Stalemate, Elating or Frustrating

     Back in the 19th century before the stalemate rule was standardized as a draw, the results of a game ending in a stalemate varied depending on the locality. 

     After the rules were standardized in the endgame stalemate is a resource that can enable the player with the inferior position to draw. In more complicated positions it usually takes the form of a swindle that succeeds only if the superior side is inattentive. 

     I can only remember two of my Internet blitz games ending in stalemate. In both cases it was because of time pressure blunders, one by me and one by my opponent. If you have a won position and let an opponent off the hook by playing a move that stalemates him it's probably one of the most frustrating things in chess...even worse than losing, I think! On the other hand, if you are losing and a stalemate occurs there is a feeling of elation at having escaped in such a clever fashion. 

     Today's game features a stalemate that was played in a disremembered tournament of yesteryear, the 1949 Omaha, Nebraska city championship. The players were Howard Ohman and Jack Spence. 

     Howard Ohman (July 17, 1899 - February 25, 1968, 68 years old) was Nebraska's leading player for several decades and won the State Championship some 25 times. Besides being a player and chess columnist, Ohman was a lawyer and clergyman. 

     He was born at Omaha and his parents were both natives of Sweden. After graduating from college he spent seven years practicing law with a couple of local law firms, the Union Pacific Railroad and in private practice. He also served as pastor's assistant at the First Central Congregational Church in Omaha and was associated with the Chelby Colorado Camps for Boys and Girls during the summer months. 

     Besides chess, Ohman was interested in astronomy and even gave lectures on the subject. He was a joiner, belonging to the Y. M. C. A., the Red Cross and the Chamber of Commerce. He served as president of the Omaha Chess Club and was a member of the University Club. He also played tennis and handball. 

     Jack Spence (born September 20, 1926 - November 12, 1978, 52 years old) was twice Nebraska champion (1952 and 1959) and was a chess author and organizer. 

 

Jack Spence

   In the 1940s and 1950s Spence was heavily involved in organization, including the 1959 US Open in Omaha. He stopped organizing and didn't play in a lot of Omaha events because of a long standing disagreement with Ohman over how the Omaha club was to run. After Ohman passed away Spence resumed his role as an organizer. 

     Spence was by far best known for was his publishing work. He edited the Nebraska Chess Bulletin from 1947-1959, but more importantly, in the 1950s he put out a series of mimeographed tournament bulletins of major US events. They were virtually the only source for the games played in those events. 

     As a player, Spence was an attacker that loved gambits, especially the Vienna Gambit variation that was popularized by Weaver Adams. (1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Qh5). 

     Here's the fight between these two rivals that ended in stalemate. It must have been very frustrating for Spence!

[Event "Omaha City Championship"] [Site "?"] [Date "1949.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Howard Ohman"] [Black "Jack Spence"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "D00"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "110"] [EventDate "1949.??.??"] {Catalan} 1. d4 Nf6 2. g3 d5 3. Bg2 g6 { At the time this game was played this move was quite unusual.} 4. Nd2 Bg7 5. c4 c6 6. e3 (6. Ngf3 O-O 7. O-O Nbd7 8. b3 e6 9. Bb2 b6 10. Qc2 Bb7 11. e4 dxe4 12. Nxe4 Nxe4 13. Qxe4 {is equal. Poliak,E-Konstantinopolsky,A Dnipropetrovsk 1939}) 6... Qa5 7. cxd5 cxd5 8. Ngf3 Nc6 9. O-O Bg4 10. Nb3 Qd8 11. Nc5 b6 12. Qa4 Rc8 (12... bxc5 {[%eval -25,0] 12...Rc8} 13. Qxc6+ {One amateur annotator of the day commented that 13.Ne5 "would be terrific." In fact, it loses!} (13. Ne5 Bd7 14. Nxd7 Qxd7 15. dxc5 {and a white piece has come up missing!}) 13... Nd7 14. Qxd5 {White is better.}) 13. Nd3 (13. Ne5 {is still out of the question.} bxc5 14. Nxg4 Nxg4 15. dxc5) 13... O-O 14. Re1 {Not bad by any means, but 14... Qd7 was better.} Ne4 15. Nd2 (15. h3 {would have kept black's advantage at a minimum.} Bxf3 16. Bxf3 h5 17. Rd1 Qd7 18. Bg2 {Black has the initiative on the K-side.}) 15... Bd7 16. Qb3 (16. Nxe4 {would be a bad mistake.} dxe4 17. Nb4 (17. Bxe4 Nxd4) 17... Nxd4) 16... Nxd2 17. Bxd2 e6 18. Rac1 f5 {Instead of this black should have doubled Rs on the c-file with ... Rc7, ...Qb8 and ...Rfc8} 19. Qa3 {Even better was doubling Rs on the c-file beginning with 19.Rc2} Rf7 {In this blocked position both players now begin maneuvering without either side makes much progress.} 20. b4 Bf8 21. Qb3 Bd6 22. f4 Be8 23. b5 Nb8 24. Ne5 Rfc7 25. Rxc7 Rxc7 26. Rc1 Rxc1+ 27. Bxc1 Qc7 28. Bd2 Nd7 29. Kf2 Nf6 30. h3 Ne4+ 31. Bxe4 fxe4 32. Ng4 Kg7 33. Ke2 g5 {Black now begins activity in earnest on the K-side, but white's defensive resources are sufficient that he can maintain equality.} 34. Nf2 {This allows black to gain the edge; the N needs to stay where it is so it can hop onto e5 if required.} gxf4 35. gxf4 {This is an error because it allows black to operate on the g-file with his Q while white's remains out of play on the Q-side. Capturing with the e-Pawn was correct; black's passed e-Pawn is easily blockaded.} Bh5+ {Nire precise was 35...Qf7 bringing the Q into play.} (35... Qf7 36. Kf1 Qh5 37. a4 Qf3 38. Qc2 Bh5 {with the advantage. In Shootouts black scored 5-0.}) 36. Ng4 {Once again back has missed his best opportunity and white can easily defend himself.} Kg6 37. Kf2 Qg7 38. Qc3 {White is prepaing to place his Q entirely out of play...a regretful decision.} (38. Bb4 {remains equal.} Bxg4 39. hxg4 Bxb4 40. Qxb4) 38... Kf5 39. Qc6 {After this the game is lost. He would have some chances of saving the game after 39.Nh2} Be7 {Well played! It brings the B into action.} (39... Bxg4 {draws.} 40. hxg4+ Kxg4 41. Qxd6 Kh3 42. Qxe6+ Kh2 43. Bc1 h5 44. Qe5 Qg2+ 45. Ke1 Kg1 46. Qxh5 Qf1+ 47. Kd2 Qd3+) 40. Ke1 Bxg4 41. hxg4+ Qxg4 42. Bc3 Bh4+ (42... Qf3 {was even stronger.} 43. Kd2 Qf2+ 44. Kd1 Qxe3 {etc.}) 43. Kd2 {With white's Q and B as bystanders black has a free hand to maneuver ob the K-side.} Qg2+ 44. Kc1 Qg1+ 45. Kb2 Qxe3 46. Qc7 Qe2+ 47. Ka3 Qxb5 48. Qxh7+ Kg4 49. Qg6+ Kxf4 (49... Kf3 { is not as good.} 50. Qh5+ Kg3 51. Be1+ Kg2 52. Bxh4 {However, even here black should win after} Qd3+ 53. Kb2 Qxd4+ 54. Kc2 Qd3+ 55. Kb2 Qd2+ 56. Kb1 Qxf4) 50. Qh6+ {Black is clearly winning.} Bg5 {But not after this! It looks logical though. It's possible that the time control ended at move 50 and black was short of time, so this move was rushed. Who knows?} (50... Kg4 51. Qxe6+ Kf3 52. Qh3+ Bg3 {Black's K is safe and the win is faitly routine.}) 51. Bd2+ { After this blacks win has evaporated.} e3 {Black may have very well expected this was the saving move or else it played it very hastily.} 52. Bxe3+ { Black probably overlooked this.} Kxe3 53. Qxg5+ {Now there is no way for black to escape the draw even though he his two Ps up. No matter how the K twists and turns it cannot avoid white's checks.} Kxd4 (53... Ke4 54. Qg2+ Kf5 55. Qf2+ Kg6 56. Qg3+ Kf7 57. Qf4+ Ke7 58. Qg5+ Kd7 59. Qd8+ {An interesting position. Black must allow the stalemate with 59...Kxd8 or lose!} Kc6 60. Qe8+ {winning the Q}) 54. Qe3+ Kc4 {[%csl Gc4][%cal Rb5b4]} 55. Qc3+ Kxc3 {White is stalemated.} 1/2-1/2

Downing A GM On The Internet

     Today we'll only be going back a stone's throw in time...to 1996. In those days you could by the Zircon II and Jade III chess computers that allowed you to, as per the advertisement, "Train with a real USCF 2241 rated master anytime!" Both models offered 56 levels of play and had LCD lights that gave hints, had training functions, position evaluations and more. The Zircon sold for $185 and the Jade (the travel version) for $159. They ran on either 4 or 6 batteries, but for $16 you could get an adapter. 

     The concept of a machine that plays chess actually dates back centuries. We have all read about Wolfgang von Kempelen's contraption in the 1760s that had a human hidden inside who was pulling levers to move, but it wasn't until the 1950s that computers could play a crude game. By the 1980s computers could conduct basic searches and examine several thousands positions per second and by 1987 they were beginning to compete against humans. 

     It was in 1987 that Deep Thought defeated British IM David Levy. On February 10, 1996, at a convention center in Philadelphia a six game match was held between World Champion Garry Kasparov and Deep Blue, IBM's 2,800-pound supercomputer. 

     Commentator GM Maurice Ashley didn't believe the computer had a chance. Nor did Kasparov who had derided the idea that a computer could defeat a GM before the year 2000. Deep Blue was capable of evaluating 100 million positions per second, but while Kasparov saw fewer, they were better and he won 4–2. A rematch was played in New York City in 1997 and was won by Deep Blue by a score of 3.5-2.5. 

     The USCF's best selling clock was the battery operated Master Quartz (analog) clock that sold for about $85. A bargain plastic clock cost about $60 and if you wanted to go high tech, you could get a digital clock with new and dramatic breakthrough technology for $100. It had a delay option and besides regular time controls (no delay) there were 96 preset time limits. The clock also boasted the option of a sound alarm, or a red light and an on-screen flag to show when the time expired plus there was an optional move counter. A basic set, the now ubiquitous regulation size plastic set with a 3.75" King, weighted and balanced, was $7.95. 

     Internet chess was starting to become popular. If you had a computer and a sufficiently fast modem you could play rated games at any time control with players around the world 24 hours a day 7 days a week. 

     In those days Google didn’t exist and in January 1996 there were only 100,000 websites. The browser of choice was Netscape Navigator. By 1996, Yahoo, created in 1995, was well on its way to becoming one of the major Web portals. In 1996, the search engine Altavista became the exclusive provider for Yahoo. People used dial-up internet connections and they were beginning to switch from 640×480 to 800×600 screen resolutions. 

     In 1996 Chess.Net hosted its first Internet tournament, a $1,000 event with cash prizes and no entry fee that even drew some GMs. The time control was Game 15. 

     Players had to have a "handle" and GMs had to use their last name. Thus the following game pitted Nimrod, a 2232 rated US Master named Rene Phillips against the new US Open Champion Gabriel Schwartzman (born 1976), a Romanian-born American GM. 

     Schwartzman moved to Florida and played in his first tournament at the age of 4 and by the age of 12 he had the FIDE Master title. Three years later, he became an IM and in November 1993, at the age of 17, he was awarded the GM title. 

     In 1988 he finished 2nd behind Judit Polgar in the World Under 12 Championship. He won the 1996 US Open and was the winner of the Internet World Student Championship. He started the world's first interactive chess school in 1996, the Internet Chess Academy. Schwartzman decided to retire from chess in 2000 to focus on a career in business. His USCF rating stands at 2617. 

     In spite of his impressive credentials, in the following game Schwartzman got dinged by Phillips.

[Event "First Internet Tmt, G15"] [Site "?"] [Date "1996.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "NM Renee Phillips"] [Black "GM Gabriel Schwartzman"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A80"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "73"] [EventDate "1996.??.??"] [SourceVersionDate "2022.05.09"] {Dutch Defense} 1. d4 f5 {The Dutch has never been a main line defense and is rarely seen in high level competition. In the past is was sometimes used by Morphy, Alekhine, Najdorf ,Larsen and Nakamura. It's most notable adherent was Botvinnik and Bronstein who also played it in their 1951 World Championship match.} 2. Nf3 { In practice 2.g3 yields somewhat better results.} Nf6 3. Bf4 {A rare sideline. Again, 3.g3 gives better results, but 3.Nf3 is also good.} d6 4. e3 e6 5. Nbd2 Nc6 6. c3 Qe7 (6... Be7 7. Be2 O-O 8. h3 Kh8 9. Qc2 Nd7 {The position is equal, but in Hanel,E-Hechl,G Vienna 1994, black blundered on his next move and lost quickly.}) 7. Bc4 h6 8. h3 e5 {Oddly, this is the same mistake Hechi made in the above quoted game! Here, too, it results in black getting an inferior position. That's odd because it strikes at the center while the seemingly weakening 8...g5 is actually the best move.} (8... g5 9. Bh2 Bd7 10. b4 Nd8 11. a4 Nf7 {and black has completely equalized.}) 9. Bh2 g5 10. Qe2 {This is too passive and allows black to justify his last move.} (10. dxe5 Nxe5 11. Nxe5 dxe5 {and white is better.}) 10... e4 11. Ng1 Be6 {One square too far as will be seen in the note to white's reply. After 11...Bd7 there is no d5 fork.} 12. O-O-O (12. d5 {was his best option. After} Bxd5 13. Bxd5 Nxd5 14. Qb5 Nb6 15. Qxf5) 12... d5 {While hardly a mistake, this eventually causes black some problems because it allows the B on h2 to become active. He probably should have castled.} 13. Bb3 {This is a poor position for the B, so 13.Bb5 was better.} a5 {This is also questionable. Again, black should castle Q-side.} 14. Ba4 Kf7 {This is hard to understand. Simply 14... Bg7 was good.} 15. Nb3 { White is aiming for Q-side play, but the more straightforward attack on the center with 15.f3 was stronger.} (15. f3 Kg8 (15... exf3 16. Ngxf3 Kg8 17. Qb5 Rb8 18. Ne5 Nxe5 19. Bxe5 Bg7 20. Qxa5 {white is better.}) 16. Rf1 Rh7 17. fxe4 Nxe4 18. Kb1 {and white has the more active position.}) 15... Na7 {The N is out of play here so retreating to d8 would have been better, but Schwartzman is setting a little trap.} 16. Nc5 (16. Nxa5 {This is a horrible mistake!} Nc8 {and the N is trapped.} 17. Nxb7 Rxa4 18. b3 Ra7 19. Nc5 {White's 2 Ps for the piece are not sufficient compensation.}) 16... c6 17. Be5 b6 {This loses the game. He could have put up stouter resistance with 17...Bg7} 18. Nxe6 Qxe6 19. g4 {Black's K-side is going to get ripped apart.} b5 {Black has a forlorn hope of getting counterplay on the Q-side} (19... fxg4 20. hxg4 Bd6 21. f4 gxf4 22. exf4 {White has a decisive advantage.}) 20. gxf5 Qxf5 21. Bc2 b4 22. c4 Bg7 23. f3 Kg6 (23... Qe6 24. Rf1 dxc4 25. fxe4 Ke7 26. Nf3 {and white is clearly much better.}) 24. Rf1 {Black must now prevent fxe4.} Qe6 25. fxe4 Nxe4 26. Nf3 Rhf8 27. Bxg7 Kxg7 28. Ne5 Rf6 29. Bxe4 dxe4 30. Rxf6 Qxf6 31. Rf1 Qe6 32. Rf7+ Kg8 33. Qf2 Qxh3 {This allows a mate in 4, but he was dead lost in any case.} 34. Rg7+ {[%mdl 512]} Kh8 35. Rh7+ $3 {[%mdl 576] Decoy} Kxh7 36. Qf7+ Kh8 37. Ng6# {A solid performance against a GM} 1-0

A Fighting Draw

     Games ending in draws are generally not highly regarded and we often just skip over them. In fact, most of the time when we think of draws we usually think of either short Grandmaster draws or long, boring endings. Games of both types lose much of their aesthetic value for us. 

     But, there are also fighting draws. Games in which both players attack each other like wild animals; these are exciting battles leading to bloodshed. Sometimes these games continue until the players are exhausted, but not beaten...like in the following game. 

     It was played in Bucharest in 1953, an interesting tournament in that it involved cheating by the Russians...nothing new really! The tournament was a big deal in Bucharest. Twenty contestants were invited and it drew more than 700 spectators every day! Gosta Stoltz, the Swedish Grandmaster, was in his late forties and was the oldest player and the youngest was 16-year-old Boris Spassky. 

     Years later Spassky wrote about his experience in Bucharest. "It sounds funny, but the Soviet authorities helped me. The tournament began with a clash between Soviet players, as a result of which the Hungarian, Laszlo Szabo gained the lead. We then got a telegram from Moscow: 'Put an end to this nonsense and agree draws among yourselves!' Well it was convenient that I'd already scored a full point against Smyslov, but given my youth and inexperience I think it would have been difficult for me to achieve draws against Boleslavsky and Petrosian as well. Yet here was everybody obeying the order from Moscow, and as a result I became an International Master." 

     Note that there were two players named Szabo participating. The great Hungarian GM Laszlo Szabo (1917-1998) and the lesser known Romanian master, Stefan Szabo (1911-1954). 

     Writing about Hastings 1954/55 My Best Games of Chess, Laszlo Szabo said, "An excellent performance by a dead man', remarked a London friend of mine. Well, it turned out that many people believed me dead and buried in England. When Stefan Szabo died, the press agencies announced me dead by mistake. The outstanding English chess player, Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander, had already written my obituary for his column, when I turned up in Hastings. I was not sorry that the obituary was unpublished, but I still think I should have asked Alexander to give me the proof. It must be terribly interesting to read how people think of one after one's death." 

     Laszlo Szabo was born in Budapest and burst onto the international chess scene in 1935, at the age of 18, winning the Hungarian Championship, an international tournament in Tatatovaros and he was on the Hungarian team at the Warsaw Chess Olympiad. 

     Prior to World War II he had a number of successes before beginning career as a banker, dealing in foreign exchange. At the outbreak of war he was attached to a Forced Labor Unit and was later captured by Russian troops who held him as a prisoner of war. 

     After the war, he returned to chess and played many major international events. including the Interzonals and Candidates' tournaments. He continued to enjoy success into the 1960s and 1970s. He was known for his uncompromising attacking style. 

     His opponent Victor Ciocaltea (January 16, 1932 – September 10, 1983) was a Romanian GM (awarded in 1978) who won the Romanian Championship in 1952, 1959, 1961, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1975 and 1979. He played in eleven Chess Olympiads from 1956 to 1982. Ciocaltea was a participant of four zonal FIDE tournaments between 1954 and 1982. He died at the board while playing a in a Spanish tournament in September, 1983.

[Event "Bucharest"] [Site "?"] [Date "1953.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Laszlo Szabo"] [Black "Victor Ciocaltea"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "B95"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "82"] [EventDate "1953.??.??"] [SourceVersionDate "2022.05.07"] {Sicilian Najdorf} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Be2 Be7 8. O-O Qc7 9. Qd3 {White chooses a sharp continuation that was used quite often by Paul Keres.} Nbd7 (9... Nc6 10. Rad1 Nxd4 11. Qxd4 Bd7 12. Rd3 Bc6 13. Rfd1 b5 14. a3 {with equal chances. Yurtaev,L (2505)-Dzyuban,O (2440) Alma Ata KAZ 1995}) 10. Qg3 {White might now consider 10.a4 hindering .. .b5} (10. f4 h6 11. Bh4 g5 12. fxg5 hxg5 13. Bg3 Ne5 14. Bxe5 dxe5 15. Nb3 { Rysbayeva,K (1983)-Sukhov,M (2128) Alma-Ata 2008}) 10... Ne5 {After this white secures the advantage. Correct was either launching a Q-side demonstration with 10...b5 or putting pressure on the e-Pawn with 10...Nc5} 11. Rad1 O-O { Castling at this moment is looking for trouble.} (11... h6 {would have eliminated much of the danger to his K-side.} 12. Bxf6 Bxf6 13. f4 Ng6 { White has two reasonable continuations in 14.f5 and 14.Bh5, both of which are designed to weaken black's K-side, but black appears to have adequate resources to defend himself.}) 12. f4 Ng6 13. f5 Ne5 {As will now be clear, black's failure to force a decision on white's B on move 11 now makes itself felt.} 14. Bh6 {[%csl Gh6][%cal Rg3g7]} Ng6 {Black may have realized too late that 14..Ne8 is not good. There would follow: 15. P-B6, BxP; 16. RxB, N-N3; 17. RxN, etc.} (14... Ne8 15. f6 Bxf6 16. Rxf6 Ng6 (16... Kh8 {is no better.} 17. Bxg7+ Nxg7 18. Rh6 Ne8 19. Qh3 f6 {Material is equal, but white's position is superior.}) 17. Rxg6 hxg6 18. Bc1 {Material-wise white has a B+B vs R+P, but he has a free hand on the K-side and black's position is a losing one.}) 15. fxg6 gxh6 {White has a number of reason able moves. The move played, 16.gxf7+, 16.e5 and 16.gxh7+} 16. g7 (16. gxf7+ {This is the most forceful.} Kh8 (16... Kxf7 17. Bh5#) 17. Bg4 Nxg4 18. Qxg4 Bg5 19. Qg3 Rxf7 20. Rxf7 Qxf7 21. Qxd6 { with a winning position.}) 16... Re8 {Though there is no forced win white is clearly better, but on his next move it would have been best to add a R to the fray with 17.Rd3 and then place his N on f5.} 17. Kh1 {[%mdl 128]} b5 {[%mdl 8192]} 18. a3 {Stifling black's counterplay, but it was not strictly necessary. } (18. e5 {is a winning punch.} dxe5 19. Rxf6 Bxf6 20. Ne4 Be7 21. Bh5 f5 22. Nxb5 axb5 23. Bxe8 Bg5 (23... fxe4 24. Bf7+ Kxf7 25. g8=Q+ Kf6 26. Rf1#) 24. Nxg5 hxg5 25. Qxg5 Qxg7 26. Qd8 {At first glance it may look like black has survived, but he is actually quite lost.} Qf8 27. Bc6 Rxa2 28. Qc7 Ra6 29. Bxb5 {White's Q-side Ps will assure a won ending.}) 18... Bb7 {Better was 18...Qc5 as will be seen next move.} (18... Qc5 19. Nd5 {fails} exd5 20. exd5 Qxd5 21. Nxb5 Qb7 22. Bf3 Qxb5 23. Bxa8 Be6 {In this very messy situation Stockfish states black is clearly winning. Over the board things might not be so clear.}) 19. Bf3 {Again, Szabo misses a knockout, but the complications are abstruse.} ( 19. Nd5 {Attacking the Q which would be the case if it was on c5} Bxd5 (19... exd5 20. Nf5 {This cannot be allowed. 21.Nxh6 mate is threatened.} Ng4 21. Bxg4 Bg5 22. h4 {wins}) 20. exd5 Nxd5 21. Bf3 Bf6 22. Bxd5 Be5 23. Nxe6 Rxe6 24. Qf3 Rae8 25. Bxe6 Rxe6 26. Qa8+ Kxg7 27. Qxa6 Bxh2 28. Qxb5 {and white is winning.} ) 19... Nd7 {It would have been somewhat better to drive the Q off with ... h5-h4} 20. Nd5 {[%mdl 512] Szabo doesn't miss it a second time. Black is lost.} exd5 21. Nf5 {[%cal Rf5h6] To repeat, the threat is 22.Nxh6 mate} Bg5 22. h4 { [%cal Bh2h4,Bh4g5][%mdl 32] Relentless.} dxe4 23. Bh5 {With multitudinous threats! Black's answer is the only way of trying to save face.} Nf6 24. hxg5 Nxh5 25. Nxh6+ Kxg7 26. Qh4 {With this imprecise move, white loses much of his advantage, but he remains clearly better.} (26. Qh2 Rf8 (26... Kg6 {is now met by} 27. Rxd6+) {White wins.} 27. Qxh5) 26... Kg6 {A great defensive resource!} 27. g4 (27. Rxf7 {hands over the advantage after} Re7 28. Rdf1 Rxf7 29. Rxf7 Qxc2 30. Rxb7 Qc1+ 31. Kh2 Re8 {and the threat of the advance of the e-Pawn cannot be met.}) (27. Ng4 {This, however, keeps a significant advantage.} f5 ( 27... e3 28. Nf6 Bxg2+ (28... e2 29. Qxh5+ Kg7 30. Qh6+ {mate next move.}) 29. Kxg2 Qxc2+ 30. Kg1 e2 31. Qxh5+ Kg7 32. Nxe8+ Kh8 (32... Rxe8 33. Qxf7+ { mates in 3}) 33. Qf3 Qc5+ 34. Kh1 Qxg5 35. Qxe2 {and wins}) 28. Nf6 Nxf6 29. Qh6+ Kf7 30. Rxf5 {White has a decisive advantage.}) 27... Ng3+ {With this move Ciocaltea finds a way out of his trouble.} 28. Qxg3 e3+ 29. Kg1 e2 30. Rxd6+ Kg7 31. Rg6+ {Clever, but insufficient; his advantage has disappeared.} ( 31. Re1 Qc5+ 32. Qf2 Qxf2+ 33. Kxf2 Bc8 34. Rxe2 Rxe2+ 35. Kxe2 Be6 {with a likely draw.}) 31... hxg6 {[%cal Rc7g3]} 32. Qxc7 exf1=Q+ 33. Kxf1 {The storm is over and the Q has no advantage over the two Rs.} Bd5 34. Qc3+ Kh7 35. b3 Rac8 36. Qh3 {[%mdl 8192] After the correct 36.Qd2 the position is equal, but this move offers black a chance at gaining a winning advantage!} Kg7 {Which Ciocaltea grabs.} (36... Rxc2 {is inferior.} 37. Nxf7+ Kg7 38. Qh6+ Kxf7 39. Qh7+ Kf8 40. Qh8+ (40. Qxg6 {loses outright after} Bg2+ 41. Kg1 Re1+ 42. Kh2 Be4+) 40... Bg8 41. Qf6+ {draws.}) 37. Qd3 Rcd8 {Missing his chance to turn the tables and establish a winning position. Understandable after the defensive ordeal he has been through.} (37... Re5 38. Qd4 Rce8 39. c4 bxc4 40. bxc4 Bc6 {and white is in serious difficulty. For example...} 41. Qf2 Rxg5 42. Qxf7+ Kxh6 43. Qf4 Bd7 44. c5 Bxg4 45. c6 Re7 46. Qf8+ Rg7 47. c7 (47. Qh8+ Rh7 48. Qf8+ Kh5 49. Qd6 Rf7+ 50. Ke1 Rgf5 {and after white runs out of Q checks he will be left with a lost position.} 51. Qh2+ Kg5 52. Qd2+ Kh4 53. Qh2+ Bh3 54. Qb8 g5 55. c7 Re5+ 56. Kd2 Rd7+ 57. Kc2 Rc5+ 58. Kb1 Rd1+ 59. Kb2 Rd2+ 60. Kb3 Be6+ 61. Kb4 Rdc2 {and black has a mate in 12. It's impossible to fault black for not seeing all this!}) 47... Rf5+) 38. Qc3+ {The position is equal.} Kh7 39. Qf6 Rc8 40. Nf5 gxf5 41. Qxf5+ Kg7 {Draw agreed. A fitting end to an amazing game.} 1/2-1/2

G.K. Bastrikov, Attacker

     In 1943 the news headlines were the Allied forces took back North Africa, Italy Surrendered to the Allied Forces, dambuster raids were taking place, the Pentagon, considered to be the world's largest office building was completed and the Glenn Miller Orchestra provided the most popular music of the time. 

     Also, due to shortages America saw it's first rationing. An article in the August 5, 1943 edition of the the Brooklyn Daily Eagle stated that while there was plenty of meat around, local butches were complaining that they weren't getting any of it. It seems meat packers were selling their meat locally and all the meat being shipped into New York City was going to Federal government sources. Hotels in the city were also experiencing shortages of beer and liquor and they were afraid that meat shortages would be a "death blow" to the hotel business. 

     Concerning Soviet chess, beginning in the 1920s all areas of Soviet culture began coming under control of the government, including chess. In 1932, not only artists and writers were brought under government control, but chess also. 

     For chess, it started with Alexander Ilyin-Zhenevsky in 1920 and Nikolai Krylenko in 1924. Under Stalin chess continued to be a major part of the cultural struggle and in 1930 a resolution by the All-Union Chess Section of the Supreme Council for Physical Culture proclaimed that there was a necessity for “the saturation of all chess activity with political content.” What that meant was that chess for just the fun of it was not allowed. 

     Problemists were advised that bourgeois themes should be avoided in favor of revolutionary themes. In other words, compositions were required to have a close relationship to practical play and they were not to be fanciful. Consequently, one-, two- and three-move problems were out because they tended to be fanciful. Problems like helpmates, self-mates and fairy chess were also officially disgraced. Their construction was classified as formalism. Instead, long, complicated problems that required multiple variations were in favor. 

     In 1936 Shakhmaty v SSSR ran an article co-authored by Botvinnik in which it was argued that compositions weren't all that important and were useful only if they helped to develop practical play. That is, chess problems of a fanciful nature were useless and so their existence could not be justified. 

     We might snicker at such decrees today, but defying them cost Mikhail Barulin (1897-1943) his life! He was the editor of the problem section of the Soviet magazine "64" from 1935 to 1941 and of "Shakhmatny v SSSR" from 1938 to 1941. He is considered as one of the creators of the modern two mover. 

     In 1943, Mikhail Barulin died in a Russian prison. In November, 1941, Barulin was arrested when he refused to sign a confession or denounce other chess problemists. He had written that compositions should be an art in themselves and not dependent upon practical play. 

     Botvinnik adhered to the official government line. He wrote, "If comrade Barulin thinks that his problem activity is absolutely autonomous and self-sufficing that's bad not for the mass chess movement and not for composition which will develop jointly with actual play; so much the worse for comrade Barulin and for similar composers, who are good for nothing. Theory of art for art's sake is resolutely condemned in the USSR, and our composers are well aware of it." 

     Now, on to the subject at hand. In 1943, Reuben Fine wrote, "There is no doubt that we will hear a lot more from Bastrikov in the future." 

Bastrikov

     He was referring to Georgy V. Bastrikov (1914-1979) who is, as it turned out, pretty much an unknown figure these days. 

     Bastrikov was known for his good humor, witty conversation and happy disposition. He was a good organizer and for many years served as coach for Russian junior players and was recognized as one of the best trainers in the country. He was recognized for his wide range of creative and original ideas in the opening and at the board he was an uncompromising fighter. 

     The following game is a good illustration of Bastrikov's original opening play and vigorous attacking style. His attack seems to start slowly, but he quickly overwhelms his opponent.

[Event "Sverdlovsk National Tournament"] [Site "Sverdlovsk URS"] [Date "1942.03.22"] [Round "?"] [White "Georgy Bastrikov"] [Black "Isakas Vistaneckis"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B17"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "53"] [EventDate "1942.03.22"] [Source "365Chess; Voland"] {Caro-Kann} 1. e4 c6 2. Nc3 d5 3. d4 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nd7 {Black selects a rather passive line, but the alternatives 4...Bf5 and 4...Nf5 do not produce any better results.} 5. Nf3 Ngf6 6. Ng3 e6 7. Bc4 {An unusual square for the B; usual is 7.Bd3 because white's natural plan is an attack against black's K and on d3 the B aims at h7. However, as the game proceeds Bastrikov's plan becomes clear.} Be7 8. Qe2 (8. O-O Qc7 9. Qe2 c5 10. d5 Nf8 11. Bb5+ Bd7 12. dxe6 Nxe6 13. Nf5 {White has some advantage. Khachian,M (2462)-Moussa,A (2236) Burbank 2005)}) 8... c5 (8... b5 {is a more solid reply.} 9. Bb3 Bb7 10. O-O O-O 11. Ne5 Qc7) 9. O-O O-O 10. dxc5 (10. Ne5 Nb6 11. dxc5 Bxc5 12. Bd3 Qc7 13. Nh5 Nbd5 14. c4 Nxh5 15. Qxh5 Nf6 16. Qe2 Bd6 17. Bf4 b6 18. Bg3 Bb7 19. Rad1 { and a draw was agreed. Gabrilavicius,A-Alekberovas,A (2076) Panevezys 2007}) 10... Nxc5 11. Bf4 {This is why white played 7.Bc4. Had he placed the B on d3 he would now have to lose a tempo to avoid black from exchanging it with ... Nxd3. At this point white has two main options. He can head for the endgame where he has the advantage of the Q-side P-majority or he can avoid exchanges and build up a K-side attack. Bastrikov prefers the latter.} Qb6 12. c3 (12. Nf5 {12.a4 0.68 This might look alluring, but after} exf5 13. Qxe7 Be6 { is quite equal.}) 12... Bd7 13. Rad1 Rfd8 14. Nd4 {A good square for the N.} Rac8 15. Rfe1 a5 {This secures the position of the N by guarding against b4. Reuben Fine suggested 15. ..a6 hoping to build up Q-side counterplay, but he gave no analysis and that move seems inadequate.} (15... a6 {[%eval 5,0] 15... Be8} 16. Bg5 {[%cal Od4f5]} Nd5 17. Nf3 {[%cal Og3f5]} Bxg5 18. Nxg5 h6 (18... Nf6 19. Nxf7 {The square e6 is comes under heavy attack.} Kxf7 20. b4 Bb5 21. Rxd8 Rxd8 22. bxc5 Bxc4 23. Qxc4 Rc8 24. Qb4 (24. cxb6 {[%eval 60,0] 24.Qb4} Rxc4 {Black is slightly better due to his more active pieces.}) 24... Qxb4 25. cxb4 {white has a smidgen of an advantage.}) 19. Nxf7 Kxf7 20. b4 Bb5 21. Qf3+ Kg8 22. Bxd5 Rxd5 23. Rxd5 exd5 {White is slightly better. Threatening a nasty fork on e7.} 24. Nf5 (24. bxc5 {Black equalizes after} Qxc5 25. h3 (25. Re3 d4 {wins}) 25... Qxc3 26. Qxd5+) 24... Rc7 25. Qxd5+ Kh7 26. Ne7 {Threatening mate, so...} Rxe7 27. Rxe7 (27. Qf5+ Qg6 28. Qxg6+ Kxg6 29. Rxe7) 27... Qg6 { Also threatening mate.} 28. Qd2 Bc6 {[%csl Gc6][%cal Rg6g2] Threatening mate.} 29. f3 Ne6 {With a difficult position, but one that offers equal chances.}) 16. h4 {White's attack begins.} Be8 17. Bg5 {[%cal Og3f5]} Qc7 {White is better, but the position is a maze of complications!} 18. Ngf5 {[%mdl 512]} Bf8 { This is the best defense.} (18... Nce4 {[%mdl 8192]} 19. Bxe6 fxe6 20. Nxe6 { and black is lost even after his best continuation.} Bh5 21. Qf1 Rxd1 22. Nxc7 Rxe1 23. Nxe7+ Kh8 24. Qxe1 Rxc7 25. Nf5 h6 26. Bxf6 Nxf6 27. Nd4) (18... exf5 {leaves white better after} 19. Qxe7 Qxe7 20. Rxe7 Nfe4) 19. Nh6+ {[%mdl 512]} Kh8 (19... gxh6 {[%mdl 8192] 19...Kh8 0.68 is obviously bad.} 20. Bxf6 { and there is no good defense against Qg4+}) 20. Qf3 {An intriguing position assuming black finds the correct move. Against Nce4} Ncd7 {[%mdl 8192] Which he does not.} (20... Nce4 {is best.} 21. Bd3 Nxg5 22. hxg5 Ng8 $1 23. Ng4 { [%cal Od3h7] Black must now prevent Bxh7} g6 {Obviously white has the advantage here, but black seems to have sufficient defensive resources. In Shootouts from this position white only scored one win and four games were drawn.}) 21. Bxe6 {[%mdl 512]} fxe6 22. Nxe6 Ne5 (22... Qc6 {Trading Qs would not have helped. After} 23. Qxc6 bxc6 24. Bxf6 gxf6 25. Nxd8 Rxd8 26. Rxd7 Rxd7 (26... Bxd7 {[%eval 481,0] 26...Rxd7} 27. Nf7+ Kg8 28. Nxd8) 27. Rxe8 Kg7 28. Nf5+ {white is winning.}) 23. Qf4 Rxd1 24. Rxd1 Qe7 25. Qxe5 {Best.} (25. Nxf8 {[%eval 671,0] 25.Qxe5} Bh5 26. Bxf6 Qxf6 27. Qxf6 gxf6 28. g4 {[%cal Rg4h5]} Nxg4 {and black has a lot of play and so has equalized.}) 25... Bd7 26. Nxf8 { [%mdl 512]} Qxf8 27. Rd6 {Black exceeded the time limit, but his position was lost anyway.} (27. Rd6 Re8 {This results in a forced mate.} 28. Rxf6 (28. Qxf6 {This is pretty, but not nearly as good.} gxf6 29. Bxf6+ Qxf6 30. Rxf6 { with a won ending.}) 28... Qxf6 29. Qxf6 Be6 30. Qd4 a4 31. Bf6 Rg8 32. h5 a3 33. Bxg7+ Rxg7 34. Nf5 Bxf5 35. h6 axb2 36. Qxg7#) (27. Rd6 Rc6 {This is his best defense, but the ending is still lost. The best line of play is...} 28. Rxc6 Bxc6 29. Bxf6 gxf6 30. Qf4 Be4 31. Ng4 {White has a won ending.}) 1-0

A Flurry of Sacrifices in the Englund Gambit

     For a long time 1.d4 called for the reply 1...d5 as a matter of course; any other reply was considered "Irregular" and of doubtful value. Probably the rarest and most irregular reply to 1.d4 is 1...e5 which back in the 1950s George Koltanowski referred to as the Englund-Behting Defense, noting that it was sometimes called the Balbin Gambit. Today it is known simply as the Englund Gambit.     

     By any name, it has always been frowned upon as theoretically unsound just like its somewhat better relatives, the Albin Counter Gambit and the Budapest Defense, but unlike them, the Englund Gambit has never been popular at the upper levels. 

     Still, it has had its advocates. In the 1920's the Swedish master Fritz Englund (February 22,1871 - January 14, 1933, 61 years old) promoted it and played it frequently with considerable success. 

     Englund entered the Stockholm chess circles as a young man, and soon became a friend of Ludvig Collijn and publisher of Collijn's books. Englund was also a noted problemist and an editor of Tidskrift for Schack and its problem column. He played in most of the main Scandinavian events and his peak as a player was around 1906. He is remembered today primarily for the Englund Gambit, but it had been played many years before. 

     The Latvian master Karl Behting (October 27, 1867 - March 28, 1943, 75 years old) analyzed it in 1930 in a German chess magazine. Behting was also a problem composer and he was co-editor of the chess magazine Baltische Schachblatter from 1902-1910. He is also known for his work on the Latvian Gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5). 

     As mentioned, the gambit had been played long before, but Behting published his analysis of it in the German chess magazine Deutsche Schachzeitung in 1930. Two years later Englund sponsored a thematic tournament held in Stockholm in late 1932 and early 1933. Every game had to begin with Behting's main line (1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7 4.Qd5). 

     By that time either because Behting's article had been forgotten or because Englund died shortly afterwards, when chess magazines reported his death they rarely failed to mention "Englund's Gambit Tournament" and the name Englund Gambit became associated with the defense. By the way, the tournament was won by Gosta Stoltz. 

     In the tournament the gambit had poor results: Black scored +7 -18 =5. However, it was shown that the gambit calls for very careful play by white.

     Probably the only black debut that's worse than the Englund is the Fred (1.e4 f5 2.exf5 Kf7), but the Englund Gambit sometimes pops up in blitz games. The thing is, in the Main Line (shown in the game notes) things can get really murky and both sides have to be wary of traps. 

     Back in the 1940s and 1950s there was a Spanish master from Madrid named Julio Balbín Delor who published in the magazine Ajedrez Espanol some analysis on the England and in Spanish circles it was baptized as the Contragambito Balbin. A short time later anothe Spanish player named Julio Ganzo from Salamanca became interested in the opening and published his own analysis.

     Here is a rare game by Balbin against an opponent that I could find nothing on that was played in a tournament that I could find nothing on that was published in 1955 in Koltanowski's rare book, Koltanowski's Chess Annual. It was supposed to be the first of an annual series with the aim of providing a comprehensive yearly chess review for English-speaking players, but as far as I know there were no followups published. 

     The game was eye-catching because of its great finish which contained a flurry of sacrifices by Balbin.

[Event "Madrid"] [Site "?"] [Date "1944.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Marcote"] [Black "Balbin"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "A40"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "56"] [EventDate "1944.??.??"] 1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 {The ancient Center Game is reached after 2.d4 but that offers white no advantage.} d6 {Balbin makes it a true gambit with this move.} (2... Nc6 {This is considered the Main Line.} 3. Nf3 Qe7 {Playable, but probably way too passive is 3...Nge7} 4. Bf4 Qb4+ {This leads to some very murky complications in which both players must be wary of falling into traps.} 5. Nc3 {This only leads to equality, but it's also tricky!} (5. Bd2 {is safe and good for an advantage.} Qxb2 6. Nc3 Bb4 7. Rb1 Qa3 8. Nd5) 5... Qxf4 6. Nd5 Qe4 7. Nxc7+ Kd8 8. Nxa8 Nxe5 {with complications in an unbalanced material situation.}) 3. exd6 Bxd6 (3... Qxd6 4. Qxd6 Bxd6 5. Nc3 Ne7 6. Nb5 O-O 7. Nxd6 cxd6 8. Nf3 Be6 9. Bf4 Nbc6 10. Bxd6 Rfd8 11. Bxe7 Nxe7 12. e3 Bg4 13. Be2 Bxf3 14. Bxf3 Nc6 15. Bxc6 bxc6 16. Ke2 Kf8 17. Rhd1 Ke7 18. Rxd8 {Genov,P (2438) -Topak,E (2230) Ankara TUR 2010 1-0}) 4. Nf3 Nc6 5. e3 {This is much too passive.} (5. Bg5 f6 6. Bh4 Bf5 7. e3 Nb4 8. Na3 Qe7 9. c3 Rd8 10. Nd4 Bg6 11. Qa4+ c6 12. Rd1 Nxa2 13. Nc4 Bf7 14. Nxd6+ Qxd6 15. Be2 Qc5 16. O-O Ne7 17. Ra1 b5 18. Qa5 Qb6 19. Rxa2 g5 {White is winning, but went astray in the complications and ended up losing. Escoms Monzo,J-Perez Martinez,A (2000) Cullera 2007}) (5. e4 Bg4 6. Be2 Qe7 7. Nc3 O-O-O 8. Nd2 Bxe2 9. Qxe2 Nd4 10. Qc4 Nxc2+ 11. Kd1 Nxa1 12. Nd5 Qe6 13. Qa4 Kb8 14. b3 c6 15. Ne3 Nf6 16. Bb2 Be5 17. Kc1 Bxb2+ 18. Kxb2 Rxd2+ 19. Kxa1 Qe5+ {Facing mate in 2, white resigned. Naranjo Espinosa,S (2047) -Rodrigues,A (2305) Dos Hermanas 2004 0-1}) (5. Nc3 Bg4 6. Nb5 Bb4+ 7. c3 Qxd1+ 8. Kxd1 O-O-O+ 9. Ke1 Be7 10. e3 Nf6 11. Be2 h6 12. Nbd4 Nxd4 13. cxd4 c5 14. dxc5 Bxc5 15. a3 Rhe8 16. b4 Bf8 17. Bb2 Kb8 18. Ne5 Be6 19. Bb5 Re7 {White has a decisive advantage. Scheerer,C (2426) -Kurth,M (2055) Bargteheide 2008}) 5... Bg4 6. Be2 Qf6 7. c3 O-O-O 8. Nd4 { Evidently white hopes to trade pieces and reach an ending where he is a P up. Better was 8.Nbd2 and 9.h3 with a slight advantage.} Bd7 9. Bb5 Nge7 10. Nd2 Qg6 {Owing to white's passive opening play black has managed to get a lead in development that is sufficient compensation for his P minus.} 11. g3 {After this black gets the upper hand. White's K remains in the center and the weakened light squares will prove to be a detriment.} (11. O-O {was correct.} Kb8 (11... Bh3 {White need not fear this because after} 12. Qf3 Bg4 13. Qe4 { his position is perfectly satisfactory.}) 12. Qe2 Rhe8 {is equal.}) 11... Rhe8 12. a4 {White is oblivious to any danger.} (12. Qc2 {keeps the balance.} f5 13. O-O Kb8 14. a4) 12... a6 {the immediate 12...Bh3 was also very good.} 13. Nxc6 {[%mdl 8192] In keeping with his plan of exchanging pieces white makes a fatal tactical mistake. Correct was 13.Be2 and black could lay claim to no more than a slight advantage.} Nxc6 14. Be2 {One would have expected 14.Bxc6, but apparently white realized that exchange would have left his light squares far too weak. It doesn't really matter though because he is still lost even with the B on the board. The fact that white has traded off his only well placed piece, the N on d4, has made a huge difference in the evalution of the position. Black is now clearly winning.} Bh3 {[%cal Oe8e3] Planning to play ... Rxe3, a threat that white is oblivious to.} 15. b4 (15. Nc4 {Guarding e3, but falling victim to a different sacrifice.} Bxg3 16. Qb3 Bxf2+ 17. Kxf2 Qg2+ { mates in 4.}) 15... Rxe3 {[%mdl 512]} 16. b5 (16. fxe3 {allows a pretty finish. } Qxg3+ 17. hxg3 Bxg3#) 16... Nb8 17. Qb3 Re6 18. bxa6 Nxa6 19. Nc4 Nc5 { Good enough, but he missed an even prettier finish that involves another sacrifice.} (19... Rxe2+ {[%mdl 512]} 20. Kxe2 Qe4+ 21. Ne3 Bg4+ 22. Ke1 Qxh1+ 23. Kd2 Ba3+ 24. Qd5 Rxd5+ 25. Kc2 Bd1+ 26. Kb1 Qe4+ 27. Ka2 Bxc1 28. Nxd1 Qc2+ 29. Nb2 Qxb2#) 20. Qb1 Nd3+ 21. Kd2 {Guess what? Black offers another sacrifice!} Bf4+ {[%mdl 512]} 22. Ne3 (22. gxf4 {Black mates in} Nb4+ 23. Ke1 Qg2 {White can only shed material to delay the mate.}) 22... Bxe3+ 23. fxe3 Qe4 {Winning, but missing a mate in 9 by offering up a R.} (23... Rxe3 24. Re1 (24. Kxe3 Qg5+ 25. Kf3 Qg4+ 26. Ke3 Re8+ 27. Kxd3 Qe4+ 28. Kd2 Qxe2#) 24... Rxe2+ { Another sacrifice should not be surprising.} 25. Rxe2 Nb2+ 26. Ke1 Rd1+ 27. Kf2 Rf1+ 28. Ke3 Qb6+ 29. Kd2 Rd1+ 30. Kc2 Bf5+ 31. Re4 Bxe4#) 24. Bxd3 Qxe3+ 25. Kc2 Qxd3+ 26. Kb3 Rb6+ 27. Ka2 Be6+ 28. Ka3 Qxc3+ {Facing mate next move white resigned.} 0-1

A Commons vs. Reshevsky Scuffle

     On February , 1971 in a far away city named Los Angeles out in California, the San Fernando earthquake rumbled through the area shortly after 6 o'clock in the morning. The strong ground shaking only lasted about 12 seconds and the entire event about a minute, but the quake surpassed building code requirements and exceeded what engineers had prepared for and even modern earthquake-resistant structures sustained serious damage. 

     Closer to home, on January 31, 1986, at 11:46am, there was an earthquake about 26 miles east of Cleveland, Ohio that was felt over a broad area, including 11 states, the District of Columbia, and parts of Ontario, Canada. Thirteen aftershocks were detected as late as April 15th, with six occurring within the first 8 days. Two of the aftershocks were felt, but the others were not. 

     I was at work on the west side of Cleveland and was in my boss' office on the second floor when things began rumbling and shaking and when I looked out of the window the telephone poles were shaking violently. I exclaimed, "What's that?!" Being an ex-Californian he knew and said, "It's an earthquake!" It didn't do any damage and when I went to lunch a little later everybody was talking about it at the restaurant. 

     Returning to 1971, there were a lot of Vietnam war protests that year. Going back a bit, as early as 1967 Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) were denouncing the war and there was also more moderate opposition from clergy, politicians and "personalities" such as "baby doctor" Dr. Benjamin Spock. 

     The election of Richard Nixon in 1968 and his reduction in US ground forces did little to dampen antiwar opposition and his decision to invade Cambodia in 1970 fired massive demonstrations on college campuses. Much if it due to the fact that college students were of draft age and going into the Army and getting sent to Vietnam was a real possibility. 

     It was during that era that a young, healthy looking (in 1968, 22-years old, 6 feet 2 inches tall and an athlete) Donald Trump graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 1968, and had already avoided the military draft four times in order to complete his college education. 

     Fortunately for the future President, that spring, as he was set to graduate, he received a diagnosis that landed him a fifth draft deferment that would once again keep him out of Vietnam: bone spurs. Trump never got treatment for them and said that over a period of time they disappeared. 

     Trump took a lot of heat in some circles for avoiding the military, but he wasn't the only draft dodging President. Bill Clinton received deferments from 1963 to 1968 so he could attend Georgetown, and after graduating, accept a Rhodes scholarship to attend Oxford. In 1968, when the law that allowed men to receive deferments for graduate or law school was changed, Clinton received his draft notice. But, to avoid being drafted in 1968, he used his connections to get permission to join the ROTC at the University of Arkansas law school. This permitted him to avoid the draft. 

     After graduating from Yale in 1968, George W. Bush used his family connections so he could enter the Texas Air National Guard for six years as a pilot. That was at a time when it was almost impossible to get into the Guard, especially for someone like Bush who had a very low score (in the 25th percentile) on the pilot test and also had an arrest record. During his last two years his attendance at Guard meetings tapered off and he lost his pilot certification. No matter, for some reason he was never recalled to active duty. 

     President Biden not only received deferments during his days at the University of Delaware, but for three years of law school at Syracuse University. When his education deferments expired in 1968, Biden requested a deferment based on the fact he had asthma as a teenager. According to his own book, he was a star athlete in high school and in college played intramural sports and was a lifeguard in the summer. 

     On Monday, May 3, 1971, anti-war militants began a protest in Washington DC that lasted several days, but May 3rd was the focal point. Demonstrators planned to shut down federal offices by blocking the capital’s roads, bridges and traffic circles. To prevent this, the entire 5,100 Washington police force was put on duty, supported by 1,400 members of the National Guard. They were augmented by 4,000 federal troops with another 4,000 soldiers held in reserve nearby. 

     I have divagated from the topic of the post, so moving along to some chess history, in August, 1971, in Ventura, California, the US Open, which drew 400 players, took place. Ventura is located northwest of Los Angeles and is known for its beaches. Today it is rated as one of the state's most livable cities. The median home cost in Ventura is $727,900; where I live it's $113,540. 

     In following game the variation of the King's Indian Defense that Reshevsky used was an old, well-known line which gives white a slight opening advantage. Commons went astray in the middlegame complications which netted Reshevsky a piece and the rest was simple. 

      In a note to the game on chessgames.com, a reader who was there and watched the post-mortem said that at one point Commons pointed out a tactical line, and asked Reshevsky, "Did you see this?" Reshevsky replied, "Do you think I'm stupid?" The crowd of spectators broke out laughing and Commons looked embarrassed. Sounds like Reshevsky

[Event "US Open, Ventura"] [Site "Ventura, CA USA"] [Date "1971.??.??"] [Round "4"] [White "Kim Commons"] [Black "Samuel Reshevsky"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "E60"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "64"] [EventDate "1971.??.??"] {King's Indian: Fianchetto Variation} 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. g3 c5 5. d5 d6 6. Bg2 O-O 7. O-O Na6 8. Nc3 Nc7 {Because of white's control of the center black must attempt to play ...e6, but doing so involves some difficulties.} 9. Bf4 {This move doesn't appear in the books (9.Re1, 9.e4 and 9/a4 are book), but it's purpose is to prevent ...e6.} a6 (9... e6 10. dxe6 Nxe6 11. Bxd6) 10. a4 Rb8 11. a5 b5 12. axb6 Rxb6 13. Ra2 Re8 (13... Bf5 { was better as demonstrated in Arkell,K (2462)-Dunnington,A (2366) Wakefield 1999} 14. Nh4 Bd7 15. e4 Ng4 16. Nf3 e5 17. dxe6 Bxe6 {and white is only slightly better.}) (13... e6 {is still unplayable.} 14. Na4 Rb7 15. dxe6 { picking up the d-Pawn.}) 14. Na4 {This is hardly bad. In 1960 Benko played 14. b3 against Reshevsky.} (14. b3 Bd7 (14... e5 {was also worth considering.} 15. dxe6 Nxe6 16. Na4 Nxf4 17. Nxb6 Qxb6 18. gxf4 Ne4 {with equality. Korchnoi, V-Gligoric,S Buenos Aires 1960}) 15. h3 Qb8 16. Ra3 e6 17. dxe6 Nxe6 18. Bc1 { Benko,P-Reshevsky,S New York 1960 with about equal chances.}) 14... Rb8 15. b3 Bf5 16. Ne1 (16. Nh4 {was a good alternative.} Bc8 17. e4 a5 18. Re1 Na6 19. Rae2 {white has the better chances.}) 16... Qc8 {Reshevsky is over preparing for ...e6 which he could have played immediately.} (16... e6 17. dxe6 Nxe6 18. Bxd6 {And now} Nd4 {One wonders if this nifty little tactical sequence is the on Commons pointed out. Reshevsky didn't mention it in his notes to the game in Chess Life and Review.} 19. Bxb8 Nxe2+ 20. Qxe2 Rxe2 21. Rxe2 Qxb8 22. Nxc5 Bf8 23. Ncd3 Qxb3 24. c5 {This unbalanced position actually favors black, but owing to its complicated nature one can see why Reshevsky might have avoided it over the board.}) 17. f3 Bh3 18. e4 Bxg2 19. Kxg2 Qb7 20. Ra3 (20. e5 { White has a slight advantage, but this logical looking move would actually allow black full equality after} Nh5 21. Bd2 Bxe5 22. Nd3 Bg7 23. b4 cxb4 24. Nxb4 e6 {Finally.} 25. Nc6) 20... Nh5 21. Be3 e6 {[%cal Be7e6,Be6d5,Bd5e4] [%mdl 32] Mission accomplished, but the nature of the position is that danger is lurking for both players.} 22. g4 {Not the safest continuation!} (22. dxe6 Nxe6 23. Qd3 Nd4 24. Nc3 {with equal chances in the complications.}) 22... Nf6 {[%cal Re6d5]} 23. Bf4 (23. e5 {Reshevsky suggested this as worth considering simply because it introduces complications. The game might continue} exd5 { Best.} 24. exf6 Rxe3 25. fxg7 dxc4 {but black is much better.}) (23. Nc2 { is his best try. Then after} exd5 24. exd5 h5 25. Bf4 hxg4 26. Bxd6 {Black is only slightly better.}) 23... exd5 24. Bxd6 {This meets with disaster.} (24. exd5 {was recommended by Reshevsky without further analysis because it maintains pressure on the d-Pawn and black's position remains cramped and defensive. Stockfish disagrees.} Ncxd5 25. cxd5 Nxd5 {and black is better.} 26. Bc1 (26. Bxd6 Ne3+) 26... Re3 {The R is immune because of the same N fork.} 27. Nd3 Rbe8 28. Ra2 Bd4 {and black has a promising position against white's scattered forces. In Shootouts white scored +0 - 2 =3}) 24... dxe4 25. Nxc5 Qc6 26. Bxc7 Qxc7 27. Nxa6 Qe7 28. Nxb8 Qxa3 {Can the N be saved? It can and while white would have a lost ending he could have made Reshevsky work for the point. } 29. fxe4 (29. Nc6 Qc5 30. Nd4 exf3+ 31. Nexf3 Nxg4 32. Nc2 Bc3 {Material is equal, but after letting Stockfish run for about 30 minutes its evaluation favoring black by 4 Ps did not change. In the long run white's exposed K lead to the downfall of the Q-side Ps.}) (29. Nd7 {This is probably white's best try. After} e3 30. Nxf6+ Bxf6 31. Qe2 Qxb3 32. Nd3 Qxc4 {Black has a decisive advantage, but he still faces considerable technical difficulties in securing the win. Black won 5 Shootouts, but they were rather labor intensive.}) 29... Rxb8 {The game is now over.} 30. e5 Qb2+ 31. Rf2 Qxe5 {Hoping for ...Qe4+.} 32. Nf3 Qf4 {Commons resigned.} (32... Qf4 33. Ng1 (33. Nd2 Qd4 34. Qf3 Nxg4) 33... Qxg4+ 34. Qxg4 Nxg4 {Black's extra piece renders further play by white hopeless.}) 0-1

A Thought-provoking Purdy Game

     The weather here has been horrible. After a weekend of rather pleasant whether, yesterday started out nice, but it clouded up and then came a fierce storm, most of which missed us, but 20 miles to the south there was a deluge with 1 inch hail, 70 mile per hour wind gusts and a tornado warning. TV stations were warning people to take cover! 

     A tornado watch means the weather conditions are favorable during the next few hours whereas a warning means a tornado has been sighted or is indicated by weather radar. 

     Today is overcast and cold with a dripping fog. A good day to look at some games and while looking through some of C.J.S. Purdy's games I found one from a tournament played in Sydney in 1946 that reached an interesting position. 

     His opponent was Alexander Fryda (aka Frijda) who was of Dutch nationality. Fryda (August 16, 1905 - December 30, 1972, 67 years old) was born in Amsterdam and arrived in Fremantle in February of 1954. Beyond that I could find no other information nor could I locate any information on the tournament in which the game was played. 

     What caught my attention was the position after black's 28th move. At move 24 Purdy wrote that he found the position "intensely difficult," but managed to come up with what appeared to be a winning plan. 

     The question was, what was the correct evaluation of the position at move 24 and could white have won against best play? The answer is, I think, a definite maybe. 

     After white's 24th move Stockfish evaluates the position as equal. But, it was a difficult position for black to play and on move 28 Fryda missed his best defense. Even so, on his next move he could have forced Purdy to play like an engine to score the point!

[Event "Sydney Invitational, Sydney"] [Site "?"] [Date "1946.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "C.J.S. Purdy"] [Black "Alexander Fryda"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A14"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "67"] [SourceVersionDate "2022.05.04"] 1. c4 e6 2. g3 Nf6 3. Bg2 d5 4. Nf3 Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. b3 d4 {Purdy thought that it was better to wait until white committed himself to Bb2 before playing this.} 7. d3 c5 8. e4 dxe3 {Purdy makes an instructive comment here that if black does not play this white would not play Bb2, but develop his B on the c1-h6 diagonal in conjunction with a later f4 and a K-side attack.} 9. fxe3 (9. Bxe3 {is playable.} Ng4 10. Bd2 (10. Bc1 Bf6 11. d4 cxd4) 10... Nc6 11. Nc3 Bd7 12. h3 Nf6 13. Bf4 {with an equal position.}) 9... Nc6 10. Bb2 Qc7 11. Nc3 a6 12. Qe2 Bd7 13. Rad1 Rfd8 14. d4 cxd4 15. exd4 Be8 16. Kh1 {White is better here so for better or for worse Fryda sacrifices a P in hopes of getting some play.} b5 17. cxb5 {Purdy made no comment on this move, which allows black full equality, but he missed a chance to obtain a winning position.} (17. d5 { was a tremendous shot.} exd5 {This is the worst possible move.} (17... bxc4 { is actually the lesser evil.} 18. dxc6 Rxd1 19. Rxd1 cxb3 20. Ne5 bxa2 21. Nxa2 Rd8 22. Rxd8 Bxd8 23. Qc4 {followed by Nb4 and white is winning.}) 18. Nxd5 Nxd5 19. cxd5 Nb4 20. Nd4 Nxd5 {Watch for it!} 21. Ne6 fxe6 22. Qxe6+ Kh8 23. Rxd5 Rxd5 24. Bxd5 {Threatening Qg8 mate} Bg6 25. Bxa8 {and wins}) 17... axb5 18. Nxb5 Qb6 19. a4 Rac8 20. Ne5 Nb4 21. Rc1 Nbd5 {Black's P sacrifice has justified itself in that white's Bs have been deprived of most of their strength by the well supported N on d5 and the two Ps, which can be turned into doubled Ps at any moment, are immobile. Purdy therefore hit upon a plan to return the P and obtain an endgame with a mobile passed P.} 22. Rc2 Rxc2 { Or else white doubles his Rs.} 23. Qxc2 Ne3 {Purdy commented that expecting the position to be easy, Fryda got up and walked around, but the position is very deceptive. I am not sure how Purdy knew what Fryda was thinking. Maybe he just wanted to stretch his legs or something.} 24. Nc4 {Equally good were 24... Rc8 or ...Bxb5} Nxc2 25. Nxb6 Bxb5 26. axb5 Nxd4 27. Bxd4 Rxd4 28. Nc4 Nd5 { The purpose of this move was to block the diagonal of white's B, but it's ineffective.} (28... Rd3 {This was the move Purdy expected after which he thought he could probably win by sacrificing the P on b3, but gave no analysis to support his belief.} 29. b6 Rxb3 30. b7 Nd7 31. Na5 Rb5 32. Rd1 Nc5 33. Nc6 Nxb7 34. Nxe7+ Kf8 35. Nc6 {and this position is evaluated as equal by Stockfish. Shootout results from this position resulted in 5 draws.}) (28... Bc5 {This is the best move and should save the game.} 29. b6 Bxb6 30. Nxb6 Rb4 31. Nc4 Rxb3 {with a likely draw.}) (28... Bc5 29. Ra1 {should also result in a draw after} g6 30. b6 Bxb6 31. Nxb6 Rb4) 29. b6 {After this black is technically lost, but he can try to make life difficult for white with 29... Rxc4} Bd8 (29... Rxc4 {was his best chance.} 30. bxc4 Nxb6 31. Rc1 Nd7 { In Shootouts white scored 5 wins, but the ganes went over another 50 moves and at 27 plies the game ended with white have a tablebase forced mate with a R+B vs B...not something that would be so easy for a human.}) 30. b7 Bc7 31. Ra1 g6 32. Ra8+ Kg7 33. Bxd5 exd5 34. Rc8 {Black resigned.} 1-0

Boleslavsky vs Smyslov, Watch the Sparks Fly

 

     After the FIDE World Championship Tournament in 1948, won by Botvinnik ahead of Smyslov, Keres and Reshevsky (tied), with Euwe finishing last, FIDE began a series of cycles that would select a challenger to Botvinnik. 

     Five qualifiers of the Interzonal tournament at Saltsjobaden, 1948 (Bronstein, Szabo, Boleslavsky, Kotov and Lilienthal) were supposed to join four participants of the 1948 World Championship tournament (Reshevsky, Keres, Smyslov, and Euwe) plus Reuben Fine in a double round-robin competition. 

      Reshevsky and Fine ended up not playing. Supposedly the US State Department barred them from traveling to Hungary due to the Cold War. Fine also claimed he did not want to play. Euwe did not get a leave from his teaching duties. As a result, FIDE decided to replace them with players who finished 6th-9th in the Interzonal tournament: Najdorf, Stahlberg, Flohr and Igor Bondarevsky (the latter withdrew due to illness). 

     Going in, Smyslov, Keres and Bronstein were the favorites but it was Isaac Boleslavsky who held the lead for most of the tournament. 

     Halfway through Boleslavsky was leading with a +3 score, followed by Keres (+2) and Bronstein (+1). In the second half Boleslavsky scored three more victories and forged into the lead. 

     After 16 rounds he was a full point ahead of Bronstein, the only player who had a theoretical chance of catching him. In the last two rounds, Boleslavsky made two quick draws, but Bronstein scored two wins, against Stahlberg and then in the final round he took a lot of risks and defeated Keres and so tied Boleslavsky for first place. 

     Bronstein and Boleslavsky had a playoff match which was held in the summer of 1950 in Moscow. It ended in another tie, but Bronstein won the first decisive game and became the official challenger. 

     Chess Review magazine did not think too highly of the tournament...there were seven Russians and Reuben Fine, Samuel Reshevsky and the Yugoslav champion Svetozar Gligorich were missing. Even so, they had to admit that the tournament brought together many of the world's top players and it provided a severe test for the winners. 

     That Boleslavsky avoided loss in such company while Bronstein, though losing twice, scored eight wins and so it was clear that Botvinnik would not have an easy time in the defense of his title. Indeed, their 1951 match was tied and so Botvinnik retained his title. 

     Did Bronstein purposely avoid winning the match? He hinted at it. In a 1993 interview he explained that, "There was no direct pressure... But...there was the psychological pressure of the environment..." in part caused by his father's "several years in prison" and what he called "the marked preference for the institutional Botvinnik." Bronstein concluded that, "It seemed to me that winning could seriously harm me, which does not mean that I deliberately lost." 

     The following game between Boleslavsky and Smyslov was a Queenless middlegame that was quite instructive

[Event "Budapest Candidates"] [Site "Budapest HUN"] [Date "1950.04.20"] [Round "?"] [White "Isaac Boleslavsky"] [Black "Vasily Smyslov"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "D16"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "43"] [EventDate "1950.??.??"] {Slav Defense} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 {[%cal Bg1f3,Bf3d4,Bd4b5] [%mdl 32]} dxc4 5. a4 c5 {Prior to this game this continuation was considered quite satisfactory for black because after the exchange of Qs the ending offered him satisfactory counterplay. Boleslavsky disagreed and considered the move premature, preferring 5...Bf4. Today Smyslov's move has all but disappeared and Boleslavsky's recommendation has become the norm.} (5... Bf5 6. Ne5 Nbd7 7. Nxc4 {Black can play either 7...Qc7 or 7...Nb6}) 6. e4 cxd4 $14 7. Qxd4 Qxd4 8. Nxd4 {White is slightly better.} e6 {Now white can favorably post a N on b5 which black could not prevent prevent with 8...a6} (8... a6 {[%mdl 8192]} 9. e5 Ng4 10. Nd5 $1 {with a huge positional advantage.}) (8... Nc6 { was his best try. After} 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. Bxc4 e5 {White's advantage is minimal.}) (8... e5 9. Ndb5 Na6 {White is slight better, but a draw was soon agreed to in Lalic,B (2547)-Mellado Trivino,J (2462) Seville 2003}) 9. Ndb5 Na6 {To prevent Nc7+} 10. Bxc4 {Boleslavsky's improvement over 10.Be3 which had been previously played.} (10. Be3 Bb4 (10... Bd7 11. Bxc4 Rc8 12. Be2 Nb4 13. Rc1 a6 14. Na3 Bc5 15. Bxc5 Rxc5 16. O-O O-O {Flohr,S-Smyslov,V Moscow 1945 soon agreed to a draw.}) 11. f3 Bd7 12. Bxc4 O-O 13. Kf2 Rfc8 14. Be2 Bc5 15. Rhd1 Bxe3+ 16. Kxe3 Nb4 {White is slightly better. Lilienthal,A-Fridstein,G Moscow 1945}) 10... Bc5 11. Bf4 {Also good was 11.e5} Ke7 {This is explained by Smyslov's mistaken believe that the game was entering the ending. Instead, it's a Queenless middlegame and Boleslavsky launches an ingenious attack against Smyslov's K which is now caught in the center.} (11... O-O {keeps white's advantage in the "slight" category.} 12. O-O Bd7 13. e5 Ne8 14. Ne4 Be7 {and white is slightly better.}) 12. O-O Bd7 13. e5 {This is the move that proves Smyslov wrong. His K is stuck in the center and he is going to be subjected to a very strong attack.} Nh5 {This is the move that proves to be black's immediate undoing.} (13... Ne8 {was the best option. After} 14. Ne4 Bb4 15. Nd4 {White there is no forced win, black's position is very difficult to defend.}) 14. Be3 {Brilliant! White hopes for 14...Bxe3 15.exf3 weakening the dark squares.} Rhc8 (14... Bxe3 15. fxe3 f5 16. Nd6 {[%cal Og2g4]} g6 17. Bxa6 bxa6 18. Nce4 Rhd8 {Black no longer has a satisfactory defense.} 19. Nc5 Ng7 20. Rac1 Ne8 21. Ndb7 Rdc8 22. Nxd7 Kxd7 23. Nc5+ Ke7 24. Nxa6 {with a won ending.}) 15. Be2 {White is clearly winning.} g6 16. Ne4 Bxe3 17. fxe3 Rc2 { This results in immediate disaster.} (17... Rf8 18. Nf6 Nxf6 19. exf6+ Kd8 20. Rfd1 {Even here white has a decisive positional advantage.}) 18. Nbd6 Rf8 19. Bxa6 bxa6 20. g4 Ng7 21. Nf6 {Spectacular...he threatens simply Nxh7 and if the R moves then Rxf7+ is fatal.} Bc6 22. Rfc1 {Smyslov resigned because he cannot prevent the invasion of white's R. Weighted Error Value: White=0.12 (very precise) /Black=0.64} (22. Rfc1 Rxc1+ 23. Rxc1 Bxa4 24. Rc7+ Kd8 25. Rc8+ Ke7 26. Rxf8 Kxf8 27. Nxh7+ Kg8 28. Ng5 {mops up.}) 1-0

Skating On Thin Ice

     The late James R. Schroeder had a lot of good advice for us club players. Advice like: 

 

* The best way to play chess is to attack and attack, and attack some more. 

* I want my mind to tell me a good move. If it tells me the move to play, do not analyze long sequences of moves in order to determine if the move is good - a short sequence is enough. 

* Examine both logical and illogical moves. Examine all checks and captures...look at every move: it weakens something and threatens something, short-range tactics, long-range tactics, strategy relevant to the position... 

* Positional play can bring excellent positions. It can be used to put the opponent under enormous pressure, reduce their counterplay...However, to finish off the game usually requires a tactical blow which will convert the advantage in a technical way...Tactical ability and the ability to spot combinations thus helps to convert positional advantages into more concrete gains...Positional plans can fail tactically even though their concept is very good. 

 

     When I was starting out in chess Botvinnik was king and the emphasis was on positional play, so the study of tactics was pretty much ignored. I was not aware that positional play still requires that one be tactically aware and that one should learn tactics before positional play, because, as Schroeder pointed out, more often than not, securing the win will be a result of tactics not positional play. 

     When I feel like playing some blitz, Chess Hotel is my site of choice and a few things have become obvious. One, many players have fragile egos! Play on the site is anonymous and if you play as a guest, as most do, your rating disappears as soon as you leave the site. It's not unusual for some players who are quitters and can't stand losing to simply abandon the game; when they do you are awarded the win within a few seconds. Others are even more annoying...they simply quit moving and let their time run out. On a couple of rare occasions I have run into shameful individuals like the opponent the other day who, when he got a lost position, started messaging me with bad English laced with profanity. Read an article on Sore Losers HERE.

     Ego damaged individuals aside, many average players (everybody on the site!) seem to think tactics means sacrificing something, but in many cases they are not sacrificing anything at all...they are simply throwing away some material! For example, 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Bxf7+ is not a sacrifice, it's just giving away a piece for nothing. 

     That great teacher C.J.S. Purdy always emphasized sound tactics. Purdy explained strategy as “choosing aims,” meaning an attempt at reaching a particular type of position. He was always quick to point out that strategy is a reliable course of action to be undertaken only after tactics can be ruled out. 

     A Purdyism: All good players must be good tactically. All masters must be good both tactically and strategically. Someone who is good strategically and not tactically may understand the play of masters up to a point, but cannot possibly play well himself. 

     Of course, we amateurs often aren't good enough to know when a tactic is truly sound, but we should, at least, have some sort of logical basis for making a sacrifice. Even the tactics of great players have sometimes been proven unsound by engines, but sometimes they were successful because they lead to positions that were more complicated than a human could handle. 

     I don't usually post my games because they aren't that good, or even interesting, but the following game was really messy and even examining all the possibilities with Stockfish was challenging. 

     The game featured an idea I played in a postal game way back in 1960. As white against the Sicilian I had a B on g5 and Pawns on e4, f4, g4 and h4. After the B was attacked by ...h6, I let my opponent take the B with ...h6xg5. In that game and in this one I was skating on thin ice because the sacrifice was unsound, but it worked.

[Event "Chess Hotel"] [Site "?"] [Date "2022.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Tartajubow"] [Black "John Doe"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B99"] [Annotator "Stockfish 15"] [PlyCount "47"] [EventDate "2022.??.??"] {Sicilian Najdorf} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 (2... Nc6 {An early example of the ... h6xg5 Bishop sacrifice.} 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bg5 e6 7. Bb5 { I was always fond of this move.} Bd7 8. Ba4 {This doesn't show up in the databases, but is was given with a ! in Modern Chess Openings, 10th edition.} Nxd4 {This is wrong, but it was book. 8...Be7 is best.} 9. Bxd7+ {Book, but 9. Qxd4 was better.} Qxd7 10. Qxd4 Be7 11. O-O-O Qc6 12. f4 Rd8 13. g4 b6 { Passive. 13...b5 was better. Or 13...Rc8} 14. Rd2 O-O 15. h4 h6 16. Bxh6 (16. Bxf6 Bxf6 17. Qa4 Qxa4 18. Nxa4 g5 {Black is better..}) (16. Qd3 {This is correct. The B is immune.} hxg5 17. hxg5 Nxg4 18. Nd5 {He can't take the N because 19.dxd5 attacks the Q and threatens mate on h7.} Rd7 19. Qf3 f5 20. exf5 exf5 (20... Bxg5 21. Qxg4 Bxf4 22. Qxf4 Rxf5 23. Qh4 Kf7 24. Ne3 { Stockfish says white is clearly winning, but in practice I am not so sure.}) 21. Nxe7+ {wins the Q}) 16... e5 17. Qe3 Nxg4 18. Qg3 Nxh6 19. Rg2 g6 20. Nd5 Qd7 21. h5 exf4 22. Qxf4 {1-0 Tartajubow-JRW, Correspondence 1960}) 3. d4 { This game is a rare occasion when playing online blitz that I did not try some bizarre opening.} cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Nbd7 8. Qf3 Qc7 9. O-O-O Be7 {Equally good was 9...b5} 10. g4 {The book offers black two good choices here: 10...b5 or 10...b6.} Nc5 {But not this after which Stockfish give white a 2.5 Pawn advantage if he plays 11.e5. This game is a good example of why it is useless for non-masters to put a great emphasis on studying openings. Rarely have I had a game in which the players followed book lines for more than 6 or 8 moves.} 11. h4 (11. Nb3 Bd7 12. Bd3 Rc8 13. Kb1 b5 14. Rhe1 {Black is slightly better. Wegener,D (2305)-Fokin,S (2420) Katowice 1993.} ) (11. Bxf6 Bxf6 12. g5 Be7 13. f5 e5 14. Nb3 Nxb3+ 15. axb3 Bxg5+ 16. Kb1 b5 17. Rg1 {White is slightly better. Nuno Spiewak,M-Morera Rodriguez,I (1646) Madrid 2009}) (11. e5 {This is by far the best.} dxe5 12. fxe5 Nd5 13. Bxe7 Qxe7 14. Nf5 Qg5+ 15. Rd2 exf5 16. Qxd5 Ne4 17. Nxe4 fxe4 18. h4 Qe7 19. Qxe4 { White is clearly better.}) 11... h6 {Better was 11...b5 trying to get counterplay on the Q-side. When analyzing this game I was completely surprised to discover that this position is not new! it wasn't reached in a master game, far from it, but it has been reached before and white played the correct 12. Bxf6 and enjoyed an advantage.} 12. Bd3 {[%mdl 8192] Need it be said that this is unsound? Even so, it's not totally bad...Stockfish evaluates the position as a little less than a P and a half in black's favor, not a whole piece worth. ..3 Ps.} (12. Bxf6 Bxf6 13. g5 hxg5 14. hxg5 Rxh1 15. Qxh1 Bxd4 16. Qh8+ Ke7 17. Rxd4 d5 18. exd5 e5 19. d6+ Qxd6 20. Rxd6 Kxd6 21. fxe5+ Kxe5 22. Qxg7+ Ke6 23. Qf6+ Kd7 24. Bh3+ Ne6 25. Qxf7+ Kd6 26. Ne4+ Kd5 {Harokopakis,G (1845) -Tsiros, D (1548) Athens 2008 1-0}) 12... Nxd3+ {Strictly speaking this is not quite as good as 12...hxg5, but it was the move I didn't want to see.. I am not sure why!} (12... hxg5 {was also good.} 13. hxg5 Rxh1 14. Qxh1 Nfd7 15. Qh8+ Bf8 {According to Stockfish black's advantage is not quite one Pawn.}) 13. Rxd3 (13. Qxd3 {This is also a reasonable alternative.} hxg5 14. hxg5 Rxh1 15. Rxh1 Nd7 16. Nf5 (16. g6 {is also plausible.} Nf8 (16... fxg6 17. Nxe6 Qa5 18. Qc4 Nb6 19. Nxg7+ Kd8 20. Qf7 Qc5 21. Qe8+ Kc7 22. Qxe7+ {White wins.}) 17. gxf7+ Kxf7 18. g5 b5 19. Qf3 Qc5 20. Nb3 Qb6 {Black is only slightly better.}) 16... exf5 17. Nd5 Qc6 18. gxf5 {Black is better.}) 13... hxg5 14. hxg5 Rxh1+ 15. Qxh1 Nd7 {[%cal Od6d5] Black's advantage is less than 3/4 of a P.} 16. Qh8+ Bf8 {[%cal Od6d5]} 17. Rh3 {Bringing the R to the h-file looks logical, but it is vastly inferior as indicated by the fact that the engine now puts black's advantage at a whole piece after striking a blow at the center with 17...d5!} ( 17. g6 {keeps white in the game.} Nc5 (17... d5 {is a losing blunder.} 18. gxf7+ Kxf7 19. Nxe6 Kxe6 20. Qg8+ Kd6 21. e5+ Kc6 22. Nxd5 Qb8 23. Qe6+ { and wins. The K can't run away.} Kb5 24. a3 {mates in 12.} Qd6 25. Rb3+ Kc6 26. exd6 Bxd6 27. Rd3 Rb8 28. Ne7+ Kb6 29. Qxd6+ Ka7 30. Qc7 Ka8 31. Nxc8 Rxc8 32. Qxc8+ Ka7 33. Rxd7 Kb6 34. Qxb7+ Kc5 35. Rd5+ Kc4 36. Qc6#) 18. Rf3 fxg6 19. b4 Qe7 20. f5 {Pressing on with the attack is white's best option.} (20. bxc5 dxc5 21. Nde2 Bd7 {Black is much better.}) 20... exf5 21. exf5 Bd7 {The N cannot be saved.} (21... Nd7 22. Ne6 Ne5 23. Nd5 {white wins...} Qf7 24. Nxf8 Qxf8 25. Nc7+ Ke7 26. f6+ gxf6 27. Nd5+ Ke8 28. Nxf6+ Ke7 29. Nd5+) 22. bxc5 O-O-O 23. Qh2 gxf5 24. gxf5 Qg5+ 25. Kb1 Re8 {with unclear complications.}) 17... b5 ( 17... d5 {This counter in the center was far better.} 18. e5 {Somewhat better is 18.Nce2, but this allows an instructive tactical blow.} Nxe5 {[%mdl 512]} 19. fxe5 Qxe5 20. Nf3 Qf4+ 21. Kb1 Qxg4 {and clack is winning.}) 18. g6 { Pressing on.} Nc5 (18... fxg6 {Not good!} 19. Nxe6 Qb6 20. f5 Qg1+ 21. Nd1 Qxg4 22. Rh4 Qf3 23. Rh7 gxf5 24. Qg8 Bb7 25. Nxg7+ Kd8 26. Ne6+ Kc8 27. Nxf8) ({ Black should play} 18... Nb6 $1 $19 19. f5 Qe7 20. gxf7+ Qxf7 $19) 19. f5 { White missed a very pretty Q sac!} ({Only move:} 19. Qxf8+ Kxf8 20. Rh8+ Ke7 { To stay in the game white has to play yet another sacrifice!} 21. Nf5+ Kd7 ( 21... exf5 {allows white to get the advantage after} 22. Nd5+) 22. gxf7 Kc6 23. f8=Q Bb7 24. Ne7+ Kb6 25. Qxg7 $17 {Stockfish gives black a less than one P edge, but in practical play things are unclear.}) 19... b4 {[%mdl 8192] This turns the advantage over to white.} (19... Qe7 {would have left black with a bright future.} 20. b4 Na4 21. Nxa4 bxa4 22. gxf7+ Qxf7 23. fxe6 Bxe6 {White has no attack left and is a piece down; black wins.}) 20. f6 {[%cal Oh8f8] As it turns out this is the best move, but at the time I was getting worried and was just trying to complicate. Also, I was about a minute ahead of my opponent on time . The time limit was 8 minutes plus 2 seconds. Stockfish puts white's advantage at about 2.75 Ps.} (20. Rh7 {results in messy complications after} Nd3+ 21. cxd3 bxc3 22. Rxg7 cxb2+ 23. Kxb2 Qa5 24. gxf7+ Kd7 25. fxe6+ Kc7 26. Qxf8 Qd2+ 27. Ka3 {But black has a draw by repeated Q checks.}) 20... fxg6 { Black used some precious time here, but found the relatively best move. My next move also took some time trying to figure out how to continue the attack which at the time I was not even sure I had! In fact, white is winning.} (20... bxc3 21. Qxf8+ Kd7 22. Qe7#) 21. Rh7 {[%cal Rf6g7][%mdl 128] This threatens 22. fxg7} bxc3 (21... Qf7 {Was the only defense. White is still winning IF he finds the correct continuation and the planned capture of the B isn't it!} 22. fxg7 (22. g5 {This is the only move that keeps winning chances, but the complications are head whirling.} Ra7 (22... bxc3 23. Rxg7 Ra7 24. Rxf7 Rxf7 25. e5 {White has a decisive advantage according to the engine.}) 23. Rxg7 bxc3 {He could also play 23...Qxg7} (23... Qxg7 24. fxg7 Rxg7 25. Nd1 Nxe4 {The engine says white is winning.}) 24. Rxf7 cxb2+ 25. Kxb2 Rxf7 26. e5 dxe5 27. Nc6 Nd7 {And Stockfish comments white is clearly winning, but I am not Stockfish.}) 22... Qf4+ 23. Kd1 bxc3 24. gxf8=Q+ Qxf8 25. Qxf8+ Kxf8 26. bxc3 e5 27. Nc6 Kg8 {Black is winning.}) 22. fxg7 {[%csl Gh8][%cal Rg7f8]} cxb2+ 23. Kb1 {[%csl Gh8][%cal Rg7f8] Black was running out of time and fell into a mate. } Nxe4 (23... Qf7 {Threatens a check on f1 followed by ...Nxa4+ and black has a perpetual check.} 24. Nf5 {The only move that wins because it blocks the f-file.} (24. gxf8=Q+ Qxf8 25. Qxf8+ Kxf8 {Black has a decisive material advantage.}) 24... exf5 25. g8=Q (25. gxf8=Q+ Qxf8 26. exf5 Qxh8 27. Rxh8+ Kf7 {and wins}) 25... Qxg8 26. Qxg8 Be6 27. Qxg6+ Kd8 28. gxf5 {White is winning.}) 24. gxf8=Q# {A very complicated game!} 1-0