Raphael Persitz

       Raphael Persitz (May 26, 1934 – Feb 4, 2009), born in Tel Aviv, was the greatest natural chess talent in Israel. As a 20-year-old playing on second board, he made an excellent 7.5/9 score in the 1954 students' Olympaid and made a respectable showing in the Hastings tournaments in the mid-1950s. From 1958 to 1962, he was the strongest Israeli player having defeated other Israeli players like Czerniak, Porat, Aloni.

        He represented Israel in the Leipzig 1960 Olympiad in 1960 and scored 60% score, the second-best on the team. As a student in Oxford, he defeated C. H. O'D. Alexander, the former British champion.
       He was always an amateur who spent little time on chess.  Moshe Czerniak noted in Israel in the Chess Olympiads, 'It's a pity Rafee Persitz doesn't devote more time to chess. He should have been an excellent International Master by now.'  Persitz studied economics and became a well-known financial analyst and had several long-standing fights with the Israeli Chess Association's administration.  He once sent a letter to the ICA which began, "Dear honorable gangsters, ...".
       He was known not only for his natural talent, but for his for his excellent written analysis anf was a long time contributor to the British Chess Magazine's 'The Student Corner'.  In addition he authored three chess books in Hebrew.
       Persitz was Israeli Junior Champion in 1951. He studied at Balliol College, Oxford, and represented Oxford University in the annual match against Cambridge University on three occasions (1954, 1955 and 1956).  
       Persitz played three times for England in the World Student Team Chess Championship.

In 1954, at second board in 1st WST-ch in Oslo (+6 −0 =3);

In 1956, at first board in 3rd WST-ch in Uppsala (+3 −1 =6);

In 1957, at first board in 4th WST-ch in Reykjavik (+3 −6 =4).

He won the individual gold medal at Oslo 1954.

       In 1955/56, he tied for 6-7th in Hastings. In 1958, he played in Haifa / Tel Aviv and in 1961, he tied for 7-8th in Netanya.    In 1968/69, he tied for 8-10th in Hastings.

       After college he moved to Switzerland where for 15 years he worked with his father in the banking business in Geneva.  Persitz’ grandmother, Shoshana Persitz, was a member of the first Knesset (the Israeli Parliament).

Queen Alice Boogered Up Again?!

I did a recent post about this excellent CC site's server problems where the site owner had to cancel everybody's active games due to the database getting corrupted.  Unfortunately there seems to be more problems.  A few days ago I tried to sign on and couldn't.  Sometime later I managed to sign on OK, but yesterday and today it took a long time for the site to load.  At one point I gave up waiting and returned for another try a few hours later.  The site loaded but it took a long time and when trying to navigate the site it was moving at a snail's pace.

I don't know what's happening, but whatever it is, it's unfortunate because it was such a great site.  In the meantime it's probably best to avoid playing there.  I'd hate to start a tournament until I'm sure things are back to normal.

Manuel Gerardo Monasterio

     Who?! In 1999 he began playing by email at IECG. In 2003 he was the third Argentinean player to receive an official title on IECG, Email Master. After earning the IECG EM title he apparently became inactive. Monasterio was a writer on Jeremy Silman’s site where he wrote a correspondence chess openings section.
     By profession he is a Licensed Psychologist and Medical Doctor (also a PHD in Botanic Medicine) writer and lecturer on Compared Religions, Beliefs and Practical Philosophy. As a hobby he composes songs.
     There are some very interesting opening articles on Silman’s site that are worth checking out. His annotations are particularly instructive. VIEW ARTICLES

An Ending Rare as Hen's Teeth!

      In endings with a K+2B’s or K+B+N it’s well-known that the superior side can deliver mate if he knows the technique.  In the case of 2N’s mate cannot be forced against the correct defense (which is really very easy).
      However, if the lone K has a Pawn then in some cases a mate can be forced. Sometimes it can require over 100 moves to do so though.  The reason a mate can be forced is that the defender’s P gives him a move and deprives him of a stalemate defense.
      The technique is to block the P with one N and use the K and other N to force the opposing K into a corner or near the other N. Then when the block on the defender’s P is removed, the N can be used to checkmate
      The fact that 2N’s can sometimes win against one or more P’s was known at least as early as 1780.  In 1851 Horwitz and Kling published three positions where the N’s win against one pawn and two positions where they win against two pawns.  Then Troitsky started studying the endgame in the early 20th century and published his extensive analysis in 1937. Modern computer analysis found it to be very accurate.
      Games with this ending are rare – Troitzky knew of only six when he published his analysis in 1937. In the first four (from c. 1890 to 1913), the weaker side brought about the ending to obtain a draw with an opponent who did not know how to win. The first master game with a win was in 1931 when Adolf Seitz beat Eugene Znosko-Borovsky. And in more recent times Karpov once lost an ending with a P vs. 2N’s to Topalov in a rapid play event.
      I recently entered a correspondence tournament and in the process of checking out a few games by one of my opponents I came across this very interesting mate!

WGM Natalia Pogonina Answers

Shares some of her most popular Questions and Answers dedicated to chess in general on Chessdotcom.

I found the following of some significance especially because she agrees with me on the first and last question!

What are the good and bad gambits for people rated under 2000?
People under 2000 have a lot to learn about chess, and that should be done by playing classical systems, not relying on outsmarting the opponent by playing a rare gambit. So, if you wish to improve, you had better either abandon gambits completely, or play only the most reliable ones (e.g. Queen's gambit, the Benko, Marshall gambit, etc.). There are dozens of them, but you can easily Google the info on any opening and find out whether it's considered to be sound or not. Don't play for traps! On the other hand, if you have no intention of improving your game or results, you can play anything you like, even if it leaves you in a lost position after 10 moves.

I want to increase my rating. Should I wipe out a lower-rated tournament or play against stronger opposition?
If you wish to improve and increase your rating in the long run, it's better to "play up". Just make sure the field is not excessively strong (or you might lose all the games and hardly learn anything). Scoring next-to-perfect results in lower-rated groups is also a valuable experience, but you still need to face more skilled opponents to improve.

What is better: 2d computer chess or 3d (like an actual board and pieces)?
Many pros don't use the real chess boards at all (even Carlsen once said he doesn't). The times when you had to take a chess set with you during travels are long gone. However, at training sessions it's very convenient and useful to employ a real board. It helps you feel the position much better and memorize the main ideas by playing them out with your hands. Moving pieces on the computer screen is convenient and fast, but less efficient in terms of memorization. Therefore, I usually use both a computer and a chess board.

Is it ok that I'm playing 400 (500, 600) correspondence games simultaneously?
It's nothing to brag about. Playing so many games at a time, you spend a few seconds on each move. That leads to deterioration of skills and superficial play. Concentrate on quality rather than on quantity of games.

Beginners Opening Re-Revisited

A while back I did a couple of posts on the Beginners Opening and suggested it might be worthwhile for, well, beginners to play.  I tried this opening out in correspondence play and did a post on how I was soundly defeated by an ICCF Senior Master. 

Since doing those posts a couple things happened.  First, I discovered one of my CCLA games from several years ago where my 2100+ rated opponent played it against me.  I had no idea what he was doing at the time but it didn’t matter; he lost rather badly.  Secondly, I finished the CC tournament where I played this opening in all six games, and it was a horrible idea because I had the worst results ever:  +1 -4 =1 and a last place finish. 

In one particularly unpleasant loss I ended up with all my pieces huddled on the K-side on the first to third ranks; it was pitiful. It seems that when you play this your opponent simply has too many possibilities.  In most games they seized the center then proceeded to either crash through there or they successfully coupled their center control with a breakthrough on the flank.

If you have advanced beyond the beginner stage I am going to suggest you avoid this opening and play recognized openings!

Opening Statistics

One of the most serious use of engines by GM’s and high level CC players comes in the area of opening analysis.  Originally it was nothing more than a computer’s ability to store, search and retrieve positions but with the strength of today’s engines they can be useful in discovering innovations.  However, for most of us it’s a matter of using opening books to select our moves.  Our selections are often based on the favorable statistics of a given move.

We want to know what percentage of games from a position resulted in wins, losses or draws.  While useful, these statistics can also be very misleading.  Reasons for misleading statistics are 1) the number of games is too small to give reliable results. 2) Most games are decided by mistakes occurring later in the game and not as a direct result of the opening. 3) Unless the database is current, the statistics don’t take into account later improvements.  In an extreme example, White may have won 100 games in a given line, but a refutation may have been found that busts the line.  So the +100 -1 =0 stat means nothing. 4) Most DB’s don’t take into account the strength of the players. 5) Most stats don’t take into account the number of draws.  What does a score of 50% mean?  Out of 100 games were they all drawn, did White and Black each win 50 games or was the score +25 -25 =50?  With most DB stats, you just don’t know.

This latter factor can make a difference in your decision.  If you are the lower rated player who wants to gain some rating points or if you are playing for a title then you might want to consider playing the 100% drawing line.  On the other hand, if you are the higher rated player or a draw won’t do, you might want to play the +25 -25 =50 line.

So, to successfully use opening statistics you should have a large selection of games by highly rated players, it should be kept up-to-date and before actually playing any line you need to examine the entire game to see if the opening was responsible for the result or if it was the result of poor play occurring much later in the game.

Also, it is wise to select an opening you are familiar and comfortable with so when you get out of the book you will have some idea of how to continue.  You also have to pay attention to the number of draws that resulted from a particular line.  If you want to avoid a draw, then don’t pick a line that lead to 60% draws.  Most important of all, play over the entire game when evaluating the stats!  You will want to know if the result was influenced by the opening or an endgame blunder on move 75!

Recent games annotated by GM’s is another source for obtaining good information.  GM’s still have a better positional understanding than engines.  Once reaching a position of interest you can have the engine spend time searching deeper into positions the GM thought were worth examining. 

CC GM Robin Smith suggests that you use the following procedure: 1) on the first pass have the engine analyze at just a few seconds per move, say 5 seconds.  2) eliminate unpromising suggestions. 3) if you find a variation where the evaluation reverses, say from favorable for White to favorable for Black, delete the moves after the evaluation reverses.

Now you have an annotated game with lines of interest. Let the engine examine the suggested moves for as much time as you can.  It’s also a good idea to use more than one engine when doing this because they will often not agree on the best move and some engines are more optimistic than others. 

Once done, it’s time to take a look at what you have.  What do you do when the analysis suggests a move that the GM didn’t?  Who do you believe?  My experience is that when it comes to evaluating a position the GM’s ‘gut feeling’ is usually more reliable than the engine.  Still, the dilemma remains.  Is the engine suggested opening novelty a good one or not? 

We aren’t strong enough to make that decision, so what do we do?  One of the best ways of resolving the dilemma is probably playing a series of engine matches using the novelty and seeing if it is likely to result in success.

All of this will take time and patience, but it’s the way high level CC is played these days.  Even if you’re not playing ‘high level’ you can still use this technique to search out promising opening ideas in your games. 

Tough Game with a Material Imbalance

Edward Lasker

Edward Lasker (December 3, 1885 – March 25, 1981) was born in Kempen, near Breslau, now in Poland.  He learned chess form his father, whose own interest captured the fancy of a distant relative, Dr. Emmanuel Lasker.  Edward decided to study engineering in Berlin rather than Breslau because of the opportunities for playing chess that Berlin afforded.

In 1911 Lasker graduated cum laude with degrees in both mechanical and electrical engineering.  He did not have a doctorate although he was often called “Doctor.”  During his university days he won a match from Erich Cohn for the championship of Berlin.  At that time he also met and became friends with Dr. Emmanuel Lasker.  It was Edward that introduced Emmanuel to the game of Go and both had a lifelong interest in the game.

Lasker first read about Go in a magazine article which suggested Go as a rival to chess, a claim that he found amusing. Later his interest was piqued when he noticed the record of a Go game on the back of a Japanese newspaper being read by a customer of a cafe where they played chess. He and his friend Max Lange (not the chess player of the same name) took the paper left behind by the customer and deciphered the diagram. The position led them to assume that the notation under the game would indicate a Black victory, but being unable to read Japanese, they asked another Japanese customer at the cafe. To their surprise, it was a resignation by Black. Only after three weeks of study was Max Lange able to understand the reason for White's victory. This experience led them to a deeper appreciation for the game, and they studied it in earnest, but were unable to interest other chess players.

Two years later Emanuel Lasker, then the world chess champion, returned to Germany from the United States and when Edward told him that he had found a game to rival chess, he was skeptical, but after being told the rules, and playing one game, he understood that Go was strategically deep. They started studying Go with a Japanese student, and after two years were able to beat him with no handicap.

The student arranged a game for Edward, Emanuel, and Emanuel's brother Berthold, against a visiting Japanese mathematician, and strong Go player. The Laskers took a nine-stone handicap, and played in consultation with each other but their opponent beat them effortlessly and without taking much time to think. After the game, Emanuel suggested to Edward that they travel to Tokyo to study Go. So, in 1911, Edward got a job at AEG and after a year at the company he tried to get transferred to the Tokyo office, but as the company only posted fluent English speakers there, he went to work in England first.

As a result of the outbreak of World War I he never made it to Tokyo and while in England he was in danger of being interred as an enemy alien but eventually was given permission to travel to the United States, the birthplace of his mother.

Lasker was instrumental in developing Go in the U.S and helped found the American Go Association.  In 1971 he was the only westerner ever to be awarded the Ohkura Prizefor the promotion of Go. Lasker was also a music lover and a member of the Mark Twain Society.  Lasker published several books on American checkers, chess, and Go

After arriving in the US he found a job in Chicago and when America entered the war in 1917 he was sent enlistment papers, but with the right of exemption as a German. He waived his right to exemption which he said would make his American citizenship be granted more quickly but the war was over before he was called up to military service.

In 1921–23, he invented a mechanical breast pump which saved many premature infants' lives and made him reasonably wealthy.  He manufactured and marketed it himself then in 1932 he sold the patent but continued to work for the purchaser.

Lasker won five U.S. Open Championships (1916, 1917, 1919, 1920, 1921); in those days it was known as the Western Open. His best result was his narrow 8.5 – 9.5 loss in a match with Frank Marshall for the U.S. Championship in 1923. As a result of his narrow defeat by Marshall and with his chess reputation at its height, he was invited, along with ten of the world’s best players, to compete in the great New York, 1924 tournament.  As the only amateur in a very strong field of professionals his tenth place (out of 11) finish was not very good but he proved not to be easy pickings for the pros.  

In 1926 he began playing in earnest, visiting Cuba and participating in a number of US events but after that spurt of activity his engineering life took its toll on his chess life and his tournament appearance became infrequent.  He continued to participate in tournaments on occasion, his last being an “Old Timers” tournament at the Marshall Chess Club, of which he was the honorary president, in 1980 where he finished fourth with a score of 7 – 4.  Lasker lived on the Upper West Side of New York City until his death in 1981.

In the following game he plays an instructive ending against Rossolimo at Havana. Crosstable

Fischer at Bled 1961

Mikhail Tahl captured the Alekhine Memorial Tournament in Bled after losing the World Chess Championship earlier in the year to Mikhail Botvinnik. The tournament was a race to the finish with Bobby Fischer. The tournament was played in the Grand Hotel Toplice from September 3rd to October 3rd, 1961.

The only loss suffered by Tal in the tournament was in the second round at the hands of Fischer, who scored 3½ out of 4 against the "Russians". Actually he played a Ukrainian, an Armenian, and two from the Baltic states but, "They are all Russians to me!" Fischer said.

The final round was one of excitement.  Tahl had a half point lead on Fischer and a full point on Svetozar Gligoric. Fischer and Gligoric were the only remaining undefeated players and Tahl had only been victorious over the weaker players that were at the bottom of the standings. He had only scored 2½ out of 6 against the 2nd through 7th place finishers, with no wins against any of them.

Tahl also had the luxury of being the only player of the three in contention to have the white pieces in the final round. He fully utilized this advantage to defeat Miguel Najdorf.  Fischer had to settle for a draw with Borislav Ivkov while Gligoric suffered his lone defeat against Tigran Petrosian. The loss relegated him to a tie for 3rd-5th place with Petrosian and Paul Keres.

All games can be found HERE.

A crosstable and my post on Bisguier at Bled can be found HERE.

Check out the pdf article from the 2005 Chess Correspondent Magazine with two annotated games HERE.

Lajos Portisch

Now there’s a name that’s unknown to a lot of players today, but there was a time when Portisch (born 4 April 1937 in Zalaegerszeg, Hungary) was one of the world’s best players.  He was one of the strongest non-Soviet players from the early 1960s into the late 1980s and participated in twelve consecutive Interzonals from 1962 through 1993 and he qualified for the Candidates matches eight times (1965, 1968, 1974, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1985, and 1988).

In the Hungarian Championships he either shared the title or won it outright eight times (1958, 1959, 1961, 1964, 1965, 1971, 1975, and 1981). He also won many strong international tournaments during his career. In 2004, Portisch was awarded the Nemzet Sportoloja, Hungary's highest national sports achievement award. His main hobby is singing operatic arias; he has a fine baritone voice.  Chess skills are also shared by his younger brother, Ferenc (born 1939) who holds the IM title. 

Portisch represented Hungary at the World Junior Championship in1955. In that tournament he scored 4.5 – 2.5 in the preliminary round to advance to the final, where he scored 5.5 – 3.5 and finished fourth.  Boris Spassky won the event. 

Portisch successfully represented Hungary in several team matches in 1956 and 1957, against Poland, Estonia, the Soviet Union, Belarus, and Yugoslavia. He made his first Student Olympiad and full Olympiad appearances for Hungary in 1956 and eventually represented Hungary a record twenty Olympiads.

He won his first individual international event, Balatonfired, 1958 with 9 – 2 finishing ahead of Laszlo Szabo and Alexander Tolush.  Then he finished second at Hastings 1958-59 with 7 - 2 behind Wolfgang Uhlmann.  Portisch made his first national top-level appearance in 1955 at age 18, at the Hungarian Championship. He would eventually win or share the national title on eight occasions.

Portisch entered the World Championship cycle for the first time with the Madrid 1960 Zonal, where he tied for second/third place with Arturo Pomar and advanced along with Pomar and the winnier, Gligorich. Portisch was awarded the grandmaster title in 1961.

Portisch's first Interzonal appearance was Stockholm 1962, where he tied for ninth/tenth places, after losing a late round game to one of the tail-enders, and did not advance.

He won the Halle Zonal 1963 and advanced to the next Interzonal. Portisch qualified from the Amsterdam Interzonal in1964 and defeated Samuel Reshevsky in a playoff match to advance to the Candidates' series for the first time. He lost his match against Mikhail Tal, 2.5 - 5.5.

In 1967 he won the Halle Zonal and qualified for the Sousse Interzonal in 1967 where he finished in fifth place with 13.5 – 7.5  He then lost his first-round Candidates' match to Larsen in1968, by 4.5 - 5.5.  He qualified from the Raach 1969 Zonal then won a playoff (against Ivkov, Smejkal and Ulf Andersson) for a spot at Prague 1970.  Unfortunately he narrowly missed Candidates' qualification at Palma tghe Mallorca Interzonal 1970, tying with Vasily Smyslov for seventh/eighth places.

Portisch and Smyslov played a drawn match (3-3) at Portoroz 1971 for a reserve place in case somebody dropped out.  Portisch declared the winner based on his tiebreak score from Palma.  Nobody dropped out, so Portisch did not get to play.

Portisch qualified from the Petropolis Interzonal 1973, then surviving a three-man playoff for two berths against Lev Polugaevsky and Efim Geller for Portoroz 1973.  He again failed to survive his first Candidates match by narrowly losing to Tigran Petrosian who beat him 7 – 6.

At the 1976 Biel Interzonal, he tied for second/fourth places with Petrosian and Tal and in a three-way playoff for two spots Portisch scored 4 -4 for second place and Tahl was eliminated. In the Candidates' matches, he advanced to the semifinals after beating Bent Larsen by 6.5 - 3.5 but then lost to Boris Spassky by 6.5 - 8.5 in 1977.

In 1979 he advanced from the Rio de Janeiro Interzonal and got his revenge against Spassky in 1980, when he tied their quarterfinal match 7-7 in Mexico, and advanced to the semifinals since he had more victories with the Black pieces. He then lost the semi-final to Huebner by 4.5-6.5 in 1980.

Portisch still wasn’t done with Interzonals!  He qualified from the Toluca Interzonal in1982, where he tied for first/second with Eugenio Torre but, once again, failed to advance when he lost to Viktor Korchnoi by 3 - 6 at Bad Kissingen 1983. In 1985 in the Tunis Interzonal he qualified for the Montpellier Candidates' tournament but also failed to advance.

At the 1987 Szirak Interzonal, Portisch tied for third/fourth places with John Nunn whom he defeated 4-2 and again advanced to the Candidates.   This time he won his first-round match at by 3.5 - 2.5 over Rafael Vaganian but then lost to Jan Timman by 2.5-3.5 at Antwerp 1989.

At the 1990 Manila Interzonal, he scored 9.5 – 8.5 and in the 1993 Biel Interzonal he scored 7.5 – 5.5 and failed to advance in either tournament

Portisch was very active on the international tournament scene, participating in many top class events from the late 1950s through the early 1990s, and was a top performer for over thirty years, often finishing ahead of the top Soviet Grandmasters.  He won at least one major international event per year for nearly two decades. He was known as a “mini-Botvinnik” because his style resembled the Soviet Champions’.

A recent interview with Portisch can be found on Chessbase.

Portisch Inverview I

Portisch Interview 2

The 13th Soviet Championship

The 13th Soviet Chess Championship was held in Moscow from May 21st to June 17th, 1944 and aroused unusual interest because it was the first national tournament since the outbreak of WW2.  All the competitors went into training before the tournament began.

Twelve of the Soviet Union's best chess masters qualified for the round robin event from three semi-final tournaments played earlier in the year. It was the first USSR championship since the absolute championship in 1941. The Second World War had shut down competition, but with the end of the war looming on the horizon and Soviet belief in victory, the return of professional chess in the Soviet Union was a move to rebuild the ranks of Soviet players and an opportunity for dominance greater than before the war.

The war had done nothing to dull the skills of Botvinnik who finished the event with eleven wins and twelve and a half points out of sixteen at the final. It was his second consecutive win, counting the absolute championship, and his fourth Soviet championship. The war had interrupted Botvinnik's attempt to play a world championship with Alekhine, so he was competing to prove himself the rightful challenger.

Botvinnik went into the country with Ragozin two weeks before the start and they played many training games with the radio blasting because they were afraid the tournament hall might be noisy and wanted to accustom themselves to disturbances.  Botvinnik later said it was an unnecessary precaution because it turned out that the spectators were well behaved.

Vyacheslav Ragozin's wide range of achievements, breadth of expertise and specialized knowledge had not escaped the attention of Botvinnik who recognized that Ragozin would make an ideal sparring partner.  Ragozin's style had always been risky, particularly with regard to the sacrifice of pawns for the initiative. Botvinnik was attempting to put together a repertoire of solid, reliable openings so it was important that they were tested.  Ragozin's contribution was a significant factor in Botvinnik's success.

It was a close race all the way and anyone was liable to be defeated by anyone else.  For example, Botvinnik lost two games to players who did not finish anywhere near the top, Tolush and Bronstein. 

At the beginning Botvinnik found it hard to get into stride.  In his game against last place finisher Ravinsky he got a winning position twice but subsequent mistakes meant he had to play a marathon 126 moves involving two adjournments before securing the point.

One surprise of the tournament was Vassily Smyslov’s quick start.  Smyslov scored a surprising 6.5 out of 7.  It wasn’t all due to his skill however.  Luck played a part.  Against Vladimir Makogonov and Alexander Kotov they both threw away probable wins.  After his phenomenal start Smyslov was to suffer some major disappointments.  After his eighth round defeat by Botvinnik in a difficult game, Smyslov seemed to run out of gas. 

The success scored by 24-year old Isaac Boleslavsky was something of a surprise.  He was known to be a good tournament player, a deep and original analyst, but he had a certain lack of stamina that always seemed to plague him.  In this tournament he played with great patience and persistence.

One player who had been expected to finish well was Salo Flohr, but it was evident immediately after the start that he was showing no fighting spirit.  As was to become his hallmark, when offered a draw, he could not refuse it.  Flohr only lost two games but nine draws caused his results to suffer.  Botvinnik wrote that an indication of listlessness showed in their adjourned game.  After five hours of analysis Botvinnik determined that their game was a draw but when they resumed play, Flohr immediately played a losing continuation. 

Almost every player came up with one or two opening novelties and palyed several good games.  The tournament was important for two reasons.  First, it showed the extremely high level of play of the top Soviet players and second, it demonstrated the tremendous popularity of chess in the Soviet Union.

The first point was to be proven not long after the event.  There was a proposal of a radio match between the United States and Russia being floated around.  When it finally took place the Soviet team stunned the Americans by overwhelmingly defeating them.

The final standings and crosstable:

13th USSR Championship, Moscow 1944

 1. Botvinnik, Mikhail    x 1 1 1 ½ 1 0 1 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 0 1 1  12½- 3½

 2. Smyslov, Vassily      0 x 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 0 ½ 1 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 1  10½- 5½

 3. Boleslavsky, Isaac    0 1 x ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 0 1 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½  10 - 6

 4. Flohr, Salo           0 ½ ½ x ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 0 1 1 ½ 1   9½- 6½

 5. Makogonov, Vladimir   ½ 0 ½ ½ x ½ 0 0 0 1 ½ 1 1 1 ½ 1 1   9 - 7

 6. Mikenas, Vladimir     0 0 ½ ½ ½ x 1 ½ 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1   9 - 7

 7. Tolush, Alexander     1 0 0 0 1 0 x 1 ½ 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1   8½- 7½

 8. Veresov, Gavriil      0 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 x ½ 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 ½   7½- 8½

 9. Lilienthal, Andre     0 1 0 ½ 1 1 ½ ½ x ½ 0 ½ 0 1 0 ½ ½   7½- 8½

10. Sokolsky, Alexey      ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 0 0 0 ½ x ½ 1 0 1 1 1 0   7½- 8½

11. Kotov, Alexander      0 0 0 ½ ½ 0 0 1 1 ½ x ½ 1 0 1 1 0   7 - 9

12. Lisitsyn, Georgy      0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 ½ 0 ½ x ½ 0 ½ 1 1   7 - 9

13. Ragozin, Viacheslav   ½ 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ½ x 1 0 ½ 1   7 - 9

14. Khasin, Abram         0 ½ 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 x 1 1 ½   7 - 9

15. Bronstein, David      1 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 1 0 1 0 0 ½ 1 0 x 0 ½   6½- 9½

16. Alatortsev, Vladimir  0 ½ ½ ½ 0 1 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 x 1   5½-10½

17. Ravinsky, Grigory     0 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ 1 1 0 0 ½ ½ 0 x   4½-11½

The following game is one of those games you will often find played by those who finish lower down in the tournament crosstables.  It’s one that will never make the books because it’s not brilliantly played, but it’s typical.

Fischer Matches That Never Happened

The way Arnold Denker tells it is that after he retired to Florida in the early 1970’s from a successful business career, he decided to get back into chess.  He began sending Bobby Fischer opening analysis and advice that he thought would help Fischer in his upcoming candidate matches for the world championship.  It’s not clear why Denker thought Fischer would even want his analysis, but apparently he sent it anyway. 

Then at one of the Lone Pine tournaments, Fischer’s friend, Dr. Anthony Saidy, suggested to Denker, also an old friend, that he call Fischer.  Acting on Saidy’s advice Denker called Fischer and asked why he wasn’t playing at Lone Pine; Fischer cut their conversation short.  Denker added that the previous evening he had been talking to the sponsor of the Lone Pine tournaments, Louis Statham, who had complained about Fischer’s lack of cooperation when approached about playing.  Denker had told Statham he had to make allowances for genius whereupon Statham shut Denker up by commenting, “I too am a genius, an inventor, and do not want anyone to make allowances for me!” 

(You can download my 422 page pdf booklet containing all the games from these events HERE.  If you want, you can copy and paste them into an engine for analysis.)

After the tournament Denker received a call from Fischer at home. Fischer wanted Denker’s son, an attorney, to give him some free advice about copyrighting his chess games.  Wisely, Denker’s son didn’t want any part of dealing with Fischer.  Fischer continued to call Denker, usually in the middle of the night and much to the displeasure of Denker’s wife, and would then ask Denker to call him right back.  The reason for the callbacks was that according to Fischer, Denker had more money and could more easily afford the long distance phone bills. 

As a result of these calls Denker felt Fischer was getting ready for a comeback and in 1975 Edward Lasker visited Denker to celebrate his (Lasker’s) ninetieth birthday.  During the party Fischer called Denker.  As it happened a German company, Deuteches Telefunken, had contacted Lasker and asked him to see if he could get Fischer to play a one move a week match against German television viewers, but Fischer had never bothered to return Lasker’s calls.  In 1974 Deuteches Telefunken had paid Anatoly Karpov $10,000 to for a game and were offering Fischer the same amount.

The next time Fischer called, Denker advised him of the offer and Fischer told him to see if they’d offer little more.  Denker then spent the next few months negotiating with Deuteches Telefunken on Fischer’s behalf and got them up to $40,000.  When Denker communicated the new offer to Fischer, he asked Denker if he thought they would pay a million dollars!  That’s when Denker gave up and quit calling or returning Fischer’s phone calls.

Several months later Viktor Korchnoi was in Fort Lauderdale (Denker’s home town) for a simultaneous exhibition and expressed his desire to play a match against Fischer. Denker discouraged him from even trying but several months later Denker and Korchnoi were visiting Edward Lasker in New York City when the subject of a Korchnoi-Fischer match came up again.  Lasker convinced Denker to put Korchnoi and Fischer in touch with each other and let them hammer out an agreement.

Korchnoi and Fischer agreed to meet in Pasadena, California.  Korchnoi later described the meeting.  He ended up standing on a deserted street corner in Pasadena waiting for Fischer to show up.  Eventually a car passed by several times and finally stopped.  Fischer was in the backseat crouched down on the floor and motioned for Korchnoi to get in the car.  Of course nothing ever came of the meeting.

Svetozar Gligorich, Florencio Compomanes, Miquel Quinteros and Rafael Tudela all had tried to arrange various Fischer matches and all failed.  According to Robert Byrne, Fischer dodged the match with Karpov because his fear was that if he lost, his ego would have been crushed.  After all, that’s what Fischer wanted to do to his opponents and the thought that he might suffer the same fate was more than he could bear.  Rightly or wrongly, Byrne, himself a world champion candidate, thought that Fischer would have crushed Karpov.

Ultimately Fischer did play a “return match” against Spassky in 1992 but Fischer was 49 years old and Spassky was 55, ranked 101st in the world, and had a paltry 2560 rating. The prize fund was $5 million with the first player to win 10 games getting $3.65 million.  The match turned out to be the beginning of Fischer’s troubles with the US government but besides that, nobody took the match seriously as a “world championship” match and it was more of a curiosity than anything else…couple of has beens playing for a lot of money put up by somebody with more money than they knew what to do with.