5+ Kh8 17. f3 Nh6 {It only appears that black has
prevented 18.g4} 18. g4 {Now if 18... hxg4 19.Nge4! Bxe4 20.fxe4 black N is
pinned and he is forced to give up the exchange with 20...Rxf4 and when the
exchanges are all over he will be the exchange down.} 18... Bxg4 19. fxg4
Nxg4 {It appears black has succeeded in erecting a barricade around his K, but
Tarrasch's next move demonstrates how flimsy black's defenses are.} 20. Rxh5+
{If 20...gxf5 21.Qe4 forces black to shed material to hold off mate.} 20...
Kg8 21. Qh3 gxh5 22. Qxh5 Nh6 {Tarrasch now figures out a way to win black's
Q...watch!} 23. Qg6 {Threatening mate on h7 so black makes an escape square
for his K.} 23... Rxf4 24. Qh7+ Kf8 25. Ne6+ Kf7 26. Nxd8+ Rxd8 {Black has a R
and B for his Q which is hardly enough, but Tarrasch is not through with the
tactics.} 27. e6+ {If 27...Ke6 28.Qxg7 and black gets mated or, if he chooses
not to got that route, his N and R on f4 are so exposed that eventually one of
them will be lost.} 27... Kf8 28. Nd5 Rf2 29. Rg1 { Black gets mated in 6
moves.} 1-0
[Site "?"]
[Date "1926.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Dr. S. Tarrasch"]
[Black "J. Davidson"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{King's Indian} 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Nc3 {Surprise! White is not obligated
to play c2-c4 against the K-Indian. White intends an aggressive K-side
attack.} 3... Bg7 {The main, I hate to say better, alternatives were 3...d5,
3...d6 or even 3...c5. If 3...d5 white often plays 4.Bf4 (The Barry Attack).
As played black avoids d4 as seen in openings like the Trompowsky or Veresov
so I am calling it a K-Indian, but one where white has avoided playing
c2-c4.} 4. e4 O-O {Best is 4...d5 though also possible is 4...c6. In today's
world this would be met by 5.e5! and after 5...Ne8 white can go for the throat
with 6.h4 or 6.Bf4 or 6.Bc4 or 6.Bg5.} 5. Bg5 h6 {This thoughtless move weakens
his position especially in view of the fact that white hasn't castled. Better
was 5...d6 and ...Nbd7.} 6. Bf4 d6 7. Qd2 Kh7 8. O-O-O {White has excellent
prospects of initiating a K-side attack. Black on the other hand is nowhere
close to launching a counterattack on the Q-side.} 8... a5 {Fred Reinfeld
rightly called this an empty gesture but didn't suggest anything else. Bets
was 8... Bg4 and then ...Nc6! which keeps white's center under pressure.} 9.
Bd3 Na6 { Pointless. Much better was 9...Nc6 but white's position is already
much preferable.} 10. e5 Ng8 {Reinfeld was strangely silent on this awful
move. Black's best chance was ...Nh5 and ...Nb4 trying to simplify.} 11. h4
{White's attack has already reached the point where it is unstoppable.} 11...
Nb4 12. h5 Nxd3+ 13. Qxd3 Bf5 14. hxg6+ fxg6 15. Qe3 {White is threatening
16.Ng6+ followed by 17.f3 and 18.g4 and there's nothing black can do about
it.} 15... h5 16. Ng5+ Kh8 17. f3 Nh6 {It only appears that black has
prevented 18.g4} 18. g4 {Now if 18... hxg4 19.Nge4! Bxe4 20.fxe4 black N is
pinned and he is forced to give up the exchange with 20...Rxf4 and when the
exchanges are all over he will be the exchange down.} 18... Bxg4 19. fxg4
Nxg4 {It appears black has succeeded in erecting a barricade around his K, but
Tarrasch's next move demonstrates how flimsy black's defenses are.} 20. Rxh5+
{If 20...gxf5 21.Qe4 forces black to shed material to hold off mate.} 20...
Kg8 21. Qh3 gxh5 22. Qxh5 Nh6 {Tarrasch now figures out a way to win black's
Q...watch!} 23. Qg6 {Threatening mate on h7 so black makes an escape square
for his K.} 23... Rxf4 24. Qh7+ Kf8 25. Ne6+ Kf7 26. Nxd8+ Rxd8 {Black has a R
and B for his Q which is hardly enough, but Tarrasch is not through with the
tactics.} 27. e6+ {If 27...Ke6 28.Qxg7 and black gets mated or, if he chooses
not to got that route, his N and R on f4 are so exposed that eventually one of
them will be lost.} 27... Kf8 28. Nd5 Rf2 29. Rg1 { Black gets mated in 6
moves.} 1-0
Monday, July 8, 2019
Berlin 1920
In the 1920s Berlin was a hectic place and in the center of the Weimar culture that was popular during the interwar period between Germany's defeat in World War I in 1918 and Hitler's rise to power in 1933.
Berlin was fertile ground for intellectuals, artists, and innovators from many fields and included a gay subculture that included nightclubs and cabarets that catered to a gay clientele, gay-themed theater and films and gay-oriented publications that were sold at kiosks. Gay prostitution flourished, too.
Amid that backdrop there was a chess tournament in Berlin in 1920. Writing on Chessgames.com sometime reader of this blog Graham Clayton quoted the October 1937 issue of Chess Review’s description of this tournament: The Berlin tournament of 1920, played during the post-War turmoil and financed very generously by Bernhard Kagan, probably has a higher percentage of good games than any other tournament ever played.
It was won by Gyula Breyer (April 30, 1893 - November 9, 1921) of Hungary. Breyer was a leading pioneer of the hypermodern school which favored controlling the center with from the flanks. He died in 1921 at the age of 28 in Bratislava. He was buried in Bratislava and after exhumation in 1987, was reburied in the Kerepesi Cemetery in Budapest. Kingpin Magazine has a four part series on Breyer by chess historian and author Jimmy Adams that is a must read.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
1) Breyer 6.5
2-3) Bogoljubow and Tartakower 5.5
4) Reti 5.0
5-7) Maroczy, Miese and Tarrasch 4.5
8-9) Saemisch and Leonhardt 3.5
10) Spielmann 2.5
Enjoy the following crazy game between two of the most colorful players in the tournament.
[Event "Berlin"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1920.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Rudolf Spielmann"]
[Black "E.D. Bogoljubow"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{C28: Vienna Game: 2...Nf6 3 Bc4 Nc6} 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 {Known for his
sometimes dubious opening experiments, Tartakower once commented of a move,
dubious, therefore playable. Of its main alternative he wrote, Playable,
therefore dubious. In his book Die Hypermoderne Schachpartie he devoted
considerable commentary to the alternative 2...f5, a move no modern master is
likely to even consider.} 3. d3 {Tartakower called this a wait and see move...
today it's about the only move you will see.} 3... Nc6 4. Nc3 {Black's main
alternatives to this move are 4...Na5 and 4...Bc5} 4... Bb4 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bxf6
Bxc3+ {Better than 6...Qxf6 7.Nge2 when white will castle then occupy d5 with
N and slightly the better of it.} 7. bxc3 Qxf6 8. Ne2 d6 9. O-O g5 {Black
prevents f4, but it's not really necessary as 9...O-O 10.f4 Bg4 does not offer
white any great advantage.} 10. d4 {Aggressive play...white intends to create
strongpoints in the center. Now black's most solid reply is 10...Ne7, but
Gogo's next move draws high praise from Tartakower who says that black must
play aggressively if he is to thwart white's plan of f3, g3 and f4. The move
also has Stockfish's stamp of approval.} 10... h5 11. Rb1 {Other moves: 11.Qd3
as played by Stahlbeg against Saemisch at Swinemuende 1930 and 11.f3 h4 12.Qd3
Bd7 13.Rab1 as in Spielmann-Moller Copenhagen 1923.} 11... h4 {The threat is
12...h3 13.g3 Qf3} 12. Qd3 Ne7 13. Bb5+ {Spielmann is setting a trap for
himself. Better was Q-side play beginning with 13.a4.} 13... Kf8 {Tempting
white to grab a P and in the process divert his Q from the protection of f3.}
14. dxe5 {It would still have been better to advance his q-Pawm. With this
move Spielmann plunges into great complications.} 14... dxe5 15. Qd8+ Kg7 16.
Qxc7 h3 {Writing in Muncher Zeitung, Spielmann claimed his next move is risky,
but it is the only move. He gave the line 17.Rfd1 hxg2 and then 18.Rd6?? and
showed that black wins. Spielmann was not the only analyst that suggested
18.Rd6 which is a losing blunder. Instead white should play 18. Bc4!! and
black has two reasonable moves: A) 18...Rh6 19.Rb5 attacking the e-Pawn with
equal chances. B) The flashy 18...Rxh2 with a likely draw after 19.Kxh2 Bg4
20.Kxg2 Rh8 21. Kf1 Rh1+ 22.Ng1 Bh3+ 23.Ke2} 17. f4 {After this white is
lost.} 17... hxg2 { Tartakower mentioned that White might be tempted to
sacrifice a R with 18.fxe5, but I doubt it. 18...gxf1Q+ 19.Rxf1 Qb6+ isn't
too hard to spot.} 18. Rf2 gxf4 19. Bc4 {Tartakower gives black's next move a
!?! and called it both sharp and necessary because white is threatening Nxf4.
He also adds that 19...f3 20.Ng3 leads to white's advantage. The only part of
his commentary that's true is white is threatening Nxf4. His claim that
19...f3 20.Ng3 leads to white's advantage is absolutely false. How good is
blacks position after 19...f3 20. Ng3 you ask? According to Stockfish after 5
minutes analysis black has at least 10 different moves that yield an
evaluation from approx. 3.50 to 7.25 in his favor.} 19... Rxh2 {After this the
advantage rests with white...assuming he takes the R! After 20.Kxh2 f3
21.Rxf3!! Qxf3 22.Qxe5+ black is out of threats and down a P. No better would
be 20.Kxh2 Qh4+ 21.Kxg2 Bh3+ 22.Kh1 Qxf2 23.Qe5+ } 20. Nxf4 {There is no point
in giving Tartakower's analysis of 20.Kxh2 which is totally wrong. By not
taking the Rook white's position becomes quite lost.} 20... exf4 21. Rxf4 Bf5
22. Rxf5 {Black now returns the favor as Tartakower correctly pointed out.
Black ends up a piece ahead after 22... Rh1+ 23. Kxg2 Nxf5 24. Rxh1 Ne3+25.
Kg3 Rg8 26. Bxf7 Qxf7 27. Qxf7+ Kxf7+} 22... Nxf5 {After this it is a whole
new game in which both side have their chances.} 23. Qxh2 Nh4 24. Qg3+ Kh8
25. Rb5 {Threatening to win a piece with Rh5+. The alternative was 25.e5
which was equally good.} 25... Qh6 26. Qe5+ {Taking the b-Pawn with 26.Rxb7
runs into disaster after 26...Rg8} 26... Kh7 27. Qh5 Rg8 {What should white
play? A) 28.Bxf7?? Nf3+ is mate in three. B) 28.Qxf7+ Rg7 29.Rh5 offers equal
chances. C) 28.Qxh6+ Kxh6 leaves black better.} 28. Be2 {This is also
satisfactory.} 28... Rg6 {Now white can likely secure the draw with 29.Qxh6+
Rxh6 and only then 30.Rxb7} 29. Rxb7 {This loses.} 29... Qxh5 30. Bxh5 Rg3
{Now it's clear why white needed to play 29.Qxh6. It's because then black's R
would have been on h6 and this move would not be available. Black now secures
the win with delicate R maneuvers. It may look like white can do well with
31.Rxf7+ but after 31...Kh6 32.Be2 Rh3 33.Rf6+ Kg5 34.Rf5+ Kg6 white's R has
been diverted from the defense of the first rank and the g-file} 31. Rb1
{Spielmann puts up manly resistance.} 31... Rxc3 32. Rc1 Kh6 33. Be2 Kg5 34.
Kf2 Kf4 35. Bd3 Ra3 36. Ra1 f6 {White is practically in Zugzwang} 37. Be2 Rh3
38. Rd1 Rh1 39. c4 Kxe4 40. Bd3+ Kd4 41. Bf1+ Kc3 42. Rd3+ Kxc4 43. Bxg2 Rh2
{An imperfect, but fascinating struggle beween two greats.} 0-1
[Site "?"]
[Date "1920.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Rudolf Spielmann"]
[Black "E.D. Bogoljubow"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{C28: Vienna Game: 2...Nf6 3 Bc4 Nc6} 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 {Known for his
sometimes dubious opening experiments, Tartakower once commented of a move,
dubious, therefore playable. Of its main alternative he wrote, Playable,
therefore dubious. In his book Die Hypermoderne Schachpartie he devoted
considerable commentary to the alternative 2...f5, a move no modern master is
likely to even consider.} 3. d3 {Tartakower called this a wait and see move...
today it's about the only move you will see.} 3... Nc6 4. Nc3 {Black's main
alternatives to this move are 4...Na5 and 4...Bc5} 4... Bb4 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bxf6
Bxc3+ {Better than 6...Qxf6 7.Nge2 when white will castle then occupy d5 with
N and slightly the better of it.} 7. bxc3 Qxf6 8. Ne2 d6 9. O-O g5 {Black
prevents f4, but it's not really necessary as 9...O-O 10.f4 Bg4 does not offer
white any great advantage.} 10. d4 {Aggressive play...white intends to create
strongpoints in the center. Now black's most solid reply is 10...Ne7, but
Gogo's next move draws high praise from Tartakower who says that black must
play aggressively if he is to thwart white's plan of f3, g3 and f4. The move
also has Stockfish's stamp of approval.} 10... h5 11. Rb1 {Other moves: 11.Qd3
as played by Stahlbeg against Saemisch at Swinemuende 1930 and 11.f3 h4 12.Qd3
Bd7 13.Rab1 as in Spielmann-Moller Copenhagen 1923.} 11... h4 {The threat is
12...h3 13.g3 Qf3} 12. Qd3 Ne7 13. Bb5+ {Spielmann is setting a trap for
himself. Better was Q-side play beginning with 13.a4.} 13... Kf8 {Tempting
white to grab a P and in the process divert his Q from the protection of f3.}
14. dxe5 {It would still have been better to advance his q-Pawm. With this
move Spielmann plunges into great complications.} 14... dxe5 15. Qd8+ Kg7 16.
Qxc7 h3 {Writing in Muncher Zeitung, Spielmann claimed his next move is risky,
but it is the only move. He gave the line 17.Rfd1 hxg2 and then 18.Rd6?? and
showed that black wins. Spielmann was not the only analyst that suggested
18.Rd6 which is a losing blunder. Instead white should play 18. Bc4!! and
black has two reasonable moves: A) 18...Rh6 19.Rb5 attacking the e-Pawn with
equal chances. B) The flashy 18...Rxh2 with a likely draw after 19.Kxh2 Bg4
20.Kxg2 Rh8 21. Kf1 Rh1+ 22.Ng1 Bh3+ 23.Ke2} 17. f4 {After this white is
lost.} 17... hxg2 { Tartakower mentioned that White might be tempted to
sacrifice a R with 18.fxe5, but I doubt it. 18...gxf1Q+ 19.Rxf1 Qb6+ isn't
too hard to spot.} 18. Rf2 gxf4 19. Bc4 {Tartakower gives black's next move a
!?! and called it both sharp and necessary because white is threatening Nxf4.
He also adds that 19...f3 20.Ng3 leads to white's advantage. The only part of
his commentary that's true is white is threatening Nxf4. His claim that
19...f3 20.Ng3 leads to white's advantage is absolutely false. How good is
blacks position after 19...f3 20. Ng3 you ask? According to Stockfish after 5
minutes analysis black has at least 10 different moves that yield an
evaluation from approx. 3.50 to 7.25 in his favor.} 19... Rxh2 {After this the
advantage rests with white...assuming he takes the R! After 20.Kxh2 f3
21.Rxf3!! Qxf3 22.Qxe5+ black is out of threats and down a P. No better would
be 20.Kxh2 Qh4+ 21.Kxg2 Bh3+ 22.Kh1 Qxf2 23.Qe5+ } 20. Nxf4 {There is no point
in giving Tartakower's analysis of 20.Kxh2 which is totally wrong. By not
taking the Rook white's position becomes quite lost.} 20... exf4 21. Rxf4 Bf5
22. Rxf5 {Black now returns the favor as Tartakower correctly pointed out.
Black ends up a piece ahead after 22... Rh1+ 23. Kxg2 Nxf5 24. Rxh1 Ne3+25.
Kg3 Rg8 26. Bxf7 Qxf7 27. Qxf7+ Kxf7+} 22... Nxf5 {After this it is a whole
new game in which both side have their chances.} 23. Qxh2 Nh4 24. Qg3+ Kh8
25. Rb5 {Threatening to win a piece with Rh5+. The alternative was 25.e5
which was equally good.} 25... Qh6 26. Qe5+ {Taking the b-Pawn with 26.Rxb7
runs into disaster after 26...Rg8} 26... Kh7 27. Qh5 Rg8 {What should white
play? A) 28.Bxf7?? Nf3+ is mate in three. B) 28.Qxf7+ Rg7 29.Rh5 offers equal
chances. C) 28.Qxh6+ Kxh6 leaves black better.} 28. Be2 {This is also
satisfactory.} 28... Rg6 {Now white can likely secure the draw with 29.Qxh6+
Rxh6 and only then 30.Rxb7} 29. Rxb7 {This loses.} 29... Qxh5 30. Bxh5 Rg3
{Now it's clear why white needed to play 29.Qxh6. It's because then black's R
would have been on h6 and this move would not be available. Black now secures
the win with delicate R maneuvers. It may look like white can do well with
31.Rxf7+ but after 31...Kh6 32.Be2 Rh3 33.Rf6+ Kg5 34.Rf5+ Kg6 white's R has
been diverted from the defense of the first rank and the g-file} 31. Rb1
{Spielmann puts up manly resistance.} 31... Rxc3 32. Rc1 Kh6 33. Be2 Kg5 34.
Kf2 Kf4 35. Bd3 Ra3 36. Ra1 f6 {White is practically in Zugzwang} 37. Be2 Rh3
38. Rd1 Rh1 39. c4 Kxe4 40. Bd3+ Kd4 41. Bf1+ Kc3 42. Rd3+ Kxc4 43. Bxg2 Rh2
{An imperfect, but fascinating struggle beween two greats.} 0-1
Friday, July 5, 2019
Marshall's Chess Swindles
I have a copy of this book, published in 1923, which is subtitled Comprising Over One Hundred And Twenty-five Of His Best Tournament And Match Games At Chess, Together With The Annotation Of The Same.
If you can find a copy of Marshall's Best Games of Chess (formerly titled My Fifty Years of Chess) that was published in 1960, it is probably the better of the two books and is a much more enjoyable read. I wish I still had my copy because I see it's selling on Amazon for $150!! I would never, ever, pay that for it, but you never know when you might stumble on it some place for a reasonable price.
Andy Soltis' book on Marshall got good reviews on Amazon. Call me cheap, but I would never pay $40 for a chess book either.
In the introduction Marshall explained why he used the title “Marshall’s Swindles.” Swindle is a term of derision that some of his opponents used to describe his wins over them when “their fond preconceived notions (were) demolished over the open board.” He added that when he, a man not tied to book chess, smashed those gentlemen (as he referred to them) they claimed they got swindled. Marshall invited the reader to be the judge of whether or not victory involved chance, luck or trickery or if a move was successful because it was based on sound play.
The following game was played in Paris between May 17th and June 20th 1900 in a tournament which was held in conjunction with the Exposition Universelle, one of the world's most notable fairs or exhibitions up to that time. The time limit was 30 moves in two hours, followed by 15 moves in one hour. Draws had to be replayed once. This tournament also marked Marshall’s international debut.
Lasker suffered only one defeat, to Marshall while Pillsbury was beaten by Lasker, Marshall and Burn. Marshall lost game to Maroczy, Showalter and Janowski. He dew with Chigorin and Schlechter.
1) Lasker 14.5
2) Pillsbury 12.5
3-4) Marshall and Maroczy 12.0
5) Burn 11.0
6) Chigorin 10.5
7-9) Schlechter, Marco and Mieses 10.0
10-11) Showalter and Janowski 9.0
12) Mason 4.5 13) Brody 4.0
14) Rosen 3.0
15) Mortimer 2.0
16-17) Sterling and Didier 1.0
Who were the tailenders, Sterling and Didier? Manuel Marquez Sterling was actually born Carlos Manuel Agustin Marquez Sterling y Loret de Mola to Cuban parents on August 28, 1872 in Lima, Peru.
At the age of 16 he began a career in journalism writing for publications founded by his father. Suffering from asthma, part of his adolescence was spent in Merida, Mexico when he was sent there by his father because it was believed the climate would help with the asthma attacks. While in Mexico he met Jose Marti (1853 – 1895) a Cuban poet, essayist, journalist, translator, professor, and publisher, who is considered a Cuban national hero and an important figure in Latin American literature.
Eventually Sterling found himself in Spain and was a contributor to Steinitz’ The International Chess Magazine. The magazine, based in the United States, was established in 1885 and published until 1891. While in Spain, Sterling let it be known that he favored Cuban independence, a position that lead to his pending arrest and his hightailing it back to Cuba.
After his return, he served in various political capacities and in 1934, when the President of Cuba was forced to resign, Sterling accepted the presidency from six in the morning until noon when he transferred power. The same year he was appointed ambassador to the United States and died there on December 9, 1934. He wrote about 15 books on diverse topics such as politics, history and chess.
Marshall’s opponent in this game, M. Didier, is something of an enigma and I refer you to the discussion about him on Chessgames.com.
If you can find a copy of Marshall's Best Games of Chess (formerly titled My Fifty Years of Chess) that was published in 1960, it is probably the better of the two books and is a much more enjoyable read. I wish I still had my copy because I see it's selling on Amazon for $150!! I would never, ever, pay that for it, but you never know when you might stumble on it some place for a reasonable price.
Andy Soltis' book on Marshall got good reviews on Amazon. Call me cheap, but I would never pay $40 for a chess book either.
In the introduction Marshall explained why he used the title “Marshall’s Swindles.” Swindle is a term of derision that some of his opponents used to describe his wins over them when “their fond preconceived notions (were) demolished over the open board.” He added that when he, a man not tied to book chess, smashed those gentlemen (as he referred to them) they claimed they got swindled. Marshall invited the reader to be the judge of whether or not victory involved chance, luck or trickery or if a move was successful because it was based on sound play.
The following game was played in Paris between May 17th and June 20th 1900 in a tournament which was held in conjunction with the Exposition Universelle, one of the world's most notable fairs or exhibitions up to that time. The time limit was 30 moves in two hours, followed by 15 moves in one hour. Draws had to be replayed once. This tournament also marked Marshall’s international debut.
Lasker suffered only one defeat, to Marshall while Pillsbury was beaten by Lasker, Marshall and Burn. Marshall lost game to Maroczy, Showalter and Janowski. He dew with Chigorin and Schlechter.
1) Lasker 14.5
2) Pillsbury 12.5
3-4) Marshall and Maroczy 12.0
5) Burn 11.0
6) Chigorin 10.5
7-9) Schlechter, Marco and Mieses 10.0
10-11) Showalter and Janowski 9.0
12) Mason 4.5 13) Brody 4.0
14) Rosen 3.0
15) Mortimer 2.0
16-17) Sterling and Didier 1.0
Who were the tailenders, Sterling and Didier? Manuel Marquez Sterling was actually born Carlos Manuel Agustin Marquez Sterling y Loret de Mola to Cuban parents on August 28, 1872 in Lima, Peru.
At the age of 16 he began a career in journalism writing for publications founded by his father. Suffering from asthma, part of his adolescence was spent in Merida, Mexico when he was sent there by his father because it was believed the climate would help with the asthma attacks. While in Mexico he met Jose Marti (1853 – 1895) a Cuban poet, essayist, journalist, translator, professor, and publisher, who is considered a Cuban national hero and an important figure in Latin American literature.
Eventually Sterling found himself in Spain and was a contributor to Steinitz’ The International Chess Magazine. The magazine, based in the United States, was established in 1885 and published until 1891. While in Spain, Sterling let it be known that he favored Cuban independence, a position that lead to his pending arrest and his hightailing it back to Cuba.
After his return, he served in various political capacities and in 1934, when the President of Cuba was forced to resign, Sterling accepted the presidency from six in the morning until noon when he transferred power. The same year he was appointed ambassador to the United States and died there on December 9, 1934. He wrote about 15 books on diverse topics such as politics, history and chess.
Marshall’s opponent in this game, M. Didier, is something of an enigma and I refer you to the discussion about him on Chessgames.com.
![]() |
| Didier |
[Event "Paris"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1900.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "M. Didier"]
[Black "Frank Marshall"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Petrov Three Knights Game} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Bb4 {In the book
Marshall called this move, which he played to avoid the heavily analyzed Four
Knights Game, Irregular.} 4. Bc4 O-O 5. d3 {Marshall believed that white does
better to castle first.} 5... d5 6. exd5 Nxd5 7. Bd2 Nf4 {Nowadays black
almost always captures on c3 (with either piece). The text move is almost
never seen, but it's Stockfish's second choice behind 7...Nxc3.} 8. O-O Bg4
9. h3 Bh5 { Engines prefer eliminating the N on f4 with 10.Bxf4, but Didier
makes a move that seems to be with the intention of initiating a K-side
attack, but he doesn't follow through and it ends up being to his detriment.}
10. Kh2 Nc6 11. g4 {Marshall commented that Monsieur Didier's games in Paris
showed "remarkable attacking strength, but patience was not his virtue."
Marshall did not offer any alternative, but seems to hint that Didier's move
was not especially good. However, I let Stockfish run for a few minutes while
I went to prepare a cup of coffee and when I returned it was recommending
Didier's move with an evaluation of dead equal.} 11... Bg6 {Didier's next move
seems to be where he goes wrong. Instead 12.Re1 when neither 12...h5 13.g5!
blocking the position on the K-side nor 12...Re8 13.Bxf4 initiating exchanges
lead to anything.} 12. Ne2 Bd6 {Marshall prefers to keep as many pieces on as
possible, but 12...Bxd2 followed by 13...Qf6 would have given him even better
chances.} 13. Nxf4 exf4 14. Rh1 {Perhaps he was thinking of an attack on the
K-side. In any case, this is one of those positions that the engines evaluate
as nearly dead equal, but practically speaking is devoid of chances for one
side (white in this case) and so black is to be preferred.} 14... h5 15. Kg1
{This is no time to dawdle. Better was 15.Bc3} 15... Ne5 16. Nxe5 Bxe5 17.
Qf3 Qg5 {Of course taking the b-Pawn would not be a good idea because white
invades along the file and gets a R on the 7th rank after 18.Rb1.} 18. Kf1
Rfe8 {With his next move white is overly concerned about his b-Pawn, but he
should have opted for 19.Qxb7 and if 19...hxg4 20.hxg4 Qxg4 21.Qg2! forces the
exchange of Qs with equality or else white has a decisive attack on the
h-file.} 19. c3 Rad8 {Now white must be on guard against the capture of his
d-Pawn.} 20. Rg1 c6 21. d4 Bc7 22. gxh5 Qxh5 23. Qg2 {As Marshall pointed out
the exchange of Qs was in order. Marshall kindly added that Didier loved
chess but lacked experience and exchanging Qs wasn't his style. The result is
that he pays a high price for his mistake.} 23... f3 {After this it's too late
for white to salvage anything.} 24. Qg4 Qd5 {Stunning. If 25.Bxd5 Bxd3
mate.} 25. b3 Qxc4+ {...also very nice.} 26. bxc4 Bd3# 0-1
[Site "?"]
[Date "1900.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "M. Didier"]
[Black "Frank Marshall"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Petrov Three Knights Game} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nc3 Bb4 {In the book
Marshall called this move, which he played to avoid the heavily analyzed Four
Knights Game, Irregular.} 4. Bc4 O-O 5. d3 {Marshall believed that white does
better to castle first.} 5... d5 6. exd5 Nxd5 7. Bd2 Nf4 {Nowadays black
almost always captures on c3 (with either piece). The text move is almost
never seen, but it's Stockfish's second choice behind 7...Nxc3.} 8. O-O Bg4
9. h3 Bh5 { Engines prefer eliminating the N on f4 with 10.Bxf4, but Didier
makes a move that seems to be with the intention of initiating a K-side
attack, but he doesn't follow through and it ends up being to his detriment.}
10. Kh2 Nc6 11. g4 {Marshall commented that Monsieur Didier's games in Paris
showed "remarkable attacking strength, but patience was not his virtue."
Marshall did not offer any alternative, but seems to hint that Didier's move
was not especially good. However, I let Stockfish run for a few minutes while
I went to prepare a cup of coffee and when I returned it was recommending
Didier's move with an evaluation of dead equal.} 11... Bg6 {Didier's next move
seems to be where he goes wrong. Instead 12.Re1 when neither 12...h5 13.g5!
blocking the position on the K-side nor 12...Re8 13.Bxf4 initiating exchanges
lead to anything.} 12. Ne2 Bd6 {Marshall prefers to keep as many pieces on as
possible, but 12...Bxd2 followed by 13...Qf6 would have given him even better
chances.} 13. Nxf4 exf4 14. Rh1 {Perhaps he was thinking of an attack on the
K-side. In any case, this is one of those positions that the engines evaluate
as nearly dead equal, but practically speaking is devoid of chances for one
side (white in this case) and so black is to be preferred.} 14... h5 15. Kg1
{This is no time to dawdle. Better was 15.Bc3} 15... Ne5 16. Nxe5 Bxe5 17.
Qf3 Qg5 {Of course taking the b-Pawn would not be a good idea because white
invades along the file and gets a R on the 7th rank after 18.Rb1.} 18. Kf1
Rfe8 {With his next move white is overly concerned about his b-Pawn, but he
should have opted for 19.Qxb7 and if 19...hxg4 20.hxg4 Qxg4 21.Qg2! forces the
exchange of Qs with equality or else white has a decisive attack on the
h-file.} 19. c3 Rad8 {Now white must be on guard against the capture of his
d-Pawn.} 20. Rg1 c6 21. d4 Bc7 22. gxh5 Qxh5 23. Qg2 {As Marshall pointed out
the exchange of Qs was in order. Marshall kindly added that Didier loved
chess but lacked experience and exchanging Qs wasn't his style. The result is
that he pays a high price for his mistake.} 23... f3 {After this it's too late
for white to salvage anything.} 24. Qg4 Qd5 {Stunning. If 25.Bxd5 Bxd3
mate.} 25. b3 Qxc4+ {...also very nice.} 26. bxc4 Bd3# 0-1
Thursday, July 4, 2019
Engine, engine, who’s the strongest of them all?
Who's the greatest of them all? Who's the one we love the most?
It seems it depends on who you ask!
One would think that in this day of engines that are stronger than any human it would be easy to figure out. But that does not seem to be the case.
According to a 2006 article which you can download HERE, Capablanca was the best, but they used the less strong Crafty engine. See also this article on Chessbase: Computer analysis of world champions
Then there is the 2017 report on Chess.com that comes to a different conclusion and says Carlsen is the man. For further reading: Chess Fans Booed This Year's World Championship, but Computers Cheered
So, who’s the baddest of them all. What really makes a player great? What are their characteristics? Do we really prefer the flawed master or, do we prefer perfection?
If one is looking for perfectly played games then games from engine championships or even the ICCF world championship finals are the ones that should be examined. But, I don’t think most of us are interested in that kind of chess.
We prefer lots of excitement with spills and thrills brought about by mistakes. Not gross blunders, but subtle mistakes that allow one side to deliver, as the Soviets liked to put it, a sledgehammer blow. Or, we like to see gamblers making speculative sacrifices that will require both players to walk on the razor’s edge even if Stockfish sees the refutation in the twinkling of an eye!
Speaking of chessplayers...I was looking at collections of best games and here’s the list of books, about $400 worth, I’d like to have:
My Magic Years of Topalov
Gata Kamsky - Chess Gamer - Vol. 1
Learn from Michal Krasenkow
Fabiano Caruana
Alexander Beliavsky - Legendary Chess Careers - Part 1 and 2
Max Euwe - Fifth World Chess Champion
Triple Exclam!!! - the life and games of Emory Tate
Najdorf x Najdorf
The Soviet Championships
Lajos Portisch
Oldrich Duras - Master of Chess Combination
Combat – My 50 Years of Chess, Sidney Bernstein
The Life and Games of Frank Ross Anderson
Mir Sultan Khan
One would think that in this day of engines that are stronger than any human it would be easy to figure out. But that does not seem to be the case.
According to a 2006 article which you can download HERE, Capablanca was the best, but they used the less strong Crafty engine. See also this article on Chessbase: Computer analysis of world champions
Then there is the 2017 report on Chess.com that comes to a different conclusion and says Carlsen is the man. For further reading: Chess Fans Booed This Year's World Championship, but Computers Cheered
So, who’s the baddest of them all. What really makes a player great? What are their characteristics? Do we really prefer the flawed master or, do we prefer perfection?
If one is looking for perfectly played games then games from engine championships or even the ICCF world championship finals are the ones that should be examined. But, I don’t think most of us are interested in that kind of chess.
We prefer lots of excitement with spills and thrills brought about by mistakes. Not gross blunders, but subtle mistakes that allow one side to deliver, as the Soviets liked to put it, a sledgehammer blow. Or, we like to see gamblers making speculative sacrifices that will require both players to walk on the razor’s edge even if Stockfish sees the refutation in the twinkling of an eye!
Speaking of chessplayers...I was looking at collections of best games and here’s the list of books, about $400 worth, I’d like to have:
My Magic Years of Topalov
Gata Kamsky - Chess Gamer - Vol. 1
Learn from Michal Krasenkow
Fabiano Caruana
Alexander Beliavsky - Legendary Chess Careers - Part 1 and 2
Max Euwe - Fifth World Chess Champion
Triple Exclam!!! - the life and games of Emory Tate
Najdorf x Najdorf
The Soviet Championships
Lajos Portisch
Oldrich Duras - Master of Chess Combination
Combat – My 50 Years of Chess, Sidney Bernstein
The Life and Games of Frank Ross Anderson
Mir Sultan Khan
Tuesday, July 2, 2019
Lajos Steiner vs Lilienthal Match 1934
![]() |
| Steiner and Lilienthal |
Prior to participating in the Hastings tournament, Lilienthal, then a talented young Hungarian master, played a six games with Lajos Steiner in Budapest. Steiner won +3 -1 =2. For details on the Hastings tournament see Chessgames.com. It was at Hastings that Lilienthal defeated Capablanca in a sensational game.
According to Chessmetrics at the time Steiner is assigned a rating of 2602 placing him number 27 in the world. He was ranked in a group that included Kurt Richter, Fritz Saemisch and Frank Marshall. On Chessmetrics' list Steiner peaked at 2654 in 1934 and in 1937 was ranked as number 11 in the world.
In 1934 Lilienthal was ranked much higher – number 6 in the world with an assigned rating of 2710. The top five were Aekhine, Euwe, Flohr, Bogoljubow and Kashdan. Lilienthal was grouped with Botvinnik, Reshevsky, Denker and Sultan Kahn! Yes, Arnold Denker was assigned a rating that put him in the top 10 players in the world in 1934 and 1935 and he was to remain in Chessmetrics top 100 until 1949. Personally, I never realized that Denker was that good!
As for Sultan Kahn, he was ranked among the top 10 players in the world for his entire short career which was between 1930 and 1935.
![]() |
| Denker |
Lajos Steiner (June 14, 1903 - April 22, 1975) was one of four children of Bernat Steiner, a mathematics teacher, and his wife Cecilia. His older brother was Endre Steiner. Both he and his Endre started playing in master chess events in Budapest while they were schoolboys. Lajos was granted the title of master at the age of 19.
He graduated from the Technikum Mittweida, Germany in 1926 with a mechanical engineering degree. In the late 1920s Steiner spent two years working as an engineer in the United States and after his return to Europe he turned professional, but made a precarious living from tournaments.
He won the Hungarian Championship in 1931 and 1936. In the mid-1930s he played for Hungary in four Chess Olympiads. In 1936 Steiner toured Australia and although he played in the 1936-37 Australian championship and won every game, he was ineligible for the title. He returned to Western Australia in 1939 and settled in Sydney. His father and brother were to die in Nazi concentration camps.
He won the Australian Chess Championship four times: 1945, 1946/47, 1952/53, and 1958/59. He also won nine of his ten attempts at the New South Wales title (1940–41, 1943, 1944, 1945–46, 1953, 1955, 1958).
In 1939 Steiner married Augusta Edna Kingston, a New South Wales women's champion. He acquired Australian citizenship in 1944. Finding it impossible to earn a living playing chess, he took employment a design draftsman.
After moving to Australia he only returned to Europe once, in 1948, where he played in three tournaments, at Karlsbad (Karlovy Vary), Czechoslovakia, Budapest, Hungary and Saltsjobaden, Sweden.
Because of his disappearance from the main chess centers of the world after WW2 he was never recognized as a GM although he surely deserved the title. He stopped competing in major tournaments in the early 1960s, but continued to play for his local club and willingly helped young players. He died at Castlecrag, a suburb of Sydney, on April 22, 1975 and was cremated.
[Event "Match"]
[Site "Budapest HUN"]
[Date "1934.??.??"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Lajos Steiner"]
[Black "Andre Lilienthal"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{French: Burn Variation} 1. e4 e6 {Purdy wrote that Steiner was famous for
wins against the French, but that need not dissuade one from playing it
against him because it was always possible to avoid the errors that lead to
his opponents' losses.} 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 dxe4 {The most common
reply. } 5. Nxe4 Be7 6. Bxf6 {Capturing on f6 with either the B or the N are
the only good moves here.} 6... gxf6 7. Nf3 b6 8. Bc4 Bb7 9. Qe2 Nd7 10.
O-O-O c6 11. Kb1 Qc7 {It's interesting that the only book move here is
11...Qc7 and in my database white scores 36 percent wins vs 19 percent for
black! It is also the move that is recommended by the engines so perhaps the
whole line is not the best.} 12. Ba6 {White might better have delayed this
until after black plays ...O-O-O and played 12.Rhe1 first.} 12... O-O-O
{Better would have been 12...Bxa6 13.Qxa6 b5! cutting off the white Q.} 13.
Bxb7+ Kxb7 14. c4 Nf8 15. d5 {Black can't very well exchange Ps because he
would end up with very weak Ps and be exposed to attack on the d-file. In the
game Coelho-Aouza, Sao Paulo 2002 white played 15. Rd3 and doubled Rs on the
d-file and the game was soon drawn.} 15... f5 {This turns out poorly. Better
was 15...Ng6 when the N can get into the game via f4 or e5.} 16. Nc3 Ng6 17.
dxc6+ {Lilienthal's next move may look curious and it may be asked why he
didn't play 17...Qxc6. It's probably because he didn't like the idea of his K
ending up on a6 after 17... Qxc6 18.Nd4 Qc5 19.Qf3 Ka6. An example of what
could happen can be seen if he plays 19...Kc8 instead. In that case 20.Nxe6!!
fxe6 21.Qa8 Kc7 22.Nb5+ and black is about to get slaughtered.} 17... Kb8
{Black's best was to let his K end up on a6 and take his chances as things are
not going to work out well after this.} 18. Nd4 a6 {Hoping to prevent a N from
landing on b5...it doesn't work.} 19. c5 b5 20. Ncxb5 {Obviously if 20. axb5
21.Qxc5 black is going to get mated. And if 20...Qe5 21.c7+ forks the K and
R.} 1-0
[Site "Budapest HUN"]
[Date "1934.??.??"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Lajos Steiner"]
[Black "Andre Lilienthal"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{French: Burn Variation} 1. e4 e6 {Purdy wrote that Steiner was famous for
wins against the French, but that need not dissuade one from playing it
against him because it was always possible to avoid the errors that lead to
his opponents' losses.} 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 dxe4 {The most common
reply. } 5. Nxe4 Be7 6. Bxf6 {Capturing on f6 with either the B or the N are
the only good moves here.} 6... gxf6 7. Nf3 b6 8. Bc4 Bb7 9. Qe2 Nd7 10.
O-O-O c6 11. Kb1 Qc7 {It's interesting that the only book move here is
11...Qc7 and in my database white scores 36 percent wins vs 19 percent for
black! It is also the move that is recommended by the engines so perhaps the
whole line is not the best.} 12. Ba6 {White might better have delayed this
until after black plays ...O-O-O and played 12.Rhe1 first.} 12... O-O-O
{Better would have been 12...Bxa6 13.Qxa6 b5! cutting off the white Q.} 13.
Bxb7+ Kxb7 14. c4 Nf8 15. d5 {Black can't very well exchange Ps because he
would end up with very weak Ps and be exposed to attack on the d-file. In the
game Coelho-Aouza, Sao Paulo 2002 white played 15. Rd3 and doubled Rs on the
d-file and the game was soon drawn.} 15... f5 {This turns out poorly. Better
was 15...Ng6 when the N can get into the game via f4 or e5.} 16. Nc3 Ng6 17.
dxc6+ {Lilienthal's next move may look curious and it may be asked why he
didn't play 17...Qxc6. It's probably because he didn't like the idea of his K
ending up on a6 after 17... Qxc6 18.Nd4 Qc5 19.Qf3 Ka6. An example of what
could happen can be seen if he plays 19...Kc8 instead. In that case 20.Nxe6!!
fxe6 21.Qa8 Kc7 22.Nb5+ and black is about to get slaughtered.} 17... Kb8
{Black's best was to let his K end up on a6 and take his chances as things are
not going to work out well after this.} 18. Nd4 a6 {Hoping to prevent a N from
landing on b5...it doesn't work.} 19. c5 b5 20. Ncxb5 {Obviously if 20. axb5
21.Qxc5 black is going to get mated. And if 20...Qe5 21.c7+ forks the K and
R.} 1-0
Saturday, June 29, 2019
Manhattan CC International 1976
July marks the 43rd anniversary of the Manhattan Chess Club’s holding of the first international tournament in New York since 1951 and it ended in a triple tie for first prize between IM Norman Weinstein, GM Leonid Shankovich (then representing Israel) and GM Anatoly Lein, an expatriate Russian.
The tournament was held from July 8-23, 1976 and was an important test for several of the young US players.
Weinstein missed achieving the GM norm by half a point while 16-year old Michael Rohde of New Jersey, 18-year old Helgi Olafsson of Iceland and Roberto Kaimo of the Philippines, obtained their first IM norms.
Two young players, 17-year old Jonathan Tisdall and 18-year old Mark Diesen, missed the IM norm by a half point. For 13-year old Michael Wilder and 12-year old Joel Benjamin it was the first time they had faced such tough opposition.
The name of Roberto Kaimo is probably unfamiliar to most. He was born in Surigao City, Philippines and was a graduate of F.E.U. in Manila with a Bachelors Degree in Commerce. After graduation he worked for a paint company in the Philippines before moving to the US where he worked for a chemical company in Newark, New Jersey as an Inventory Manager; he retired from in 2006.
He passed away at the age of 72 on July 28, 2016 in South Plainfield, New Jersey. Although his obituary listed him as an IM, his FIDE card shows no title and lists his rating as 2280 with no activity since at least the year 2000.
The only other mention of him that I found was that in the 1974 Philippine Championship the then 29-year-old Kaimo, who had quit his job in order to play in the event, was among the leaders for much of the tournament, but ended up in 7th place with a score of 11-9. As a result, he was just a half a point short of making the country’s Olympic team. Soon after this tournament he moved to the US. He also enjoyed bowling, singing, dancing, and was known as the life of the party.
Norman Weinstein (no relation to Raymond Weinstein) had been a student at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and described himself as a “chess bum” who traveled the country playing in tournaments. All that came to a halt when he was the first chess player hired by Banker's Trust in the early 1990s. He was so successful that they kicked off a recruitment program for other strong players.
Anatoly Lein (March 28, 1931 – March 1, 2018, 86 years old) was a Soviet-born GM who emigrated to the US in 1975. He arrived in the US at the same time as Leonid Shamkovich as part of the earliest wave of Soviet players. He was enshrined in the US Chess Hall of Fame in 2004.
Lein was strongly disliked by more than a few people because he was confrontational and quick-tempered. He once complained that the USCF was illegally taking rating points away from him.
He was a big, burly fellow who like to play quiet positional games and endings and was famous for his grim determination to milk small advantages and forcing his opponents to defend hours.
At one time he was a chain smoker and I remember seeing him watching a game with his hands clasped behind his back and holding a cigarette while he tap, tap, tapped the lit end with his index finger...quite a trick.
Lein settled in Cleveland, Ohio where his wife, Barbara Gottlieb, was an attorney. In 1999 he told a reporter that he would have preferred to live in Alaska because, "It's pretty hot here sometimes."
In the following game Weinstein demonstrates how a powerful center can be used to create a K-side attack.
1-3) Norman Weinstein, Anatoly Lein and Leonid Shamkovich 10.5
4) Milan Vukic 9.5
5-7) Michael Rohde, Helgi Olafsson and Roberto Kaimo 9.0
8-9) Jonathan Tisdall and Mark Diesen 8.0
10) Julio Kaplan 7.5
11-12) Bruce Amos and Edmar Mednis 7.0
13) Milorad Boskovic 5.0
14) Orest Popovych 4.0
15) Michael Wilder 3.5
16) Joel Benjamin 2.0
The tournament was held from July 8-23, 1976 and was an important test for several of the young US players.
Weinstein missed achieving the GM norm by half a point while 16-year old Michael Rohde of New Jersey, 18-year old Helgi Olafsson of Iceland and Roberto Kaimo of the Philippines, obtained their first IM norms.
Two young players, 17-year old Jonathan Tisdall and 18-year old Mark Diesen, missed the IM norm by a half point. For 13-year old Michael Wilder and 12-year old Joel Benjamin it was the first time they had faced such tough opposition.
The name of Roberto Kaimo is probably unfamiliar to most. He was born in Surigao City, Philippines and was a graduate of F.E.U. in Manila with a Bachelors Degree in Commerce. After graduation he worked for a paint company in the Philippines before moving to the US where he worked for a chemical company in Newark, New Jersey as an Inventory Manager; he retired from in 2006.
He passed away at the age of 72 on July 28, 2016 in South Plainfield, New Jersey. Although his obituary listed him as an IM, his FIDE card shows no title and lists his rating as 2280 with no activity since at least the year 2000.
The only other mention of him that I found was that in the 1974 Philippine Championship the then 29-year-old Kaimo, who had quit his job in order to play in the event, was among the leaders for much of the tournament, but ended up in 7th place with a score of 11-9. As a result, he was just a half a point short of making the country’s Olympic team. Soon after this tournament he moved to the US. He also enjoyed bowling, singing, dancing, and was known as the life of the party.
![]() |
| Weinstein |
Anatoly Lein (March 28, 1931 – March 1, 2018, 86 years old) was a Soviet-born GM who emigrated to the US in 1975. He arrived in the US at the same time as Leonid Shamkovich as part of the earliest wave of Soviet players. He was enshrined in the US Chess Hall of Fame in 2004.
![]() |
| Lein |
Lein was strongly disliked by more than a few people because he was confrontational and quick-tempered. He once complained that the USCF was illegally taking rating points away from him.
He was a big, burly fellow who like to play quiet positional games and endings and was famous for his grim determination to milk small advantages and forcing his opponents to defend hours.
At one time he was a chain smoker and I remember seeing him watching a game with his hands clasped behind his back and holding a cigarette while he tap, tap, tapped the lit end with his index finger...quite a trick.
Lein settled in Cleveland, Ohio where his wife, Barbara Gottlieb, was an attorney. In 1999 he told a reporter that he would have preferred to live in Alaska because, "It's pretty hot here sometimes."
In the following game Weinstein demonstrates how a powerful center can be used to create a K-side attack.
1-3) Norman Weinstein, Anatoly Lein and Leonid Shamkovich 10.5
4) Milan Vukic 9.5
5-7) Michael Rohde, Helgi Olafsson and Roberto Kaimo 9.0
8-9) Jonathan Tisdall and Mark Diesen 8.0
10) Julio Kaplan 7.5
11-12) Bruce Amos and Edmar Mednis 7.0
13) Milorad Boskovic 5.0
14) Orest Popovych 4.0
15) Michael Wilder 3.5
16) Joel Benjamin 2.0
[Event "Manhattan International"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1976.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Norman Weinstein"]
[Black "Anatoly Lein"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{B09: Pirc Defense: Austrian Attack} 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7
5. Nf3 O-O 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. O-O Bg4 {This and his last move are designed to exert
pressure on the white center and he intends to meet 8.Be3 with 8...e5.
Therefore, Weinstein plays 8.e5. He is not concerned about the doubled Ps
because the P on c3 serves a useful function...it controls d4.} 8. e5 dxe5 9.
dxe5 Nd5 10. h3 Nxc3 11. bxc3 Bf5 12. Be3 {In a few games 12.Bxf5 has been
tried but it has not brought much success; white's big disadvantage is his bad
B.} 12... Bxd3 {Undoubling the Ps and strengthening white's center was an
unpleasant decision, but there wasn't much else he could do. Attacking the
e-Pawn with 12...f6 does not turn out well after 13.Bxf5 gxf5 14.e6! And now
black dare not try to ease the pressure by trading Qs and challenging the
d-file because his position would just be too passive.} 13. cxd3 b6 14. Qe2
Na5 15. d4 {Now blocking white's center starting with 15...Qd5 runs into
16.Nd2 making the way for 17.f5 with a promising attack.} 15... Qd7 16. c4
Rad8 17. Rac1 f6 {This counterattack on white's center is too little too late.
Weinstein simply ignores it and plays to establish his N ond4 where it will be
very powerful.} 18. d5 c6 19. Rfd1 Qb7 20. Nd4 Rd7 21. Ne6 {From d4 the N goes
to e6 with devastating effect. Black's pieces on the Q-side are cut off and
the way is prepared for his next move.} 21... Rc8 22. f5 {The crusher.} 22...
gxf5 23. Qd3 Bh8 24. Qxf5 cxd5 25. Rd4 {Not to nit pick but this mates in 8
while 25.Qg4+ accomplished the same thing in 5.} 25... (25 26. Rd4) 1-0
[Site "?"]
[Date "1976.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Norman Weinstein"]
[Black "Anatoly Lein"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{B09: Pirc Defense: Austrian Attack} 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7
5. Nf3 O-O 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. O-O Bg4 {This and his last move are designed to exert
pressure on the white center and he intends to meet 8.Be3 with 8...e5.
Therefore, Weinstein plays 8.e5. He is not concerned about the doubled Ps
because the P on c3 serves a useful function...it controls d4.} 8. e5 dxe5 9.
dxe5 Nd5 10. h3 Nxc3 11. bxc3 Bf5 12. Be3 {In a few games 12.Bxf5 has been
tried but it has not brought much success; white's big disadvantage is his bad
B.} 12... Bxd3 {Undoubling the Ps and strengthening white's center was an
unpleasant decision, but there wasn't much else he could do. Attacking the
e-Pawn with 12...f6 does not turn out well after 13.Bxf5 gxf5 14.e6! And now
black dare not try to ease the pressure by trading Qs and challenging the
d-file because his position would just be too passive.} 13. cxd3 b6 14. Qe2
Na5 15. d4 {Now blocking white's center starting with 15...Qd5 runs into
16.Nd2 making the way for 17.f5 with a promising attack.} 15... Qd7 16. c4
Rad8 17. Rac1 f6 {This counterattack on white's center is too little too late.
Weinstein simply ignores it and plays to establish his N ond4 where it will be
very powerful.} 18. d5 c6 19. Rfd1 Qb7 20. Nd4 Rd7 21. Ne6 {From d4 the N goes
to e6 with devastating effect. Black's pieces on the Q-side are cut off and
the way is prepared for his next move.} 21... Rc8 22. f5 {The crusher.} 22...
gxf5 23. Qd3 Bh8 24. Qxf5 cxd5 25. Rd4 {Not to nit pick but this mates in 8
while 25.Qg4+ accomplished the same thing in 5.} 25... (25 26. Rd4) 1-0
Friday, June 28, 2019
The Unbeatable Karpov
Anatoly Karpov (born May 23, 1951) was the official world champion from 1975 until 1985 when he was defeated by Garry Kasparov. He is a member of the World Chess Hall of Fame. The Guardian has a lot of articles on Karpov HERE.
After becoming FIDE World Champion once again after Kasparov broke away from FIDE in 1993, Karpov held the title until 1999, when he resigned his title in protest against FIDE's new world championship rules. Wikipedia has a pretty good history of all the sordid details of the World Championship mess we suffered through during those years. Does anybody really believe Alex Khalifman, Ruslan Ponomariov and Rustam Kasimdzhanov were really world champions?
For his decades-long standing among the world's elite, many consider Karpov one of the greatest players in history. His tournament successes include over 160 first-place finishes. He had a peak Elo rating of 2780, and his 102 total months at world number one is the third longest of all time, behind Magnus Carlsen and Garry Kasparov. In his heyday he was considered almost unbeatable.
Before the start of the candidates matches in 1974 most experts preferred the chances of both former world champions, Petrosian and Spassky. True, Karpov had tied for first with Leonid Stein in the star-studded 1971 Alekhine Memorial in Moscow, shared second in the USSR Chess Championship and finished equal first with Viktor Korchnoi in the Leningrad Interzonal, but few thought he had a chance in match play against the seasoned veterans.
Writing in the August 1974 issue of Chess Life and Review, Paul Keres considered Karpov one of the brightest stars among the rising young players on his way to a match with Bobby Fischer for the world championship. Karpov had developed a style that was rather unusual for a young GM. Most young players prefer sharp, complicated positions, but Karpov was a rare exception...he liked his chess calm and sober, not filled with complications or sharp tactics. For him it was all technique and he seldom lost a game.
Karpov defeated Lev Polugaevsky by the score of +3 -0 =5 in the first Candidates match, earning the right to face former champion Boris Spassky in the semifinal. Karpov actually believed Spassky would easily beat him and win the Candidates cycle to face Fischer. He was wrong.
Spassky won the first game, but that was it. Karpov won the match by a score of +4 -1 =6 then went on to secure the world title when Fischer wouldn’t play him and leaving the world to forever wonder what the outcome of a Fischer-Karpov match would have been.
Kasparov put forth the opinion that Karpov would have had good chances against Fischer because Karpov had beaten Spassky so convincingly and was a new breed of tough professional. Additionally, Karpov had been steadily playing a lot of quality games while Fischer had been inactive for three years. Spassky thought that Fischer would have won in 1975 but Karpov would have qualified again and beaten Fischer in 1978. A Chessbase article discusses the issue based on computer models HERE.
Getting back to the Karpov-Spassky match, Spassky seemed rather uncertain of himself and did not demonstrate his usual fighting spirit. He also had trouble handling Karpov’s openings and Spassky himself had some dubious opening experiments.
Even so, Paul Keres thought Spassky lost the match because of psychological reasons. It was Keres’ opinion that Spassky was unsure of his opening preparation and had simply lost faith in his own abilities. Here is one of the more interesting games of the match, the third game.
Karpov 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 7.0
Spassky 1 ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 4.0
After becoming FIDE World Champion once again after Kasparov broke away from FIDE in 1993, Karpov held the title until 1999, when he resigned his title in protest against FIDE's new world championship rules. Wikipedia has a pretty good history of all the sordid details of the World Championship mess we suffered through during those years. Does anybody really believe Alex Khalifman, Ruslan Ponomariov and Rustam Kasimdzhanov were really world champions?
For his decades-long standing among the world's elite, many consider Karpov one of the greatest players in history. His tournament successes include over 160 first-place finishes. He had a peak Elo rating of 2780, and his 102 total months at world number one is the third longest of all time, behind Magnus Carlsen and Garry Kasparov. In his heyday he was considered almost unbeatable.
Before the start of the candidates matches in 1974 most experts preferred the chances of both former world champions, Petrosian and Spassky. True, Karpov had tied for first with Leonid Stein in the star-studded 1971 Alekhine Memorial in Moscow, shared second in the USSR Chess Championship and finished equal first with Viktor Korchnoi in the Leningrad Interzonal, but few thought he had a chance in match play against the seasoned veterans.
Writing in the August 1974 issue of Chess Life and Review, Paul Keres considered Karpov one of the brightest stars among the rising young players on his way to a match with Bobby Fischer for the world championship. Karpov had developed a style that was rather unusual for a young GM. Most young players prefer sharp, complicated positions, but Karpov was a rare exception...he liked his chess calm and sober, not filled with complications or sharp tactics. For him it was all technique and he seldom lost a game.
Karpov defeated Lev Polugaevsky by the score of +3 -0 =5 in the first Candidates match, earning the right to face former champion Boris Spassky in the semifinal. Karpov actually believed Spassky would easily beat him and win the Candidates cycle to face Fischer. He was wrong.
Spassky won the first game, but that was it. Karpov won the match by a score of +4 -1 =6 then went on to secure the world title when Fischer wouldn’t play him and leaving the world to forever wonder what the outcome of a Fischer-Karpov match would have been.
Kasparov put forth the opinion that Karpov would have had good chances against Fischer because Karpov had beaten Spassky so convincingly and was a new breed of tough professional. Additionally, Karpov had been steadily playing a lot of quality games while Fischer had been inactive for three years. Spassky thought that Fischer would have won in 1975 but Karpov would have qualified again and beaten Fischer in 1978. A Chessbase article discusses the issue based on computer models HERE.
Getting back to the Karpov-Spassky match, Spassky seemed rather uncertain of himself and did not demonstrate his usual fighting spirit. He also had trouble handling Karpov’s openings and Spassky himself had some dubious opening experiments.
Even so, Paul Keres thought Spassky lost the match because of psychological reasons. It was Keres’ opinion that Spassky was unsure of his opening preparation and had simply lost faith in his own abilities. Here is one of the more interesting games of the match, the third game.
Karpov 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 7.0
Spassky 1 ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 4.0
[Event "Candidates Semifinal"]
[Site "Leningrad URS"]
[Date "1974.4.17"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Anatoly Karpov"]
[Black "Boris Spassky"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
1. d4 {Already a surprise for Spassky. Karpov almost always played 1.e4.}
1... Nf6 2. c4 g6 {Keres though Spassky should not have played this, but
rather something "quieter."} 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 c5 {Usual
is 6... e5, but Spassky is trying to lure Karpov into complications. Instead,
true to his style, Karpov chooses a quiet continuation.} 7. O-O Bg4 {A sign of
Spassky's poor opening preparation. This move is of doubtful value because he
will be forced to exchange the B without getting any real chances for
counterplay. He could have switched to the Maroczy Bind in the Sicilian with
7. ..cxd4. Or, he could have tried 7...Nc6.} 8. d5 {Releasing the pressure on
d4 and restricting black's mobility.} 8... Nbd7 {Playing 8...e6 is not good.
After 9. dxe6 black has weak Ps and if he rakes with the B he has lost time.
Worth considering was 8...Na6 and ...Nc7 to prepare ...b5.} 9. Bg5 a6 10. a4
Qc7 11. Qd2 {White has the more promising position owing to his space
advantage.} 11... Rae8 {Spassky is preparing play on the e-file.} 12. h3 Bxf3
13. Bxf3 e6 {Now Karpov could play 14.dxe6 but he prefers to keeps the
position closed and play on the Q-side.} 14. b3 {Keres point out the
significance of this move. It prevents the line 14...exd5 15.cxd5 and now,
thanks to the P on b3, black can't play ... c4. Well, he could but it would
be bad. After 15...c4 16.b4! black's c-Pawn would be very weak. If 16...b5
17.axb5 axb5 18.Nxb5 wins a P.} 14... Kh8 15. Be3 Ng8 {Beginning preparations
for ...f5 which Karpov takes plans to hinder.} 16. Be2 e5 17. g4 {A most
interesting move! Karpov and Keres both thought this an excellent move with
Keres giving it a ! with the explanation that after 17... f5 18.exf5 gxf5
19,gxf5 white has a clear positional advantage. Stockfish doesn't think it's
more than 0.00 and prefers 18.f3 with only a very small advantage for white.}
17... Qd8 18. Kg2 {Spassky is facing a dilemma. 17...a5 to prevent white from
expanding on the Q-side can be met by 18.h4! and it's white with a virulent
K-side attack. And, 18...f5 is still not very promising though it's probably
best. Instead Spassky decides to play with fire and puts his Q in danger
hoping to confuse Karpov. It doesn't work...Karpov just keeps playing simple
positional chess.} 18... Qh4 19. f3 Bh6 {This move was harshly criticized
because it costs him two valuable tempos. Tal's suggestion of 19... f5 was
still his best choice.} 20. g5 {What a great move!} 20... Bg7 21. Bf2 Qf4 22.
Be3 Qh4 23. Qe1 {Why trade Qs when black's Q appears to be in danger?
Actually it's not because there is no way white can take advantage of it, so
Karpov chooses another more positional plan; the trad eof Qs practically
eliminates black's attacking chances on the K-side and white can now
concentrate on his Q-side plans...namely opening the b-file. Keres considers
that strategically black is lost. Indeed...Stockfish puts white's advantage
at 1.75.} 23... Qxe1 24. Rfxe1 h6 25. h4 hxg5 26. hxg5 Ne7 27. a5 f6 28. Reb1
fxg5 29. b4 {There is no need to monkey around capturing on g5.} 29... Nf5
{Brilliant... insufficient...but brilliant!! If white plays 30.exf5 black ends
up getting two Ps and counterplay for his piece. Theoretically white could
get away with taking the N, but practically it was a good idea to avoid that
path.} 30. Bxg5 Nd4 {Karpov has calculated that the N which is beautifully
placed on d4 is strictly a show piece...it doesn't accomplish anything.} 31.
bxc5 Nxc5 32. Rb6 {The decisive move. In order to defend the d-Pawn Spassky
is going to have to give up the exchange and the rest is, as they say, a
matter of technique which Karpov had a ton of.} 32... Bf6 33. Rh1+ Kg7 34.
Bh6+ Kg8 35. Bxf8 Rxf8 36. Rxd6 Kg7 37. Bd1 Be7 38. Rb6 Bd8 39. Rb1 Rf7 40.
Na4 Nd3 {By keeping both Ns Spassky tries to create some annoying threats.}
41. Nb6 g5 42. Nc8 {Another brilliant move that defends against black's threat
of g4. Now if 42...g4 43.Nd6 gxf3+ 44.Kf1 followed by 44...Rf8 45.Rg1+ and
46.Rxb7 leaving black completely lost.} 42... Nc5 43. Nd6 Rd7 44. Nf5+ Nxf5
45. exf5 e4 {Here the game was adjourned with Spassky sealing this move. It
is surprising that he even bothered to resume the game after home analysis.
Stockfish is showing white with a huge advantage of over 4.50 which is more
than enough for Karpov to win with no great trouble.} 46. fxe4 Nxe4 47. Ba4
Re7 48. Rbe1 Nc5 49. Rxe7+ Bxe7 {The exchange of Rs has eliminated all hope
for black.} 50. Bc2 Bd8 51. Ra1 Kf6 52. d6 Nd7 53. Rb1 Ke5 54. Rd1 Kf4 55.
Re1 1-0
[Site "Leningrad URS"]
[Date "1974.4.17"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Anatoly Karpov"]
[Black "Boris Spassky"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
1. d4 {Already a surprise for Spassky. Karpov almost always played 1.e4.}
1... Nf6 2. c4 g6 {Keres though Spassky should not have played this, but
rather something "quieter."} 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 c5 {Usual
is 6... e5, but Spassky is trying to lure Karpov into complications. Instead,
true to his style, Karpov chooses a quiet continuation.} 7. O-O Bg4 {A sign of
Spassky's poor opening preparation. This move is of doubtful value because he
will be forced to exchange the B without getting any real chances for
counterplay. He could have switched to the Maroczy Bind in the Sicilian with
7. ..cxd4. Or, he could have tried 7...Nc6.} 8. d5 {Releasing the pressure on
d4 and restricting black's mobility.} 8... Nbd7 {Playing 8...e6 is not good.
After 9. dxe6 black has weak Ps and if he rakes with the B he has lost time.
Worth considering was 8...Na6 and ...Nc7 to prepare ...b5.} 9. Bg5 a6 10. a4
Qc7 11. Qd2 {White has the more promising position owing to his space
advantage.} 11... Rae8 {Spassky is preparing play on the e-file.} 12. h3 Bxf3
13. Bxf3 e6 {Now Karpov could play 14.dxe6 but he prefers to keeps the
position closed and play on the Q-side.} 14. b3 {Keres point out the
significance of this move. It prevents the line 14...exd5 15.cxd5 and now,
thanks to the P on b3, black can't play ... c4. Well, he could but it would
be bad. After 15...c4 16.b4! black's c-Pawn would be very weak. If 16...b5
17.axb5 axb5 18.Nxb5 wins a P.} 14... Kh8 15. Be3 Ng8 {Beginning preparations
for ...f5 which Karpov takes plans to hinder.} 16. Be2 e5 17. g4 {A most
interesting move! Karpov and Keres both thought this an excellent move with
Keres giving it a ! with the explanation that after 17... f5 18.exf5 gxf5
19,gxf5 white has a clear positional advantage. Stockfish doesn't think it's
more than 0.00 and prefers 18.f3 with only a very small advantage for white.}
17... Qd8 18. Kg2 {Spassky is facing a dilemma. 17...a5 to prevent white from
expanding on the Q-side can be met by 18.h4! and it's white with a virulent
K-side attack. And, 18...f5 is still not very promising though it's probably
best. Instead Spassky decides to play with fire and puts his Q in danger
hoping to confuse Karpov. It doesn't work...Karpov just keeps playing simple
positional chess.} 18... Qh4 19. f3 Bh6 {This move was harshly criticized
because it costs him two valuable tempos. Tal's suggestion of 19... f5 was
still his best choice.} 20. g5 {What a great move!} 20... Bg7 21. Bf2 Qf4 22.
Be3 Qh4 23. Qe1 {Why trade Qs when black's Q appears to be in danger?
Actually it's not because there is no way white can take advantage of it, so
Karpov chooses another more positional plan; the trad eof Qs practically
eliminates black's attacking chances on the K-side and white can now
concentrate on his Q-side plans...namely opening the b-file. Keres considers
that strategically black is lost. Indeed...Stockfish puts white's advantage
at 1.75.} 23... Qxe1 24. Rfxe1 h6 25. h4 hxg5 26. hxg5 Ne7 27. a5 f6 28. Reb1
fxg5 29. b4 {There is no need to monkey around capturing on g5.} 29... Nf5
{Brilliant... insufficient...but brilliant!! If white plays 30.exf5 black ends
up getting two Ps and counterplay for his piece. Theoretically white could
get away with taking the N, but practically it was a good idea to avoid that
path.} 30. Bxg5 Nd4 {Karpov has calculated that the N which is beautifully
placed on d4 is strictly a show piece...it doesn't accomplish anything.} 31.
bxc5 Nxc5 32. Rb6 {The decisive move. In order to defend the d-Pawn Spassky
is going to have to give up the exchange and the rest is, as they say, a
matter of technique which Karpov had a ton of.} 32... Bf6 33. Rh1+ Kg7 34.
Bh6+ Kg8 35. Bxf8 Rxf8 36. Rxd6 Kg7 37. Bd1 Be7 38. Rb6 Bd8 39. Rb1 Rf7 40.
Na4 Nd3 {By keeping both Ns Spassky tries to create some annoying threats.}
41. Nb6 g5 42. Nc8 {Another brilliant move that defends against black's threat
of g4. Now if 42...g4 43.Nd6 gxf3+ 44.Kf1 followed by 44...Rf8 45.Rg1+ and
46.Rxb7 leaving black completely lost.} 42... Nc5 43. Nd6 Rd7 44. Nf5+ Nxf5
45. exf5 e4 {Here the game was adjourned with Spassky sealing this move. It
is surprising that he even bothered to resume the game after home analysis.
Stockfish is showing white with a huge advantage of over 4.50 which is more
than enough for Karpov to win with no great trouble.} 46. fxe4 Nxe4 47. Ba4
Re7 48. Rbe1 Nc5 49. Rxe7+ Bxe7 {The exchange of Rs has eliminated all hope
for black.} 50. Bc2 Bd8 51. Ra1 Kf6 52. d6 Nd7 53. Rb1 Ke5 54. Rd1 Kf4 55.
Re1 1-0
Thursday, June 27, 2019
Rzeschewski Visits Cleveland
On January 27, 1921 Samuel Rzeschewski paid his first visit to Cleveland, Ohio at the invitation of the City Club of Cleveland, one of the most influential organizations in the State and with headquarters at the Hollenden Hotel, a luxury hotel that was demolished in 1989 and replaced by the Bank One Center, now known as Fifth Third Center.
Francis T. Hayes, secretary of the City Club of Cleveland, was mostly the one responsible for getting Rzeschewski to town and he arrived in the evening to meet twenty opponents who had to date only heard of the boy’s prowess in the East; now they were going to test him for themselves. They failed.
His opponents were Irving Spero (city champion), Henry Lapidas (13-year old champion of the Jewish Orphan Asylum), John D. Fackler (president of the City Club of Cleveland), E.C. Hopwood (editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer), C.A. Mills (one time Pacific Coast champ), S.H. Shapiro (Ohio champion in 1914 and 1915), Elliott Stearns (a former Ohio Champion) and Raymond Clapp, A.M. Chatham, J.J. Hoornstra, Stanley Koch, B.F. Loeffler, Walter Peters, E.D. Pickering, E.N. Moore, I. Laufman, Alfred Tozer, J.E. Weil, James Walton and M.A. Goldsmith.
There was an audience seated on rising tiers around the walls of the room and two large demonstration boards, eight feet square, showed the games of Spero and Lapidas. Rzeschewski scored 17 wins, 2 draws and a loss. Mills and Stearns got the draws while the referees awarded Moore the win after the game was stopped so Rzeschewski could catch his midnight train back to New York City.
Sammy was back in town on February 3rd, appearing at the Globe Theater where he met 17 opponents. Irving Spero and Aaron Schwartz were referees as Sammy skunked the opposition 17-0.
His opponents were: King, Heimlich, S. Dworkovitz, S. Ravinson, Louis Neimark, Biskin, J.L. Lowenberg, Pocus, Dr. B.M. Becker, Dr. H. Tabakin, Frank Zucker, L. Garvin, N. Kochman, B. Eisner, Dr. Laufman, Henry Lapida and S.H. Shapiro. It’s safe to assume that Louis Neimark was related to the obscure girl prodigy Celia Neimark.
Before returning to New York, Rzeschewski was invited to play at the Union Club where on February 5th a team of 10 players made a comparatively good showing by scoring a point and a half against him.
His opponents were: Elliott Stearns, A.E. Christian, J.B. Clogh, Henry Corning, Dr. A.C. Mills, A.W. Thompson, C.H. Royon and E.N. Moore; they were all defeated. A.D. Hillyar got a draw and Irving Spero won.
Irving Spero (June 15, 1892-August 17, 1955) was born in Poland and was Ohio and Cleveland champion in 1921. Spero eventually moved to California. His name appears in this clipping from the Los Angles Times. Note: Less than a year later columnist Clif Sherwwod committed murder and suicide!
I also found mention of him in the Southern California Chess League’s Western Chess Chronicle dated 1935:
It was my intention to publish Spero's win over Rzeschewski, but I was surprised to find no record of it; I am sure it was published somewhere, but none of my sources had it. Spero's loss shows up several places, but it's not worth looking at because blundered away a N on simple oversight at move 19! He played on until move 33, but it was a waste of time. So, instead here is E.N. Moore's win.As far as I know, E.N. Moore's name only shows up in the 1921 Ohio Championship.
Francis T. Hayes, secretary of the City Club of Cleveland, was mostly the one responsible for getting Rzeschewski to town and he arrived in the evening to meet twenty opponents who had to date only heard of the boy’s prowess in the East; now they were going to test him for themselves. They failed.
His opponents were Irving Spero (city champion), Henry Lapidas (13-year old champion of the Jewish Orphan Asylum), John D. Fackler (president of the City Club of Cleveland), E.C. Hopwood (editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer), C.A. Mills (one time Pacific Coast champ), S.H. Shapiro (Ohio champion in 1914 and 1915), Elliott Stearns (a former Ohio Champion) and Raymond Clapp, A.M. Chatham, J.J. Hoornstra, Stanley Koch, B.F. Loeffler, Walter Peters, E.D. Pickering, E.N. Moore, I. Laufman, Alfred Tozer, J.E. Weil, James Walton and M.A. Goldsmith.
There was an audience seated on rising tiers around the walls of the room and two large demonstration boards, eight feet square, showed the games of Spero and Lapidas. Rzeschewski scored 17 wins, 2 draws and a loss. Mills and Stearns got the draws while the referees awarded Moore the win after the game was stopped so Rzeschewski could catch his midnight train back to New York City.
Sammy was back in town on February 3rd, appearing at the Globe Theater where he met 17 opponents. Irving Spero and Aaron Schwartz were referees as Sammy skunked the opposition 17-0.
His opponents were: King, Heimlich, S. Dworkovitz, S. Ravinson, Louis Neimark, Biskin, J.L. Lowenberg, Pocus, Dr. B.M. Becker, Dr. H. Tabakin, Frank Zucker, L. Garvin, N. Kochman, B. Eisner, Dr. Laufman, Henry Lapida and S.H. Shapiro. It’s safe to assume that Louis Neimark was related to the obscure girl prodigy Celia Neimark.
Before returning to New York, Rzeschewski was invited to play at the Union Club where on February 5th a team of 10 players made a comparatively good showing by scoring a point and a half against him.
His opponents were: Elliott Stearns, A.E. Christian, J.B. Clogh, Henry Corning, Dr. A.C. Mills, A.W. Thompson, C.H. Royon and E.N. Moore; they were all defeated. A.D. Hillyar got a draw and Irving Spero won.
Irving Spero (June 15, 1892-August 17, 1955) was born in Poland and was Ohio and Cleveland champion in 1921. Spero eventually moved to California. His name appears in this clipping from the Los Angles Times. Note: Less than a year later columnist Clif Sherwwod committed murder and suicide!
I also found mention of him in the Southern California Chess League’s Western Chess Chronicle dated 1935:
It was my intention to publish Spero's win over Rzeschewski, but I was surprised to find no record of it; I am sure it was published somewhere, but none of my sources had it. Spero's loss shows up several places, but it's not worth looking at because blundered away a N on simple oversight at move 19! He played on until move 33, but it was a waste of time. So, instead here is E.N. Moore's win.As far as I know, E.N. Moore's name only shows up in the 1921 Ohio Championship.
[Event "Simul Cleveland Ohio"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1921.1.27"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Sammy Rzeschewski"]
[Black "E.N. Moore"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Ruy Lopez: Berlin Defense} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 {The Berlin Defense
has long had a reputation for being solid and drawish and is commonly referred
to as the Berlin Wall. It was played in the late 19th century and early 20th
century by Emanuel Lasker and others, but it eventually fell out of favor.
Arthur Bisguier played it for decades, but he was about the only one. It
wasn't until Vladimir Kramnik successfully used it as a drawing weapon against
Garry Kasparov in their 2000 World Championship match that the Berlin
experienced a remarkable comeback.} 4. O-O {Also popular is 4.Nc3.} 4... Nxe4
5. d4 exd4 {This move has not resulted in any great success for black and so
5...Nd6 is considered much better.} 6. Re1 {Rozentalis-Kaminski, Krynica 1997
continued 6...f5?! 7.Nxd4 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 c6 when white wasn't able to prove he
had any advantage and the game was drawn in 21 moves.} 6... d5 7. Nxd4 Bd6 {If
8. Nxc6 Bxh2+ 9.Kh1 Qh4 10.Rxe4+ dxe4 11.Qd8+ Qxd8 12.Nxd8+ Kxd8 13.Kxh2 and
white has a B and N vs a R and two Ps. According to Stockfish this represents
a considerable advantage, but Komodo 10 only gives him a slight advantage. In
Borisov,P-Dyshlevoy,F/Dniepropetrovsk 2003, the game ended in a draw.} 8. Qf3
Bd7 9. Bxc6 {Black is slightly better. White should have exchanged on c6, but
with the N, not the B. Now black has the two Bs and is better developed.}
9... bxc6 10. Nd2 f5 11. Nf1 O-O 12. Bf4 Qf6 13. c3 Rf7 {Moore intends to lift
this R to e7.} 14. Ng3 Re8 15. Bxd6 {White has succeeded in eliminating any
potential threats the two Bs may have represented and at the same time black
is left with a bad B. But, as will soon become apparent, black dominates the
position and so has a considerable advantage.} 15... cxd6 16. Re2 Rfe7 17.
Rae1 g6 {Black appears to be in no hurry to play ...c5.} 18. Nb3 Bc8 19. Qd3
Nc5 20. Nxc5 dxc5 21. Rxe7 Rxe7 22. Rxe7 Qxe7 23. Qe2 Qxe2 24. Nxe2 Ba6 {As
mentioned, Rezeschewski had to catch a midnight train to New York, so one does
not know how much time he devoted to this move, or even if he had a lot of
time, would he have realized his next move loses?} 25. Nf4 {After 25.Nc1
keeping the N close to the action he might have had drawing chances after
25...d4 26.f4! In Shootouts black scored two wins and 3 draws.} 25... d4 26.
g3 {Here the game was abandoned so Sammy could catch his train and the judges
correctly awarded black the win. After 26...d3 white has to give up the N to
stop the P leaving black a B ahead.} 0-1
[Site "?"]
[Date "1921.1.27"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Sammy Rzeschewski"]
[Black "E.N. Moore"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]
%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Ruy Lopez: Berlin Defense} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 {The Berlin Defense
has long had a reputation for being solid and drawish and is commonly referred
to as the Berlin Wall. It was played in the late 19th century and early 20th
century by Emanuel Lasker and others, but it eventually fell out of favor.
Arthur Bisguier played it for decades, but he was about the only one. It
wasn't until Vladimir Kramnik successfully used it as a drawing weapon against
Garry Kasparov in their 2000 World Championship match that the Berlin
experienced a remarkable comeback.} 4. O-O {Also popular is 4.Nc3.} 4... Nxe4
5. d4 exd4 {This move has not resulted in any great success for black and so
5...Nd6 is considered much better.} 6. Re1 {Rozentalis-Kaminski, Krynica 1997
continued 6...f5?! 7.Nxd4 Nxd4 8.Qxd4 c6 when white wasn't able to prove he
had any advantage and the game was drawn in 21 moves.} 6... d5 7. Nxd4 Bd6 {If
8. Nxc6 Bxh2+ 9.Kh1 Qh4 10.Rxe4+ dxe4 11.Qd8+ Qxd8 12.Nxd8+ Kxd8 13.Kxh2 and
white has a B and N vs a R and two Ps. According to Stockfish this represents
a considerable advantage, but Komodo 10 only gives him a slight advantage. In
Borisov,P-Dyshlevoy,F/Dniepropetrovsk 2003, the game ended in a draw.} 8. Qf3
Bd7 9. Bxc6 {Black is slightly better. White should have exchanged on c6, but
with the N, not the B. Now black has the two Bs and is better developed.}
9... bxc6 10. Nd2 f5 11. Nf1 O-O 12. Bf4 Qf6 13. c3 Rf7 {Moore intends to lift
this R to e7.} 14. Ng3 Re8 15. Bxd6 {White has succeeded in eliminating any
potential threats the two Bs may have represented and at the same time black
is left with a bad B. But, as will soon become apparent, black dominates the
position and so has a considerable advantage.} 15... cxd6 16. Re2 Rfe7 17.
Rae1 g6 {Black appears to be in no hurry to play ...c5.} 18. Nb3 Bc8 19. Qd3
Nc5 20. Nxc5 dxc5 21. Rxe7 Rxe7 22. Rxe7 Qxe7 23. Qe2 Qxe2 24. Nxe2 Ba6 {As
mentioned, Rezeschewski had to catch a midnight train to New York, so one does
not know how much time he devoted to this move, or even if he had a lot of
time, would he have realized his next move loses?} 25. Nf4 {After 25.Nc1
keeping the N close to the action he might have had drawing chances after
25...d4 26.f4! In Shootouts black scored two wins and 3 draws.} 25... d4 26.
g3 {Here the game was abandoned so Sammy could catch his train and the judges
correctly awarded black the win. After 26...d3 white has to give up the N to
stop the P leaving black a B ahead.} 0-1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


















