Naranja’s Dogfight With Matulovic

     In 1969 the East Asian Zonal Tournament was organized by the Singapore Chess Federation and was held in the Facility of Medicine. 
     It ended in a tie between a young Australian player named Walter Browne and Renato Naranja of the Philippines when both scored 8-3. 
     Their individual game ended in a draw. Both players lost two games: Browne to Haji Ardijansyah of Indonesia and Tan Lian Seng of Singapore. Narjana lost to Max Wotulo of Indonesia and Yukio Miyasaki of Japan. 
     The playoff ended in a 1-1 tie and Naranja qualified for the Interzonal that was to be played in 1970 in Palma de Mallorca on the basis of better Sonneborn-Berger points. 

Naranja in 1967

     Renato Naranja (born September 24, 1940) is an International Master from the Philippines. He was Philippine Junior Champion in 1958. In 1959, he placed 9th in world junior Under-20 championship. He played for Philippines in the Olympiads of 1960, 1964 (Board 1), 1966 (Board 1), 1968, 1970 (Board 1) and 1974. He won the Philippine Championship in 1965. 
     At the Interzonal in Palma de Mallorca Naranja did not finish very high, only 21st out of 24, but he had some major highlights when he drew with Bobby Fischer who finished a whopping 3-1/2 points ahead of the field. He also held Lajos Portisch and Vasily Smyslov, both of whom failed to qualify for the Candidates Matches by a half-point, to draws. 
     He scored five wins: Reshevsky (17th place), Suttles (15th-16th place), Addison and Matulovic (18th-19th place) and Jimenez (24th place). 
     In 1989 Naranja took a look a long break from chess after emigrating to the United States where he worked as a computer engineer. An International Master and a Life Master with the USCF, he still frequents the Marshall Chess Club. His last rated event was in 2014 when he finished an undefeated first in a small FIDE rated tournament at the Marshall. 

Naranja more recently

     Describing himself as a better tactician than strategist, Naranja calls the following game against Milan Matulovic as his most memorable game. 
     Milan Matulovic (1935 – 2013) was a Yugoslav GM who was the second or third strongest Yugoslav player for much of the 1960s and 1970s behind Svetozar Gligoric and Borislav Ivkov. 
     He won the Yugoslav Chess Championships of 1965 and 1967 and was a prolific competitor on the international tournament scene during the 1960s and 1970s and remained an occasional tournament competitor until 2006. 
     Matulovic was involved in several controversies. Much to the annoyance of his opponents, he often played on in hopeless positions in which he should have resigned. 
     Against Istvan Bilek at the Sousse Interzonal in 1967, Matulovic played a losing move but then took it back after announcing j'adoube. Bilek complained to the arbiter but the move was allowed to stand earning Matulovic the nickname "J'adoubovic". That wasn’t the first time he had pulled that trick. 

Matulovic

     In his book Endgame, author Frank Brady wrote about a match the fifteen year old Bobby played against Matulovic before the 1958 Interzonal in Portoroz. In that match Matulovic took back a move in their first game which Fischer lost. After that, Fischer, who went on to win the match, told Matulovic he’d no longer accept any j’adoubes. 
     After the 1970 Palma de Mallorca tournament, he was accused of throwing his game against Mark Taimanov in return for a $400, thus allowing Taimanov to advance to the Candidates matches. Those were the famous matches where Fischer skunked Taimonov and Larsen 6-0 and then beat Petrosian +5 −1 =3 on the way to defeating Spassky for the World Championship. 
     During the game against Taimanov, Matulovic offered feeble resistance and appeared uninterested in the game. According to IM David Levy, Matulovic arrived at the board twenty minutes late and began playing incredibly weak moves at the rate of about one move per minute; strange, since he normally he was a slow mover and used all of his available time. 
     Levy put forth two possible explanations: Matulovic was bribed, a theory that many t observers believed was probable despite a Soviet denial of any bribe at the time or that he couldn't care less about the game. Matulovic was convicted of vehicular manslaughter and served nine months in prison for a car accident in which a woman was killed. 
     GM Nigel Short, never known to mince words or exhibit good taste, said on Facebook after hearing of Matulovic's death posted, "They say only speak good of the dead. He's dead? Good!" 

Play Online Chess

[Event "Palma de Mallorca Interzonal"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1970.12.2"]
[Round "17"]
[White "Milan Matulovic"]
[Black "Renato Naranja"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{B81: Sicilian Scheveningen: Keres Attack} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4.
Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e6 {P-structures are important and here are some basic
observations: White has a space advantage and more room to operate. Black is
making a lot of P moves while white is developing. White has complete freedom
to operate on the K-side. All this leads one to the conclusion that white has
reason to be optimistic that a quick attack will result in success and he has
many ways to carry out such an attack. Black is not without resources of
course. The saying goes that white wins the short games, black the long ones.
And, if white is ever forced to play a3 to stop ...b5 black has taken over the
in iniative. From black's point of view he must counterattack.} 6. g4 {The
Keres Attack. IM John Watson calls this move the most striking example of
modern chess strategy. Normally theory says black should meet such a
'premature' atatck by a counterattack in the center with ...d5. But, here it
doesn't work: 6...d5? 7.exd5 Nxd5 8,Bb5+! Bd7 (This is a move black does not
want to play) 9.Nxd5 exd5 10.Qe2+ as in Fischer-Reshevsky, 1966 US Champ.
White has a huge advantage.} 6... Be7 {Far more popular is 6...h6. It
concedes a significant weakening of the K-side and castling there is almost
ruled out. However, the move has a point and that is to keep the N on f6
because it's black's only developed piece and it also is an important piece
for both attack and defense.} 7. g5 Nfd7 8. Rg1 {The immediate 8.h4 gives
better results.} 8... Nc6 9. Be3 O-O 10. h4 Re8 {This is too slow. Black
needs to get his counterplay going with 10...a6 11.h5 Nxd4 and then he can
think about advancing his b-Pawn. } 11. h5 Nf8 {It's necessary to meet the
threat of g6 which rips apart his Ks position and undermines the support of
the P on e6. However, a better was to do it would have been 11...Nde5.} 12.
Qd2 e5 {Black's normal method of advancing the b-Pawn just takes too long so
he must resort to this move which creates some positional weaknesses.} 13.
Nb3 {The sharp 13.Nf5 was an interesting alternative.} 13... Be6 14. O-O-O a5
15. Bb5 g6 {A suicidal move, but black's position is probably lost even after
15...Qc7...what else?!} 16. Nd5 { This prep move is not required. He could
have launched a winning attack down the h-file with 16.hxg6 and 17.f4! giving
the Q quick access to the h-file.} 16... a4 17. Na1 Bxd5 18. exd5 Qa5
{Suddenly white's attacking chances have diminished and black is getting some
play.} 19. Qe2 a3 {With his next move Matulovic makes a tactical error. He
should play either 20,c4 or even 20.b4 with about equal chances.} 20. b3 Qc3
21. dxc6 {White is either overly optimistic or underestimating his opponent.
Offering a trade of Qs with 21.Qc4 was better.} 21... bxc6 22. Ba4 {This is
really bad...22.Bxc6 at least gives him a fighting chance.} 22... Rxa4 {Of
course. The R can't be taken because if 23.bxa4 Rb8!! (Threatening ...Rb1+
and ...Qb2 mate) 24.Nb3 Rxb3!! and white can't avoid mate. } 23. Qd3 Qb2+ 24.
Kd2 Raa8 25. hxg6 Nxg6 26. Rb1 Qxa2 27. Qf5 d5 28. Rh1 {Now it's Naranja's
turn to make a tactical error that should have lost the game! He needed to
play 28...Bb4+ (Clearing e7 for the R so it can defend f7). Also 28...Rf8
would serve the same purpose.} 28... d4 29. Rxh7 {The R can't be taken because
after 30.Qxf7+ black gets mated.} 29... Bb4+ 30. Ke2 Ra7 31. Rbh1 {White now
has a winning attack and there's nothing black can do except offer up is Q.}
31... Qxa1 {If white takes the Q then after 32...Kh7 black has enough material
for it that he can put up stiff resistance. On his next move Matulovic misses
another tactical shot that would have allowed him to win black's Q and the
game: 32.Rh8+! Nxh8 33.Qh7+ Kf8 34.Qxh8+ Ke7 35.Qf6+ Kd7 36.Rxa1; 32.Rxa1
Kxh7 } 32. Qf6 {Black is back in the game and the chances are now equal.}
32... d3+ 33. cxd3 Qb2+ 34. Kf1 Qb1+ 35. Kg2 {Disdaining the perpetual he
could have allowed after 35.Ke2.} 35... Qxh1+ {Threatened with mate there was
no choice, but black still has plenty of compensation for the Q} 36. Rxh1 Rc7
37. Bb6 Rcc8 { Matulovic should have taken the draw here with 38.Rh6 and
39.Rxg6} 38. Kf3 { After this defeat is only a few moves away.} 38... Bc3 39.
Ke2 a2 40. Rh6 {Realizing too late that he has to take the draw by sacrificing
the R on g6. But...} 40... Nf4+ {There's a fly in the ointment. Obviously
the K can't retreat to the firat rank because the P queens with check. And,
if 41.Ke3 Nd4+ wins the Q.} 41. Kf3 e4+ {Black wins the Q anyway.} 42. Kxf4
Bxf6 {He is going to lose the R too after 43.Rh1 a1Q} 0-1

Igor Bondarevsky

     Igor Bondarevsky (May 12, 1913 - June 14, 1979 was a Soviet GM in both over-the-board and correspondence chess, an International Arbiter, trainer and chess author. 
     He first came into prominence in 1936 when he finished at the top of the USSR tournament of first category players and won a number of games with excellent tactical style. Later in his career, like Salo Flohr, he began leaning towards purely technical lines and the stunning tactics of old were rarely seen. The result was a lot of dull draws and a sharp decline in his tournament results.
     Bondarevsky made comparatively few international appearances. At Moscow 1937, his first international event, he struggled and scored only 2.5-4.5 and finished tied 7-8th place; the winner was Reuben Fine.  The year 1937 was Fine's most successful.  He finished first at a small tournament in Leningrad with a 4-1 score ahead of Levenfish who had shared first in that year's Soviet Championship.  He then scored 5-2 in Moscow.  Those two small tournaments made him a member of a small group of foreigners who had won tournaments in Russia.
     For an interesting anecdote about Fine at Moscow in 1937 see Edward Winter's Chess Note 7053, Fine v. Yudovich
     In Bondarevsky's first Soviet Championship in 1937 he shared 10th-12th place, but his play steadily improved which each successive Soviet tournament as he added to his positional understanding. 
     At the very strong international Leningrad-Moscow event in 1939, his performance was disappointing as he only scored 5-12 and finished in 17th place. 
     After his poor performance at Leningrad-Moscow, Bondarevsky was back in form for the 11th USSR Championship at Leningrad 1939. He joined the Soviet elite by placing sixth at the with 10-7 score which qualified him for the final. In 1940, in the USSR Championship, he produced many brilliant games and tied for first with Lilienthal ahead of many of the country’s most prominent players.
     Botvinnik was not happy with his poor showing in the 1940 event and was afraid it would have a bad effect on his chances for a match against Alekhine, so in 1941 he finagled a match-tournament for the title of Absolute USSR Champion between the top six finishers of the 12th final. Botvinnik won that additional event with the runner-up being Keres followed Boleslavsky, Smyslov, Lilienthal and Bondarevsky in last place. 
     Bondarevsky played in the 1948 Interzonal and qualified for the Candidates Tournament at Budapest 1950, which earned him the GM title. However, he was unable to play in Budapest because of illness. Thereafter he played in very few tournaments, a notable result being his second place behind Svetozar Gligoric at Hastings 1960/61. 
     In 1954 Bondarevsky was awarded the title of International Referee and he played an active role in Soviet chess as a member of the USSR Chess Federation.  He authored one book, Soviet Chess Players in the United States, Britain and Sweden as well as many chess articles in Soviet magazines.
     Bondarevsky coached Boris Spassky during his ascent to the World Chess Championship, beginning in the early 1960s, culminating with Spassky's win over Tigran Petrosian in the 1969 title match. He was married to WGM Valentina Kozlovskaya. 

Mrs. Bondarevsky

     The below scoresheet is from the 31th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1963, from the game Bondarevsky – Spassky. It’s signed by the players and one of the arbiters . 

     The following game against Kotov was Bondarevsky’s “Immortal” in which he played a brilliant five move mate. 

Play Online Chess

[Event "Leningrad"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1936.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Alexander Kotov"]
[Black "Igor Bondarevsky"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Dutch Defense} 1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 f5 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 d5 5. O-O Bd6 6. c4 c6 7.
Nbd2 O-O 8. b3 Qe8 {Black intends to attack with ...Qa5 as soon as it's
feasible. An alternative is 8...Nbd7 and ...Qe7} 9. Ne1 {An unfortunate
experiment. Correct was 9.Ne5 Nbd7 10.Bb2} 9... Nbd7 10. Nd3 Ne4 {In
annotating this game Irving Chernev wrote that the N can't be driven off by
11.f3 because after 11...Nxg3 12.hxg3 Bxg3 Black has a dangerous attack, but
that is not quite correct because it's not that dangerous. After 13.f4!
(Cutting off the Bs retreat) 13...Qh5 14.Rf3 Qh2+ 15.Kf1 Nf6 16.Rxg3! Qxg3
17.Qe1 White has a B+N vs R+2Ps and black's attack is over. The outcome can't
be determined.} 11. Nf3 {Capturing on e4 was a viable option.} 11... Qh5 12.
Nf4 Qf7 13. Qc2 g5 14. Nd3 Qh5 15. Nfe5 Rf6 16. f3 Rh6 {This is the only move
black has that doesn't lose! But the position is now very complicated! If 17.
fxe4 Qxh2+ 18.Kf2 Nf6! (18...Rh3 Recommended by Chernev, but it does not seem
to be the best. 19.exf5 Qxg3+ 20.Kg1 Qh2+ 21.Kf2 Black can take the perpetual
with 21...Qg3+ or can try for more. 21...Nxe5 22.dxe5 with a position where
both sides have chances.) 19.Rg1 with equal chances.} 17. h4 {Best!} 17...
Nxg3 18. hxg5 {This is the losing move. Chernev correctly pointed out that a
better defense was 18.Bxg5 which would have lead to a difficult struggle.}
18... Qh2+ 19. Kf2 Rh4 20. Rg1 Rxd4 21. Bb2 {A dual purpose move that attacks
the R and threatens to win the Q with Rh1. Empty threat though...black has a
won position. It's possible that Kotov expected the R to move. 21...Rh4 22.Rh1
Nxh1+ 23.Rxh1 Bxe5 24.Rxh2 Bxh2 and black has two Rs for the Q, but many
Shootouts with Stockfish and Komodo demonstrated that white should win without
great difficulty.} 21... Qh4 22. Bxd4 Ne4+ {What is white to do? He is a R up
so should he play for a win with 23.Ke3 or play 23.Kf1 and allow black a
perpetual check? Actually black does not have to take the perpetual because
after 23.Kf1 Ng3+ and 24...Qxd4+ he has excellent winning chances.} 23. Ke3
{Walking into a mate in five.} 23... f4+ {To draw the N away from the defense
of f2.} 24. Nxf4 Qf2+ 25. Kd3 Qxd4+ {A nifty Q sacrifice that Kotov clearly
overlooked.} 26. Kxd4 Bc5+ 27. Kd3 Nxe5# 0-1

A White Man At Hastings 1950

     Arnold Denker described Weaver W. Adams as a “white man clear through.” He lived in a white house on White Street and had inherited a chicken farm on which he raised white chickens that laid white eggs. He also wrote a book White To Play And Win. 
    Be sure to read Batgirl’s fascinating article on Adams on Chess.com and the Boylston Chess Club has his autobiography HERE. 
     Adams’ (April 28, 1901 – January 6, 1963) greatest competitive achievement was winning the US Open Championship in 1948. He played in the US Championship five times.
    Most famous for his claim that the first move 1.e4 confers a winning advantage upon white, he continually advocated this theory in books and magazine articles from 1939 until shortly before his death. Naturally, his claims were scorned and he could never prove his theory, but Hans Berliner in a 1999 book professed admiration for Adams and similarly claimed that white may claim a winning advantage with 1.d4 instead of 1.e4. 
   Larry Evans wrote that Adams' tournament results were damaged by his dogmatism and he was handicapped of arming his opponents with advance knowledge of his best lines. One of the best examples was his game against Leonard Barden at Hastings 1950-51; it was Barden’s favorite game.View game
     The 26th Hastings Christmas Chess Festival was held at the end of the year 1950 and the notable participants were Nicolas Rossolimo who had won Hastings once previously and Wolfgang Unzicker from Germany. Though Rossolimo matched his winning score from two years previously it was only good enough to share second with Alberic O'Kelly this time around. Unzicker edged them both out by half a point and finished undefeated. 
     Rossolimo suffered one defeat at the hands of the unpredictable Jonathan Penrose while O’Kelly also lost only one game (to Rossolimo). The only other player to get by with only one defeat was Harry Golombek, but he only won one game (against Thomas). 

The final standings: 
1) Wolfgang Unzicker 7.0 
2-3) Nicolas Rossolimo and Albrec O'Kelly 6.5 
4-7 Harry Golombek, Joathan Penrose, Vincenzo Castaldi and ARB Thomas 4.5
8) Leonard Barden 3.0 
9) Weaver Adams 2.5 
10) Alan Phillips 1.5 

     Adams’ first of his two wins came in the first round against Phillips when Adams played the black side of the Giuoco Piano. Phillips, along with Barden, won the British Championship in 1954. In round 2 Adams opened with the Vienna against Unzicker and was thoroughly outplayed. 
    In round three he met Barden who played the Two Knights Defense and caught him in prepared analysis. In round four Golombek played the Caro-Kann and a long uneventful draw, the only one for Adams, was the outcome. 
   In round five Adams’ opening play was absolutely horrible and he let his King get stuck in the center. As a result he lost a 20-move miniature on the black side of a Giuoco Piano to Italy’s Vincenzo Castaldi. 
     In round 6, as black, Rossolimo played the Sicilian Scheveningen. The result was an exciting 59-mover. At one point Rossolimo had a Q and three Ps against Adams’ three minor pieces and 5 Ps. 
    In round 7 Adams was deftly outplayed by O’Kelly who, as white, played the Giuoco Piano. In round 8 Adams was soundly defeated by Thomas in a Vienna Game. 
    When round 9 arrived the Adams vs. Penrose game was important for both players. If Penrose could win it would mean a plus score and sole possession of fifth place. Adams needed a win to make sure of at least a tie for last with Phillips. Unfortunately for Phillips he got annihilated by O’Kelly in a mere 25 moves. As white, Adams defeated Penrose in an exciting Sicilian, O'Kelly Variation. Adams final score was +2 -6 =1. 
     It was fully my intention to present one of Adams’ wins, but the loss to Rossolimo was just too interesting to ignore, so here it is. 

Play Online Chess

[Event "Hastings 1950/51"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1950.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Weaver W. Adams"]
[Black "Nicolas Rossolimo"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Sicilian Scheveningen} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6
6. h3 {In auto-annotating this game Fritz classifies the opening as the Keres
Attack, but I don't think that is correct. The Keres Attack begins with 6.g4
and if 6...a6 then 7.h4 is strongest and the most popular. Playing anything
else, like 7.h3, leads to a completely different game.} 6... a6 7. g4 b5 8.
Bg2 Bb7 9. Qe2 {An old move that's not very good. Moderns play 9.O-O and if
9...b5 10. Nd5! with a dangerous attack for the sacrificed N.} 9... b4 10.
Nd1 {Alternative N moves are also satisfactory, but with black's B on b7
10.Nd5 is no longer an option.} 10... d5 11. e5 {This push looks inviting, but
exchanges on d5 followed by Qf3 was a safer alternative.} 11... Ne4 12. Bf4 {A
natural developing move that turns out poorly. Correct was 12.c4! which weakens
black's grip on the center.} 12... Qb6 { Even better would have been 12...g5
and 13...Nd7 attacking the e-Pawn} 13. Nb3 {Driving the N away with 13.f3
would have been better.} 13... Be7 14. Bxe4 dxe4 15. Ne3 O-O {Black's P on e4
is hardly weak as there is no good way to attack it and it hinders white's
play. Compare it to white's P on e5.} 16. O-O-O {Risky, risky, risky! Castling
on the other side would have been a lot safer.} 16... a5 { Adams should have
been feeling very nervous about now.} 17. Nc4 Qa6 18. Rhe1 a4 19. Nd4 b3 {The
open a-file offers black an excellent route to the white K.} 20. axb3 axb3
21. Nxb3 Qa2 {Now Adams errs badly. His best try was 22.Nd6 denying black's R
the c8 square. Black could not very well play ...Bxd6 because after 23.exd6
white gets counterplay.} 22. Rd4 Rc8 23. Red1 {On his next move Rossolimo
misses the more forceful 23...Nc6 forcing the R to move, but not to d2 (...Qa1
mate). So...23...Nc6 24.Rd7 Ba6 (Pinning the N) 25.Qxe4 Bxc4 26. Qxc4 Na5 and
black has a winning attack.} 23... Bd5 24. Rxd5 {Giving up the exchange is
pretty much forced.} 24... exd5 25. Rxd5 Nc6 {At this point this is no longer
effective. Black had to defend his e-Pawn by forcing exchanges on a4 beginning
with 25...Ra4.} 26. Qxe4 {At this point white is actually somewhat better.}
26... Bb4 27. Kd1 Ne7 28. Rd3 Ng6 29. Bc1 Qa6 30. Ne3 Rd8 31. Qxb4 Rxd3+ 32.
cxd3 Qxd3+ 33. Nd2 Rd8 34. Qc3 Qe4 {Not being sure if Stockfish's evaluation of
almost 3 Ps in white's favor was entirely correct, I ran a Shootout from this
position and white scored +6 -1 =2} 35. Ke1 Qh1+ 36. Nef1 Nf4 37. Qc4 {After
this Adams will be compelled to surrender his Q. Correct was 37.Nf3} 37...
Nd3+ {Now if 38.Kd1 Qxf1+ and 39...Nxb2+ regains the Q.} 38. Ke2 Qg2 {The
threat of ...Qxf2 leading to mate forces white's next move as 39.Kd1 is met by
39...Qxf1 and ... Ne5+ regaining the Q.} 39. Qxd3 Rxd3 40. Kxd3 {Although
Stockfish prefers black by 1.5 -2.0 Pawns I suspected that was based solely on
material. In Shootouts white scored +1 -1 =7. Komodo's evaluation of slightly
less ta a P seems much more realistic.} 40... Qc6 41. Nc4 Qd5+ 42. Kc3 Qd1
{White has to lose a piece, but should it be the N or B? In this case the two
Ns would have worked better against the Q.} 43. Be3 Qxf1 44. b4 Qxh3 45. b5
Qxg4 46. b6 {How dangerous is this P?!} 46... Qe4 {Adams' next move is not the
best. He should have offered the e-Pawn as bait. 47.Na5 (To support the
advance of the b-Pawn 47... Qa4 (But not 47...Qxe5 48.Kb4) and black is going
to be hard pressed to demonstrate the win.} 47. Bd4 h5 {The P race in on.}
48. Nd6 Qb1 49. b7 h4 50. Kc4 h3 51. Nb5 h2 52. b8=Q+ {White wins the race,
but he can't stop the h-Pawn from queening.} 52... Kh7 53. Qc8 h1=Q 54. Nc3
Qg6 {It's mate in 21 after 54.. .Qhf1+} 55. Kc5 Qf3 56. Qc7 Qe6 57. Qd6 Qc8+
58. Kb4 Qd3 59. Ka3 Qcc4 {Winning a piece.} 0-1

Marshall KO's Spielmann

     The great Hamburg tournament, held in connection with the 17th Congress of the German Schachbund, was a 17-player event that included some of the great and some of the more promising players of the day. 
     Lasker, the World Champion, was on tour in South America. Maroczy and Bernstein declined their invitations. Both Rubinstein and Janowski were last minute cancellations. 
     A young Capablanca who had scored a decisive victory over Marshall in their match the previous year had booked his passage for the tournament, but canceled his voyage and withdrew from the tournament owing to ill-health. Rumor had it that Capablanca got scared of facing such stiff competition and backed out at the last minute. In reply Capa wrote, “...I was not afraid, and had no reason to be. I soon proved to the satisfaction of all, when the following year I won the first prize in the strongest tournament that has ever been held: the first San Sebastian tournament."
     There was an 18th player, Franz G. Jacob of Germany who was bumped up from the Reserve section. Before the start he said that he hoped his nerves could withstand the trials of such a long and grueling event. Apparently they couldn’t; he withdrew after six rounds having scored +0 -3 =3. 

The players: 
Schlechter: A player of whom it was said he was nearly impossible to beat, earlier in the year he almost took the World Champion title from Lasker. 
Duras: He was approaching his pinnacle as a player and had many recent successes. Described as strong-willed and cold-blooded, he was known for his technique, opening knowledge and his endurance remarkable. 
Nimzovich: Considered a rising star of great promise. He had been studying intensely and was already known for his bizarre moves and unusual ideas.
Spielmann: An up-and-comer with recent match victories over Mieses and Fahrni.  His 3rd/4th finish at St. Petersburg the previous year had been his best result to date. 
Teichmann: A solid player. In recent years he had given up his work as a teacher of languages to devote himself to chess. While rarely at the top, he generally scored well. 
Marshall: In recent years he had lost lop-sided matches to Lasker, Tarrasch and Capablanca, but he had always been far more successful as a tournament performer. It was a crap shoot on where he would finish in this tournament.
Dus-Chotimirsky: A Russian with a risky attacking style whose play was always full of interesting ideas. He had a lot of admirers, but never scored well. For example, the previous year at St. Petersburg he defeated Lasker and Rubinstein yet finished with a minus score. 
Alekhine: Not yet the Alekhine he was to become, but even though he was only 17 years old he was beginning to gain a reputation as a dangerous attacker. As a result, he was the object of much interest in this, his first Master tournament.
Tarrasch: After being defeated by Lasker in their match for the World Championship two years previously Tarrasch had played little.  As a veteran, it was going to be interesting to see how he fared against the crop of young masters. 
Forgacs: Formerly known as Fleischmann before moving to Budapest, he was out of practice, but had scored quite well at Nuremberg in 1906 and Ostend in 1907. 
Leonhardt: His reputation was for his great opening knowledge and being a difficult man to defeat. A player with a low profile and not many tournament wins, at his best he was able to defeat most of the elite players of the period. He also won many brilliancy prizes in the process. It was said he looked “rather unwell” at the start of the tournament. 
Tartakower: The 23-year old Russian had not yet reached his potential and one anonymous participant at Hamburg stated that if Tartakower’s playing strength ever matched his self-confidence, he could be a potential World Champion.
Salwe: From Lodz, Poland, his encounters with Rubinstein strengthened his play. He had a limited opening repertoire, but a thorough knowledge of d-Pawn openings. 
Kohnlein: A teacher with little opportunity to play, he had won the Dusseldorf Hauptturnier in 1908. 
Speyer: This Dutch master was a strong player with a solid style, but he was considered a little out of his class in Hamburg. 
John: From Dresden, his play was always sound though rarely spectacular.
Yates: An unknown at the time, but he was known to possess excellent tactical ability. Like Alekhine and Jakob, Yates owed his place in the tournament to the withdrawal or non-appearance of other, better known players. The 26-year old Yates had abandoned a career in accountancy the year before in favor of becoming a professional chess player and journalist. Tarrasch expressed the opinion that while Yates may be an excellent player, at the time he did not possess the slightest qualifications to be allowed to play in a Master Tournament. Yates finished dead last with only one win, but it was against Tarrasch. 

Play Online Chess

[Event "Hamburg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1910.7.30"]
[Round "11"]
[White "Rudolf Spielmann"]
[Black "Frank Marshall"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Petroff Defense} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 {With his e-Pawn under attack white has
two main options: 3.d4 or 3.Nxe5} 3. Nxe5 {The move 3.d4 is frequently seen.
If one is not familiar with the Petroff then 3.Nc3 is a good alternative. If
you are lookig for a fight and you meet the Petroff, you might want to
consider transposing into the Belgrade Gsmbit with 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.d4!?} 3... d6
{Not 3. ..Nxe4 4.Qe2 and white has a slight advantage.} 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. d4 d5
6. Bd3 Bd6 7. O-O Bg4 {This is questionable. 8...O-O 9.c4 c6 was better.} 8.
c4 {Now if 8...c6 9.cxd5 cxd5 10.h3 ad 11.Qb3 is difficult for black to
meet.} 8... O-O 9. cxd5 f5 10. Nc3 Nd7 11. h3 Bh5 12. Nxe4 fxe4 13. Bxe4
{White has emerged from the opening a solid P up and finding a plan of attack
for black is difficult.} 13... Nf6 14. Bf5 Kh8 15. g4 {A year after this game
Marshall was still playing this line at San Sebastion. Both Bernstein ad
Spielmann (again) played 15.Qb3 and only drew. The text move looks risky, but
actually gives white the best chances.} 15... Nxd5 16. Qd3 {Safer was 16.Be6
as it would have disallowed an interesting tactical possibility: 16...Bf7
17.Bg5 (17.Bxh7?! Nb4 18.Qb1 Bxa2 19. Rxa2 Rxf3is about equal) 17...Be7 18.Bd2
and white is better.} 16... Nb4 17. Qe4 Bf7 {Marshall has eschewed the
aforementioned 16...Bf7 to set a diabolical trap for which he was so famous.
Now if 18.Bxh7?? Bd5 driving the Q away and he can then play 19...Rxf3 with
the advantage.} 18. Bg5 Qe8 19. Ne5 {This is a mistake. As played, black
regains his P and assumes the attack, an area in which Marshall excelled. He
should have played 19.a3} 19... Bd5 20. Qe2 {Now both players miss the best
moves. Black should not have worried about being a P down and played for
complications with 20...c5 when anything could have happened. } 20... Nc6
{Spielmann's next move is a nasty mistake that costs him the game. After
21.Rfd1 the position is equal.} 21. Qd3 {This loses.} 21... Nxe5 22. dxe5
Qxe5 {Observe how completely black's pieces dominate the board.} 23. Qg3 Qxb2
{ Establishing a winning position on the Q-side.} 24. Qh4 Rxf5 {Establishing a
winning position on the K-side.} 25. gxf5 Qe5 26. Qg3 Qxf5 27. Qg4 Qe5 { Black
must not be in a hurry to trade Qs leaving him with a B and 2Ps against a R
and a lot of technical difficulties; it's doubtful he could win. By keeping Qs
on he can create additional threats.} 28. Rfe1 Qh2+ 29. Kf1 Rf8 30. Ke2 Qxf2+
31. Kd3 b5 0-1

Need your input…

Thanks to all who answered. The winner is Caissia’s Web.

Which one of the displays do you prefer? 

Lasker vs Steinitz

     For the last couple of days I have been browsing through Lasker’s Greatest Games 1889-1914 (formerly titled Dr. Lasker’s Chess Career) by Reinfeld and Fine. 
     Lasker is the guy Capablanca said was a natural genius and never adhered to a style that could be classified in a definitive way. 
     Alekhine called Lasker his teacher and said that without Lasker he could not have become the player he did. 
     Tal called him the greatest champion and an amazing tactician who won games that were apparently quite hopeless. Ringing endorsements from some of the best players who ever lived, yet I never cottoned to his play. 

     Andrew Soltis wrote a book, Why Lasker Matters. One reviewer wrote, “Soltis is a good annotator, an amicable and occasionally humorous companion. His analyses seem sound and he gives good, perspicacious explanations of the play, making good use of contemporaneous sources. Along the way he gives a summation and portrait of Lasker as player and thinker.” 
     The late James R. Schroeder was of a different opinion; he wrote, “...this book is worthless...Instead of analyzing the games correctly, Soltis puts in more than 100 pages of BAD analysis and then tries to correct it. That is insane!...There are so many mistakes I could write several pages of corrections. Not worth it.” 
     I am not sure of the source of Schroeder’s information, but he claims Lasker “was precocious but what we call a “smart-ass”, insufferably conceited and sarcastic. His sarcasm was based upon ignorance, but he was a small child, which is probably why no one hit him. His parents got rid of him by sending him to live with his brother Berthold who was a medical student and a manager of a tea room, where people played cards and board games.” 
     At the age of 12 Lasker showed unusual ability in math and was sent to school in Berlin under the care of his elder brother Berthold, a medical student and, also, a strong player. Later he studied mathematics and philosophy at the universities in Berlin, Gottingen and Heidelberg. Schroeder also said of Lasker that he was inordinately lazy, he tried to emulate Paul Morphy and had a straight-forward, classical style and was an excellent endgame player. Considering Lasker's accomplishments, inordinately lazy does not seem appropriate! 
     Emanuel Lasker (December 24, 1868 – January 11, 1941) was more than a chess player; he was also a mathematician and a philosopher. 
     His contemporaries used to say that Lasker used a psychological approach to the game, and that he sometimes deliberately played inferior moves to confuse opponents and that description persists even today. That wasn’t true, they just didn’t understand his play which was ahead of its time. Playing over his games gave me a new appreciation for them.

     Lasker also played and wrote about bridge and Go and his own invention of a game called Lasca, a game derived from checkers. He also published books on the mathematical analysis of card games and algebra, philosophy and drama. 
     After Tarrasch refused Lasker’s challenge for a friendly match, Lasker journeyed to the US in 1894 to challenge defending champion Wilhelm Steinitz.  By the way, Schroeder was upset at using the name Wilhelm because in the 1880s Steinitz had become a US citizen and changed his name to William. 
     The winner of the match was to be the first to win 10 games, draws not counting. The time control was 15 moves per hour. The stakes were $2,000 per side. The match was to be played in New York, Philadelphia and Montreal. 
     The match began in New York on March 15, 1894, and was fairly even with two victories to each player in the first six games. However, Lasker then won five consecutive games in Philadelphia after he recognized Steinitz couldn’t play Queenless middlegames. 
     In the 19th game, Lasker achieved his 10th win, thereby becoming the 2nd World Chess Champion. In November of 1896 they played a return match in Moscow which Lasker won with a score of 10 to 2 with 5 draws. Four weeks later, Steinitz's mind went,and he was sent to a psychiatric clinic and was soon declared insane. 
     The seventh from their first match was one of three Schroeder called the most important games Lasker ever played. The other two were the 8th game and his game against Marco at Hastings 1895. 
     In his book, Soltis left out the 7th game causing one person to comment, “Maybe he thought it would be too much work” to annotate it. The book by Fine and Reinfeld do not contain the 7th or 8th games.  They give three games: game 9 calling it the best game of the match, game 10 (A well played game by Lasker, unfortunately marred by Steinitz’ feeble defense.) and game 11 (one of Lasker’s best games of the match). 
     Game 11 was interesting because of the controversy over black’s 31st move; was it 31...b6 or 31...g6? According to a post in Chessgames.com 31...b6 was given by German sources and 31...g6 by BCM and Chess Monthly.
     Bernard Cafferty, preparing a history article for BCM, decided that 30...g6 was better and therefore more likely and the New Orleans Times Democrat had an article by Lasker in which he gave 31...g6 and he should know. 
     Fine and Horowitz give 31...b6 with the comment, "If black plays to win the B, white’s K has time to make a decisive inroad on the Q-side.” They also give some analysis on on 31...g6 without comment. In his book Soltis said it didn’t matter which move was played because black is lost anyway. I am going with 31...g6. 

Play chess online

1944 Manhattan Chess Club Championship

Robert Willman

     On January 16th, 1944 the annual championship of the Manhattan Chess Club concluded in a tie between Arnold Denker and Robert Willman, both of whom were former New York State champions. 
     In the tournament Willman had Denker on the ropes in their individual game, but blundered in a winning position and lost. Thus, the tie and Denker won the title by defeating Willman 2-0 in a playoff match. 
     The third place finisher was Jack Moscowitz who had just been discharged from the military. He was followed by the former US Amateur Champion E.S. Jackson, Jr. 

1-2) Arnold Denker and Robert Willman 9.0-1.0 
3) Jack Moscowitz 6.5-2.5 
4) E.S. Jackson, Jr. 5.0-4.0 
5) George Shainswit 4.5-4.5 
6) Harold M. Phillips 4.0-4.0 
7) Albert S. Pinkus 3.4-4.5 
8) Dr. Joesph Platz 3.5-5.5 
9) Russehttp://tartajubow.blogspot.com/2013/07/l-russell-chauvenet.htmlll Chauvenet 1.0-8.0 
10) L. Walter Stephens 0.0-9.0 
 The game between Phillips and Pinkus was postponed. 

     Almost nothing is known about Robert Willman except that he was Manhattan Chess Club champion in 1933 and New York state champion in 1940. Willman was also one of the reserve players for the US in their 1945 radio match against the USSR. He was born on January 3, 1908 and according to chess historian Jeremy Gaige, Willman changed his name to Williams and died on December 30, 1978. 
     Jack Moscowitz (born October 19, 1912) was a National Master. He won the Manhattan Chess Club Championship in 1939. Moscowitz died at the age of 92 on December 31, 2004. 
     Edward S. Jackson Jr. was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on June 15, 1897. He won the first two US Amateur Championships in 1942 and 1944, and remained an active tournament player until his death at the age of 90 on September 6, 1987. 
     George Shainswit (January 3, 1918 – September 5, 1997) was born in New York City and played in five US Championships and represented the US at the 1950 Olympiad at Dubrovnik. He tied for 1st place with Arnold Denker in the 1950 Manhattan Chess Club championship. 
     Harold M. Phillips (December 15, 1874 - January 7, 1967) was a lawyer and president of the USCF from 1950-54, president of the Manhattan Chess Club in the 1930s, president of the Marshall Chess Club, president of the Intercollegiate Chess League, former New York State Champion and Manhattan Chess Club Champion (1903). He was the organizer and director of the great New York (1924) tournament. In 1930, he played for the US in the chess Olympiad at Hamburg (drawing one and losing one). He played in chess tournaments for over 70 years. In his earlier years, he was known as “Der Kleine Morphy.” He died at the age of 92. 
     Albert Pinkus was a most interesting individual and you can read about his exploit on my post Albert Pinkus, Guppies, Snakes and Lizards. I have also posted on Dr. Platz and Chauvenet. Stories about L. Walter Stephens are legendary. You can read about him on Kevin Spraggett’s blog, The good (?!) Reverend of US chess 

Play online chess

The Secretive Botvinnik

     Botvinnik was famous for his opening preparation that was in a large part the result of his life style...he was a strict and serious man who believed in meticulous planning and thorough preparation. To that end he played many training games. 
     The first mention of these matches appeared in his book about the 1941 USSR Absolute Championship, a match-tournament in which six players played each other four times.   Review   Alternate Review 
     In the introduction to the tournament book, Botvinnik described how his friend Ragozin was of great help in his preparations when they played training games under tournament conditions. Botvinnik, a non-smoker, had suffered a little tobacco smoke in other tournaments, during their games Ragozin smoked “...so when my opponents in the tournament sent streams of tobacco smoke in my direction, (accidentally, of course!), it had no effect on me.” 
     Over the course of the years Botvinnik played training games against a number of players. The first known opponent was Sergey Mikhailovich Kaminer. He was a Soviet study composer, born in 1908 in Nizhny Novgorod. He studied in Moscow and qualified as an engineer and chemist, later he lived in Leningrad and Moscow. 
     He died at the age of 30 on November 2, 1938. Actually, died is the wrong word...Kaminer was shot during Stalin’s Great Purge, also known as the Great Terror. It was a brutal political campaign to eliminate dissenting members of the Communist Party and anyone else he considered a threat. Most experts believe at least 750,000 people were executed during the Great Purge, which took place between about 1936 and 1938. More than a million other people were sent to forced labor camps, known as Gulags. Stalin’s ruthless and bloody operation caused rampant terror throughout the USSR. 
     About a year before he was murdered, Kaminer gave Botvinnik a notebook containing all his work on his studies. Botvinnik wrote, "His presentiment turned out to be correct", and only revealed the existence of the notebook after Stalin died in 1953. 
     In late 1951 and early 1952, Botvinnik also played training games against...Smyslov! Botvinnik would meet Smyslov in world championship matches, losing to him in 1957 and then winning the title back in 1958. In 1955,
     Yuri Averbakh published 15 of his training games against Botvinnik in ans article that appeared in Chess in Russia. Aside from an odd training game here and there against Salo Flohr and either Abram, or most likely, Ilya Rabinovich and Yuri Balashov, Botvinnik played the most training games against Semyon Furman (11 games), Ilya Kan (27 games) and Vyacheslav Ragozin (24 games).
     Although Ilya Kan, who was most active in the 1930s, was not well known outside of Russia, he participated in ten USSR championships, his best result being in 1929 when he finished in third place. 
     Ragozin was active from the beginning of the 1930s through the 1950s and continued his association with Botvinnik for many years, acting as his second both in the world championship tournament at The Hague/Moscow, 1948 and in the 1951 world championship match against Bronstein. Ragozin was also a correspondence GM and won the 2nd World Correspondence Championship (1956-59). 
     The annotator of the following game was Dutch GM Jan Timman (born 14 December 1951). For those not familiar with him, he was one of the world's leading players from the late 1970s to the early 1990s. At the peak of his career he was considered to be the best non-Soviet player in the world. He won the Dutch Championship nine times and was a candidate for the World Championship several times, losing the title match of the 1993 FIDE World Championship against Anatoly Karpov. 
     Timman's fearless style caused him to lose a lot of games, but also made him a feared competitor. He was also a superb analyst. I have Timman’s Art of Chess Analysis and can recommend it, but only if you are into really deep study. In the reviews of the book a few people (whiners) complained the title was deceptive and they didn’t learn how to analyze a position. The truth is, in order to appreciate the book you have to be fairly strong player and/or appreciate serious analysis, not fluff. As one reviewer pointed out, “...by offering up his exemplary analyses, Timman might rightfully be regarded an artist and his skill at analysis is art...If so, then this is an art book whose title seems appropriate.”
     I point this out to say that in analyzing the following game Timman missed some really good moves. I am not sure when he annotated the game, but I suspect it was probably about 20 years ago and it seems unlikely he used an engine. I checked some of the moves with the old Fritz 5.32 which was available at the time and even it found improvements in his analysis. 
    When annotating the games for the books of his best games Arthur Bisguier made a few references to Fritz’ analysis, but he seemed to take Fritz’ abilities rather lightly, disagreeing with it on occasion. Perhaps Timman did the same thing. 
    In any case, it points to the necessity of using an engine when playing over old games. GM comments are pretty reliable when it comes to discussing strategy, but they often miss a lot of tactics and it’s tactics that can cause games to turn on a dime. 

Play Online Chess

[Event "Training Match"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1940.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "M. Botvinnik"]
[Black "V. Ragozin"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{Ruy Lopez: Steinitz-Deferred Steinitz Defense} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6
4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O d6 6. c3 Nxe4 {In practice this move has not worked out too
well for black, so he usually plays 6...Bd7. Against Unzicker at Amsterdam,
1994, Smyslov played 6...Be7 and they agreed to a draw at move 11.} 7. d4 Bd7
8. Qe2 {Very unusual. White almost always plays 8.Re1. If Black then retreats
the N white wins back the P with a better game. It's possible Botvinnik
suspected Ragozin would counter 8.Re1 with 8...f5 as he did in the 1940 Soviet
Championship against Keres which lead to spectacular play. Botvinnik' move is
a good alternative as it wins back the P and also forces black to sacrifice
one.} 8... Nf6 {Against Robert Byrne in the 1969 US Open Viktors Pupols played
the wild 8...f5 and ended up losing a miniature.} 9. Bxc6 {White gives up a B
in order to prevent black from recapturing on e5 with the N.} 9... Bxc6 10.
dxe5 {Now black would be under heavy pressure after 10...dxe5 11.Nxe5 Qe7
12.Re1. Also, he would be practically forced to castle Q-side. Therefore, he
elects to return the B.} 10... Bxf3 11. Qxf3 dxe5 12. Qxb7 Qd5 {Black gives up
his c-Pawn in order to get a lead in development. The alternative 12...Bd6
would lead to a passive position after 13 Qc6+!} 13. Qxc7 Bd6 14. Qb6 O-O 15.
Qb3 {Black is obviously not interested in exchanging Qs. White has an extra
P, but the Q moves have cost his a lot of time.} 15... Qc6 16. Nd2 {Blck is
not at a crossroads and has to make a difficult decision. He has completed
his development and connected his Rs. By the way, Purdy opined that
development is not completed until your Rs are connected. Black must now
decide where to place his Rs. Ragozin puts them on b8 and c8, to keep
white's Q-side majority under pressure. In these situations it seems like no
matter what you do it will generate the comment "wrong R." This gane is no
different. Timman believed that although black managed to generate dangerous
attacking play, he believed it would have been better to play ...Rfe8 keeping
the option open of developing the other Rook to the b- , c- or d-files,
depending on what white does.} 16... Rfc8 {Timman suggested 16...e4 but the
engine disdains that move, preferring placing the other R on c8. To be
honest, I do not understand Timman's comment about where to place the Rs
because he wants to play 16...e4. It's a moot point though because Stockfish
doesn't agree with his analysis at all.} 17. Qc2 Rab8 18. Re1 {Botvinnik is
preparing 19.Ne4 leaving himself a healthy P up.} 18... Rb4 { Spectacular. As
Timman points out, black not only stops 19.Ne4 and at the ame time threatens
to assume an attacking position on the K-side. TImman suggests that Botvinnik
was confused by this sudden turn of events because he played the rest of the
game in a tentative fashion. However, neither Stockfish nor Komodo like this
move and think it is a mistake that gives white a considerable plus. The both
like 18...a5 with equal chances.} 19. c4 {The idea of this move is to cut the
R off from the K-side. Timman does not like the move because white must spend
another tempo to defend the c-Pawn and it surrenders the square d4 which
allows black to generate an attack that is sufficient to get a draw. After 20
minutes both Komodo and Stockfish think that Botvinnik's move gives him a
significant advantage. Timman's recommendation is 19.h3! which prevents
blacks R from taking up a threatening position on h4. Neither engine can find
fault with Timman's suggestion and there is not much difference in the
evaluation of the two moves.} 19... Bc5 {The Bishop aims for the ideal square
d4.} 20. b3 Ng4 21. Ne4 Bd4 22. Rb1 {Timman criticizes this move and gives a
lengthy analysis demonstrating that 22.Bd2 is best, but both engines prefer
22.Bb2 by far.} 22... Qg6 {Black takes advantage of the unprotected position
of white's Q. White must take time out to protect the f-Pawn.} 23. Re2 f5
{Timman comments that black's offensive is gaining momentum and white now has
to be on his guard. Neither Stockfish (almost 3 Ps in white's favor) nor
Komodo think (over a P and a half in hwite's favor) much of black's attack.}
24. Ba3 {As Timman points out, this is too risky. White'ss only move was 24
Ng3, hitting the f-Pawn and keeping the Q from h5.} 24... Rb6 {The best
retreat, as will soon be clear.} 25. Nc3 {After this black's K-side play does
indeed become very dangerous. 25.Ng3 was still correct. Timman observed that
the txt move though it leads to total chaos can hardly be condemned in view of
the impending time pressure.} 25... Nxh2 {No doubt overlooked by Botvinnik.
White cannot take the N as he would be mated after 26...Qh5+ and 27...Rh6.}
26. Nd5 {The best tactical try. White does not try to defend, but creates
counterthreats that are not easy to parry in time pressure. However, black
still enjoys a winning advantage.} 26... Nf3+ 27. Kf1 Qh5 {Another powerful
move. Black does not bother with the check on e7 because he has mating
threats.} 28. Re3 {Threatened with mate, e2 has to be vacated for his K.
According to Timman black's next move is an automatic reaction after which
White can save himself. Instead, with 28...Rxc4!, black could have placed
insurmountable problems before his opponent. The R cannot be taken for obvious
reasons, so either the Q has to move or he must check on e7. Timman missed a
tactical resource for white after 28...Rc4?? which allows white to equalize.
29. Nf6+!! (Now 29...Rxf6 loses the Q after 30.Qxc4+ Qf7 31.Qc8+) Kf7 30.Qxc4+
Kxf6 31.Be7+ Kxe7 32.Qc7 with equal chances in this very messy position.}
28... Bxe3 {Absolutely the correct move.} 29. fxe3 {Neither better nor worse
that 29.gxf3. It's somewhat surprising that Timman made no comment on black's
next move which allows Botvinnik to equalize. With 29...Rh6! black maintains
winning threats. After 30.Ne7+ Kh8 31.Qxf5 Nd2+ black comes out a R up.}
29... Rxc4 {Timman comments that white's next move forces the K to h8 allowing
white to generate mate threats. The move is actually a blunder as after
30.Nf6+!! (again) Kh8 31.Qc4 Nd2+ the complications are great and the chance
are equal.} 30. Ne7+ Kh8 31. Qd3 {Obviously not 31.Qxc4 Nd2+ Timman states
that now the difference becomes clear. The d-file is open, giving white just
enough counterplay. I am not sure when Timman annotated this game, but ff he
did not have access to an engine Timman can hardly be criticized for missing
31...g6!! 32.Rd1 Rd6!! 33. Bxd6 (33.Qxd6 Qh1+ 34.Kf2 Rc2+ 35.Rd2 Rxd2+ wins
the Q and mates in 16 moves.) 33...Rg4 34.Bxe5+ Nxe5 and while it is a
difficult position to thread one's way through, black has a winning
advantage.} 31... Rb8 {Allowing white to draw.} 32. Rd1 {Draw agreed. Black
has to force a perpetual by 32...Qh1+ 33 Kf2 Qh4+. White, in turn, cannot
escape the perpetual, since 34 Ke2 Nd4+! is in black's favor.} 1/2-1/2

This and That

     At the beginning of 1916, WWI was in full swing and so there was not any really memorable tournaments and the only matches of interest were Emanuel Lasker beating Siegbert Tarrasch +5 –0 =1 in Berlin. Then there was the match, also in Berlin, in which Tarrasch defeated Jacques Mieses by a score of +7 –2 =4 for a prize of a half pound of butter. 
     One mildly interesting chess story in 1916 was Julian S. Grant Hayward’s invention of Double Chess that was played on a 16 by 12 board with each side having two sets of pieces. The rules weren’t published until the British Chess Magazine published then in 1929. The year the BCM published the rules Capablanca played a four game match against Geza Maroczy. Capablanca won two games with two draws and found the game "remarkably interesting."

   In 1933 Battle Chess, based on modern warfare, was invented by a Russian named A. C. Yurgelevich. Queens became Airplanes and Kings were General Staffs.
     While similar to chess, rules and strategy were modified. To make room for an up-to-date military campaign, the board contained extra squares and Pawns, Rooks, Bishops and Knights became Soldiers, Heavy Artillery, Machine Guns and Cavalry. A new piece, known as a Tank was also added. 

     The goal was to destroy the active forces of the enemy and to capture or declare checkmate against the hostile general staff. Each of the pieces have powers of movement and destruction according to its specific function in actual warfare. 
    Going back a few years before Double Chess was introduced there was El Ajedrecista (The Chess Player), an automaton built in 1912 by Leonardo Torres y Quevedo.  It was one of the first autonomous machines capable of playing chess. 
     El Ajedrecista was a true automaton as it played without human guidance. It played an endgame with a R and K v. K automatically moving a white king and a rook to mate the black King which was moved by a human opponent. 

     The contraption did not deliver mate in the minimum number of moves and not always within the 50 move rule because of the simple algorithm that calculated the moves. It did, however, checkmate the opponent every time. If an illegal move was made by its opponent, the machine would signal it. 
     The system was totally analog and had a mechanical arm that moved the pieces together with sensors that detected the opponent's movements. It could be considered the first computer game in history and created great excitement when it made its debut at the University of Paris in 1914. 
     It was first widely mentioned in Scientific American as "Torres and His Remarkable Automatic Devices" on November 6, 1915. The pieces had a metallic mesh at their base, which closed an electric circuit that encoded their position in the board. When the black K was moved by hand, an algorithm calculated and performed the next best move for white (the machine). 
     In the first version, the pieces were plugged into the board with checks and mate signaled with light bulbs. Torres y Quevedo’s son, Gonzalo, made an improved version in 1920, which made its moves via electromagnets located under the board. It also included a sound effect, with a voice recording announcing mate when the computer won the game. Both are still working and are on display at the Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos in Madrid. For more details on this machine visit Reuben Hoggett's cyberneticzoo.  This marvelous site has a history of cybernetic animals and early robots.

The Baden Gambit Tournament of 1914

     Probably the most famous tournament of 1914 was Mannheim (the 19th DSB Congress). Alekhine was leading the Master tournament with nine wins, one draw and one loss, when World War I broke out. German organizers of the tournament decided that the players should be "indemnified" according to their score, but not paid the total prize money. Thus Alekhine got 1100 marks or about 11,000 Euros in today’s purchasing power. 
     Everybody knows this, but Mannheim also consisted of the lesser known Hauptturnier A and Hauptturnier B events. The A event was won by the unknown Turkish player B. Hallegua...does anyone even know his first name?! He was followed by better known players: Ilya Rabinovich (Russia), Oscar Tenner (Germany and later the US), Carl Ahues (Germany), Lajos Asztalos (Austria-Hungary) and Fedor Bogatyrchuk (Russia, later Canada). There were 17 players. The B event consisted of 9 players in two groups. Winners were the Czech player Julius Brach and Nikoly Rudnev of the Ukraine. 
     Before Mannheim, to celebrate the opening of the Kasino Klub, February 23, 1914, it was decided to sponsor an international tournament. George Marco, publisher of the Wiener Schachzeitung, was authorized to organize and direct this event. 
     Marco decided to hold a Gambit tournament because he was bored with the usual tedious repertoire of most masters. But, because this tournament clashed with St Petersburg 1914, the best players in the world were unavailable. Nevertheless, a number of good players participated. 

     Marco had a great concept for this tournament...in order to make the games more interesting and original he declared that only gambit openings would be allowed because it would force the participants to play fighting chess.
     Schlechter, the Drawing Master, was an exception, but his participation was uncertain and resulted in some snide comments. At first his participation was doubtful because of his obligation to complete the latest edition of the Bilguer Handbook, but in the end he was entered. Deutsches Schachzeitung commented that the rumor that he preferred to play in Baden because it was a weaker tournament than St. Petersburg were “probably” false and unfair. As it turned out Schlechter was undefeated and though he only won four games, it was good enough to take third place. 
     There was a provision that the acceptance of the gambit was not mandatory. A player could decline a gambit, but in order to do so he had to obtain permission from the tournament committee and specify the variation he intended to play. The Queen’s Gambit Declined was disallowed because it was too drawish. Thus, the tournament was more of a "semi-gambit tournament!"
     The Year-Book of Chess voiced the complaint that a large percentage of drawn games is probably due to the fact that the competitors were allowed to decline any gambit offered. A glance at the crosstable does not suggest that the number of draws was excessive. 



     Even though the gambit could be declined there were still a fair share of them played. One interesting game was the following Brilliancy Prize game by Reti which features an unsound Queen sacrifice and some messy positions. True, engines ripped the games to shreds, but no matter…the resulting position was, according to the rather amusing Hotness meter supplied with Fritz 12 sitting in the red zone, a lot of fun.

Play Online Chess

[Event "Baden"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1914.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Richard Reti"]
[Black "Gustaf Nyholm"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteELO "?"]
[BlackELO "?"]

%Created by Caissa's Web PGN Editor
{C36: King's Gambit Accepted: 3 Nf3 d5} 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3
d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxd5 Qxd5 7. d4 Bd6 8. c4 Qe6+ {Best.} 9. Kf2 c5 {Black
keeps a slight advantage with 9...Qf6} 10. Bd3 {In his booklet on Baden, the
late James R. Schroeder wrote that now 10...O-O is a mistake that is refuted
by 11.Bxh7+ In reality the chances would be about equal as white has no
followup that would convey him any advantage. Therefore, 10...is in fact
black's best move.} 10... Qh6 {This is a mistake. Years later in the game
Guimard-Maderna, La Plata 1941 black played the better 10...Qf6, but failed to
follow it up correctly, preferring instead to rashly begin advancing his
K-side Ps.} 11. Re1+ {White now has a distinct advantage.} 11... Kf8 12. Qe2
Bd7 { Black errs in not offering a trade of Qs with 12...Qe6. In that case
white's advantage would have been much more modest.} 13. b4 b6 {Opening the
diagonal is disasterous. Best was 13...Nc6.} 14. Be4 Nc6 {Schroeder now
recommended 15. bxc5 as better which is true, but even better that that is
15.dxc5! and white is winning.} 15. b5 Nxd4 16. Nxd4 Re8 17. Nf3 f5 18. Bd5
{Reti won the Brilliance Prize, probably because of this Q sacrifice combined
with the fact that he won the game. It is unsound, but I had Fritz 12s
"Measurement" meters turned on. The Mate-O-Meter was sitting at 1, meaning
the possibility of mate is, well, almost zero. But, the "Hotness" meter was
resting on 8 (out of 10) meaning there are very complex tactical and
strategical problems in the position. Naturally as the stronger player this
situation would favor Reti.} 18... Rxe2+ 19. Rxe2 Be7 {This passive move
allows white right back in the game. Black needed to go all out with 19...g5
even though it means giving up the exchange after 20.Bb2.} 20. Bb2 Bf6 21.
Be5 g5 {Here black plays ...g4 and has avoided giving up the exchange, but the
price has been that white's pieces are now actively placed and that make all
the difference.} 22. Rae1 Bxe5 23. Nxe5 Qh4+ {After this pointless check white
gets the advantage. 23...Be6 would have been better.} 24. Kg1 Be8 25. Nf3
Qh5 {Now white might be tempted to trade the two Rs for a Q and B with
26.Rxe8+ followed by Nxg5. In that case the ending with B+N+5 Ps vs. R+6 Ps
would be much more difficult for white.} 26. Nxg5 {The right decision.} 26...
Kg7 27. Re7+ Kh6 28. Bf7 {Actually, 28.Nf3 was better, but this is prettier
and white is winning anyway, so why not play it?} 28... Kxg5 29. Bxh5 Bxh5
{The rest of the game is a matter of technique and Nyholm was beginning to
suffer from time pressure.} 30. Rxa7 f3 31. Ree7 fxg2 32. Kxg2 h6 33. Kg3 f4+
34. Kf2 Rd8 35. Rad7 Ra8 36. Re5+ Kh4 37. Rd2 Ra4 38. Re6 Rxc4 39. Rxh6 Rb4
40. Rxb6 c4 41. a3 Rb3 42. Rc6 Rf3+ 43. Kg2 Rxa3 44. Rxc4 {Nyholm lost on
time, but his position is quite lost anyway.} 1-0